Do you ever feel like your brain is empty and you don't know what to talk about? No? Well I do. Normally when it is blog day, I start out with an empty head and an empty computer screen and let my fingers dictate what I'm going to talk about. And sometimes I actually have something I want to share. However, I was born fourth in a family of all girls. That means that I often didn't get my turn to speak. I learned how to not speak. This makes it a challenge some days to speak. (Yes, I outgrew that in time, but there are still days . . .)
Anyway, the point here is that so many authors are looking for book reviews. It occurred to me that I should post an additional day (or two) each week with a book review. That way, even if I am having a "what am I going to pull out of my head today" day, I can still have something to write about.
So . . . {fanfare} announcing Book Reviews! Targeted mainly toward indie authors who deserve a chance to be represented (but not excluding better-known authors who I happen to enjoy reading).
In the meantime, for those of you who are following my writing journey, I've started Cinda's story. Once I got going, it came rushing through. I have some research to do - as is usually the case when writing a new story. In the meantime, the words are pouring out. Thanks to a program at the library, I can do some of my research next month, but that won't stop me from getting started!
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Writer's Angst and Trusting Yourself
I love my critique group. Except when I don't. (And when I don't, it's because they've found something I've missed, not because I don't like or appreciate them!)
I have been running the end of Schumaker through them and all those things that I thought were so fun to write and so cool are coming back as "what???"
My critique partners are tough. I don't usually get the "great writing" comments, because we all assume that we know how to write great. What I get from the group are the holes. The "did you realize you used this word four times in five paragraphs?" The mistakes. The "I'm sure you see this in your head, but I'm not seeing it on the page." There are times those comments frustrate the life out of me, but that's what they're there for. To clunk me over the head when I'm not paying attention.
A delicate balance must be achieved when the comments are in contrast to my vision. Here is a very minor point that has been debated - the designation of a croissant. Is it a roll or is it a pastry? My critique group and I have opposing views on this topic, and I'm sorry guys, but I'm sticking with MY definition of a croissant (as opposed to what they think it should be). Ultimately, it isn't going to make a reader love or hate the story because I referred to a croissant one way instead of the other.
During the course of critiques of my work, it is important for me to know when they are making a valid point and when it is a matter of personal preference. Some of those comments can throw me into a fit of writer's angst (or fan the flames of said writer's angst). My group crosses genres, so some of the rules that apply to one genre don't apply to another. When I review critiques of the writing, it's important for ME to know what I want to convey, how I want it to come across and where I'm taking it, regardless of what anybody else thinks. If the group raises questions, it's worth taking a second look and weighing the validity, but that doesn't mean I have to make the change. Ultimately, that's between me and my editor. There comes a point where you have to trust yourself, no matter what anyone else thinks.
I am in agreement that I have not presented everything as clearly or as cleanly as possible, so as I finish editing, I have to determine what needs to be sharpened. We live in a day and age where book critics are tough. They'll tell you an author needs to jump into the action sooner. I had a thread in the story that I was introducing slowly and have heard from various and sundry critics that they want to know that information sooner rather than later (counterbalanced by people who prefer a slower reveal). What's an author to do? Everyone has an opinion.
And that's when you have to trust yourself. If I was reading this book, would I want that information up front? or are bread crumbs enough to lead me to the whole piece of bread? Reading is a very subjective thing. What one person likes, another person hates. So as I go through my final edits, I'm worried that the story is falling apart (that's fairly typical of most authors - that writer's angst part), but before I go changing EVERYTHING, I need to take a step back and remember this is my story to write. The one I want to tell. I can't please everyone (although I hope to please a lot of people!) When a ghost shows up, someone's going to be unhappy because ghosts don't exist. When I throw in a red herring, someone else will be unhappy because they'd rather see that red herring than the plot thread I've chosen.
The takeaway message for me as I struggle with whether a croissant is a roll or a pastry (actually I didn't struggle with that one, but I can't tell you everything about the book. Then why would you read it?) is to weigh the critic comments carefully. To understand when they have a valid point and to know when their comments don't reflect what I'm trying to write.
The only cure for writer's angst is confidence in your work. Easy, right?
I have been running the end of Schumaker through them and all those things that I thought were so fun to write and so cool are coming back as "what???"
