Shirley, you don't mean that: A Review

A new year means a new trek through England, and I began my journey on the wild Yorkshire Moors. In British Literature, the Brontë sisters and the Moors are so frequently paired together that it is difficult to imagine one without the other. The two Brontë staples -- Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights -- paint a vivid, Gothic, and even romantic picture of this wasteland. But Jane and Cathy aren't the only Brontë heroines, and I decided that it was time to explore two lesser-known characters in an underrated and relatively unknown novel: Shirley.

The synopsis is fairly simple: wealthy heiress Shirley Keeldar takes up residence in her family home and quickly becomes friends with the rector's niece, Caroline Helstone. These two girls are passionately in love, unbeknownst to them and the rest of the world, with brothers. Shirley is in love with the elder brother, Louis Moore, who was her tutor. Caroline is in love with the younger brother, Robert Moore, the owner of a textile mill. When Shirley arrives, everyone assumes that she will marry Robert -- or one of the other countless suitors -- but she remains single. Both women struggle with loving men who cannot love them in return: Robert cannot love Caroline because he is financially unable to marry (except for money) because of trade restrictions hampering his business, and Louis cannot love Shirley because they are not equals in terms of their fortunes. It became obvious to me early on that both heroines would receive their happy endings, but the journey they took to get there and the depth of this novel is where its true beauty lies.

In a nutshell, Shirley is the story of two women trying to find a way to be with the men they love in the midst of war, class struggles, and family drama. Sounds almost like a Jane Austen novel, doesn't it? In a way, this novel and Austen's novels have a good deal in common. Shirley is Charlotte Brontë's only historical novel; it takes place in 1811, the same year that Sense and Sensibility was published. But once you get past the time period, sensible heroines, and witty characters, the differences become evident. One of the most interesting things about classics which are historical novels is that you get a feel for how that era was viewed during the author's life. In this case, we see how a Yorkshire woman writing in 1849 viewed the Napoleonic Wars and the industrial movement of the early 19th Century.

The good life: reading, drinking bourbon, and watching my husband work on the bike.

To me, the most breathtaking part of this novel is the history. Shirley takes place in a period of growing industrialization stunted by the war with Napoleon, and the subsequent riots within the working class: the Luddite movement. As the novel begins, Robert Moore struggles to keep his textile mill afloat. He seeks to combat this industrial depression by bringing in new machinery that will cut costs, allowing his mill to work more efficiently. The workers, many of whom are dismissed, strike back at Moore, and this struggle between employer and employees set the stage for the rest of the novel. While the Luddite movement was an integral part of domestic politics during the 1810's, it is easy to see where Charlotte is getting her inspiration. One of the quintessential characteristics of the early Victorian Era (and really, the 19th century throughout the Western world) is the struggles and consequential rise of the working class. The year before this novel was published, The Communist Manifesto sparked a revolution with its epicenter in Germany, rippling throughout the entire world. At the same time, Charles Dickens had been discussing the trials of the lower classes beginning in the 1830s until his death in 1870, and Elizabeth Gaskell, who is perhaps the most famous female British author devoted to exposing the working classes struggles, published her first novel just a year before Charlotte published Shirley. So Charlotte Brontë certainly had plenty of inspiration for a historical novel illuminating working class struggles.

Other characteristics of the novel also illuminate important influences on her life. The clergy play a huge role in the direction of the novel, particularly in the form of Caroline's controlling uncle/guardian. Charlotte delves into complex theological matters (a little too deep at times -- it's almost as overwhelming as Tolstoy with his 19th century Russian farming techniques) concerning both the Anglican church and the dissenters, which suggests that her clergyman father discussed theology with his daughters. She generally portrays the clergy favorably but, similar to Austen and her various fictional clergymen, still discusses their foibles at length. But probably the greatest inspiration developed during arguably two of the hardest years in Charlotte's life: 1848 and 1849. Charlotte was the middle of six children. Two sisters died as children, and the other three, Emily, Anne, and the only boy, Branwell, died between September of 1848 and May of 1849. With this knowledge, the characters of Shirley and Caroline are even more appealing to the reader as they are a direct reflection of the grief Charlotte felt. The character of Shirley is based on Emily, and when Caroline becomes so ill that she nearly dies, Charlotte writes the blissful, romantic ending that her sisters would never have.

Charlotte's passion and dedication for the working class and the clergy are immediately evident to the reader, but the real gems are the characters. The heroines are two vastly different women with different needs and desires, and yet they are in virtually the same situation. Shirley's fierceness and philanthropy are reminiscent of Emma Woodhouse and Bathsheba Everdene. She is wealthy, and uses that wealth for good, but she needs a guiding force in her life -- just like these two women received in George Knightley and Gabriel Oak. Caroline, on the other hand, is timid and shy, yet loyal and persistent when it comes to the man that she loves, much like Fanny Price and Amy Dorritt. Nothing would deter these women from loving Edmund Bertram and Arthur Clennam, no matter their vices or foolish mistakes, and Caroline was no different. No matter how cruelly Robert Moore treated her, she knew her own heart and would not be persuaded otherwise. And yet, despite Caroline's sweetness and Shirley's wealth, they cannot achieve happiness on their own.

But despite Shirley's fierceness and Caroline's loyalty, these two heroines offer a striking contrast with Jane Eyre. Over the years, the Brontë sisters have become an icon for feminists. Jane Eyre certainly fits the feminist agenda as she declares: "I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will, which I now exert to leave you." (Jane Eyre, Chapter 23) But the characters of Shirley and Caroline are the complete opposite. In fact, the last two chapters of this book discuss how these women are eternally tethered and domesticated to the men that they love -- whether their love is returned or not. Louis Moore is the "keeper" of Shirley, the one who tames her wildness. She says to him:

"Mr. Moore," said she, looking up with a sweet, open, earnest countenance, "teach me and help me to be good. I do not ask you to take off my shoulders all the cares and duties of property, but I ask you to share the burden, and to show me how to sustain my part well. Your judgment is well balanced, your heart is kind, your principles are sound. I know you are wise; I feel you are benevolent; I believe you are conscientious. Be my companion through life; be my guide where I am ignorant; be my master where I am faulty; be my friend always!" (Shirley, Chapter 36)

In the following chapter, Shirley is seen submitting to her husband completely:

He was virtually master of Fieldhead weeks before he became so nominally—the least presumptuous, the kindest master that ever was, but with his lady absolute. She abdicated without a word or a struggle. "Go to Mr. Moore, ask Mr. Moore," was her answer when applied to for orders... In all this Miss Keeldar partly yielded to her disposition; but a remark she made a year afterwards proved that she partly also acted on system. "Louis," she said, "would never have learned to rule if she had not ceased to govern. The incapacity of the sovereign had developed the powers of the premier." (Shirley, Chapter 37)

What a blow to modern feminism! Surely, she can't mean that she "abdicated without a word or a struggle." In a world that condemns a woman sharing her wealth and power to her husband is scoffed, feminist icon Charlotte Brontë's heroine submits everything to her husband. Caroline is different in that she is poor with nothing to give, but she still submits everything to Robert. But I don't think this was Charlotte's point. These two women would not submit to just any man. Shirley will not submit to her tyrannical uncle's demand that she marries one of the wealthy suitors, but she does submit to the man who loves her ardently, tenderly, and wholly. She submits to the man who is worthy of her. Caroline submits to her uncle because he is her guardian, but she would become a governess before marrying and submitting to a man who was not her equal.

