In which it is Monday

It is gray and damp and cool here and I can pretend that autumn is on its way. I am SO over summer. This weekend I did some hand-sewing and stared longingly at my sweaters. Today I am curling up with a pot of tea and some ghost stories--it's work, I promise.

Anyway, last week I made a flippant remark about blogging on Mondays about the seven deadly sins, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea. Last week was envy. Today, let's muse about wrath, shall we?

Recently, I've become convinced that the root of anger is almost always fear. As soon as I say this, people argue with me. "No, I'm not afraid. I'm outraged!" they tell me stoutly. Yes, I think but don't say. But what if you dug a little deeper?

Rage is usually the result of feeling powerless, disrespected, undervalued. And why does this make us angry? Because we're afraid of BEING powerless, disrespected, and undervalued. It isn't easy to excavate to the depths of anger for its source. For starters, we're seldom capable of clear, rational thought when we're incandescent with rage. But if we revisit the situation later, when our heads are cool and our vision is clear, if we ask hard questions and are willing to hear hard answers, it's astonishing how much of our adult anger is the result of some fear lurking in the dark under the bed.

So we stamp our feet and turn puce in the face, covering our wrath with bluster and bravado and shielding our tender underbellies with spikes. It makes us feel stronger and more in control, but it seems to me this is an illusion. I am LEAST in control when I am angry. But if I can stop, if I can pause for a breath and try to identify what not what's making me mad, but what's making me AFRAID, instantly the situation is reframed. Suddenly, it's not about me being aggressive; it's about me being vulnerable. And vulnerability is easy to understand and to sympathize with. Instead of chastising myself for temper, I am able to see the circumstances and my own state of mind for what they really are, not what my anger is distorting them to be. And without rage getting in my way, I can resolve matters more easily, more swiftly.

What's fascinating to me is how resistant people can be to even the possibility that they are harboring deeply-buried fear. (Fascinating because the people who protest the loudest are the ones who seem MOST fearful.) I recently had a conversation with a woman who was enraged at her employee's shortcoming. We were discussing my conviction that fear was at the root of her reaction, and she firmly insisted it was plain, old-fashioned anger. But I wonder. The woman is dynamic and takes great pride in her job. Her employee's gaffe was going to possibly reflect badly upon my friend. The higher-ups in her ad company were sure to notice. I didn't press the matter, but the more we spoke, the clearer it became that she was worried that her employee's blunder would be laid at her door and not forgotten--an extremely logical fear, I thought, but one my friend was completely unwilling to acknowledge was even a possibility. And I wondered, if she had been at least open to looking at fear, would she have been able to release the situation more quickly instead of fretting over it as long as she did? (As a side note, I find that the idea I have the most violent knee-jerk reaction against is invariably the one I need to look at more closely. When things touch a nerve, our instinctive reaction is to jump back...)

In which I'm feeling whimmy

No, not a word, but if it WERE a word, it would mean "being in a whimsical mood". And because of that, I am sharing the most whimsical blog I follow, Bakerella. Now, do not blame me for the fact that as soon as you click on that link, you will GRIEVE that you do not have Pie Pops and Cowgirl Cookies sitting on a cooling rack somewhere, waiting to be devoured. (Seriously. Cowgirl Cookies. With PINK M-&-M's. How cute is that?) Because I don't keep white flour or white sugar in the house, I haven't as yet actually made anything I've found on Bakerella, but then again, I'm a big fan of vicarious living. (I watch shows about Himalayan mountain trekking, and I'm REALLY not doing that either.) Anyway, go and delight yourself with all the adorable, thoughtful, charming, whimmy things at Bakerella. But don't say I didn't warn you...

In which reader Sally asks about pacing

Here's an e-mail I received from Sally--the fabulous Sally from Already Pretty, a blog I flog frequently--about pacing in fiction: I'm curious about resting places in writing. I'm a very anxious person, and although I adore tension and action and suspense, I am always SO HAPPY when a story hits that spot where the characters aren't in any immediate danger. For a short time, everyone is just taking a break, the villain or threat is temporarily at bay, and the reader is given a chance to breathe. I'm working my way through SITS right now - at the pace of an elderly snail, thanks to my overbooked
life - and just got to a scene where Julia is having tea with Hortense after the first big drama has gone down. And, once again, found myself so pleased that I was given a chance to relax.

I'm curious about how a fiction writer chooses to place those resting
spots. I have only ever read one book that felt like the ENTIRE story
was at rest - Barbara Kingsolver's "Prodigal Summer." I loved it to
pieces, but was also amazed that a remotely interesting story could be
spun from rest and rest alone. I mean, there was plot and action, but
it was so mild that I never felt myself truly tense. Everything else
I've ever read sprinkles quiet moments sparingly amongst the action.
However, I imagine it would become overly predictable if those rests
ALWAYS happened directly after a big spike in action ... How do you
know when it's time to give everyone a breather?

