|
Post by amandamoose on Sept 26, 2011 17:05:40 GMT -5
But that's also not to say that strong women were not present in history either...Keira Knightly was not the best choice for Lizzie Bennet but that movie was made to cater to this generation right?
Make it more current so the kids'll get into it, type thing.
I think If you are going with a strong personality fashion her after people like Elizabeth I or Frieda Kahlo she wore pants when it wasn't fashionable for women to do such things...I'd go further and say she cross dressed really but then she'd break that up with doing up a very feminine traditional outfit as well. But you could always just have her in a bodiced petticoat I've read that that was common and acceptable...
|
|
ushhfan
Officer
Rare is the gentleman for whom navy blue and lace is not flattering.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ushhfan on Sept 26, 2011 18:18:33 GMT -5
But that's also not to say that strong women were not present in history either...Keira Knightly was not the best choice for Lizzie Bennet but that movie was made to cater to this generation right? I agree wholeheartedly! Strength is certainly not anathema to the past (in fact, given what life was like for our ancestors, it'd be hard to argue it could possibly be lacking!). I was merely railing against the modern tendency (particularly in film) to promote the idea that the only way a woman in prior generations could exhibit strength was by throwing over the norms of her society. (Keira Knightly simply came to mind as an actress with one of the longest resumes of this type of character... ) -uHf
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 26, 2011 22:45:06 GMT -5
dear ufshan
Miss Fanshaw is a bad example if E's, but she does not seem to be a caricaturel, and she is accepted by her peers who socialize with her. The Walmart analogies do not seem to apply.
Miss Fanshaw may have some modified version of stays, but the young woman in the 1803 book does not seem to and she is fully accepted by her family. Yet her dress is scandalous if we believe in the rigid and universal rules described here. Again, in this situation, Walmart analogies serve no useful purpose.
And yes, there may be some eyebrow raising and head shaking, but let us consider the example of Marrianne who just didn't give a damn about all those eye brow and head movers and she was loved by family and friends.
So yes, certainly, heads shake and brows raise but for spirited young women like M that doesn't seem to matter.
So I can't see why your concluding argument should have some impact on my writing choices. My heroine, I earlier said, is like Marianne or the young woman in the 1803 book. You say that feisty is in another century. What about Marianne and how she tells off the gentleman who is their benefactor? She tells the guy off and even he is nice to her. That's frankly more feisty than most 21st century women.
Some how I think that if Jane Austen can have a feisty character then you should be able to indulge me in a similar choice without accusing me of borrowing from later centuries.
And I think it out-of-the-blue to suggest that my character is like KK when I have offered Marianne. and am willing to dress my heroine more conservatively than that young woman from the 1803 work. Your comment, frankly, step a little over the bounds -- since you have not read a word of my work and have no way to conclude anything about my heroine's purportedly twenty-first century values other than the fact that she is dressing on the more liberal end of the spectrum of the Regency. That is a gigantic leap on your part.
If we really want to talk about the values of the Regency, then we should look through the eyes of many women who were writing and talking at the time and whose works were read and discussed. At least one of them wrote novels to spread their word. We find a surprisingly wide range of values with more overlap with contemporaries centuries than some might imagine. I would suggest that in someways the Regency anticipates some later eras. That would be an interesting discussion.
|
|
Lady Sarah
Officer
"I cannot make speeches, Emma. If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more." Mr. K
Posts: 77
|
Post by Lady Sarah on Sept 27, 2011 2:10:47 GMT -5
I am not sure if anyone cares what I think, but I do have some thoughts. Now, as a writer myself, I can say that having the freedom to bend social norms or the behavior of the people I am writing about, is wonderful. Of course, on the other end of my personality, I am a stickler for what actually was the norm. Not everyone is like that.
I am sure that if we took a look at a list of fifty random books written in today's day and age, there would be at the very least one book that one person thought was wonderfully progressive and that another person thought was not realistic in society for these days. That is the way things go.
The literature of the day (The vastly popular; The likes of Mirror of Graces and Jane Austen) were presented from a particular point of view. Jane Austen liked spirited young ladies, as she was herself, but while the characters did not always behave the best, they took particulars to dress appropriately. From their point of view. I am sure that Jane Austen would have tutted at a young woman who dressed immodestly.