My adorable, late-night reading buddies.

Shirley does have a few flaws which are more a flaw of the time and modern literary expectations than a flaw of the novel. For one, Charlotte Brontë loved switching for entire pages into French. Since Robert, Louis, and Hortense Moore were all half-Flemish, they frequently switch between French and English in their dialogue. In 19th Century England, this would not have been a problem as French was commonly taught to the gentry. It was difficult to follow when it would switch back and forth between the two languages without giving a translation.

The other flaw is that the climax is so drawn out that it feels like something was missing at the end. It was a very difficult book to get into for the first half, but the second half flew by because it was filled with excitement. The climax spans almost 100 pages of the novel (out of 300) where you feel it must get resolved soon but the characters simply will not communicate their emotions. I think this is less of a flaw of the novel and more of modern expectations for a spectacular ending with explosions and passionate declarations of love. Technically this novel had plenty of both of those things, but I suppose it was a simpler ending than I expected from such a complex novel.

But that's how this different, and why it is such a splendid work of art. The story flows better than many of its contemporary novels. Charlotte paints a realistic picture instead of trying to make it overly romantic. It isn't Gothic like Wuthering Heights, or dreary like Dickens, or pastoral like Hardy -- but it does incorporate many of these elements into the story to give you a realistic picture. And it is truly a beautiful picture filled with love and loss and longing. Charlotte was able to weave a story that kept the magic of the Moors while adding a painfully realistic romance and a historically accurate fictionalization of the early labor movement. There are so many more details in this novel which I did not discuss, but all of them add volume and character to this already brilliant novel. Why this novel was not more popular, I will never know. But what I do know is that it rekindled my love of the Brontë sisters' works.

And feminists, next time you claim an authoress as your poster child, make sure she doesn't have any skeletons in her closet -- like Shirley.

NaNoWriMo 2016

November was an interesting month for me. My parents visited for a week and we painted the main living area, which has made the house look much warmer. A family of nine stayed for a weekend which was simultaneously exhausting and refreshing because I got to play with my favorite children. My husband was home and not working for a total of four days. And then, like every November, there was NaNoWriMo.

This is the third year in a row that I've participated and probably the most successful year of all. There were four days where I was unable to write at all and six more that I wrote under 1,000 words. That means that there were twenty days which I was able to devote my entire attention to writing 50,000 words. And I still managed to reach the goal. Oh and my computer died in the middle of the month. I almost lost half a chapter because it froze suddenly and never worked right again. That was fun.

That might not sound very impressive but for me, writing 2,500 words a day is difficult. I have to force myself to focus (aka. get off Facebook and ignore my longing to play Civilization V) in order to reach my goal and most days I did just that. I record how many words I've written each day because I love looking at statistics. My lowest days were always the one that I was unable to devote a good chunk of my day toward writing. November 26th was my lowest day (I went shopping and to a concert; it's amazing I wrote at all) with 683 words. My highest day, ironically, was the following day, November 27th, with 4,397 words. I think I was overcompensating for not reaching my goal the previous day but in reality it was one really long chapter. My total was 53,300 words. I wish I had planned it to come out so evenly but that was unintentional.

Starting NaNoWriMo right with coffee and essential oils to encourage creativity.

The synopsis for this novel is unlike most historical fiction, in my opinion. Most historical fiction novels (particularly those set in the Regency Era) detail a single woman's quest for a husband, but what happens after the wealthy son of a baronet proposes and they live happily ever after? Marriage isn't always the Instagram-worthy picture of perfection, like a lot of fiction makes it look like. If you think Mr. Darcy and Lizzy or Mr. Rochester and Jane never argued (you know, if they weren't fictional characters) then your view of marriage is unrealistic. So my goal was to paint a realistic picture of marriage -- one where all a person's flaws are laid out on the table and where the couple must sort through their issues together.

Cecilia Blackwell thought that she married Mr. Henry Blackwell, Member of Parliament for Lancashire, out of love but her first month of marriage proves that Mr. Blackwell's last priority is his wife. When she is left alone for months at a time, she consoles herself with reading political treatise and riding her horse across the desolate, lonely Lancashire Moors. She meets Mr. Douglas Middleton, the younger son of a baronet, and he instantly falls in love with Cecilia despite his knowledge of her marriage. She pushes him away multiple times until she realizes that, in her husband's absence, he is her only friend. Cecilia struggles with infidelity but refuses to give in to that temptation. Mr. Blackwell's best friend, Lord Greystone, invites her to visit and at a party the two Parliamentarians discover that Cecilia is not only educated on politics but she is also shrewd and persuasive. Eager to use her abilities for the Whig cause, Cecilia visits London while Parliament is in session. She and Mr. Blackwell quarrel multiple times over her education and it causes a great rift between them. They both must humble themselves or they risk estrangement and potential scandal that could be detrimental to Mr. Blackwell's career.

Normally I write Regency stories that aren't dated except for general references to major events or people, like Napoleon who terrorized a bulk of the era. I quickly realized that this wouldn't be possible for this novel. Since Mr. Blackwell is a Member of Parliament and Cecilia's vast political knowledge is a crucial part of the plot, it is difficult to be vague. I placed the novel post-Napoleon because everyone knows so much about the Napoleonic Wars but not so much about the struggles of post-war England. Haphazardly I chose for it to begin in 1818 and I didn't realize how much was going on politically during that time. Poor crop yields in 1817 caused a recession. This was aggravated by the Corn Laws, a tariff on incoming grains meant to prop up British grain production and sales. This was a Tory scheme proposed by Thomas Malthus. The Whigs and David Ricardo violently opposed this, particularly in light of the famine, and pushed for free trade. (The Corn Laws were not revoked until 1846.) There was an election in June-July of 1818 in which the Whigs gained a few seats but the Tories retained overwhelming power. (The Tories had a firm grasp on the House of Commons from 1783-1834 with only three Whig Prime Ministers for a total of five years. In 1834 the Tory party broke down and transformed into the Conservative party; the Whig party followed suite in 1859 becoming the Liberal party. Can you imagine a single party retaining power for fifty years?)