An excellent question. I'm seldom asked about pacing, and I confess, my first reaction was, "Good grief, how do I know?!? It just happens!" (Y'all know by now that I am fairly superstitious about some things and analyzing my writing too closely is one of them.) But Sally deserves a better answer than that, so I'll give it a shot.

Writing is, to be mildly poetic, a form of alchemy. Writers transform base metal into gold by taking various mundane ingredients and tossing them into the crucible and applying heat. We can be secretive and possessive of our methods at times, and I can promise you that when I am it is simply because I haven't yet peeked behind that particular curtain. When I'm writing, I write from point to point. I know that when I start a book, I have to set the stage and introduce characters. From there I can introduce complications, and when those complications come, they require a breath in between so the reader can take stock of what I have done so far. There have to be levels, otherwise the entire book reads the same--usually a very dull thing.

When I think of the pacing of a novel I'm working on, I envision a sea. The reader is carried along on a little coracle, completely dependent upon the motion of that sea. If I raise the waves too high, too quickly, the craft capsizes, spilling the reader out and leaving them confused and bewildered. If I becalm the sea, the little boat sits too still for too long, exposing the reader to boredom and wandering fancies. But if I pitch it just right, each wave building a little higher, with perhaps a shorter lull between, the reader rides along happily, cresting the top of each wave and catching their breath in between. (And yes, I realize a coracle is not seaworthy, but it's my metaphor, so I get to make the rules.) And, to be completely prosaic here, lots of my pacing decisions are made for me simply because a certain piece of information must be discovered at a specific point or because two characters have to be brought together or torn apart. (My editor is also keenly aware of how many times I let them sit down to tea, so it's an issue I'm becoming more aware of myself with each book.)

Some writers are masters of pacing. I've mentioned several times that Mary Stewart was the finest I've ever seen at giving a tense, taut scene that lasts a hundred pages in which NOTHING HAPPENS. It's due entirely to the atmosphere of ramped-up tension she creates. I'm sure there are loads of writers who are gifted at dragging the reader along by the throat through three hundred pages of screaming tension, but these are not people I read, so I'm going to leave it there. The beauty is that whatever sort of tension you like to create, there is a reader who will be thrilled by it.

I also think that pacing--far more than plot or characters--determines the mood of a book. Summer is when I want something slower and more languid, long rivers of sentences that take their time. Winter, I might want something more complex and blood-stirring, with short, staccato constructions and heightened peril. What about you? Is pacing something you are aware of as a reader? Or are you simply, like many of us, just along for the ride?

In which we deal with miscellaneous odds and ends

First, reader Claire was kind enough to send me this picture she snapped of my books on the shelf last fall in Singapore. SINGAPORE, people--I'm global! I hadn't any idea my books were selling in Singapore, so I was entirely pleased, believe me.

Second, reader Diane who e-mailed me in July--I've tried to reply, but it keeps bouncing back.

Third, if you're in the mood for some rich, juicy new nail colors, RUN to your closest OPI connection and stock up on the Espana line! I have been searching for a dark, DARK green for ages and "Here Today...Aragon Tomorrow" is perfect. (I have a theory that if you're over thirty and want to wear more exotic colors like purple, blue, or green, a very dark incarnation is the best. Sophisticated as opposed to trendy.) I happened to have a $5 coupon for Ulta and snagged two bottles for $11 or so and got a three-pack of tiny bottles of luscious bright pinks as a freebie for my daughter. Why, WHY have I never been to Ulta before? So much delicious stuff and I had about ten minutes in there...alas.

In which it's reader question time

Today we're featuring the questions of Anonymous and teabird. Teabird mentioned that she (he?) is guilty of reading blogs without commenting and wants to know if I do the same. Why, yes, yes I do. I read probably fifty blogs on a regular basis and comment on maybe three of those, notably--Already Pretty, My Marrakesh, and Living a Beautiful Life.

Which brings me to a marginally related question: how many of y'all use blog readers? Do you love them? Which ones do you love? I'm working on making better use of my technology--this week saw me wrestling twitterfeed into submission and at least thinking about seesmic vs. tweetdeck.

Anonymous said: One of my favorites is Grim, the raven. Any chance he might be featured in a story? Grim will be back for Julia Grey #5. Julia is traveling at the start of book #4 and sea voyages were believed to be risky for birds, so she has left him safely at home in Aquinas' capable care.

We're down to the last four reader questions--can you believe it? They cover everything from Sherlock Holmes to Wuthering Heights to pacing and sources, so be sure to check in. Also, the first peek at The Dead Travel Fast will come in September's newsletter when we release the back cover copy for a tantalizing taste of the first book outside the Julia Grey series. Be sure to sign up for the newsletter on the FAQ page of the website if you haven't already done so!