My critique partners are tough. I don't usually get the "great writing" comments, because we all assume that we know how to write great. What I get from the group are the holes. The "did you realize you used this word four times in five paragraphs?" The mistakes. The "I'm sure you see this in your head, but I'm not seeing it on the page." There are times those comments frustrate the life out of me, but that's what they're there for. To clunk me over the head when I'm not paying attention.
A delicate balance must be achieved when the comments are in contrast to my vision. Here is a very minor point that has been debated - the designation of a croissant. Is it a roll or is it a pastry? My critique group and I have opposing views on this topic, and I'm sorry guys, but I'm sticking with MY definition of a croissant (as opposed to what they think it should be). Ultimately, it isn't going to make a reader love or hate the story because I referred to a croissant one way instead of the other.
During the course of critiques of my work, it is important for me to know when they are making a valid point and when it is a matter of personal preference. Some of those comments can throw me into a fit of writer's angst (or fan the flames of said writer's angst). My group crosses genres, so some of the rules that apply to one genre don't apply to another. When I review critiques of the writing, it's important for ME to know what I want to convey, how I want it to come across and where I'm taking it, regardless of what anybody else thinks. If the group raises questions, it's worth taking a second look and weighing the validity, but that doesn't mean I have to make the change. Ultimately, that's between me and my editor. There comes a point where you have to trust yourself, no matter what anyone else thinks.
I am in agreement that I have not presented everything as clearly or as cleanly as possible, so as I finish editing, I have to determine what needs to be sharpened. We live in a day and age where book critics are tough. They'll tell you an author needs to jump into the action sooner. I had a thread in the story that I was introducing slowly and have heard from various and sundry critics that they want to know that information sooner rather than later (counterbalanced by people who prefer a slower reveal). What's an author to do? Everyone has an opinion.
And that's when you have to trust yourself. If I was reading this book, would I want that information up front? or are bread crumbs enough to lead me to the whole piece of bread? Reading is a very subjective thing. What one person likes, another person hates. So as I go through my final edits, I'm worried that the story is falling apart (that's fairly typical of most authors - that writer's angst part), but before I go changing EVERYTHING, I need to take a step back and remember this is my story to write. The one I want to tell. I can't please everyone (although I hope to please a lot of people!) When a ghost shows up, someone's going to be unhappy because ghosts don't exist. When I throw in a red herring, someone else will be unhappy because they'd rather see that red herring than the plot thread I've chosen.
The takeaway message for me as I struggle with whether a croissant is a roll or a pastry (actually I didn't struggle with that one, but I can't tell you everything about the book. Then why would you read it?) is to weigh the critic comments carefully. To understand when they have a valid point and to know when their comments don't reflect what I'm trying to write.
The only cure for writer's angst is confidence in your work. Easy, right?
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Getting to know your characters
This is that awkward phase of finishing the novel in progress, but characters are calling out to me for the next one. "Schumaker" (which title will be improved upon before it is released) is going to the editor the first week of October. I will continue to fix the issues until that point (and yes, there are still issues). I'll keep you posted.
BUT
While I'm taking that deep breath that says, "I'm almost done, I need to recover from the effort it takes to complete this project," I can't get the new characters to be quiet. Amend that. They aren't all new characters. Returning for the next novel will be Cinda Cooper, Audrey's best friend in Living Canvas. To tie this all together, maybe you didn't know that Greg in Living Canvas is Kira's brother from Touched by the Sun (The Treasure of St. Paul).
Cinda's character was greatly impugned during the reading/writing of Living Canvas and she has been stomping around inside my head telling me she wants her say. She doesn't think people understand her. So I sat down and outlined her story.
There is a psychological personality profile, or enneagram, that helps people - business people, writers, and whoever else has a need to profile personalities - to understand what makes people tick. In anticipation of not missing some of Cinda's finer qualities, I ran an enneagram on her. It's pretty much what I expected, but it helps me to know more about her background and the way she responds under stress or in a positive situation. As I ran it, I realized I'd gone through this process before, when I first started writing Living Canvas years ago.
Most characters are fairly straight "reads." You know them like you know your best friends. You know what makes them tick, what makes them shrink, what makes them grow. Some characters aren't quite so straightforward. Cinda never was.