Also during this time there were debates about civil liberties and Parliamentary reform but little progress was made since those were Whig-backed projects. The result of the Tories ignoring the wants of the populace was the Peterloo Massacre in which the British Army attacked 60,000 protesters in Manchester demanding Parliamentary reform and representation for growing industrial areas. (Manchester and Lancaster had growing populations and only two Members representing them in Parliament while some declining rural areas had multiple Members representing them.) The result of this tragedy was an even greater tragedy: the Six Acts. This piece of legislation significantly limited civil liberties by outlawing large gatherings of people, increasing the punishment for political dissenters, and gave magistrates the power to search private homes and seize arms. (Some of the legislation was not revoked until as late as 2008. Manchester didn't gain representation until the Great Reform Act of 1832.) Of course, the Whigs fought this vehemently but made little progress.

In another ironic twist, I located this novel in Lancashire because I wanted the barrenness of the Moors and Cecilia's marriage to mirror each other. Imagine my surprise when I discovered in my research that during this time both Lancaster and Manchester were located in Lancashire county. (English borders have shifted over the years in relation to population and representation. It's very confusing.) The significance of the Peterloo Massacre means so much more when this occurs in Mr. Blackwell's own region. The story will end late in 1819 but I toyed with the idea of continuing it into 1820 so that I could address the Cato Street Conspiracy, an assassination attempt on the Prime Minister, the Earl of Liverpool. But I've decided that the defeat of the Whigs over the Six Acts serves my purposes perfectly.

If I didn't make this clear already, researching is one of my favorite parts of writing and my love of political and economic history really shines through in this novel. In a way, Cecilia and I are alike in our interest in economics but she was unfortunate in being born in a time where such subjects were unsuitable for a lady. (She is a big fan of David Ricardo, who was a Member of Parliament during this time, and I am planning on reading Ricardo before the end of the year, even though I'm not a huge fan of his theories.)

But politics isn't the only thing I learned about on this journey. I had to research pregnancy and childbirth because Cecilia's sister had a child later in the novel. I always thought that the "confinement" period was for a few months before giving birth, but in fact it last 4-6 weeks after the birth. The Regency period was actually one of the least restrictive eras for women and childbirth. In the Medieval period, women were oftentimes confined to their bed with all the windows shut for several months, while in the Victorian period, childbearing was considered vulgar and the moment a woman began to show signs of her pregnancy, she would remain out of society. Regency women were active until giving birth but rested afterwards. The link I found for this information can be found here.

The other interesting thing that I researched was the education process. I was trying to discover how old a man would be when he went to university, and I ended up learning even more about higher education. I always thought that the scene in the 1995 Pride and Prejudice where they show Darcy and Wickham at university together was ridiculous. Why in the world had they put Colin Firth in that horrible cap and gown? It turns out that the ridiculous cap and gown was historically accurate. Those attending university dressed according to their level of wealth. Indeed, a man of Darcy's wealth but without a title would wear a black gown with a golden tassel. The link to that information can be found here.

I realize that I'm making it sound like I did more research than writing, but it comes with the territory. One of the things that I appreciate the most in historical fiction is when everything is as accurate as possible, and one of the reasons why I despise some historical movies is because they ignore historical accuracy. It is possible to be historically accurate and create an interesting book or film.

Delenn "helps" me write. Actually she just sits on me in ways that I can't type.

Much to my disappointment, I did not finish this novel. I started NaNoWriMo with around 5,000 words and now I'm just shy of 60,000. My goal is to finish it by the end of December. I am estimating that I have at least ten chapters left. Given that I've written thirty in the last month, I think ten will be attainable. And I came up with a title which, for some reason, always seems to be the hardest part for me.

Writing a novel isn't just recording a story on paper. It's more than just creative expression. In a way, it teaches you something about yourself. It makes you realize just how talented you are, and in return it makes you thankful for those God-given talents. It's incredibly satisfying to know that you've accomplished something, even if it's not well written and only friends and family ever have a chance to enjoy that creation. I'm incredibly proud of this accomplishment and I encourage anyone who has ever had that creative spark to record your tale. You'll be amazed at how much you see yourself grow as you release your creativity and construct a story that is completely unique to you.

Goodbye until next November, NaNoWriMo.

The Mystery of Charles Dickens... um, I mean, Edwin Drood: A Review

Every summer I start reading my yearly Dickens novel and I wonder "will this novel be better than the others?" Sometimes, as was the case with Oliver Twist and Nicholas Nickleby, the answer was that there are Dickens novels worthier of the reader's time. More often than not, my conclusion is that Dickens is a genius and deserves all the praise that he gets. In my mind, none of Dickens' novels could ever compare with Bleak House and Little Dorrit, and frankly they will always be the Dickens standard for me.

Upon beginning The Mystery of Edwin Drood about a month ago, I struggled with Dickens the same way that I always do. It normally takes me the first hundred pages or so to get into the style and language, and gradually enjoy the novel more as the pages pass. The problem with Edwin Drood is that there isn't much beyond the first hundred pages; Charles Dickens never had the luxury of finishing this novel. He died in June of 1870, halfway through writing Edwin Drood.

The main plot can be boiled down to a single sentence. Edwin Drood disappears, presumably murdered, but the clues surrounding his disappearance are scarce. It is unusual that a Dickens novel can be so concisely summarized, but all the clues that Dickens gives us, before and after Edwin's disappearance, all points toward the culprit. Of course, there is much more to the story than just the murder -- it wouldn't be a Dickens novel without characters' fate being interwoven.

But here's the most amazing thing about this novel: even though Dickens never finished it, I can speak with absolute certainty on who murdered Edwin. That's the fantastic thing about Dickens. Not a single paragraph is unnecessary in a Dickens novel; every character and every minute, over-detailed description has a unique, crucial purpose. (All of this is even more amazing when you realize that Dickens submitted his novels for publication in installments before he even finished them. He couldn't go back and add a little detail here and there to make everything connect.) Almost before Edwin even disappeared, I could have told you who was going to kill him and where his dead body could be found. The murder scene was never described, but all the clues are clearly visible for the reader to piece the puzzle together. But what is even more amazing is that you don't realize that you're being handed pieces to the puzzle until you really sit and think about it and everything falls into place. Suddenly, the chapters about the opium house, the odd old woman, and the cathedral crypt are not as seemingly random as they seem. And when the last pieces of the puzzle are put into place, the picture on top is nothing less than astonishing.

Upon finishing Edwin Drood, I sent my best friend a text something to the effect of "Charlie died at a really inopportune time." This novel had the potential of being his best novel, in my opinion, but nobody knows word-for-word how it would have ended. But upon considering the "seemingly random" details, I realized that he finished enough of the novel that it isn't as "inopportune" as one might think. There are minor details which are up for speculation, like whom marries whom, but for the most part he answers all the important questions. Had he died a chapter sooner, a major detail would have been left unaddressed. Of course, it would have been nice to read more but death can only be controlled on the pages of fiction.