In which I am testing twitterfeed

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...and Jeana, your reader question was about my pedicure. I am currently wearing Essie's Wicked.

In which reader Heather asks about my first book

As an aspiring writer, reader Heather was curious about my first experience with novel-writing. She wrote: when you started your first novel, how did it feel? Did it come easily? I am finding it scary and difficult, and I can only hope it gets better.

I wrote my first novel--not Silent in the Grave--when I was 23. I had just finished my first year of teaching and was feeling bored and restless when the summer came around. I had re-read Jane Eyre and decided to write something in a similar vein--mysterious, historical, with a nod to the Gothic. (I should point out that this was not just a whim. I had always planned that I would write novels.) Anyway, I sat down with a germ of an idea--no plot, no outline, no character studies--and wrote. I wrote every day for six or seven hours straight, something I've never managed to do since. My fingers would be stiffened into claws by the end of the day and my back would ache so badly I had to lie down on the floor just to straighten it out. But the experience of writing was brilliant. I loved it passionately. It was the first time I felt I really had the opportunity to let my imagination off the leash and see where it roamed. (I also learned the importance of backing up my work when I lost an entire afternoon's writing to a power surge.)

At the end of six weeks, I had a book. I didn't know what to do with it, of course, but I had a book. So I packaged it up and sent it off to a publisher who declined to purchase it, but who wrote a letter that began, "I think your writing is absolutely wonderful." That was the first time I realized I could fashion a career for myself at writing. Of course, it was almost sixteen years before I actually saw a book of mine in print, but the experience of writing that first book was absolutely magic.

Heather, since you remarked that you're finding it difficult, I'm going to offer a completely unsolicited observation: it is possible that you are allowing your internal editor too much of a voice at this point. Do what you must to shut her up. The first book--and most especially the first DRAFT of the first book--is just for writing. It's for making mistakes and miscues, it's messy. But the most important thing is to get something on paper. You can push and pull and lop and crop and make whatever you like of it once it's THERE, but you must have something to work with. It's like dressmaking. You have a length of gorgeous fabric, but it's nothing until it's cut and draped and pinned and sewn. But you will never have anything to cut and drape and pin and sew if you don't get the fabric first. Reader Megan, I hope that answers your question about internal editors as well. You have to simply ignore and push through! If you want a follow-up to this, just leave a comment and I'm happy to elaborate. Good luck to both of you!

In which it is Monday

which usually means re-posts from the original Blog A Go-Go, but today I thought I'd share a link I found yesterday to an extraordinary blog entry at The Word Cellar. It is the webby home of Jennifer McGuiggan, freelance editor and writer, and the topic is envy as inspiration. (And I think I have just this minute decided to make Mondays "Seven Deadly Sins Day" and blog about lust, envy, pride, etc. for the next seven weeks. Wouldn't THAT be fun?) Anyway, envy is one of those prickly things we don't like to talk about. It's ugly and misshapen and we shove it to the back of the closet under clothes that no longer fit us and toys we have broken. In this entry, Jennifer drags it into the light and dusts it off and puts it to work--a genius idea and a very good reminder that someone else's success doesn't mean there's less for YOU.

In which you might not want to come over

if I ever invite you for a mushroom omelet. We've had a fair bit of rain the past few weeks and the mushrooms are sprouting up like...well, like mushrooms. Because none of us are amateur mycologists, we're assuming they're all poisonous to the pups and yanking them out whenever we see them. (With proper precautions, of course. Gloves always, and the mushrooms are put into plastic bags so the spores won't escape and make baby mushrooms.) This is the largest we've found so far. I have included the glove for scale. Alarming, isn't it? I suspect it's a member of the genus Boletus, but since some boletes are poisonous, I'm certainly not slicing it up for dinner.

In which Vicki talks Gothics

Reader Vicki asked if I have ever considered writing a Gothic novel. Ah, funny you should ask! The first two books I wrote were straight Gothic novels. It is a genre I LOVE, although I think it's a genre that's very easy to do badly. I grew up reading Victoria Holt, and eventually added Elizabeth Peters/Barbara Michaels, M.M. Kaye, and Mary Stewart to the mix. I do think there's a demand for them still--and loads of very commercial books have Gothic elements in them even if they don't fall completely in the genre. To me, The Dead Travel Fast is a pure Gothic. It's historical, with a heroine who leaves her comfortable and familiar surroundings for a more exotic and mysterious locale. There is peril and suspense and an ongoing mystery about whether the events that unfold are supernatural or simply the work of a malicious character. (There's even a scene in a crypt...) Much of my writing is an homage to books I've read and loved, and TDTF is no exception. It will be out in March 2010, so mark your calendars!

In which we talk locales

Both mine and those of the series. In reader questions, Suzanne wanted to know about Virginia winters and Kim wanted to know if the series would go back to England or continue to be set abroad.