I read a book recently by Susan Elizabeth Phillips with an alpha female character, one who was so very unlikeable and one the reader has to find a way to like. SEP is very good at writing her characters that way. Make them the most godawful people that ever walked the earth, and make your readers root for them by the end of the novel. Cinda might not be quite that awful, but she ranks up there with disagreeable, manipulative, meddling people. My personality doesn't blend well with that type, so I don't have a "friend" to base her on. Hence, the enneagram. I can tell you that she was much nastier in the original drafts of Living Canvas. Much less likeable than she ended up (much to the amazement of those of you who have voiced your dislike of her as she appeared). During the writing process, I got to know her better. And that's why, when she insisted I show people "the real Cinda," I felt I had no choice.
I'm hoping to take a page out of the SEP writing handbook. A touch of humor helps defend an unlikeable character. Some sympathy for the devil (maybe that's the working title?!). Hopefully when I'm done, she won't appear quite the devil she seems.
BUT
While I'm taking that deep breath that says, "I'm almost done, I need to recover from the effort it takes to complete this project," I can't get the new characters to be quiet. Amend that. They aren't all new characters. Returning for the next novel will be Cinda Cooper, Audrey's best friend in Living Canvas. To tie this all together, maybe you didn't know that Greg in Living Canvas is Kira's brother from Touched by the Sun (The Treasure of St. Paul).
Cinda's character was greatly impugned during the reading/writing of Living Canvas and she has been stomping around inside my head telling me she wants her say. She doesn't think people understand her. So I sat down and outlined her story.
Most characters are fairly straight "reads." You know them like you know your best friends. You know what makes them tick, what makes them shrink, what makes them grow. Some characters aren't quite so straightforward. Cinda never was.
I read a book recently by Susan Elizabeth Phillips with an alpha female character, one who was so very unlikeable and one the reader has to find a way to like. SEP is very good at writing her characters that way. Make them the most godawful people that ever walked the earth, and make your readers root for them by the end of the novel. Cinda might not be quite that awful, but she ranks up there with disagreeable, manipulative, meddling people. My personality doesn't blend well with that type, so I don't have a "friend" to base her on. Hence, the enneagram. I can tell you that she was much nastier in the original drafts of Living Canvas. Much less likeable than she ended up (much to the amazement of those of you who have voiced your dislike of her as she appeared). During the writing process, I got to know her better. And that's why, when she insisted I show people "the real Cinda," I felt I had no choice.
I'm hoping to take a page out of the SEP writing handbook. A touch of humor helps defend an unlikeable character. Some sympathy for the devil (maybe that's the working title?!). Hopefully when I'm done, she won't appear quite the devil she seems.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Nominees for Favorite Author
So many to choose from! This topic came to mind when I saw that one of the authors I favored while growing up died recently.
I discovered Barbara Metz, aka Barbara Michaels, aka Elizabeth Peters via a made for TV movie (The House that Would Not Die). Campy, Aaron Spelling, I believe, but it was a haunted house movie and I loved those! The book was titled Ammie Come Home. Barbara Michaels is a bit of an acquired taste - I like the supernatural infusion into the story, although her romances are a bit bland. Almost nonexistent. Upon her death, I've begun reading some of the Elizabeth Peters novels, which are more centered around Egyptology. Another subject I enjoy. Am I going to stand on my soapbox and proclaim her the best author ever? No. But I do enjoy her books. They'd probably appeal more to a YA audience than a romance audience, and they are dated. Her "romance" subplots are grossly understated (to the point of almost nonexistent).
Another of my favorites is Victoria Holt. Gothic romances that I keep on my shelves to read and reread. But those are the "oldy moldies" among my collection.
In more "modern" times, I've acquired a taste for Teresa Medeiros and Mary Balogh in the romance venue. I also enjoy Dan Brown and John Grisham. Stephen King continues to horrify and delight me.
And then one must take into consideration categories. Classics? Current bestsellers? Old standbys? What makes an author a "favorite?" There are so many choices these days, and my short list doesn't begin to encompass all the books that have touched me in one way or another. The authors I've listed are the "brands" that I know and love and trust. There are countless books that I've enjoyed, but that wouldn't necessarily put the author on my "favorites" list. To achieve that status, I look for consistency.
