The Arranged Victorian Marraige, a Conundrum

My Victorian era manuscript underway utilizes an obstacle of an arranged marriage. In today’s world, marriages are dissolved easily enough that the idea of one standing in the way of true love is less onerous than in past eras, such as during the 19th Century.

Arranged marriages were still a norm of the Victorian era. Politics and inheritances were quite still the reasons just as in the Dark Ages. Although in bygone eras the political marriage affected all class levels of a society, serfs included. The pressure was still fervent in European aristocratic circles, or what remained of them, even those living on the American continents, as my story’s characters do for a time.

My Spanish characters are dealing with an arranged marriage. Their reality – as products of their times – was to accept marriage when it came, not necessarily to each other. In reality, people raised in the ways of my characters were not taught to hope for love or expect romance in an arranged marriage. They would hope for kindness, understanding, propriety, and even dignity. Still, the benefits of marriage within the same social class often outweighed the thrill of romance which was still thought of as a chance and fleeting moment to be grasped. Romance didn’t carry with it the expectation of longevity unlike what appeals to today’s romance audience and readership. (Rest assured that this author is part of that very same audience.)

Tolerating extramarital lovers was going out of vogue. Open arrangements were falling out of favor. Morality movements and laws being passed in other countries found imitations in decorum in Spain and its holdings. Spain was no longer the largest kingdom nor the most powerful country any longer, but its Borbon royalty and their aristocratic nobility were expected to set the heights of decorum, even in marriages; the same expectations, as it happens, are held up to the Bourbon House of today. The reason I point this out is that Queen Victoria's circle, including her Belgian cousin, Princess Charlotte (later Empress of Mexico) openly touted the Bourbon House in Spain as the height of expected decorum. The royal courts were still dictating behaviors of the rest of society, in something of a trickle-down effect.

Oddly difficult to explain is that extramarital lovers of arranged marriage partners were often enough allowed if scandal were avoided. Secretive affairs with lovers more powerful than a marriage partner were not quite favored but were less than frowned upon. As long as they were kept secret.

Catholicism was a dominating influence in Spanish society and so were its moral codes. Spaniards conducted a revolution when they counted among their grievances the openly adulterating Queen Regnent, Isabella II. Her marital bed had never pretended to belong to her king consort husband, Francisco, beyond the wedding night. Only a generation before, though, Isabella’s mother’s affairs weren’t considered to have interfered in her duties on the throne. The fact that Francisco claimed all dozen of Isabella’s offspring, and even named his collection of poodles after her lovers, tells of an understanding of duty quite opposite to proverbial fairy tale romances that often toss everything to the wind for the sake of instantaneous love.

Of course, my manuscript entails a fairy tale coming true. Conveying the seriousness of the obstacle of an arranged marriage is part of the challenge of being a modern writer portraying the past to modern sensibilities that expect love and marriage to automatically go hand in hand.

Kristin-Marie

Batter Up!

We've just started a new season of baseball. I knew baseball was played in camps during the Civil War and decided to do some research into how it was played and how widespread it was during the war years.

I had recently watched the movie, Glory, and noticed a scene near the beginning where a soldier hits a ball with a baseball bat.

Before this, I'd always thought of baseball as a turn-of-the-century sport. So, when did baseball become our national pastime?

I searched a few sites and found these facts.
"Americans began playing baseball on informal teams, using local rules, in the early 1800s." http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors.blbaseball.htm

About mid-century, sixteen clubs sent out delegates to a convention to standardize the rules. "The National Association of Base Ball Players was organized in 1857." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_baseball

The teams had names like: New York Mutuals, Philadelphia Athletics and Chicago White Stockings.

Prior to the Civil War, baseball competed for public interest with cricket and regional variants of baseball.

"Alexander Joy Cartwright of New York invented the modern baseball field in 1845." http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blbaseball.htm

And I always thought it was Abner Doubleday!

The game was based on the English game of rounders.

It seems the Civil War was what introduced the game that started in the Northeastern states, to the rest of the country. "During and after the Civil War, the movements of soldiers and exchanges of prisoners helped spread the game." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_baseball

The game they played, in that time period, was a bit different from baseball league play today. "High scores were the general rule; for even though the ball was soft, the base runner had to be hit by a thrown or batted ball before he was out. In one game between teams from the 13th Massachusetts and 104th New York, the Bay Staters won by a 66-20 score." Soldiers Blue and Gray ... p. 88

So, it seems the Civil War was, at least, partially responsible for the American pastime of organized baseball.