The Tidewater area of Virginia has wonderful winters! It's cold enough that I've had to amass a collection of boots and scarves and various bits of woolly goodness--things which would have gone entirely to waste in south Texas. It snows a few times a year, but only a few inches which still manages to shut the town down, so if you see snow in the forecast and you live in this area, you immediately head to the store to stock up. People don't go to work, kids don't go to school. Everybody stays home to make snow angels and drink hot chocolate. It all melts off in a day or so and life as normal resumes. I, for one, strongly support the enforced relaxation.

As far as the series goes, I want to alternate between English books and books abroad. After the India book will come one set in London and Sussex, and after that I want to go to the Continent. It keeps things fresh and interesting for me and for the readers, I think.

In which the readers want the shoes

One of the reader questions--I'm wanting to say from Ranger--was about the shoes I wore to RWA. I always travel carry-on, so I have to plan VERY carefully to make sure I'm getting the most out of everything I take. This meant the same evening shoes for three nights in a row, and the pewter snakeskin sandals were just the ticket. (They also saved my bacon when I had to present the RITA award because my evening gown was just the tiniest smidge too long and the sandals have a platform sole which lifted me up just enough. The strap across the top of the foot also makes them fairly easy to walk in without falling out of them--a genuine hazard with strappy evening shoes.) The other pair were purely frivolous, bought to go with a peacock blue silk sheath. I cannot wear them with anything else I own, and they are not remotely comfortable. And yet, I love them simply because they are the MOST perfect shoe with that particular dress.

And to answer reader Jennifer's question about manicures--practice! I've been doing my own nails since I was ten. I don't think I even had a professional manicure until my late twenties, and would still rather do them myself. (I get very tired of having to insist on THIN coats of polish instead of letting the manicurist glop it on and have it stay tacky for hours.) I will have them done professionally before an event because the polish lasts longer if you wrap the topcoat, something I've never mastered! (If you're going to do it yourself, make sure you have the same tools the professional does--orange sticks, cuticle trimmer for hangnails, buffer, and good polishes. I'm a big fan of OPI.)

In which we are back to reader questions

First off, many thanks for your kindnesses. Lots of you left comments here, on Facebook or Twitter, or e-mailed, and it is much appreciated. Other writers have commented that I have the very best readers--actually she used the word "fans", but I never do--and I agreed with her. I DO.

Now, back to reader questions! Reader Lisa asked a two-parter and I'm answering the second. She queried if I am writing what I want to write or if I am writing to be published. Luckily for me, the answer is both. My philosophy is that the best story you can write is one you want to read. And that's why, after several years spent collecting rejection letters, my very brilliant agent told me to stop writing and just read for a year. I did--and I took it one step further and only read things I enjoyed. I read classic mysteries from the Golden Age, the Brontes and Jane Austen. I read without limiting myself. My only criterion was that I had to like what I was reading. I went from Dorothy Parker to Daphne du Maurier. And when I was finished, I sat down and listed the qualities the books had in common. When I looked over the list, I knew what I needed to write: a historical English mystery with a sprightly heroine and a dark, dishy hero. I wanted a touch of humour and very little social or political commentary. I wanted it twisty and very lightly gruesome, but over all, I wanted it enjoyable, and as I started writing, I realized I wanted to make it a series.

Luckily for me, my publisher was looking for the same thing--a rather important point that perhaps doesn't get enough emphasis is that getting published is not just about talent and discipline. It is often very simply a matter of timing. I know my own publisher would not have taken me on a year earlier or a year later. They got SITG right when they were looking for it.

Ultimately, you cannot write what you THINK people want to publish. The best you can do is to write authentically and hope the planets will align and you will find the publisher who needs you.

In which I am not in a bloggy place

My apologies. I know I'm supposed to be answering reader questions today, but this has been a difficult weekend and I'm still trying to get things sorted out. My parents are leaving to attend my aunt's funeral in Iowa, and it's all been quite sudden. So, please bear with me, dear readers, and I promise I will post new content tomorrow.

In which we are late

I apologize for today's post being late. We are having an uncharacteristically lowly day here, and so I am posting a link to a very lovely, very melancholy song by Jessica Molanskey. It's called "Sail Away", and if you have a minute, give it a listen.

In which it is a happy day!

Yesterday my editor approved my formal proposal for Julia Grey #4 which means I can start writing!! Several of you have asked about the process of publishing, and the proposal is an exciting, nerve-flaying time. My proposals run about five pages--just a brief synopsis of the high points of the story including important characters and events complete with an overview of the subplots and the ending. Writing them is almost as painful as writing my own bios--NOTHING is worse than writing a bio. The trouble with synopsis writing is that it happens when I'm not quite ready to do it. It's the catalyst that forces me to structure the ideas that have been floating around a trifle formlessly. It's the first chance I have to see if the plot is going to hang together properly--a scary thing, to be sure. And since I write them very seldom, I always have to remind myself how to do it. (I've printed out the direction on writing a synopsis from the eHarlequin website. It's actually the best article I've read on the subject.)