The Harry Potter books are consistent. But would I put J.K. Rowling on my favorite author list? I'm not sure. I haven't read her other stories. Likewise, I'm not going to beat a dead horse and discuss another author whose first two books literally changed my life. Made me want to live inside the pages of a book. Sent me off on an adventure to find something that didn't exist. And yet, that author does not rank among my favorites (because of the lack of consistency). I suppose that translates to Favorite Books and Favorite Authors not always in harmony with each other.
When you think of your favorite author, do you think of something you've read more recently, or something that you have on your shelf that you will go to again and again (that might be more "dated")? An author who is still productive today, or who is pushing up daisies? An "old friend" or a recent discovery?
I discovered Barbara Metz, aka Barbara Michaels, aka Elizabeth Peters via a made for TV movie (The House that Would Not Die). Campy, Aaron Spelling, I believe, but it was a haunted house movie and I loved those! The book was titled Ammie Come Home. Barbara Michaels is a bit of an acquired taste - I like the supernatural infusion into the story, although her romances are a bit bland. Almost nonexistent. Upon her death, I've begun reading some of the Elizabeth Peters novels, which are more centered around Egyptology. Another subject I enjoy. Am I going to stand on my soapbox and proclaim her the best author ever? No. But I do enjoy her books. They'd probably appeal more to a YA audience than a romance audience, and they are dated. Her "romance" subplots are grossly understated (to the point of almost nonexistent).
Another of my favorites is Victoria Holt. Gothic romances that I keep on my shelves to read and reread. But those are the "oldy moldies" among my collection.
In more "modern" times, I've acquired a taste for Teresa Medeiros and Mary Balogh in the romance venue. I also enjoy Dan Brown and John Grisham. Stephen King continues to horrify and delight me.
And then one must take into consideration categories. Classics? Current bestsellers? Old standbys? What makes an author a "favorite?" There are so many choices these days, and my short list doesn't begin to encompass all the books that have touched me in one way or another. The authors I've listed are the "brands" that I know and love and trust. There are countless books that I've enjoyed, but that wouldn't necessarily put the author on my "favorites" list. To achieve that status, I look for consistency.
The Harry Potter books are consistent. But would I put J.K. Rowling on my favorite author list? I'm not sure. I haven't read her other stories. Likewise, I'm not going to beat a dead horse and discuss another author whose first two books literally changed my life. Made me want to live inside the pages of a book. Sent me off on an adventure to find something that didn't exist. And yet, that author does not rank among my favorites (because of the lack of consistency). I suppose that translates to Favorite Books and Favorite Authors not always in harmony with each other.
When you think of your favorite author, do you think of something you've read more recently, or something that you have on your shelf that you will go to again and again (that might be more "dated")? An author who is still productive today, or who is pushing up daisies? An "old friend" or a recent discovery?
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Where do you go for vacation?
Every year, I try to make it a point to "get away from it all" for at least a few hours at a time. Whether it's day trips to local parks and attractions, a day in the "Big City," or a plane ride somewhere far away. This year, we're doing home improvements. Not much of a vacation, but the budget only covers so much, doncha know.
I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm not going anywhere this year. We had a "big trip" last year, but even DH is wishing for a little getaway while he struggles through demolition stages prior to rebuilding. We'll probably manage a weekend away somewhere - probably within driving distance.
What kind of vacations do you like? Cities? Mountains? Beaches? The desert? National Parks? Museums? We've done all of these, and I have to say that at different times, all of them have their appeal. I enjoy quiet nights, gazing out over the ocean/lake, but I'm done after a day or two at the beach. Cities have their appeal as well, but again, not on the top of my list. Conversely, DH is done after a day or two hiking across the desert or through the mountains, although he enjoys taking pictures at the national parks. We generally try to diversify our trips so that I have my "middle of nowhere" places and he gets his "bustle of the city" places. Last year's trip took us to major cities as well as out of the way villages. Me? I'm writing a story about one of the places we stopped (that small village feel) that made my favorite places list, and him? He wants to go back to the bustling city. So much to see and we didn't get nearly enough time there. I agree, but I'd still go back to my small village first.