However, there were surely writers who chose not to follow the norm of the days. They chose to make things a little more interesting and insert a little of their personalities and values (whatever they may be). I would not say that they were ahead of their time, but they were certainly happy to write whatever the heck they wanted. Bravo to them. But just because something was printed back then, and maybe even sold well, does not make it so. Even if these books were read by a very fine lady, I doubt she would allow such a thing in her own home. Books were their escape and they read to excite the mind. I read stories all the time about people doing things I would never in a million years do myself.
So yes, there were difference of opinions then. If a lady dressed in a way that was viewed as perfectly fine in her family, that isn't to say it wasn't talked about by other people. But in literature? A story? Do what you want. That is part of the fun.
|
|
ushhfan
Officer
Rare is the gentleman for whom navy blue and lace is not flattering.
Posts: 70
|
Post by ushhfan on Sept 27, 2011 7:02:10 GMT -5
dear ufshan Miss Fanshaw is a bad example if E's, but she does not seem to be a caricaturel, and she is accepted by her peers who socialize with her. The Walmart analogies do not seem to apply. Miss Fanshaw may have some modified version of stays, but the young woman in the 1803 book does not seem to and she is fully accepted by her family. Yet her dress is scandalous if we believe in the rigid and universal rules described here. Again, in this situation, Walmart analogies serve no useful purpose. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with your interpretation of both books. Where I saw Miss Fanshaw interacting with peers, more often than not they were plainly taking pains to gracefully step around her gaffs. Her mother seems more aware of her daughter's faux pas but it is made clear in the text that her mother is not a model of grace and intelligence herself; the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, in other words. In the 1803 book--which seemed to be a humorous look on "what men want"--the tone of the particular chapter to which you refer is of a very reasonable young man coming home (from the continent, no less--one presumes he is used to shocking sights!) to find his intended fiancee dressing so slovenly and loosely that he doesn't even recognize her. (In fact, his initial observation of her is that she not only had no stays on but that she was "far gone with child"!) When he finally learns, to his horror, that this was the "amiable" young woman of his acquaintance, he approaches her father privately thinking that he would be scandalized to learn how his daughter is dressing in public. The supposed author of the letter is further horrified to have the father reply with a "everyone dresses that way" although the young man can think of no other lady of his acquaintance who does. He is thrown out of the house, disappointed but certainly not interested in having a wife who dresses like a hoyden. In other words, I find the tale to be more cautionary to young ladies of the day of what they can lose by taking their manner of dress in too immodest a direction than critical of the gentleman ("the prude" as you call him). "Feisty" is not a modern development and I don't believe it to be so. What I believe is that the film industry in particular seems to have a belief that no female character can be likable unless they look like a modern gal in Baroque/Regency/Victorian/etc. clothing. I find that attitude to be insulting to the strong women that actually did live at the time and, as a consumer of costume drama, the same-old-same-old "inexplicably modern girl opens the eyes of the romantic hero by mouthing off and flouting the accepted norms" gets a bit...shall we say...hackneyed. And, yes, Marianne was loved by her family and friends but she certainly caused them concern--to some degree because of her outspokenness and also because her behavior did push the envelope a bit. She didn't dress scandalously, though, and much of the point of Sense and Sensibility is to beware of letting feelings guide actions. It's been a long time since I've read the book, but doesn't Marianne confess in the end that it would have served her better to have behaved more like Eleanor? The point being, that while period books show that, as you argue, people did behave like that, they often do so with the intention of demonstrating how people shouldn't behave. And a leap that I did not intend to make, I assure you. Obviously, I haven't read your book or know anything about your character beyond what you have said here. If you will indulge me by rereading my original post, I was simply making the plea that I reiterated above: while you are constructing your character, be careful not to inject her with modern values surrounded by an entirely accepting public if historical accuracy is your goal. Your story and character are absolutely what you wish them to be. It is your prerogative (duty!) as an author not to defer to strangers, such as myself, in their creation. My reason for giving you the caution merely stemmed from the implication that by starting this thread you ARE concerned with accuracy (for which I applaud you!). My post was an attempt to help you achieve that goal rather than to direct your creativity in any way. I can promise you that the "intervention", as it was, was most kindly meant. Best of luck in your efforts! -uHf