Anyway, once the proposal goes in, I always think my editor is going to call and we'll have a thirty-second conversation about how fabulous it is and she'll approve it without discussion. Which is of course precisely what NEVER happens, and I'm not sure why I never remember that. What happens is that she calls me and we talk for approximately two hours, sometime spread over multiple conversations. She asks the HARD questions, and I'm not sure how she does it exactly, but if there's a section of the plot that I glossed over--with the thought that I'd figure it out later--she SMELLS it. That's invariably the question she asks and I have to know the answer.

And after a few hours of discussion and nail-nibbling, I have the remains of my proposal, one that is always basically the same, but can include radical changes to plot or characters. In this case, a few points my editor raised during our Tuesday discussion gave rise to me making decisions that will affect the series for three books to come--GOOD decisions, too. Developments that my editor and I are both excited about. I should point out that she always tells me I shouldn't change anything I don't WANT to change; I always explain that if I felt strongly about it I would dig my heels in and would never change something just to do it. But invariably she will drop an idea into the discussion or ask a question that prompts some extremely valuable thinking on my part and makes the book infinitely better. (This is why the gift of a good editor is a wonderful thing.)

The only change I was not entirely thrilled with was the fact that I lost the title I liked. She liked it too, but she explained that the book I've proposed is too exotic and interesting for the title and honestly, HOW can you argue with that? You can't say, "No, really, my book is dull and lifeless and the title is perfect." So, it's back to the drawing board on that point, but the rest of it makes me so happy, I don't even really mind.

(And if you're really interested in the publishing process, I should probably mention that this is one of the steps where money is paid out. Since money is usually only paid twice a year for royalties, the signing of contracts and the acceptances of proposals and manuscripts are VERY good days.)

Back to reader questions tomorrow!

In which reader Amanda asks about revenge

When I opened up the blog to reader questions, Amanda posed the following: I was reading an interview you gave a while back where you mentioned a manuscript that had been rejected and was sitting in a box somewhere. Do you think that now you're an award-winning author it has the potential to see the light of day and be published? Revenge is best served with scones, ya know.

Oh, not one, my dear. There are notes and/or completed manuscripts for at least seven books languishing in the attic. (I am vigilant about keeping everything related to the writing of every book, published or not.) Those books represent my education as a writer. I started when I was 23 with a Gothic, and that's the only book that might possibly see the light of day, albeit in a vastly altered state. I still quite like the premise of that book, but that seed of an idea is all I would take from it. The others are mine and mine alone and my daughter is under orders to destroy them when I die. (Doesn't that sound terribly "Falcon Crest"? We had our wills re-written last year and it was quite entertaining to listen to the attorney reading out clauses relating to my "literary estate".) Anyway, those books were an important--HUGELY important--part of my development as a writer, but they are not good enough to be published without extensive re-working, and I'm not interested in going backwards.

The one exception to that is a book that was never shopped. When I was waiting to find out if SITG was going to be published, I started the sequel. I got 50 or so pages into SITS before I lost heart and put it aside. I simply didn't want to carry on with the characters I loved if the first book wasn't going to be published. We had just moved to Virginia and were living in a townhouse we called--without irony, mind you--The Tenement. I was depressed about my professional prospects and all of my historical research was packed away. I didn't have the heart to keep digging into the Victorian era. I wanted something easy and accessible. So I sat down and wrote a contemporary novel saturated with magical realism. It's about a witch, and I dearly love parts of that book. Other parts need to be gutted, but I think it would be a delicious project. So I'm holding that one in reserve. Aside from my immediate family, only my agent has seen it, and she's convinced it's commercial enough to sell with the right tweaking, so we'll see.

In which we're talking Victoriana

Reader melscott wanted to know what I love about the Victorian era. Here's a response I gave to an interview with Sarah Johnson of the fabulous Reading the Past blog regarding Silent in the Grave:

Oddly enough, the book was initially conceived as a Regency piece. I wrote the first fifty pages or so with an 1816 setting before I decided it needed to be changed. The Regency was a frothy and sparkling time and dictated a different voice for Julia. Moving the action sixty or seventy years further into the nineteenth century changed that voice entirely. It brought in something darker and edgier, and I think the repression and shadowed sexuality of the Victorians is much more in keeping with the story than the vivacity and lightness of Regency manners. It also changed the domestic technology, so that necessitated a fresh batch of research. I gnashed my teeth for awhile over that, but ultimately it served the book much better to change the historical setting.