It's all about compromise in the end. I did enjoy that bustling city (although I have to say he wasn't as impressed with my little village). Different strokes, and all that sort of thing. DH is an engineer. He has an analytical mind that is stimulated by trying to figure out how things work. Seeing engineering marvels and architectural anomalies. Me? I'm the romantic. I can appreciate his views and find all those things interesting, but I'm more captivated with a perfect setting. Rolling hills, brilliant colors, unusual rock formations, flora and fauna, glittering waterfalls. Things man can't recreate. God's thumbprints from where he's shaped and sculpted the world.
A few years ago, we went to Las Vegas and Utah and Arizona. The first part of the trip was to Bryce Canyon. The colors and the rock formations took my breath away. For me, it was more intimate than the Grand Canyon. I loved it. DH loved the photo ops, but got tired of it pretty quickly. We went to Page, Arizona, to Antelope Canyon (which is so much of a tourist trap, and yet is so highly unique that I'd still recommend it), and DH was equally impressed with the construction of the bridge across Lake Powell as with the natural landscape. When we left for Vegas, he was anxious to be back to civilization and all the glitter and architecture that makes that city so unique. While I can appreciate the singular appeal, as we drove through the desert, closer to the city, when DH tried to appeal to my sense of "wow," I'd already been wowed by the canyons. I simply smiled and said to him, "you didn't complain for my part of the trip, so I won't complain for your part." Don't get me wrong, we both enjoyed everything we saw. It's a matter of measure. How many canyons can you see before you go "eh?" and How many casinos can you walk through before you are overwhelmed? It was a great trip all around.
Where do you go to get away from it all? To the urban jungle? Or to the far reaches of civilization?
I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm not going anywhere this year. We had a "big trip" last year, but even DH is wishing for a little getaway while he struggles through demolition stages prior to rebuilding. We'll probably manage a weekend away somewhere - probably within driving distance.
What kind of vacations do you like? Cities? Mountains? Beaches? The desert? National Parks? Museums? We've done all of these, and I have to say that at different times, all of them have their appeal. I enjoy quiet nights, gazing out over the ocean/lake, but I'm done after a day or two at the beach. Cities have their appeal as well, but again, not on the top of my list. Conversely, DH is done after a day or two hiking across the desert or through the mountains, although he enjoys taking pictures at the national parks. We generally try to diversify our trips so that I have my "middle of nowhere" places and he gets his "bustle of the city" places. Last year's trip took us to major cities as well as out of the way villages. Me? I'm writing a story about one of the places we stopped (that small village feel) that made my favorite places list, and him? He wants to go back to the bustling city. So much to see and we didn't get nearly enough time there. I agree, but I'd still go back to my small village first.
It's all about compromise in the end. I did enjoy that bustling city (although I have to say he wasn't as impressed with my little village). Different strokes, and all that sort of thing. DH is an engineer. He has an analytical mind that is stimulated by trying to figure out how things work. Seeing engineering marvels and architectural anomalies. Me? I'm the romantic. I can appreciate his views and find all those things interesting, but I'm more captivated with a perfect setting. Rolling hills, brilliant colors, unusual rock formations, flora and fauna, glittering waterfalls. Things man can't recreate. God's thumbprints from where he's shaped and sculpted the world.
A few years ago, we went to Las Vegas and Utah and Arizona. The first part of the trip was to Bryce Canyon. The colors and the rock formations took my breath away. For me, it was more intimate than the Grand Canyon. I loved it. DH loved the photo ops, but got tired of it pretty quickly. We went to Page, Arizona, to Antelope Canyon (which is so much of a tourist trap, and yet is so highly unique that I'd still recommend it), and DH was equally impressed with the construction of the bridge across Lake Powell as with the natural landscape. When we left for Vegas, he was anxious to be back to civilization and all the glitter and architecture that makes that city so unique. While I can appreciate the singular appeal, as we drove through the desert, closer to the city, when DH tried to appeal to my sense of "wow," I'd already been wowed by the canyons. I simply smiled and said to him, "you didn't complain for my part of the trip, so I won't complain for your part." Don't get me wrong, we both enjoyed everything we saw. It's a matter of measure. How many canyons can you see before you go "eh?" and How many casinos can you walk through before you are overwhelmed? It was a great trip all around.Where do you go to get away from it all? To the urban jungle? Or to the far reaches of civilization?
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
The Fine Art of Procrastination
Yes, I've finally typed "The End" on my Schumaker story, but this is where the real work comes in. Cleaning up the mess of hastily scribbled words. Shouldn't be so hard, you say?
