Mar
Using Restraint -Jo Beverley
You may have noticed that comments have gone missing and this post went up late. I had it posted on time, however, due to the updating of our host everything was reset. If you are inclined, please comment again on the past weeks posts.
Thank you for sticking with us during this difficulty.
Admin
****
4. Once I know the basics of what was going on nationally and internationally, including gossip, scandal, and climate, I need to know how people lived. It is possible to write a good historical novel without much detail of wider events, but not without knowing how the people dressed, communicated and traveled.
Diarists and letter writers can be a help here, but most record the interestingly unusual, not what they ate for breakfast, or what fastenings held their clothes together, (never mind what they used to wipe with after going to the toilet.) Some, thank heavens, do not meals and other details. Jane Porter, the governess mentioned above, recorded many details of her daily life.
There are books on everyday life, and they’re a good start, but shouldn’t be relied on too much. To begin with, most of them cover too long a period. “Life In The Middle Ages” is a real stretch, since the middle ages covers five hundred years at least, and can be held to cover a thousand. “Life in Regency England” is more reasonable, since that was a ten year period.
Once I know how people lived I still have to use restraint about how much I put in the book. I tell my stories from the point of view of the protagonists and show only what they observe, feel, and think; emphasize only what they find important. How often do you think about how you make that morning cup of coffee, or the details of how you drive your car? On the other hand, the modern reader may need to be told how the characters make breakfast or operate their transporation.
It’s that delicate balance of translation again.
We have to use detail when it’s important to the story. For example, in most of my books, menstruation isn’t mentioned, but in some it, or its absence, becomes important. In Forbidden, the fact that Serena isn’t washing her monthly cloths tells her friend that she’s pregnant.
In Skylark I wanted the protagonists to use an ear-trumpet to listen through walls, so I had to research that and discovered that in 1816 they were new technology and of only simple design. Therefore, I had to show how my characters discovered such a thing at all.
The many layers of clothing, and how they go on and come off is always important. We may only want to say “he undressed” but we still need to know how long that’s likely to take and whether he needs help. A regency gentleman in fashionable boots will probably need help or a boot jack. An eleventh century man of fashion will probably be wearing fancy cross-gartering around the loose hose on his lower legs and that takes a while to unwind and even longer to wind on again neatly.
How do we find all these details? We’ll get to that next.
Do you have any research questions? I might know the answer or where to look. So might others here.
Jo, these posts have been wonderful!
Research is the one thing that paralyzes me during my stories; both the uncertainty of where to look for information and the question of if I’m correctly using what I’ve found.
I do have a question. I have a ballroom/revelation scene in my manuscript, and I was thinking of changing it from a simple society ball to a “welcome back from the honeymoon” ball for Leopold and Charlotte in 1816. I know they honeymooned at Oatlands in Surrey, but I’ve not found any other details.
As a ball for royalty, it would have the kind of splendor that would amaze the heroine. Where should I look for the right details? I assumed it would be held at Carlton House. Or is this a bad idea, and should I go back to a simpler society ball?
Thanks!
March 26th, 2008 at 12:19 pmAlas, Skylark is my favorourite cover. Can you see the glaring error?
No, it’s not that my intellectual, Member of Parliament, social reformer hero is for some reason standing on a windy headland baring his unlikely pecs (which look as if he’s about to give birth to Aliens.)
It’s that the shirt clearly unbuttons all the way.
Sigh. I send costume pictures all the time but sometimes I forget to specify something like that.
The trouble with knowing a lot about a period is that things like that are hard to ignore. Anyone else find that?
Jo
March 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pmI used to work at a historical society museum on a Maine island. The best thing about living on an island is that there’s no place to throw anything away. We had some diaries that gave me much more of a glimpse into the life of typical islanders than the “official” town history. And boy, weather was mentioned every single day, whereas today we just turn up the thermostat and go about our business.
Jo, writers always mention “tapes” when they’re talking clothes. Were they something tied? Pinned? I should know this but I don’t.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pmMaggie, tapes are just laces or ribbons but more substantial. I don’t think I’d use tapes. A lot of clothes were tied because it was simpler and hooks and especially buttons were expensive and often had to be removed for laundering or they were spoiled, or marked the clothes. Even in my youth I can remember those cloth-covered buttons for underwear.
So a petticoat would tie at the waist, and a shift would have a drawstring at the neck. But simple gowns often tied with tapes. Regency gowns were often wrap-around at the front and tied. Easy to get in and out of without a maid.
Clothes were often pinned — straight pins of course, which always seems an invitation to problem to me! But it was often. the only way
Earlier, of course, there were pins and ties all over, so sometimes they were made an ornamental feature.
Jo
March 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pmSorry, Gillian, I missed this.
“I do have a question. I have a ballroom/revelation scene in my manuscript, and I was thinking of changing it from a simple society ball to a “welcome back from the honeymoon” ball for Leopold and Charlotte in 1816. I know they honeymooned at Oatlands in Surrey, but I’ve not found any other details.”
I very much doubt that there would have been such a ball. One reason is that they were coy about marriage. A license was much more popular than banns because banns was a public declaration of a very private matter. Though a royal wedding — the wedding of the heir to the crown, no less — had to have some pomp, most weddings were quiet family affairs for the same reason.
So I think I’d choose some other ball for your event.
“As a ball for royalty, it would have the kind of splendor that would amaze the heroine.”
Again, the idea of a ball for royalty doesn’t quite work, unless it’s for visiting royalty. Or perhaps in the provinces as an opportunity for the locals to meet the royal personage. I’m sure you could come up with a common-or-garden ball thrown by a duchess that’d be grand enough.
Of course, if anyone has evidence of anything different, I’d love to hear it.
Of course, if appropriate, she could be presented at court, which is a whole other thing, but not a ball.
I hope that helps,
Jo
March 27th, 2008 at 8:55 pmThank you so much, Jo! You’ve saved me a huge amount of trouble, I think. I’ll have quite enough on my plate with the “common” ball.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:39 am