Sources: Soldiers Blue and Gray by James I. Robertson, Jr.
The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of the Union by Bell Irvin Wiley
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blbaseball.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_baseball

New Year's Goals Revisited

It's April and we're now more than one quarter into the new year. I thought I'd revisit the writing goals I made in January on this blog to see how I've done so far.

1) Finish rewrite of Erin's Rebel.
Not only did I finish, but the full manuscript is now on the desk of the acquisitions editor at Medallion Press.

2) Revise outline of Katie Rose and write first draft.
The outline revision is finished and I'm one hundred pages into the first draft.

3) Enter 1 contest per month for Erin's Rebel.
I've entered 3 contests and gotten results for the first two. I didn't win or final, but I got fairly high scores. The third contest I won't get the results of until later this month.

4) Post 2 new blogs here and 2 per week on my personal blog.
So far this year I've posted 12 blogs on this site. On my personal blog www.susanmacatee.blogspot.com I've posted 6 blogs each for January and February, so I fell a little short, but I posted 9 blogs in March.

5) Start preliminary work on my futuristic romance.
I've started world-building and creating characters for my first futuristic romance.

So, aside from falling a little short on the blogging, I've done pretty well on my 2007 goals, so far.

Behind the Looking Glass of the Victorian London Scene: a Glimpse of London Society

Unarguably, the height of the Victorian era Society gathered around London during the reign of Queen Victoria. Ladder-climbers – socially or politically – were represented in London or were in attendance at court-and-function, themselves.

Why, is obvious. The fact that the British Empire was expanding to the largest domination in recorded history missed the attention of very few. Pomp and circumstance were at a peak, but with a different venue than during earlier times, including the Regency, due to Victoria’s permeating social influences. Beyond the morality laws and other movements attributed to her personal touch, she also changed London Society, in great part by not participating as fully or as openly as prior monarchs. There was rhyme and reason to her social behaviors.

For novel writers of the time period focusing on Victorian London and its influences, the tendency to include societal parties and shindigs may be the norm. I have yet to read a novel of the time period set in that area of the world and that societal ilk that doesn’t at least attempt to show a party, or two.

All well and good.

Small details tend to authenticate the novelistic guest lists. Queen Victoria was not a recluse, despite some popular misconceptions. She did adhere to a lifetime of mourning rituals and garb, but out of deference to her late, faithful Prince Consort rather than to shun Society. On the other hand, during and after her husband’s lifetime, Victoria attended the soirees and functions that would be considered “important.”

If a novelistic party were to be shown to be of high import, then it could be emphasized by an appearance from the Queen. Although many authors may be more fascinated by the playboy prince, Bertie, which I mention because most Society level settings in Victorian novels I’ve read seem to include him swankering through the party sets. Still, his attendance didn’t declare a host or hostess’ party as ‘important.’

A better gauge of societal-level ranking on the party scene would be to include an ambassador’s brief stopover at a party to declare it worthy of the highest ranks. Recall that ambassadors traditionally usurp the Queen or other female titled counterpart to a male reigning sovereign when being seated for the more formal of functions, even if it causes a reigning queen to sit at a lower-ranked table, as a result. Some courts, such as in London, boasted ambassadors from nearly any country which meant the most important tables at even an informal banquet might overflow with ambassadors before the royalty were seated. Therefore, even an ambassador from the lowest and poorest of countries in attendance at a Society hosts’ or hostess’ party elevate the party to a higher level of social prestige than one simply attended by a fun-loving Bertie or his kind.

Kristin-Marie

Women In the Ranks - Part V

Why Did They Do It?

In this final installment of my series on women Civil War soldiers, now that I've explained how women managed to join and fight in an army that didn't admit female soldiers, the next question is, why did they do it?

Why would women want to pretend to be men and fight in a war?

One of the reasons was pure and simple patriotism. Louisiana's Sarah Morgan wrote: "Oh! If I only were a man, then I could don the breeches, and slay them with a will! If some few Southern women were in the ranks, they could set the men an example they would not blush to follow." All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies, p. 200.