I think it's important to note as well that the Victorian London in my books is not the London of Dickens or Sherlock Holmes. Every author recreates an era with a particular slant, and mine is largely domestic. The great events of the late nineteenth century will occasionally touch upon the lives of my characters, but lightly. With a few possible exceptions, they are much more concerned with their own families and the minutiae of day-to-day life. They are privileged, and with that privilege comes a removal from the worst effects of poverty and disease. Aunt Hermia may operate a refuge for reformed prostitutes in Whitechapel, but at the end of the day, she retires in perfect comfort and luxury to her brother's exclusive townhouse. (And there will never be a scene with an earnest Brisbane chasing Jack the Ripper through Seven Dials.)

I love the era for all its contradictions; it was a period with a foot in the past and a foot in the future--an unsettling and vastly interesting time. Technology changed more in the years of Victoria's reign than in any other period in history. At her ascension to the throne, candles were the norm and the railway was just beginning to be seen as something more than a noisy novelty. By her death, telephones and motorcars and electric lights were coming into vogue, and the world had gotten a great deal smaller--or larger, depending upon your perspective. There is probably not a richer period of history to mine for details for a novel, and it's endlessly interesting.

How about you? What's your favorite period setting? Or are you a fan of all things contemporary?

In which we're talking reader questions

Celia commented that she re-reads Little Women every year and asked if there was a book I re-read regularly. Absolutely! The series I mentioned yesterday are all worth re-reading. For my own tranquility, I often go back to Sarah Ban Breathnach or Alexandra Stoddard. (If you haven't read Alexandra Stoddard, she's been one of my gurus for many years. I think I first read Living a Beautiful Life when I was in college, and it was one of those books that absolutely changed my life.) I also return to my favorite classics--the Brontes and Jane Austen--because I find that every time I read them, they are familiar, but so beautifully-written that they feel like new books.

I also read old favorites seasonally. Summer means Cathleen Schine's The Love Letter. Christmas finds me pulling out any novel that has a Christmas scene. I put them in a stack to dip into throughout December. (This includes cookbooks with fabulous holiday chapters. You cannot imagine how happy I was when Nigella came out with an entire Christmas book!)

And when I want comfort, I pull out my favorite Agatha Christies. When you need cossetting, a pot of tea and an English mystery are JUST the thing.

In which I am back to reader questions

On the fly! Things are at sixes and sevens at Maison Raybourn this morning. My darling husband threw out his back Sunday and we are in a haze of ibuprofen, stretching, and ice bags--really frozen corn from Trader Joe's. Anyway, several readers asked for suggestions on what to read, so I'm dashing off some ideas, divided by mood.

*If you're craving something historical and mysterious, try Kate Ross' Regency series. There are only four books in the series, but it was beautifully written and memorable.

*If you're in the mood for something English and erudite, Sarah Caudwell's Hilary Tamar series may be just the ticket. Witty and fun.

*If you're feeling Gothic and have read all of Victoria Holt and Mary Stewart, give M.M. Kaye a try. She's best known for her memoirs and The Far Pavilions, but her mid-century Gothics are quite enjoyable.

*If you're a fan of Nancy Mitford, Dodie Smith, or Stella Gibbons, hunt down the Provincial Lady series by E.M. Delafield--perfect for fans of Miss Pettigrew Lives For a Day.

*If you don't have much time, get your hands on a copy of Henry James' The Turn of the Screw. Short read, but spooky and ambiguous enough you will think about it for days afterward.

*If you want something readable but thick to keep you busy for quite awhile, you cannot beat Margaret George's The Autobiography of Henry VIII. Divine.

In which I am not doing reader questions again

I KNOW. But I'll get back to them tomorrow, I promise. But I am DYING to share a link with you that was sent to me by a reader from Holland named Doris. I should preface this by saying that I am seriously awed by my readers on a daily basis. I get e-mails and handwritten notes sharing your enthusiasm and your love for my characters, and you have no idea what that means to me. (Remember, I spent fourteen years waiting for this!) To know that you close a book of mine and walk away and the characters are still with you is a tremendous thrill for me. And when someone uses that as an inspiration to create a visual homage--like the delightful Miss Nightingale of yesterday's post--I am beyond delighted. So, I am very VERY happy to present Doris' rendition of the enigmatic and ever-so-elegant Nicholas Brisbane. He is utterly DIVINE! When you are finished with your swoon--mine took quite a while to revive from--do check out this further link to Doris' process on creating the image. The next to last picture features a close-up of the crescent-moon scar on his cheek and quite gave me chills! Tremendous thanks for a lovely job, Doris!

In which we're not doing reader questions today

Bear with me. I am taking a brief hiatus from answering reader questions to share a blog link with you that is just TOO fabulous. Beyond Pale is the interwebs home of the delightful Miss Nightingale from Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent. (I know. It sounds so delicious, I must have made it up, but I promise you I didn't.) Miss Nightingale is a perfumer--an excessively glamorous occupation, in my opinion, and her sensibility is that of delicacy, decadence, and a whiff of decay--rather like a gorgeous consumptive. Think Camille and Keats. She amuses herself by compiling etsy collections built around themes--do not miss the luscious one devoted to Marie Antoinette--and she has very graciously created one based upon Lady Julia Grey! The link above will take you to her blog entry which includes some very kind reviews of my books as well as the etsy collection. A wonderfully frivolous diversion for a Thursday, no? (As an added bonus, do NOT miss her blogroll. I clicked on ONE link and spent half an hour happily wandering around the internet...)