This is why Dickens is a literary genius. How many authors can weave such a masterful tale, let alone leave it unfinished but gift the audience with all the clues that they need? He says nothing definitely, and yet he doesn't need to. His manner of laying out a novel and stating the facts allows the reader put two and two together on his own. That, I believe, is a remarkable achievement. Dickens uses the reader's intelligence to his advantage, and solves the mystery without even finishing the book.

The moral to this story is don't judge a book by it's cover. Or in this case, don't ignore The Mystery of Edwin Drood because Dickens died before finishing it. This is, without a doubt, one of Dickens' greatest accomplishments as an author. Despite the fact that we only have half the story, it deserves to be on the list of great Dickens novels because it was left unfinished and it is still perfection. He didn't need 800 pages to create a masterpiece like he did in Bleak House. He only needed 250 pages to simultaneously produce a masterpiece and the greatest cliffhanger of all time. Only Dickens could have made a mystery out of a mystery novel.

One more stop in Reading Europe 2016. Back to the Continent!

Anna Karenina: A Review

For my first stop in my literary trip through Europe this year, I have spent the last several months slowly working my way through Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy. While it took me much longer than I had hoped, I do not regret reading this masterpiece. This was the first of Tolstoy's novels which I have read and it gave me a deep appreciation for Imperial Russian culture and lifestyle. This novel well-written and enlightening, and perhaps a little too detailed at times, but the greater success is the lessons one gleans from the tragic ending: every decision has consequences.

Anna Karenina takes place primarily between St. Petersburg, Moscow, and the Russian countryside. Anna is the wife of an influential government official. The novel begins with Anna visiting her brother, Stepan Arkadyevitch Oblonsky, to convince his wife, Princess Daria (Dolly) Alexandrovna Oblonaska, not to separate after Oblonsky conducts multiple affairs. In St. Petersburg, Anna meets Count Alexey Kirillovich Vronsky and the two characters are instantly attracted to each other. Anna, at first, resists Vronsky and tries to escape him by fleeing back to Moscow, only to discover that he has followed her. They meet constantly in society, whether by accident or on purpose is up to the reader, and others begin to notice their attraction. Eventually, Anna submits to Vronsky and agrees to be his mistress. Meanwhile, her husband, government official Alexey Alexandrovich Karenin, struggles to understand his wife's behavior. She admits her affair to Karenin and he vows to divorce her. After Anna's post-childbirth near death in which, highly delirious, she begs for forgiveness, he submits to Anna's desire to stay married -- for the present. Anna and Vronsky leave Russia, with their child, to escape her husband and the vicious aristocratic society.

As a sharp contrast to the painful love triangle between Anna, Vronsky, and Karenin, Tolstoy introduces another couple: Konstantin Dmitrievich Levin and Princess Katerina (Kitty) Alexandrovna Shcherbatsky. Levin is a friend of the Shcherbatsky and Oblonsky families, and he falls madly in love with the youngest Shcherbatsky daughter, Kitty. (Kitty is the sister of Dolly -- Anna's sister in law.) At the beginning of the book, Levin asks Kitty to be his wife, but Kitty is being pursued by Vronsky. Assuming a proposal from Vronsky, she rejects Levin, but after meeting Anna, Vronsky no longer even looks at Kitty. Fast-forward halfway through the novel: Kitty and Levin meet again, realize that they both still love each other, and wed.

This overview takes the reader halfway through this whopping 750 page novel, and for the sake of not ruining the novel for anyone who might be interested in reading it, I shall divulge as few details of the ending as possible. As I was reading Anna Karenina, one thing in particular became clear to me at this point: this novel would not have a happy ending. Already Karenin's career was ruined, Anna was considered a "fallen woman", and Vronsky had given up his career in order to be with Anna. It was a recipe for disaster from the start. And yet, Tolstoy gives a "remedy" for the heartbreaking tale of Anna Karenina -- Levin and Kitty.

At first it seems like the purpose of this novel is to demonstrate the unfairness of the divorce system in Imperial Russia. Since Anna was the guilty party, she would have been an outcast in society, not even able to see her son with Karenin. If she wants to be happy with her lover, she must be disgraced, but if she divorces, she will lose the rest of her standing in society. But as the reader works his way through the novel, it is clear that Tolstoy is comparing the three main relationships in the novel.

The first relationship is Anna and Karenin. They marry when Anna is young and Karenin is an established politician. Until Anna meets Vronsky, they are happy together. Karenin is serious and aloof, where Anna is outgoing and lively, but their marriage worked because they understood each other. When Anna returns from St. Petersburg, she begins to see all of Karenin's flaws and his kindness after she begs for forgiveness on her deathbed makes her hate him. But what Anna refuses to see is that even after she has betrayed him, Alexey Karenin loves her unconditionally. He tries to steer Anna away from her immoral behavior. He adores the child which is not his. He does everything in his power to make her happy, despite the fact that she has destroyed and hurt him. The scene which epitomizes Karenin's love for Anna is when they are attending a race in which Vronsky is riding. Vronsky's horse goes down and Anna is beside herself with grief. Karenin does everything in his power to aid his wife: "Alexey Alexandrovitch saw that she was weeping, and could not control her tears, nor even the sobs that were shaking her bosom. Alexey Alexandrovitch stood as to screen her, giving her time to recover herself." Then, in order to spare her any further embarrassment, he takes her home. At this point, Karenin knew of the affair deep down, but refused to acknowledge it because he had no confirmation; after the race, Anna tells him straightforwardly that she is Vronsky's mistress. Karenin never accused his wife of adultery in the midst of rumors, he only warned her of how things looked to outsiders. Even after Anna told him, he demanded that she sever connections with Vronsky, but was not determined to divorce her until after she took the affair too far. And even then, he still hoped to guide her back from immorality.

When Vronsky and Anna meet, Vronsky awakens something in Anna that Karenin did not give her: passion. They flirt relentlessly, both compelled by the mysteriousness of the other. Their affair is new and forbidden, and therefore irresistible. Despite Karenin's request that Anna does not see Vronsky anymore, they cannot keep apart. They are addicted to each other; one might say that they are in love. Certainly there is a deep attraction between these two characters, but the bulk of their affair is purely carnal. Even before they run away together, Anna begins to be jealous and spiteful for no reason and subjects Vronsky to violent mood swings. Thus begins a struggle for power within their relationship: Vronsky desperately needs to maintain his manly freedom to do as he pleases while Anna sits alone at home, unable to go into society, while Anna seeks to hurt Vronsky through quarreling with him, seeking vengeance and control over him. It is the epitome of an unhealthy relationship. While they continue to tell each other that they love each other, their actions do not express their sincerity. Anna becomes increasingly spiteful, and Vronsky becomes apathetic toward Anna's emotional needs. Neither of them truly want to stop quarreling, both selfishly demanding that the other person submit, and thus their relationship begins to deteriorate. While it is true that they both willingly gave up things for the other person -- Vronsky quits his career as a Cavalry officer and Anna forsakes her husband, son, and reputation -- their love degenerates into vengeful selfishness which causes their mutual demise.