Other reasons for joining the military were to stay with a husband, sweetheart or brother. Many of these women were recognized by friends or family visiting the camp. Mary Burns "... followed her love into the 7th Michigan Cavalry under the alias 'John Burns', and succeeded in maintaining her disguise for two weeks." All the Daring ... p. 208

"Florina Budwin and her husband enlisted together, served side by side in battle, were captured at the same time by Confederates, and both sent to the infamous Andersonsville prison." http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-3.html

Her husband died there, but she survived and was sent to another prison, where a Southern doctor discovered she was female. Despite receiving better treatment, she also died after being "stricken by an unspecified epidemic." http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-3.html

These women went to war by choice, even though they knew the risks involved. Although patriotism and the wish to be by the side of loved ones were reasons, others were the chance for travel, adventure and money. Bounties and regular paychecks were incentives for poor women who needed to help support large families.

In 1865, Sarah Edmonds wrote: "I could only thank God that I was free and could go forward and work, and I was not obliged to stay at home and weep." http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-3.html

Since women soldiers in our own time are barred from combat units, these Civil War women soldiers were definitely ahead of their time. And since most of them served undetected, the examples listed here are just a small sampling of the women who fought in the Civil War armies.

Hope all of you enjoyed this look at an event often ignored in historical records.

Sources: All the Daring of the Soldiers: Women of the Civil War Armies by Elizabeth D. Leonard, pp. 199-225

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-3.html

http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/2518/cladinuniform.htm

I have a convert!

OK, she's a friend, and would read anything I wrote, but that isn't the point. She's actively interested in Victoria & Albert. The A&E movie, but it's something. And I'll take it.

It started with Pride & Prejudice. She needed to read it for a college class, but couldn't get through it. Not because she didn't like it but because she always read late at night after work and all and would fall asleep. A&E's wonderful movie came in (ok and me) and she got an A on the paper. Then she watched Wuthering Heights. The TNT one, not the Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon one, though I personally love that one.

She adored it. Emma, Sense & Sensibility, Jane Eyre she's on a roll! Then she says to me last week, do you know anything about Victoria and Albert?

Ha, I say, do I know anything about them…

It should arrive in a week or 2, but I’m sure she’ll love it. How can she not? And if she doesn’t, there’s always The Scarlet Pimpernel. And Horatio Hornblower, The Great Gatsby, or possibly Ivanhoe.

Strolling to Church in the Victorian Era

Thanks to my fellow-blogger, Dee, the topic of transportation modes during the Victorian era has been discussed within one of our writing clubs. The topic brought to mind the traditions around walking, particularly for the gentility. The mode of walking to a destination was still very much part of a Victorian’s lifestyle. The natural locomotion was still a mode of 'transportation.'

Transportation evolved quickly and even dramatically during the Victorian era. Still, walking, for many a Victorian, followed traditions and rules about how and where to walk.

A quaint tradition that lasted well past the implementation of public transportation was a tradition of walking to church. Among the elite, who had every luxury at their fingertips, the contemplative mode of strolling to church, or synagogue, helped to prepare them for the messages of the religious service. Such public self-effacement was a popular posture within Society’s line of sight.

The Princess Royal of Great Britain, Victoria Adelaide Mary Louise, “Vicky,” was known for walking to church as was customary with many of her ilk. However, she set tongues to wagging by walking with her husband, the Prince Frederick William of Prussia, “Fritz.” Not only was their side-by-side strolling unusual, it also caused shockwaves among Society due to their natural affection for one another. Their adoration wasn’t an affectation. Vicky had met Fritz when she was a child, and they’d corresponded during his years of military service. By the time they married, they were close friends who enjoyed each other’s company. In today’s world, this type of friendship in a marriage would be an expectation. But, not during the Victorian era which held other expectations of higher import. Again, not scandalous, but the royal couple's affection was cause for comment. Other couples were not seen in public together walking to church as a general rule. Nor were they even seen arriving at the same time in carriages, for example, for the most part.
[Crowned in a Far Country: Portrains of Eight Royal Brides, by HRH Princess Michael of Kent]

The tradition of walking was not limited to the Christian sects. The Rothschilds, who rose to power in England during the Victorian era, were also known to walk to synagogue along with the rest of their social circle. Although Lionel and Charlotte Rothschild were not known to frequent synagogue (some accounts say they didn't attend), they nevertheless put on a good front for Society. Their published journals explain that walking to synagogue was expected in the society they entered, partly for religious reasons.
[Charlotte and Lionel: A Rothschild Love Story, by Stanley Weintraub]

Not everyone adhered to traditions of walking to church services, by some indications. Populations were moving about, and new traditions were being formed. In some parts of the Western world, it was considered socially acceptable for a proper lady to walk or arrive at church in the company of a male, and possibly even for the sake of romance.
[http://www.logicmgmt.com/1876/etiquette/church.htm]

For the historical author, allowing a fictional character to carry on a walking tradition can provide a welcome contrast to the hullabaloo caused by the newly available modes of modern transportation. At the same time, it can possibly set the scene for a scandalous or shocking romantic interlude.