|
|
|
Post by dawnluckham on Sept 27, 2011 10:15:32 GMT -5
While I truly don’t care what is written in a fictional story, be it written for pleasure or professionally, I get frustrated having to explain to people who actually want historical accuracy – over and over again - how the extreme outer edges of societal behaviour is constantly presented as “normal” in film and fiction. Devin, you’ve clearly fallen in love with your heroine exactly as you’ve envisaged her and she is not going to change simply because a bunch of "stuffy" historians tell you her behaviour is not what was accepted in society. All of the examples you have presented can be argued. One wonders why you wanted historical information at all – why bother researching if you are going to ignore or shape the evidence as you wish anyway? Dear Sir, you keep comparing your heroine to Marianne: Marianne is wilful and romantic and outspoken, but she has every ability to appear as a proper young lady – she is not so far gone. Jane Austen’s personal writings show a keen interest in fashion and clothing. There is not one hint that ANY of Jane Austen’s characters went anywhere wearing clothing that would draw censoring looks. Indeed, part of the charm of Miss Austen’s strong characters is that they are not so far off the charts as to be shocking. Readers could relate to them in period and, amazingly, we can still connect to them in our era today. For costuming purposes, I can look at a person or a painting and tell you if the woman is wearing stays or not. In period dress, I can tell you if the person is wearing period undergarments or a modern bra. If one wants to achieve the “look” of an era, one needs to know what the foundation is to create it. How a character is dressed totally depends on the purpose of the individual person and situation. In community theatre it is, perhaps, not important to have every tiny detail right and a general impression of the period is “good enough”. In living history, it becomes important for people to present, in dress, the same garments people in the past dressed in. In fiction – do as you wish - but accept that you are not following the standards of history and be fair in your presentation of that. If you indicate that this is “normal” that is unfair to the people of the past. Believe me: Your readers will notice. uHf, I thought the Wal-Martians comparison was rather brilliant and dead-on! Quite awesome, actually!
|
|
|
Post by amandamoose on Sept 27, 2011 11:31:46 GMT -5
I liked the Wal-martians term as well as the analogy When i read the OP I thought Devin was asking for historical accuracy as well. When writing a book though as the author you have the power to do as you wish, of course!!! It's your creation, your baby do with it as you will. But if you ask for advice you must expect to hear things you might not wish to hear. Constructive criticism can be taken or ignored but if you ask for advice you'll get it. I love the story as you have described it so far except for the part of the characters dress, it seems to not fit with all the other dedication to historical accuracy. If a was reading a story and enjoying and came to something like this that seems so oddly out of place I may not finish the book...it depends on how much I was enjoying it. As someone who loves reading historical stories either fiction or non fiction it is off putting to have an odd rather modern element thrown into the mix. I look forward to hearing more of your story, are you going to try to get it publish for the Kindle too? I love my kindle, it's so much easier to hold one handed and turn pages as I so often am doing while nursing my littling
|
|
devin
Shopkeeper
Gentleman
Posts: 24
|
Post by devin on Sept 27, 2011 16:49:26 GMT -5
Thank you all -- even for the literary criticism of my unseen work.
And of course, thank all of you particularly for the information which I requested.
I will come back if this thing ever gets published -- either in paper or electrons. Some of you might enjoy it.
I hope I'm not tossed off the board before I get back.
Thanks again to all.
Devin
|
|
Lady Sarah
Officer
"I cannot make speeches, Emma. If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more." Mr. K
Posts: 77
|
Post by Lady Sarah on Sept 27, 2011 19:27:11 GMT -5
I should hope that you don't get thrown off the board for posting your opinion, however people may disagree with you. Even if I am a little hesitant to read any book with such dress in it, from any time period (*Stands and faces everyone* Hi, My name is Lady Sarah, and I am a prude), I am very much interested in the story line of your story.
|
|