Tolstoy displays the third relationship as the epitome of marriage, and that is the love between Levin and Kitty. After Levin proposes for the second time and Kitty accepts, they begin to plan their wedding. Levin grows tired of the wedding preparations, but consents to anything that pleases his wife. But Kitty gives back to Levin by asking to return directly to his home to begin their life together, instead of going on a honeymoon, as she knew he would prefer. There is a constant give and take for them. They argue, and then they make up. And the marriage also turns Levin into a different kind of man. He loves and cherishes his wife, accepts her family as his own, oftentimes having Kitty's parents and Dolly and her children to stay with them, and he handles much of Oblonsky and Dolly's financial affairs as their debt increases. But likewise, Kitty becomes a different woman. When Levin suffers from bouts of jealousy or irritableness, Kitty seeks to calm and reassure him. She encourages him to do what he enjoys. She even helps Levin's brother as he lies on his deathbed, trying to make him comfortable in his last days. Tolstoy based the character of Levin much off himself, and therefore Kitty was Tolstoy's idea of the perfect woman.

These three couples differ sharply. Karenin and Anna are married without passion. Vronsky and Anna have passion without marriage. And Levin and Kitty have marriage and passion -- the perfect romance. Except it's too perfect. I don't think that Tolstoy meant to portray Levin as too perfect, but he is. Certainly he is seen losing his temper or making a poor decision, in fact he struggles as much as the next man, but in the end he always does the right thing. Unfortunately married couples do not always make up as easily as Levin and Kitty do, act as they should toward the other's family, and have the patience of a saint with their spouse. While that is a good goal to strive for, it is unrealistic.

At the beginning of the novel, the reader hates Karenin. "How could you treat your wife with such coolness? Can't you see that she needs more from you?" But the more you look at Karenin's actions and realize that Anna allows her emotions to control her, Karenin actually tries to be a good husband. Sometimes he is aloof because he is wrapped up in work and sometimes he cannot put his love for Anna into words, but still loves her unconditionally. He dries her tears even when she cries over another man, he trusts her so much that refuses to believe the rumors until she tells him that she is Vronsky's mistress, and ultimately he allows her to go so that she may be happy. He is devoted, respectful, and kind until Anna betrays him, and he regains those qualities after she begs for his forgiveness. This is not to say that Karenin made no mistakes in their marriage, but he tried to do what was best for his wife, his child, and himself.

Anna is a difficult character too, in fact, she is one of the only literary characters that I truly disliked. She is an antihero which you both love and hate. Her charm and beauty enchants everyone she meets, and it is that mysterious and daring wildness that draws Vronsky to her in the first place. She loves her son dearly, and seeks to help those in need. She encourages Vronsky to improve living conditions for the peasants around his estate and try new farming techniques. She reads voraciously about anything that interests her, like architecture and literature. Then, in the midst of her brilliance and generousness, she says something wicked and spiteful toward someone that she claims to love for no other reason than to cause them pain. Her emotional imbalance is evident as she manipulates the situation to gain what she wants. As the book progresses and she grows increasingly bothered by her undecided marital state, she grows dependent on opium to sleep, and in the end it contributes to much of her paranoia. She is petulant and irresolute, and that causes pain to nearly everyone around her. And yet, very few people saw through her facade, not even her husband and her lover.

Despite my objections with the characters, Anna Karenina is a spectacular book. It is well-loved for a reason. Tolstoy is incredibly descriptive and imaginative (too much, occasionally, particularly concerning Levin's farming practices) and while the book may be fiction, he works a great deal of history, religion, and philosophy into the novel. He frequently references the "war with the Turks", and other issues faced in mid-19th century Imperial Russia. He discusses faith and religion in depth, particularly mysticism and Levin's "discovery" of faith at the end of the book. And furthermore, he discusses many of the philosophical issues of that period, particularly within the lower classes, and it is easy to see the rise of Communist principles, even within the upper class. These little details give the reader an even better feeling of life in Imperial Russia, and it is breathtakingly beautiful.

Reading Anna Karenina at the airport bar.

My main impetus for reading this novel was to watch the 2012 film adaptation of Anna Karenina. The film stars Keira Knightley as Anna, Jude Law as Karenin, Matthew MacFadyen as Oblonsky, and Aaron Johnson (best known for his role as Quicksilver in Marvel’s Avengers) as Vronsky. Just look up the cast and you will recognize a half dozen names. It was directed by Joe Wright, who also directed the 2005 Pride and Prejudice. Since that film adaptation was incredible but did not stick to the book that much, I was concerned that he would leave out many of the less important parts. Allow me to simply say this: this is the best two hour film adaptation ever. I'm not talking about best adaptation of Anna Karenina. I'm saying that outside of BBC miniseries, this is the best that anyone has ever kept to a classic novel.

Not only did they keep to the book, but they really grasped the point of this novel. All of the actors understood their characters. Keira Knightley, in particular, understood the inconstant yet enthralling nature of Anna -- vibrant one moment and vicious the next. They showed Karenin as a loving husband wishing he knew how his marriage fell apart and Vronsky as the passionate lover unable to reassure Anna as her jealousy spun out of control. Obviously there were some parts that they needed to cut from the book, particularly much of the time spent in the country and a few of the millions of characters Tolstoy includes in the novel. But I was shocked at just how many of the society ladies and Vronsky's friends they included, and even minor details which were described in passing in the novel. Even the dialogue was practically straight from the novel. The very few things that they added were necessary for a film in order to make it flow better. The costumes took a bit of liberty, particularly for Anna and one of the other society ladies, but they were still well done, nonetheless. And the soundtrack is perhaps one of the best soundtracks that I have ever heard (it was composed by the same composer who wrote the music for Pride and Prejudice, Atonement, and Jane Eyre.) They truly capture the feel of Imperial Russia which Tolstoy describes throughout the novel.

It was not a perfect adaptation though. The novel ends with Levin coming to some profound conclusions on religion, and they tried to include this, but they left out a few key scenes in the novel which make Levin question his beliefs. They included this in the film, and while it made for a positive ending in a tragic story, the topic was not discussed nearly enough. This elaboration on Levin’s thoughts and feelings felt out of place, in many ways, especially when they did not even mention what happens to Vronsky at the end of the novel. The only other complaint is that they exclude about 200 pages toward the end of the novel, and while they are not as crucial to the story, the last half hour or so lacked the flow seen in the beginning. Anna seems even rasher than she did in the book because they did not include the months of agony which she suffered through her jealousy; they make it seem like a short period of time. They rushed the ending, as many film adaptations do, and it was very unfortunate.