Kristin-Marie

Research

It’s time consuming, distracting, and annoying. It’s also very fascinating, and, thanks to the internet, oh-so handy. Thank God, because I can’t imagine doing this kind of nitpicking research any other way.

My WIP takes place in England during August, 1882. It’s AU in that there is a very prevalent if illegal community of magic-practitioners. Everything else is the 1882 of our history.

Like telephones. There’s a scene where my heroine must call London from Yorkshire. Panic – when did the telephone come into common use? After 1882? Before? That year? Would they have been in the country, as opposed to cities?

The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922) and first exhibited at American Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia in June 1876. Telephones did not appear in England until the following year, when W H Preece, electrician to the Post Office, brought two telephones back from a visit to America and, although he himself remained sceptical as to their usefulness, demonstrated them to the British Association.
[http://www.ingenious.org.uk/See/Scienceandtechnology/Telecommunications/?target=SeeMedium&ObjectID=%7BE86B182F-8008-3D5E-B9A6-2FE5F8799D52%7D&viewby=images]

OK, phew. Good. And all for one 8-worded sentence. Check!

Railroads… Forgetting the earlier versions, even the 18th century ones, I’m talking about the ones we’re familiar with now. The ones powered by coal or wood. The ones I KNOW were in use by 1882, but not entirely sure where. Did they go to Leeds? Was that a main station, or merely a by-pass? Yup, they were.

But then there was the whole ‘newer’ invention of electric trolleys. Ack!

OK, OK, forget that…a vague mention of trains will do just fine. Check!

But that brings me to the electricity portion of my story. The turnover from gas lamps to electric bulbs.

My WIP takes place at a country manor, not a London townhouse. Would they have bulbs there, or still use gas lamps? And why did I have to set my story in the country? What’s wrong with London?

Yes. Bulbs for the rich and titled were in use. Check!

I won’t even go into the pain-in-the-*ss research that went into Victorian Mourning/Funeral Rites. And I don’t just mean a person’s mourning – I mean the house’s mourning. It’s unbelievable. Still, I Check! it off my list.

http://www.request.org.uk/main/history/victorians/victorians12.htm
http://www.victoriana.com/library/harpers/funeral.html
The Writer's Guide to Everyday Life in Regency and Victorian England from 1811-1901 by Kristine Hughes

Sigh…ok, so far not so bad. I’ve managed not to get lost in the research, had found what I needed, wrote it down and saved the sites do I could find them again should I need them, and haven’t gone insane.

And I still have 5 chapters to go.

Full Metal Corset

Susan has done a wonderful series on women fighting in the Civil War. The History Channel has a 1-hour show on them, too. This is from their site:

In April 1861, the newly inaugurated President Lincoln calls for 75,000 men to fight for the Federal cause. What he does not anticipate is the shared desire by hundreds of women to fight for their country. Forbidden by laws of society, these determined women become the "Secret Soldiers of the Civil War." Travel back in time and hear the story of two of the Civil War's most interesting female soldiers--Sarah Emma Edmonds and Loreta Janeta Velazquez. Hear their tales of passion, recounting the sacrifice of identity, fear of discovery, and constant need for duplicity...even under fire.

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=218239

Taking A Break From Contests

In the past I've entered numerous contests for my Civil War time travel romance, Erin's Rebel. First it was for the feedback, then to get an editor or agent's attention.

And while I've won a few contests, I usually get one judge who just loves it and two or more who like it, but think it's just so-so, or outright hate it.

Before getting the request for a full from Medallion Press, I had entered three more contests as part of my New Year's Goals that I hadn't gotten the results of.

I just got one back and, as I said, one judge loved it, the other thought it was just so-so. And some of the comments I got were baffling. One said I had relied too much on spell and grammar check. Huh?