My first drafts are generally very scattered and confusing. In my head, they make perfect sense. On paper, a reader would look at some of this and say "where did that come from?" That's what I'm addressing now. Those disconnects. The information that isn't "on the page." And the structural end of it. It's an end to the imagination part and the start of the work part.
This is what a writing day looks like:
Sit down at computer. Power it up. Get something to drink while said computer "wakes up." Sit down again. Open work in progress. Read the previous chapter (or, the spot I've bookmarked to go back to). Switch to Facebook. Check posts. Switch to Twitter. Check Tweets. IM friends.
Oh. WAIT! I'm supposed to be writing.
Close Facebook. Close Twitter. Give friends the "TTYL."
Re-read work in progress.
Switch to Bejeweled Blitz and achieve the next keystone. Switch to Candy Crush and use up five lives.
WAIT! I'm supposed to be working.
Switch back to work in progress. Oh. It's lunchtime, and I have to go to the grocery store.
Come back from lunch. Sit at computer and open work in progress. Point finger at self and repeat after me, "You will get this done." Focus on work in progress.
I'm on a roll now. New chapters. Crutch words dumped. Useless phrases deleted. Cross reference copyediting done.
Guess what? Now it's dinner time. And, believe it or not, I've accomplished something!
Some days, procrastination isn't a problem. Laser-like focus is right there from the minute I sit down. But on those wool-gathering, butterfly chasing days, it takes a little longer to get down to the business of writing. The take-home message here is to get to it. Even if you find yourself wandering off task, it's important to get "something" done. Books don't write themselves.
Some authors set goals for themselves. "X" amount of words per day, or "X" number of hours per day. Goals are a good way to hold yourself accountable. For me, throwing in a work day (and sometimes very unpredictable work days) makes those types of goals a little more challenging. The most important part of writing is writing. Make the time. Limit distractions.
I have to get back to editing now.
I wonder if those airfares have come down so I can plan my vacation yet?
My first drafts are generally very scattered and confusing. In my head, they make perfect sense. On paper, a reader would look at some of this and say "where did that come from?" That's what I'm addressing now. Those disconnects. The information that isn't "on the page." And the structural end of it. It's an end to the imagination part and the start of the work part.
This is what a writing day looks like:
Sit down at computer. Power it up. Get something to drink while said computer "wakes up." Sit down again. Open work in progress. Read the previous chapter (or, the spot I've bookmarked to go back to). Switch to Facebook. Check posts. Switch to Twitter. Check Tweets. IM friends.
Oh. WAIT! I'm supposed to be writing.
Close Facebook. Close Twitter. Give friends the "TTYL."
Re-read work in progress.
Switch to Bejeweled Blitz and achieve the next keystone. Switch to Candy Crush and use up five lives.
WAIT! I'm supposed to be working.
Switch back to work in progress. Oh. It's lunchtime, and I have to go to the grocery store.
Come back from lunch. Sit at computer and open work in progress. Point finger at self and repeat after me, "You will get this done." Focus on work in progress.
I'm on a roll now. New chapters. Crutch words dumped. Useless phrases deleted. Cross reference copyediting done.
Guess what? Now it's dinner time. And, believe it or not, I've accomplished something!
Some days, procrastination isn't a problem. Laser-like focus is right there from the minute I sit down. But on those wool-gathering, butterfly chasing days, it takes a little longer to get down to the business of writing. The take-home message here is to get to it. Even if you find yourself wandering off task, it's important to get "something" done. Books don't write themselves.
Some authors set goals for themselves. "X" amount of words per day, or "X" number of hours per day. Goals are a good way to hold yourself accountable. For me, throwing in a work day (and sometimes very unpredictable work days) makes those types of goals a little more challenging. The most important part of writing is writing. Make the time. Limit distractions.
I have to get back to editing now.
I wonder if those airfares have come down so I can plan my vacation yet?
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
His Royal Babyness
Congratulations to Prince William and Duchess Catherine on the arrival of their new son and heir.
British royalty has been a tradition and a mainstay for centuries, and even now, when the Queen is little more than a figurehead, it is one of the last remnants of a privileged society. The last several decades have had a major impact on the royal family - a positive impact, I believe. There comes a time when tradition has to bow to the times. Always a difficult transition. As a romance author and a reader of historical novels, it is easy to imagine the struggles of the royals even when we have no clue about what really happens behind closed doors.