I highly suggest both the book and the movie. If 750 pages is daunting (and trust me, it is daunting) the movie is still worth watching. The story of Anna Karenina is tragic, and yet endearing in its own way. Tolstoy understands humanity in a unique way and paints a vivid picture of that terribly flawed yet still beautiful life. 

Pride and Prejudice and Ruined Movies: A Review

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Hollywood ruins every book they look at. The better the book, the worse the film adaptation will be. This is particularly true for period drama in particular, because the writers, producers, and costume designers don’t research the era enough to understand what is proper or fashionable. 

I read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies earlier this month to prepare for the film adaptation starring Lily James, Sam Riley, and, most importantly, Matt Smith. While I questioned the casting of a tall, thin man to play Mr. Collins when he is always described at short and plump, and raised an eyebrow over the numerous explosions in the trailer that did not appear in the book, I still looked forward to the film. But now that I have seen the film, I can say that I was genuinely impressed that Hollywood could ruin a zombie movie.

First, let’s talk about how fantastic the book was. Seth Grahame-Smith took a classic – potentially the most well-known piece of British literature outside of Shakespeare – and created another classic. Zombies are a fad right now. From movies, TV shows, and games to people who too seriously prepare for the zombie apocalypse, zombies are everywhere. Grahame-Smith created a pretty valid explanation to the creation of zombies, added a bit of humor, and turned Elizabeth Bennet into a bad-ass warrior. In fact, he created his own universe where Regency era prejudices still existed, but expanded it to include Oriental training and different priorities, such as staying alive.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies changed very little about the story which Jane Austen penned two hundred years ago. Instead he changed the universe in which the Bennet sisters lived. None of the events actually changed. Lizzy meets Darcy at the ball, Jane is heartbroken when Bingley closes up Netherfield and returns to London, Darcy proposes in Kent and Lizzy rejects him, they meet again in Derbyshire and Lizzy’s opinion of him begins to change, and Lydia elopes with Wickham and Darcy rectifies the situation. Now insert zombies to this mix. Lizzy meets Darcy and then the sisters slaughter the zombies that attacks the ball. Bingley returns to London to attend a conference on how to combat “unmentionables” (zombies) at the encouragement of Darcy when he believes that Jane has been infected. Charlotte Lucas accepts Mr. Collins because she has been infected and she wants to live the rest of her life comfortably. Mr. Darcy proposes and Lizzy rejects him by roundhouse kicking him into the fireplace mantle. Darcy tells Lizzy of Wickham’s ruthlessness, but Lizzy withholds the truth from her sisters. Lizzy meets Darcy again in Derbyshire and Darcy saves Lizzy when zombies attack their party while walking at Pemberley. Lydia elopes with Wickham, and Darcy forces Wickham to marry Lydia by beating him until he is a cripple and the Wickham’s leave for Ireland. Lady Catherine approaches Lizzy and they fight each other, but Lizzy spares Lady Catherine’s life.

What makes this tale even more enjoyable is the splendid integration of Oriental fighting style and culture with Regency England. Darcy and Lady Catherine look down on the Bennet family because they received their training in China, where Japan was the fashionable place to train. Lizzy constantly remembers her training, and that training guides many of her actions. When Darcy informs her of Wickham’s character, Lizzy punishes herself for being so blind to his true character. And, most interestingly, Pemberley is styled in a Japanese style. At first, I questioned the addition of ninjas and throwing stars, but after finishing the novel, I realized that the Oriental influences introduced a unique and appropriate perspective that no western culture could have added.

The story is the same, but with zombies and Oriental architecture. And frankly, it’s brilliant. Elizabeth is just as clever as she was, but now her sword is just as deadly as her words. Lady Catherine is protected by a contingent of ninjas, and Lizzy disembowels them. Darcy insults her, so she fights him. Lizzy has to make difficult choices, like killing her friends, because they are undead. And those decisions makes her into the strong woman that countless people have admired for centuries. All of Austen’s characters are just as Austen intended them, and they come to an end which they deserve, just like Austen sought to do. Jane is shy and Bingley is awkward. Lydia is wild and Mr. Wickham is wicked. Mr. Collins is clumsy and Lady Catherine is condescending. Mrs. Bennet is ridiculous and Mr. Bennet is aloof. Mr. Darcy is proud and Lizzy is prejudiced. Seth Grahame-Smith put swords and muskets in their hands, a different impetus for their actions, and tons of zombies to be annihilated.

Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith put a great deal of thought into these two novels, as I hope I made clear. Austen understood the world in which she lived, and Grahame-Smith understood Austen. Unfortunately, Hollywood did not understand Austen, Grahame-Smith, or the Regency Era. At all. They took a good book and decided that it wasn’t exciting enough. They had to Hollywood-ize it. Make it more glamorous and sexy, when really it’s not a glamorous or sexy novel. It’s a novel about ordinary people protecting themselves and falling in love because two people were equals; Hollywood put the zombie war on steroids and treated romance as a side-story. While it’s going to be extremely difficult to limit myself to just eight things that easily could have made this film adaptation better, here’s where the film failed.

Lizzy would not have done that. Ok, if you’re going to make a film adaptation, you first have to understand the characters, particularly the main character. Lizzy Bennet is a strong, witty woman who can take care of herself. But she also understands propriety. She never would have compromised her values for anything, even a zombie. Meeting Wickham alone in a creepy garden in the middle of the night would have mortified her propriety. Traveling unescorted also would have mortified her. Hollywood thought that they were covering their bases when Charlotte Lucas asked Lizzy to accompany her to Rosings Park with her, but really, either a male family member or a married woman needed to escort both of them. Lizzy certainly could have protected her friend, but their traveling alone would have reconfirmed their inferior birth and morals to Lady Catherine. Lizzy and Jane’s values is what sets them apart from their younger sisters. Hollywood places Lizzy on the same level as Lydia when Lizzy rides off alone with Mr. Wickham to St. Lazarus. The reason why females were considered “damaged goods” after an elopement is that their purity could have been tainted, hence no respectable man would want them anymore. Lizzy would have been suspected of the same taint by accompanying Wickham. Lizzy is no longer morally superior to her sisters, and therefore does not deserve Darcy’s good opinion.