It's time to take a break from contests. For one thing, I'm now a member of an excellent critique group. They give me all the feedback I need. And I've gotten the attention of the editors at Medallion Press with my partial.

So, I'll save my time and energy for writing my next book.

Vincent Van Gogh—Victorian Stalker?

So my current WIP has a stalker in it. I love to take matters from modern life, especially criminal matters, and bring them back to the Victorian period, so I can discover how Victorians would react. Actually, for me that’s often a major reason for writing at all—the discovery.

But before I discover I do need to do a little research and so there I was thinking, okay, I’ve got this stalker, but how does he stalk my heroine (I don’t call him a stalker by the way—that’s a modern term. He’s her secret admirer—gone horribly wrong!)? They don’t have email or cell phones or answering machines or even portable cameras. My characters might, conceivably have a phone as I’m writing in 1885 and the family is very wealthy. But still, that’s not a whole lot. And suddenly, I’ve got it! Vincent Van Gogh! He was so enamored by some woman that he cut off his ear and mailed it to her, right? He must have had some other stalking behavior beforehand. All I need to do is research Vincent, right?

Wrong.

Man—the best laid plans of writers almost always go awry, at least once. I always thought Van Gogh cut off his ear and mailed it to a woman. But I was wrong. Apparently he cut part of his ear off after an argument with Gauguin and gave it to a prostitute.

He seems like he might have been a little bit of a stalker—when rejected by one woman, he went to her house and put his hand over the open flame of an oil lamp. He swore to her father that he would keep his hand there until he got to see the woman. Her father simply put out the lamp. Thus ended Van Gogh’s stalking.

So there, that was also the end of my first attempt to find a Victorian stalker. But I thought I’d post about it anyway, because I know there are quite a few people who have my misconception about Van Gogh’s ear.

For more reading on Vincent Van Gogh—not a Victorian Stalker:

http://www.vggallery.com/misc/bio.htm

Montreal’s Victoria Bridge

On this St. Patrick’s Day, I’d like to tell you a little bit about Montreal’s Victoria Bridge.

Sometimes called Montreal’s Eighth Wonder of the World, the Victoria Bridge was the first bridge to span the mighty St. Lawrence River. It opened in 1859 and was initially named for Queen Victoria. After renovations in 1897, it was rededicated as the Victoria Jubilee Bridge. It’s approximately three miles long and includes 24 ice-breaking piers.

Prior to the bridge’s construction, it was difficult and at times impossible to cross the St. Lawrence River during the long winter season as freeze up and thawing in the fall and spring made for treacherous conditions. Summer river crossings took place by boat and in winter by sleigh.The bridge is still used today, carrying both road and rail traffic.

It is also a memorial to the hundreds of Irish immigrants who lost their lives in search of a better life for themselves and their families.

The memorial can still be seen today in the Black Rock, also known as the Irish Stone, which stands at the approach of the Victoria Bridge. During the construction of that bridge, workmen discovered human remains of Irish immigrants to Canada. They decided to erect a large black stone that bears this inscription:

To preserve from desecration the remains of 6000 immigrants who died of ship fever A.D. 1847-8, this stone is erected by the workmen of Messrs. Peto, Brassey and Betts employed in the construction of the Victoria Bridge A.D. 1859

A stirring memorial to a brave and valiant people.

Women In the Ranks - Part IV

How Did They Do It?

Women soldiers were more prevalent in the Civil War armies than anyone thought. The main reason being, they were dismissed by historians chronicling the era, because they were thought to be a rarity.

But the fact is, many more than thought sneaked into the ranks and this fact was only discovered years later by researchers reading diaries, letters, and journals of the period, as well as obituaries.

At the time of the Civil War, women were not allowed to serve as soldiers. Newspapers writers of the late nineteenth century grasped this point. "The actions of Civil War soldier-women flew in the face of mid-nineteenth century society's characterization of women as frail, subordinate, passive, and not interested in the public realm. http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-3.html

But, how did all those women in disguise get into the armies in the first place?

Part of it had to do with the physical exam given to new recruits. The modesty of the Victorian era helped, as well as the many men swarming to join all at once. "In most cases, the physical examination was so hastily administered that most women had no problem passing and went on to fulfill their enlistment." http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/2518/cladinuniform.htm

Most didn't have to disrobe when undergoing the physical. Women who encountered a doctor who required this, would just decline to be examined and find another recruiter who they could slip by.