In which we're talking reader questions

Reader Rachel de-lurked from Australia to post this a few days ago: I'm about half-way through writing my own MS (Victorian suspense) - a first effort that could well end up as nothing but a doorstop, but I'm wondering ... as someone who obviously has a life beyond writing, what's your secret to making it all work? I've three kids; my youngest just last week started school, and I expected to have scads of time on my hands to get stuck into the writing ... but it's not happening. Any tips would be much appreciated!

The secret to making it all work is knowing that you CAN have it all--just not necessarily at the same time. I know loads of fabulous women who are perched on the verge of a nervous breakdown because they try very hard to be everything to everyone. This is laudable, but also a recipe for catastrophe. I tend to be very realistic about my expectations. When I was a senior in high school, I had a raging case of mononucleosis--I was quarantined from school for almost a month and the only reason my doctor didn't hospitalize me was because my mother didn't work and could take care of me 'round the clock. When I got better, I didn't get FULLY better. My stamina was practically non-existent, and it stayed that way for many years. What I learned--what I HAD to learn--was how to take care of myself, when to rest, when to say no, when to let go of what I could not or did not want to do. I turned down any project I wasn't enthusiastic about and I refused to worry about my grades in college, figuring that so long as I got a degree, no one would care what my GPA had been. (I was absolutely right about that one, too.)

When I started writing and later, when I became a mother, that lesson was even more invaluable. I figured out what really mattered to me, gave those areas of my life my best, and slacked on the rest. I still do. I have a tiny list of things that are very important to me that get 100% of my care and attention and the rest of it I delegate, ignore, or refuse. I try to do it politely, but I am RUTHLESS about protecting my family time, my writing time, and my me time. (Solitary me time for puttering or daydreaming or brainstorming is essential for me, I've found.) I guard those areas ferociously, and so far it's working out just fine. I try very hard to achieve a sort of balance between what I do for me and what I do for others, what is work and what is home, what is solitary and what is social.

The writer Rumer Godden describes in her memoirs the East Indian proverb that a person is like a house with four rooms--physical, spiritual, mental, and emotional. Each room must be visited each day, if only to air it out, to be complete. (I may have mentioned that here on the blog before, but if I have I'm not apologizing--it bears repeating. A LOT.) I'm working on visiting my rooms every day because whatever you neglect is where trouble starts, I've found.

One further thing, Rachel. I noticed you said you expected to have scads of time to get stuck into your writing. I suspect you do, but you're just not claiming it. My writing comes first thing in the morning, as soon as everyone has left the house--before cleaning, before laundry, before errands, before ANYTHING. I do it when my energy is highest and distractions are at a minimum, and then it's DONE for the day. I don't answer the phone or the door or check my e-mail when I'm working. (I follow a few authors on twitter who tweet continuously while they're working and it drives me mad to think about it. HOW can they keep stopping to connect to the 21st century?! I am completely sunk into the 19th when I'm working.) My work doesn't "happen". I make it happen. It's a subtle difference, but an important one, I think. Good luck!

In which I feel like a first-grader at Show-and-Tell

Ever since I first started talking about the inspiration boards I make for my books, I've had people who were curious enough to ask to see them. And I've always made excuses and scurried away because the collages are solely for me--each is a creative aide-memoire and was never intended for public consumption. They are private and personal, and putting them on display rather feels like letting you peek inside my lingerie armoire. On the other hand, it just seems rude to keep mentioning them and never show them, and the request has cropped up again, so I'm posting photos of details of the three boards I've made. The first is a detail of the board for Silent in the Sanctuary. The following is of the Silent on the Moor board, and the last is from the board I created for The Dead Travel Fast. That board was the most difficult to photograph because I still have it under glass, hanging opposite my desk. (It is very nearly time to make the collage for Julia Grey #4 and replace the TDTF board.) Anyway, the glass happened to catch the reflection of the tiny chandelier that hangs over my desk in the last photo. A little eerie-looking, which is absolutely perfect for that particular book.

In which we have reader questions

First of all, a HUGE bouquet of thank-yous to everyone who left a comment or question on Friday. I wrote Saturday's blog entry on Friday morning when there was a fraction of the total that would end up being posted, and I was so delighted when the number kept climbing! We have loads of great questions to answer, but I'm also so happy that several of you accepted the invitation just to pop in and say "hi". When I sign with other writers they always comment on how enthusiastic and gracious my readers are and I just smile and say, "I KNOW." Y'all are fabulous, end of story. (Leslie, thank you in particular. I didn't realize your mother was ill, and please let her know she has my very best wishes.)

