A Holiday Surprise

I was recently asked to prepare a little holiday post for Sia McKye's blog "Over Coffee"

and I am honored it's up today. It features my latest heroine, Miss Ophelia Trent. And in the version for Sia, I've only allowed 1200 words to capture her spirit, and only one man to capture her heart.

In the novella, (which will be out in January) Miss Trent finds there is something to be said for waiting until you're older before you marry.

Happy Holidays Everyone!

Don't Judge a Book by its Title

As a reader, a good title will catch your eye. As a writer, we slave over finding the best one possible, and even then, somewhere during the process of writing, revising, editing, it will get changed.

I'm not good with titles. Never have been. As a matter of fact, some have said my titles are boring.

Titles need to convey, not only the spirit of the book, but possibly a hint to the climax as well. Take these titles, for example --

WHEN HARRY MET MOLLY Kieran Kramer
WED HIM BEFORE YOU BED HIM Sabrina Jeffries
WHEN HE WAS WICKED Julia Quinn
CONFESSIONS OF A LITTLE BLACK GOWN Elizabeth Boyle

Don't they just want to make you pick them up and read them all in one sitting?

My titles are just very basic things. They don't really stand out, they don't really "do" anything. It's like I just slapped any old title on them for the sake of having one.

THE LADY'S MASQUERADE
THE LADY'S FATE
THE DUKE'S DIVORCE
THE CAPTAIN'S LADY
THE EARL'S ENIGMA

And this wasn't because I didn't try to come up with a decent title, I did. For the longest time THE LADY'S MASQUERADE was going to be THE STEWARD AND MISS HIGGINS. But then who would want to read a book about these two people when the whole premise of the book was about masquerading as someone else, and the climax does indeed take place at a masquerade ball.

The same with THE LADY'S FATE. That title originally was FOR THE LOVE OF JANE. This did nothing exciting for the plot, or the characters because Jane is a little girl and the story revolves "around" her, but is not necessarily "about" her. Know what I mean? However, I would like to add THE LADY'S FATE is particularly ambiguous as well, but it does convey a sort of little mystery -- what is her fate?

I've also been waffling back and forth with THE DUKE'S DIVORCE these days. Divorce was hardly EVER done way back when, the social mores of the time were strict, and parties involved would rather suffer through abuse, abandonment, and monetary irresponsibility than get a divorce. Hence, the idea of THE DUKE'S DILEMMA. Same premise, less harsh reality. Then again, for those of my readers who do know the era, a divorce is surely to intrigue enough to read.

So the next time you see a book with a so-so title, don't pass it by, give it a go. You might be pleasantly surprised. Sometimes writers use up all their creativity in the writing of their books and have nothing left for the title.

At least that's what I tell myself.

Tell me -- Do you judge a book by its title?

Interpreting Heroines

In last week's post, I discussed how I interpreted my heroes and what they would be like today. Interpreting my heroines is a daunting task, as women in 1810 were not allowed any freedoms that we are allowed today.

Back then, women were "kept" as possessions, sold to the highest bidder by their father. They had no rights, no assets, whatever they "owned", what little money they had, usually went to their husbands upon their marriage. Sucks right?

So let's see if I can come up with something suitable for my "girls" to "do" in today's world.

In 1810 --

Penny -- Lady Penelope Leighton, daughter of the Duke of Olmstead. Afflicted with a stutter and looking for love in marriage.

Violet -- Lady Violet Flowers. Daughter of the missing Earl of Flowers. Seventeen and making her debut.

Amanda -- Married to Barthomolew Wood. Mother to Rachel. Best friend to Penny until her father took her to seek his fortune in America.

Rosamund -- Lady Rosamund Smith. Bluestocking. Caretaker of her parents.

Fiona -- Lady Fiona Stewart. Daughter of the Earl of Fionghall. Twenty-nine and has never been kissed.

Present day --

Penny -- Shy, retiring twenty-two year old, wants to be a horse vetrinarian.

Violet -- Lives in the shadow of a beautiful older sister. Desires to work with children.

Amanda -- Jerkface husband walked out on her and took their daughter. She owns a small farm and makes do with whatever money that brings in. Someday she hopes to have enough to search for her daughter.

Rosamund -- Straight A college student, working on her doctorate in ancient history.

Fiona -- Living as a housekeeper to her brutish father. No friends, no family, has only sheep for company.


As the men don't necessarily WANT to be married, the women, too, have their own realities to face.

Penny -- Her stutter debilitates her. She believes she will never find the man of her dreams.

Violet -- With a beautiful older sister, and being on the "plump" side, also with no dowry to speak of, Violet gives up any hope of ever meeting "the one".

Amanda -- Has wrapped herself in a bubble of memories of her daughter. Stuck between a rock and a hard place waiting for her return, she can't move forward with her life.

Rosamund -- Caring for her aging parents has left her no choice but to remain unmarried.

Fiona -- Gets caught in a compromising position through no fault of her own and must marry a man she doesn't even know.

Now, don't get me wrong, these ladies do have wherewithal to fight for themselves and what they inevitably want. Sure they have to go through hell and back to get it, but to them, love is worth it. Isn't it?

Interpreting Heroes

As a writer of romance, I tend to think of the men in my stories as heroes.  They save the day, defeat the villain, rescue the girl.  In my Regency series, however, my heroes are not the typical reformed rake, or libertine.  They do not ride in, in a blaze of glory and slay the dragon.  They tend to be common placed, normal, everyday members of the aristocracy.  (Well, I couldn't let go of all my tendencies, could I?)

A question was posed to me awhile ago, which I thought was interesting enough to write a blog post about.

If your heroes were set in the present day, what would they be?

Interesting concept.  I had to think about it.  So let's break it all down and see what I come up with.

These are my heroes and what they do in 1810.

William  -- The Earl of Westerly.  Second son of the Duke of Chesnick.  Joined the Horse Guards in 1800.

Ellis -- The Marquess of Haverlane.  Oldest son of the Duke of Chesnick.  Member of Parliament, has the ear of Prince George.

Robert -- The Duke of Cantin.  Takes care of his family.

Richard -- Retired Captain in the Royal Navy.  Captured Bonaparte the first time.

Rory -- The Earl of Bailey.  Studies ancient Peloponnsian text.

So, if I transferred them to the present day, here's what I think they would do.

William -- Texas Ranger.

Ellis -- Vice-president.

Robert -- CEO of the family shipping line.

Richard -- Navy Seal.

Rory -- College professor.

Now, naturally, what is not seen in all these descriptions are the underlying causes which make them the perfect man for them to NOT fall in love, hence become Reluctant Grooms.

William -- Dealing with PTSD.

Ellis -- A widower with a two year old who is still in love with his dead wife.

Robert -- Burned by an ex-fiance.

Richard -- Never stayed in one place long enough to find the right woman.

Rory -- Conceited, vain, highly intelligent and looks down his nose upon those not in his social circle.

Thinking of these men in present day has allowed me a broader scope in how I want to write about them. People are people, whether in 1810 or 2010.  They all have the same hopes, dreams, ties that bind, and experiences that break.  This was an interesting exercise.  As writers, we're told to stretch our imaginations, cast the net as widely as possible.  How'd I do?