The estimated number of disguised women serving in the armies, was between 500 and 1000.

In most cases the medical exam consisted of "... holding out his hands to demonstrate that he had a working trigger finger, or perhaps opening his mouth to show that his teeth were strong enough to rip open a minie ball cartridge." All the Daring of the Soldier: Women In the Civil War Armies, p. 202

"... women soldiers picked male names. Army recruiters, both Northern and Southern, did not ask proof of identity. Soldier-women bound their breasts when necessary, padded the waists of their trousers, and cut their hair short. Loreta Velazquez wore a false mustache, developed a masculine gait, learned to smoke cigars, and padded her uniform coat to make herself look more muscular." http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-civil-war-3.html

Also Civil War armies didn't have anything resembling modern day bootcamp. The emphasis was on drill. "Many privates had never fired a gun before entering the army. The women soldiers learned to be warriors just like the men." http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-3.html

That there were so many young men and even boys serving in the army, also helped women to avoid detection. Also the dress of the nineteenth century dictated that "... if it wore pants, it was male." All the Daring ... p. 205

As for taking care of personal needs, all a woman soldier had to do was claim modesty. She could take care of her needs in the woods away from prying eyes and no one would think anything of it. As for menstruation, a lot of researchers surmise that with all the hard physical activity of army life, most women would have stopped menstruating. If not, they could always hide the evidence after a battle among all the bloody bandages and clothing.

It seems the fact that no one expected women to be in the ranks, was what helped them to maintain their disguises for so long.

Sources: All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies by Elizabeth D. Leonard, pp. 199-225

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1993/spring/women-in-the-civil-war-3.html
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/2518/cladinuniform.htm

In Part V, I'll talk about why they did it.

I Survived My First Signing!

It’s late Sunday night and I’m still too excited to sleep, so I decided to post a blog tonight.

I survived my first book signing! I was signing my first book, In Sunshine or In Shadow, at my local library today, an event that brought with it a lot of anticipation and a truckload of trepidation.

It was a lovely spring day, which I think might have brought me a little bit of luck. It was also the last day of school spring break, and lots of people were coming back from vacation and needed to return their books. Another good sign.

The library had set up a table for me, with a poster advertising the signing, as well as postcards featuring my gorgeous cover design. I got there a few minutes early to set up, and I put out my stacks of books, my pens, my list of things to write in the book (I always found just signing my name and “Best wishes” was too impersonal). I put out my basket of candy and my bookmarks. And I had my best friend there to do a little introduction.

Scarcely had I finished setting up than people began to arrive asking for books. I even had three reporters from the local media asking for interviews! Three! I guess I was the celebrity of the month! I was also informed that In Sunshine or In Shadow was this month’s choice for the local book club.

My friend gave a touching little introduction, and then I was on. I had chosen to read the first chapter because that’s really where the book starts (the prologue takes place a few months earlier). My knees were literally shaking, but I took advice from an actor friend and took a few deep breaths, then imagined I was reading for just one person. And not only did I get through it, but people came up to me afterward and told me they really enjoyed it, and couldn’t wait to find out what happened next!

I ordered 25 books from my publisher. I sold every one.

All in all, it was a very good day!

Got That Request!

Okay, I finally got what all writers want. A request from a publisher to read the full of my manuscript.

My first reaction was to jump up and down. I finally found an editor who likes my story! My second reaction was panic. I hadn't finished my edits because I hadn't expected to hear back from the publisher so soon. So, now what do I do?

Luckily, I was able to jump on-line and consult with other writers who've been there. The first advice I got was to take a deep breath.

Then I was told to figure out how long it would comfortably take me to finish, pick a date when I figured I could get the full to them, then email the editor with the date of delivery.

This was very good advice, because now, I'm starting to obsess about every word in the manuscript. Having a solid deadline will make it easier to send my baby out, since the object is to get it out, so it can have a chance of being accepted and published.

It's so hard to let go, but I will do it. I have a deadline that I plan to keep.

Happy Anniversary!

It’s the (slightly-late) 1 year anniversary of our first post, though I think we all came together about a week or so before to discuss actually doing this and whatnot.
It’s been a busy year for me, so much going on: stress, writing, not writing, you name it. I’m sure we’ve all been through similarities. Eh, it’s life.

