Stuff happens faster than I can blog it... so if you want to catch up on the Romantic Novelists' Association Conference, there's posts from
Michelle Styles,
Julie Cohen,
Amanda Ashby,
Nell Dixon and
Fiona Harper.
What I was wondering about today was time periods... in terms of settings for fiction. I had a chat last night with someone at my writers circle about how great Roman-set fiction was (prompted by the fact that
Michelle Styles, co-author of
The Lady Soldier, also writes Roman-set fiction - and so I mention this to anyone possible). I, of course, love the early 19th century (Regency) period. But I wonder if we (authors and readers) pick on popular settings and neglect lesser-known ones to our greater detriment. Why isn't there more fiction set in the 17th century (e.g. English Civil War)? Why are Sagas always 19th or 20th century set, and not earlier? Why is historical romance usually confined to well known settings and locales?
I don't have an easy answer. The zeitgiest of the Regency period attracts me to write it, and while I'm always on the lookout for quirks and unusual pieces of random historical interest to include in my stories, perhaps I'm not pushing enough.
At the RNA Conference,
Freda Lightfoot spoke about optimising settings - i.e. using settings to show character and action, not just be there as background. I'm immediately conscious that I'm thinking more deeply about this and writing more powerful descriptions accordingly. Setting does matter. Whether it's a well known time period or location, or something more unusual, it's not just the scenery, it really is part of the story.
was already previously in print as a serial cheap paperback but it will be really exciting to be able to have a book edition in paperback. I can't wait to see what the cover will be like...