So, onto some juicy reader questions! Karen posted: Are you a plotter or a pantser? How much of your story do you know in advance before you actually start writing or do you just wing it? Do you need silence or music in the background? The writing process fascinates me. I am what I call an organized pantser. I know where I am going; I just don't necessarily know how I'm going to get there! Here's a reply I gave during an interview last winter that discusses the matter in more detail: My novels always begin with a single snippet of an idea. It can be a line of poetry, a painting, an odd historical fact. And then I start weaving the spider’s web out from there. I try to think it out logically; if A happens, then B must happen. What sort of person would do A in the first place? What would they do if C happened instead? Plot and character are developed at the same time, with plot usually coming in just a bit ahead. I read and research while I’m plotting, and then I write, always without a detailed, formal outline. I know my characters. I know where we’re beginning; I know where we’re going. I’m just never certain quite how we’re going to get there. But each day’s scene dictates the scene for the next day, so on a day-to-day basis I know precisely what I’m doing. Usually I know the next two or three scenes, but no more.

And here's another response to a related question in the same interview that also covers the process: I prefer to write in the morning, and I prefer to write every day. If I am on a deadline I will write a quota each day. If I’m writing at a slower pace, I am likelier to write scene by scene instead. Each evening I will read over what I wrote that day and make corrections by hand. The next morning I will start by inputting those changes, then I’m nicely warmed up to start writing. I always write on my computer. I would love to be one of those bohemian artistic types who can write in a coffee house, but I just can’t. Writing longhand changes the rhythm of the narrative for me, and that’s deadly. I always write to music, usually movie soundtracks or something written in the period I’m writing about. If all else fails, it’s Bach. And I do have a little corner of sacred space in my study, so there is usually a candle burning or a bit of incense. And I make inspiration boards for each book, an enormous collage of images that somehow relate to the book, settings, faces, bits of architecture or scenery. The current board is always hung where I can see it from my desk. Lately, I have been taking a few minutes to meditate and light a candle and write an intention for that day’s work as a way of putting myself into a purposeful and creative state of mind.

I should post my usual caveat: what I've just described is my process. If you are an aspiring writer, I beg of you, do not read that and think that is how YOU should do it. Writing is a hugely idiosyncratic business. We all do it differently and we all do it in a way that works for US. If anything about my process helps you, fabulous--take it and run. But don't ever think that you have to write the same way anybody else does.

For Australian reader melscott, Julia wears a violet scent. I'll post about your second question another day!

In which I'm answering reader questions

Yesterday I opened the blog up to questions from readers and got loads of great ones! So for the next few days--with Sunday off, of course--I'll be working my way through them, in no particular order. (And big thanks to those of you who just stopped by to say "hi!")

Nina wanted to know if I ever planned on "writing books that aren't in the mystery category"--specifically a ghost story. She also wanted to know the most interesting place I've ever visited for research purposes. (She also asked if I've made the Paula Deen recipe for banana pudding. Nina was nice enough to send it along a few weeks back.)

Funny you ask about writing books that aren't mysteries because I have other people asking if I'm going to write books that aren't romances! Personally, I consider the books mainstream with appeal to readers in both genres, but other folks categorize them according to their own standards, and that's just fine with me. To get to the meat of your question, I think there will always be some element of the mysterious in everything I write, although I can certainly see myself straying from the path of the "proper" mystery. I've never tried my hand at a ghost story, but "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James is one of my favorites, so who knows?

The most interesting place I've visited for research is Yorkshire. From the moors to the intensely atmospheric East Riddlesden Hall to the charm of Sledmere House, I loved it ALL. The weather was beautiful, the cream teas were to die for, and the landscape is lovely.

And no--no banana pudding yet because I don't keep white sugar in the house! I think Paula's fab, but reading her recipes is a sort of armchair travel for me. I can appreciate them even if I don't go there!

Anonymous asked if Portia will ever find true love and happiness. Now, naturally I can't give away what happens in book four, but I will say that Portia is going to play a large role in the book and there are significant developments in her personal life. (I have great affection for her myself.)

Kimmie7977 asked if I knew the title of the next Julia Grey book. I do, actually, but I can't share it just yet because I'm waiting on formal approval from my publisher. As soon as I have it, I'll let you know! I can tell you that we're leaving the "Silent" titles behind to avoid confusion as the series continues. (My publisher was concerned that after three titles it might be tricky for readers to fit in which books comes where in the series.) So we're off to a new set of titles, which will also be linked together, and I am quite smitten with them!


And Karen wanted to know if there was a specific end planned to the series or is it open-ended. At present, the series is open-ended. So long as my publisher is happy to print them and readers are happy to buy them, I am happy to write them!