The bad news first:
Sleep? A thing of the past.
Any movie I might’ve been interested in? Who’s got the time?
Books? I mean the reading-for-pleasure kind. Audio. It’s the only way to go.
Dinner with friends? Um…I’m a bad friend. Hey, I email….
Family? OK, yes, they’ve got my time.

Now for the good news:
I’m (we’re) nearly finished our Victorian paranormal
Our website is as finished as a perpetual WIP can get
Our blog…huh. It’s updated. Sporadically, but it’s updated.


I spend more time in the writing world, critiquing, meetings, blogs, email, etc., etc., etc than I do with anything else. It’s not bad, especially since I really want to get published. The family understands. In that distant intellectual ‘Sure, okay, you go for it’ way. But understanding is understanding. I’ll take that and all the support they can heap on me.

I do miss the sleep, though…

Women In the Ranks - Part III

Sarah Wakeman

Sarah Rosetta Wakeman was born in 1843 in Afton, New York. She was the oldest child of Harvey and Emily Wakeman. Like Sarah Edmonds, she was raised on a farm. http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/view/ancmag.2513.asp

Sarah did receive some formal education and at the age of 17, she worked as a domestic servant close to her home.

By the age of 19, she decided that wearing men's garb and seeking employment as a man would better help her large family, since she didn't believe marriage to be in her immediate future.

In a letter to her family, she wrote: "I know that I Could help you more to leave home than to stay there with you, So I left." All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies, p. 191

A family conflict may have been the cause of her leaving home, because she wrote that she hoped they would put their problems behind them. She wrote her mother: "I want you should forgive me of everything that I have done, and I will forgive you all the same ..." All the Daring ... p. 191.

In August of 1862, Sarah accepted a job as a boatman in New York Chenango Canal disguised as a man. While employed there, she was approached by soldiers who urged her to enlist. She did, earning $152 in bounty money in Company H of the 153rd New York State Volunteers under the name Lyons Wakeman. All the Daring ... p. 152

Like Jennie Hodgers, Sarah was small, only five feet tall. But she adjusted well to army life. She served for two years with the troops defending Washington, D.C. She also was involved in the 1864 Louisiana Red River Campaign.

In a letter she wrote home, she said: " ... but I sleep as warm in the tents as I would in a good bed. I don't know the difference when I get asleep. We have boards laid down for a floor and our dishes is tin. We all have a tin plate and a tin cup, and a knife and Fork, one spoon. We have to use the floor for a table. I like to be a soldier very well." All the Daring ... p. 193

Her letters home that her family carefully preserved, showed her to be happy in the life of a male soldier. She wasn't afraid to be sent out in battle and didn't fear death. In one of her letters, she wrote that she was proud to have bested another soldier in a fight, despite being half a foot shorter than the man.

Unlike Sarah Edmonds and Jennie Hodgers, who survived the war and continued to live as men, Sarah Wakeman died while still in the army. She wasn't killed in battle, but succumbed to chronic diarrhea. Despite being hospitalized, her sex was never discovered by the army.

She died on June 19, 1864 and was buried as "Lyons Wakeman" in Chalmette National Cemetery in New Orleans.

Sources: All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies by Elizabeth D. Leonard

An Uncommon Soldier: The Civil War Letters of Sarah Rosetta Wakeman, alias Pvt. Lyons Wakeman, 153rd Regiment, New York State Volunteers, 1862-1864, edited by Lauren Cook Burgess with a Foreward by James M. McPherson

http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/view/ancmag/2513.asp

In my next blog in this series, I'll talk about how these and other women soldiers managed to hide their identities.

Copyright Infringement

It's a problem writers have struggled with for eons. And I do mean that literally. It's probably just as well all those illuminated manuscripts were so hard to hand copy, but there were forgeries even then.

Patrick Ross' recent blog about eSnips brings attention to a problem all writers (or potential writers) face. What happens when you have no control over your work? Sure, you want people to read it, but you'd like them to pay for it - simple capitalism. My question is, should the government (since this is a clear violation of the law) be more involved than they seem to be? I think so, even though I think that book (and music) prices are too high for the content, that's not the point of the law.

The point is that you pay for a service, that's how the world works. What do you think?

IN SUNSHINE OR IN SHADOW CONTEST

To celebrate the release of my first historical romance, IN SUNSHINE OR IN SHADOW, I’m hosting a contest. To enter, just visit my website (http://pages.videotron.com/cowens/index.html) and click on the contest page. E-mail me with your NAME and MAILING ADDRESS and the answer to the question below.