You had ONE JOB. If you ask any Austen fan what their favorite scene in the book/film is, they will probably say the scene where Lizzy and Darcy dance at Netherfield. There’s just so much sexual tension that you can feel, but they continue to gently insult each other. Or they will say when Lizzy and Darcy meet at Pemberley, because Lizzy’s heart is softened to Darcy and Darcy is actually nice. Or when Lizzy discovers how generous Darcy truly is, which leads her to discover that she loves him too but she fears that she will never find true happiness because surely he will not renew his proposal again. But he does and everyone lives happily ever after. These are the things that pretty much anyone who has read Pride and Prejudice will say. But Hollywood said “Oh you like those parts? Let’s not put them in the movie then.” Well, obviously Lizzy and Darcy had to get together at the end, but it wasn’t half as romantic as it could have been. The Netherfield dance is iconic. Lizzy is disappointed because Wickham is not there, and she has to dance with Darcy! What a disappointment! But in the film, Wickham shows up then disappears later, and Darcy asks Lizzy to dance but they never actually show the dance. For an industry that tries to sex-up everything, they eliminate the sexiest scene of the book! The second major elimination, the Gardiner’s trip to Derbyshire, segues into my next point…

People change, but no need to show that. In the book, Darcy’s letter shows Lizzy where she had misjudged him. But even though her heart softened toward him, Darcy changed too. When they met at Pemberley, they could see that the other had changed. Without the mutual changes that occurred, they never would have seen each other in a way that allowed them to fall in love. By removing part of that progression, Hollywood made the romance less believable. In the film, Elizabeth smacks Darcy around after the proposal, and the next time they meet suddenly all of their differences are gone even though they have no idea that the other has changed. If Darcy did not realize that he was being irrational, Lizzy’s change of heart would not have mattered, and if Lizzy did not realize that she was being blind, Darcy’s change of heart would have been insignificant. Instead, Lizzy looks fickle, as if the letter alone made her fall in love with him, and Darcy seems as if he’s the same person he always was. By leaving out half of the romance, they made the love story unrealistic. They needed the time at Pemberley, or time in general other than half a conversation about Lydia eloping, to get to know each other without their previous prejudices in order to fall in love.

Good overcomes evil… and not because of a woman. When Darcy finally discovers what Wickham is really up to, they begin to fight and Wickham seems to be getting the upper hand until Lizzy rides in on her white steed and chops Wickham’s arm off. Since when does Darcy need a woman to save him? And to be fair, since when would Lizzy need Darcy to save her? Darcy and Lizzy are both warriors, the best of the best. But Darcy cannot overcome Wickham? This battle is the epitome of good vs. evil in this film. Darcy is self-sacrificing and Wickham is conniving. Darcy wants to save the human race and Wickham wants to destroy it. While Darcy still saves Lydia, his inability to defeat Wickham implies that he is unworthy of Lizzy. Now they are no longer equals who can defeat any foe who comes their way, but instead the inappropriately feminist portrayal of Lizzy as the savior places Darcy beneath her. The entire reason why Darcy is able to put aside his reservations about Lizzy is because they are equals. And when Lizzy rides in and saves the day, she says that Darcy is not worthy of her. Darcy has to defeat Wickham, or Wickham still wins.

But wait, who is the real bad guy here? There are two antagonists in the story: Wickham and Lady Catherine. Wickham is Darcy’s nemesis because he fails to put him in his place years before when Wickham seduces Georgiana. Darcy places his father’s wishes for Wickham’s future above his own desires to smite Wickham. Lady Catherine is Elizabeth’s nemesis because she dishonors and insults the Bennet family, which Lizzy cannot allow. Elizabeth has to defend her honor, hence demonstrating that she is indeed worthy of Mr. Darcy. Now in the film, Lizzy fights Lady Catherine’s body guard before fighting Lady Catherine herself, and prevails over both her foes. Then seconds later, after Lizzy has proven herself Lady Catherine’s superior, Lady Catherine agrees to take the younger Bennet sisters and Mrs. Bennet to Rosings? The only reason why Lady Catherine would do that is because she feels something for Lizzy, such as respect, when in fact she hates Lizzy because she is a threat. Why on earth did the Bennets need to go to Rosings anyway? They are some of the best-trained warriors in all of England and they run to safety instead of defending their home? Even selfish, immature Lydia had more honor than that. Lady Catherine becomes the good guy, and Wickham becomes the main antagonist. Wickham wants revenge on Darcy, but a plot twist from way out in left field reveals Wickham as the leader of the zombies! Since when does Wickham want more than money from Darcy? He is certainly a fortune-seeking womanizer, but a traitor who wants the human race to die? Unlikely. Wickham never sought power, he sought revenge and money; being the bringer of the apocalypse really isn’t his style.

Enough with the explosions already. Hollywood has to make everything more exciting. Because Darcy making Wickham a cripple and Lizzy kicking the snot out of Lady Catherine wasn’t good enough, they had to add an entire subplot that didn’t exist in the book. Darcy was the commander of the battle for London, in which the zombies continued to overtake the military until their only option was the blow up the final bridge to London and trap all the zombies inside. Apparently all the real military officers were turned into zombies and they had to turn to a civilian for leadership. Lizzy and Darcy make it back across the bridge just in time, leaving the audience sitting on the edge of their seat. This entire subplot was added simply to make it more appealing, because explosions are the only way to make an uninterested viewer more interested. I would have preferred to see Lady Catherine and Lizzy throwing punches and swinging samurai swords over a bridge blowing up.

Guys, this is really confusing. The biggest issue that I had with this movie is that the writing was crap. Half the dialogue made sense, and the other half was pointless. For example, when the Bennet sisters and Mr. Collins are walking to Meryton to see their Aunt Phillips, Lizzy stops to talk to Wickham and he tells her all about why Mr. Darcy cannot be trusted. Apart from the fact that Lizzy was WAY too familiar with a man that she’d met, literally, seconds before, Aunt Phillips calls out for Lizzy to hurry so that they can discuss their trip to the Lake District. Ignoring the fact that Mrs. Bennet’s brother, not sister, invited Lizzy to travel with them, the entire trip to the Lake District was removed from the film. Why was this even mentioned when it wasn’t happening in the film to begin with? Another prime example was when Darcy took extreme curiosity in Jane’s illness, suspecting that she was infected instead of having a simple cold. When Darcy is explaining to Lizzy why he separated Jane and Bingley, he fails to bring this up as a reason for his actions. This is Darcy’s main impetus in the book, and frankly it’s a much better explanation than he gives in the film. The movie script read like they were trying to keep certain things from the book, while completely ignoring something that directly related, and it made the plot infinitely more complicated. Oh, and another point: they never actually mentioned Mary and Kitty's names. They were just these two awkward sisters who were in half the movie but got completely ignored. Kinda rude, if you ask me.

Do you even know what the Regency Era was? Time for my obligatory that’s-not-historically-accurate section. Even though it’s a zombie movie, there are still certain things that easily could have been addressed. First, Lily James may look fantastic in dark blue, but unmarried ladies never wore dark colors. Light colors, particularly white, was a symbol of purity. Likewise, married women rarely wore white. Sorry, Mrs. Bennet. Second, aristocratic men wore primarily white cravats. While military men wore black cravats, Darcy was not a military man, even though they tried to make him into one. And if they really wanted to make him into an Army Colonel, he should have been in uniform on the battlefield. Third, unmarried ladies rarely rode astride. None of the women were shown riding side saddle. And they certainly never would have ridden double ESPECIALLY with a man. I could keep going, but I will refrain.

