Skipped to the end for under fifty?

It's not what the market is looking for, and not what's selling.

Nodding.

I'm already ahead of at least 50% of what's currently being published in historical romance when it comes to accuracy

More nodding.

Timelies! Took the 13-year-old to NYC yesterday for a mom/son day, and Cartier was decorated with a ginormous tiara over the door. Wanted to take a picture to share, but hadn't brought the camera. It was lovely, though, and very very sparkly.

Agreeing madly with what Deb said about NYC, though, and I love the city. Used to live there, used to work there, miss it a lot of the time, but the week after Christmas, when walking down Fifth Avenue means actually fighting your way, elbowing and grunting, through people who like to stop dead to look up at the buildings...not so much.

Got lovely and unexpected cards from Sail and Bev, which were much appreciated. Love love love Sail's idea of embellishing (and secretly thinking of doing same next year).

Worried about P-C, just because of the proximity, and so sorry about billytea's mom. Much more catching up to do, since the holidays ate me from the bottom up for awhile, and I'm still tripping over stray packaging and wrapping paper and cookie crumbs.

My goal is to make the whole thing so damn romantic and tightly plotted and poignant that no one even notices it's not set in the Disney Regency Theme Park until it's too late.

Do you read Susan Wiggs? She's not Regency (American Victorian when she's not doing stuff set in modern times), but I think she's managed to strike that balance fairly well (because American Victorian has its own theme park), and is one of the few writers of the last decade (as opposed to those who were writing Back in the Day) to do so.

there's a lot of stuff out there calling itself historical that's really set in a sort of badly imagined Disney Regency, Victorian, or medieval era.

I dimly recall (it's been ~20 years or so) reading a historical novel set in 1067, with a Norman knight and a Saxon lady. She was named Rosemonde, or something equally French-sounding. I would have been happier if she'd been named Bertha or Dagmar. Heck, even Isabelle has its Germanic variants.

Decent sex scenes, though.

Deb, the subscribe button is just under the thread title, next to threadsuck.

Well, Susan, all best luck, and spare me a thought when you're all done and I'm wading through my crime scene.

All done never happens, but I'm definitely rooting for you.

There is but one cure for the (thank god I got this at the dollar store" Thoroughly Modern Woman wearing an Empire-style gown) Regency Romance. And that is, simply, Jane herself.

Obviously, there are hundreds of published authors who deserve to be beaten stoutly about the head and shoulders with an omnibus edition.

There is but one cure for the (thank god I got this at the dollar store" Thoroughly Modern Woman wearing an Empire-style gown) Regency Romance. And that is, simply, Jane herself.

Unless you are a freak like me, and find Jane herself a fabulous cure for insomnia.

Do you read Susan Wiggs? She's not Regency (American Victorian when she's not doing stuff set in modern times), but I think she's managed to strike that balance fairly well (because American Victorian has its own theme park), and is one of the few writers of the last decade (as opposed to those who were writing Back in the Day) to do so.

I've read one or two of her books, but it's been awhile. I should try her again, especially given how much time I spend wondering if the similarity in our names is a good or a bad thing, since I'd be shelved right beside her if I use my real name.

No need to say it twice. Silly laptop.

Firefly thread name voting in Bureaucracy is minimal. So sad.