Prince Charles has led a colorful life. Looking back at the years before he married Diana Spencer, he didn't seem very interested in settling down to live the life of a king. Can't you just imagine HRH Queen Elizabeth wagging her finger at him and threatening him that he'd never be king until he got his act together and did what was expected of him? And so a bride was selected for him. Just like in a romance novel. An arranged marriage, or so it would seem.
I will tell you that I have no idea about the inner workings of the royal family, so my waxing poetic today has no basis in actual fact. I do know that the world fell in love with Lady Diana, and she produced two fine heirs to the throne. That Charles and Diana changed the course of royal history goes without saying. One thinks back to Edward and Wallis Simpson and the scandal of that era, and the changes the world has gone through to where it was now acceptable for the heir to the throne of England to divorce his wife and not lose his line of succession (although that has yet to be determined).
Speculation is that William will step over his father as Charles advances in years and the Queen appears to want to live forever. William has set other precedents. First, he married a "commoner." The pool of "acceptable royalty" has dwindled considerably. The royal family has become more accessible, and now the world watches to ensure the success of the young royals. And then, of course, there is the change in the rules of royal succession (which have been rendered unnecessary in this generation). It is now acceptable for a firstborn daughter to take the throne as queen rather than a secondborn son to ascend before her.
I heard on the radio this morning that if William lived to be 80, his son wouldn't take the throne until 2062 (or some such far distant year). One wonders about the world changes that might alter the course of future events. Will the royalty continue as a British tradition? Or will they be rendered an unnecessary government expense?
In the meantime, a whole new generation of young girls can sing along with "Some Day My Prince Will Come," and actually cling to the possibility that they have a chance with the new Royal. After all, if his father could marry someone outside of his class, it stands to reason the young Prince will follow suit.
It's the stuff romance novels are made of - new doors to open, new possibilities, new dreams, and the hope of happily ever after.
British royalty has been a tradition and a mainstay for centuries, and even now, when the Queen is little more than a figurehead, it is one of the last remnants of a privileged society. The last several decades have had a major impact on the royal family - a positive impact, I believe. There comes a time when tradition has to bow to the times. Always a difficult transition. As a romance author and a reader of historical novels, it is easy to imagine the struggles of the royals even when we have no clue about what really happens behind closed doors.
Prince Charles has led a colorful life. Looking back at the years before he married Diana Spencer, he didn't seem very interested in settling down to live the life of a king. Can't you just imagine HRH Queen Elizabeth wagging her finger at him and threatening him that he'd never be king until he got his act together and did what was expected of him? And so a bride was selected for him. Just like in a romance novel. An arranged marriage, or so it would seem.
I will tell you that I have no idea about the inner workings of the royal family, so my waxing poetic today has no basis in actual fact. I do know that the world fell in love with Lady Diana, and she produced two fine heirs to the throne. That Charles and Diana changed the course of royal history goes without saying. One thinks back to Edward and Wallis Simpson and the scandal of that era, and the changes the world has gone through to where it was now acceptable for the heir to the throne of England to divorce his wife and not lose his line of succession (although that has yet to be determined).
Speculation is that William will step over his father as Charles advances in years and the Queen appears to want to live forever. William has set other precedents. First, he married a "commoner." The pool of "acceptable royalty" has dwindled considerably. The royal family has become more accessible, and now the world watches to ensure the success of the young royals. And then, of course, there is the change in the rules of royal succession (which have been rendered unnecessary in this generation). It is now acceptable for a firstborn daughter to take the throne as queen rather than a secondborn son to ascend before her.
I heard on the radio this morning that if William lived to be 80, his son wouldn't take the throne until 2062 (or some such far distant year). One wonders about the world changes that might alter the course of future events. Will the royalty continue as a British tradition? Or will they be rendered an unnecessary government expense?
In the meantime, a whole new generation of young girls can sing along with "Some Day My Prince Will Come," and actually cling to the possibility that they have a chance with the new Royal. After all, if his father could marry someone outside of his class, it stands to reason the young Prince will follow suit.
It's the stuff romance novels are made of - new doors to open, new possibilities, new dreams, and the hope of happily ever after.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)