I am very particular when it comes to period drama, perhaps even too picky. The casting was fantastic and the sets were lovely, but this film could have been a great deal better if they could decide exactly what they wanted to do in the story and stick with it. Unfortunately the writers failed to make the story flow well, and I walked away doubting how Darcy and Lizzy had enough time to really fall in love each other. And even if you change part of the story to make it shorter, costumes and hairstyles do not depend on good writing, for goodness sake.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was a fantastic book. It was clever and well-written and amusing. The film was “entertaining”, as my husband called it, and if I hadn't read the book I probably would have rather enjoyed the movie. But don’t expect Hollywood to make a good period drama that follows a book, even when it’s a zombie movie. I’ll await the BBC’s adaptation if I want a period drama I can truly enjoy.

A Very Slow Start to the New Year

January 2016 has been one of the slowest months for me, ever. I blame the busyness of the fall months and my need to recharge for the first month of 2016. It's difficult for me to believe that a new year has started, and yet I'm supposed to get started on my goals for this new year? So it's the last day of January and I'm finally getting myself (mildly) organized for the new year. I might be a month late in my planning but better late than never. So here's what 2016 has in store for me here in Oklahoma.

I suppose I should recap on 2015 before I delve into 2016. My best friend and I (along with my mother, who didn't make as much progress, which can be blamed fully on their move) set out to read three different books from different regions in England, and we finished those books in December. I am waiting until I can acquire a copy of the BBC miniseries of Cranford. I haven't forgotten about it, it's just delayed.

Reading England 2015 was such a success for us that we've decided to do the same thing again, with a slight twist. We decided that we need to expand our horizons outside of *just* England a little, so we will be doing Reading Europe 2016. We have chosen three countries: Russia, England, and France. Our first journey will be to Russia, to read Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy. Next we will travel back to England to read another Dickens novel to fulfill my yearly Dickens' requirement. And finally we will end in France with an Alexandre Dumas novel. We haven't decided which Dickens and Dumas we will read yet, mainly because my books are scattered between two states, and three different places at present and I haven't had the opportunity to find the books I need.

Outside of reading, I have a few sewing projects I hope to do, including quilting more, curtains for the master bedroom, and a few skirts, if I can find the fabric for them. I might try to paint some of our new home if I can find someone to help me. I also hope to start gardening some this spring. My sweet husband made me raised beds in the fall, and I'm ready to fill them with some veggies. I also hope to plant some more flowers in the front flower beds a little closer to spring. We will see how this goal turns out; in the past I've had a brown thumb, mainly because of my forgetfulness. Otherwise I plan to bask in housewifery and try to keep up with my husband's schedule.

I am very excited for this year. I have a few trips and other small projects planned, and I might even get around to posting a few blog posts about my adventures. But I am mostly excited for reading outside of my comfort zone. It's something I haven't done since college and am eager to do again. What are you planning to read this year? I encourage everyone to read something, even if it's not a classic. And if you don't listen to me, at least listen to Jane Austen: "The person, be it a gentleman or a lady, who has not the pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid."

Writing, Research, and Completed Goals

I awoke this morning to a thick layer of frost on the ground, and without my contacts in, I almost thought it was snow. That was a very fitting sight for the first day of December. The last week of November was painful for Oklahoma as an ice storm ravaged the state for four days, leaving thousands without power and broken trees scattering the state. But as a new month begins, the sun is shining and the temperature is barely above freezing.

But before we move on to what December holds, we can't forget about November. It's always a busy and creative month for me. The laundry pile is knee high, the kitchen is a disaster, and the floors are horrendous. And while all of this is irritating my housewife tendency to keep everything (relatively) clean, I don't really care. Because I reached my goal. 52,700 words in twenty-six days. The novel total was 86,132 words, 234 pages. The most productive day was November 9th with 4587 words. Now I begin the task of proofreading TWO novels. That will probably take me longer than writing the story, because I get bored of proofreading within about thirty seconds. So if anyone wanted to read anything I've written within the next ten years, think again. Oh, and I came up with a working title. I'm not convinced it's the right or best one, but tentatively it's called The Countess and the Castle.

This is how I spent most of November. Quite cozy.

NaNoWriMo isn't just about writing; it's about discovery and growth. I learned a lot of things both about myself and about Regency England. In every novel I write, I try to expand my horizons and incorporate different aspects of 19th century society into the scenes. Of course, this requires a great deal of research. I've always loved doing research, but it can be very time consuming and frustrating when you have a deadline. Here's a few things that I learned: 

I wrote two Christmas scenes, something I'd never done before, so I had to research Christmas traditions such as what they ate and how they celebrated. Regency Era traditions were very different from how we celebrate today, in fact, they even differed from Victorian and Edwardian traditions! Christmas trees were uncommon, unless the person had connections with Germany or the Americas, but they did decorate with other greenery. The greenery would be put up on Christmas Eve and taken down once Epiphany ended. Leaving it up longer was considered bad luck. Furthermore, I ventured outside my comfort zone by specifying dates and events throughout the story. The novel takes place between 1814 and 1817. Napoleon returned from Elba early in 1815, and since one of my characters was a naval Captain, he potentially would have been in the line of fire had Napoleon not been defeated at Waterloo. Also, 1816 is known as the "year without a summer". Modern scholars attribute this phenomenon to the eruption of a volcano in Indonesia that affected the climate worldwide (New England experienced snowfall in June!) Because of this climate change, crops failed and winters were a great deal harsher than other years. I wrote a line that said "the crop yield was good this year" only to have to change it after I realized that nobody's crops would have excelled that year.

This is a fraction of what I learned, but it all feeds into the vat of knowledge I've accrued about life in Regency England. One day, I'll get through a chapter without having to look something up. I also found a bunch of links that will aid future research. Thank goodness for bookmarks! But what's more important than facts and figures is that I discovered that I can write 50,000 words in a month. I can finish something if I really put my mind to it. No matter what I think, or what anyone else thinks, I can finish what I started. I still don't know exactly how I did it, and frankly sometimes I think that I did my math wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. I suppose it all goes back to the old adage: how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

So December. There will be lots of proofreading, cleaning, and video gaming. I'm about a quarter of the way through Cranford, the last book in my list for Reading England 2015. I am looking forward to a great deal of baking, sewing, and decorating, after Advent is over, of course. Also, I should probably mention something about no longer placing my fictional characters above my husband's needs. He probably appreciates having my full attention again. So with the sun shining and essential oils in my diffuser, I delve back into the swing of things after a month's sabbatical. And I'm not even complaining.