FIRST PRIZE: A lovely sterling silver Claddagh necklace on an 18” chain;

SECOND PRIZE: Package consisting of a personally autographed copy of IN SUNSHINE OR IN SHADOW, an autographed bookmark and an autographed postcard featuring my beautiful cover design.

Rules:

1. One contest entry per person. Multiple entries will be discarded.
2. Entering the contest grants us permission to list your name as our winner and to add you to my mailing list.
3. Contest ends March 31, 2007. Winners will be chosen at random.


Contest Question:

What is the name of the village featured in IN SUNSHINE OR IN SHADOW? (The answer can be found in the excerpt on my website.

Mary Ann Shadd

Mary Ann was remarkable. Born in 1823, she managed to be the first woman publisher of a newspaper in North America, the first woman to enter Howard University Law School, the second black woman to obtain a Law Degree, and the first black woman to cast a vote in a National Election. In addition, she taught and ran several schools both in Canada and the U.S. She also found time to become a wife and raise five children!

She was the oldest of thirteen children born to Abraham and Harriet Shadd, free blacks living in Wilmington, Delaware. When Mary Ann was 10, the family moved to West Chester, Pennsylvania so that she could attend a Quaker-run school there. At sixteen, Mary Ann moved back to Wilmington and opened a school for black students.

When the Fugitive Slave Act was passed in 1850, Mary Ann moved to Canada. She settled in Windsor, Canada West (Ontario). The black community there encouraged her to open a school for black children, but Mary Ann had a better idea. She opened a school for ALL children, which didn’t sit well with a bunch of people, black community leaders included. This began a long feud with Henry Bibb and his wife Mary, publishers of the Voice of the Fugitives, a black newspaper. Accusations flew on both sides as they charged each other with embezzling funds. The acrimony lasted long after Henry Bibb’s death, which was particularly unfortunate since Mary Bibb then married Mary Ann’s brother Isaac.

Partly to get her revenge on the Bibb’s, Mary Ann began her own newspaper, the Provincial Freeman. In it, she espoused on her vision of integration and equal rights for blacks and women through articles, poetry, essays and letters. She eventually moved the paper to Toronto and then Chatham. In 1856 she married Thomas Cary of Toronto, a barber and father of three. Sadly, they weren’t married long, for Thomas Cary died in 1860. Mary Ann was pregnant at the time with the couple’s second child.

When Civil War broke out in the U.S., Mary Ann was asked to become a recruiter for the Union Army. She worked first in Connecticut and then Indiana, and at the war’s end decided to stay in the States. She obtained a teaching certificate in Detroit. She then moved her family to Washington, D.C., where she became a public school teacher in 1869.

When Mary Ann was forty-six years old, she entered the Law School at Howard University, learning at night while continuing to teach. It took four years after she graduated before she was given her law degree. In the meantime, she wrote for the National Era and The People’s Advocate newspapers.

She joined Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the National Woman’s Suffrage Association, and testified before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

Mary Ann Shadd Cary died in Washington, D.C. in 1893.

http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/1/686081_Mary_Ann_Shadd_Cary_ENG.pdf

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/underground/dc2.htm

http://www.coolwomen.org/coolwomen/cwsite.nsf/f85b4e3889247adc8525645600629c11/2e7c2c200a39e3e2852565bb005c6e1d

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Shadd

http://www.whitepinepictures.com/seeds/i/5/

Susan's Update to New Year's Goals

I thought I'd post a follow-up on how I've done so far with the New Year's goals I posted to this blog. I won't call them resolutions, because I'm not making changes, just moving forward.

1) I finished my self-revisions of Erin's Rebel and sent a partial to Medallion Press in early January. While waiting to hear back from them, I'm running chapters by my critique group. My critique partners always find things that I miss and I'm very grateful to them. I have a book on self-editing that I plan to re-read, so I can go over the later chapters again by myself, in case I get a request for a full. I wouldn't want to keep the publisher waiting too long.

2) I finished the revisions to my outline for Katie Rose. I plan to start writing the first draft by the start of next month.

3) I've entered two contests for Erin's Rebel since January. I plan to enter my RWA chapter, Hearts Through History's Romance Through the Ages contest in the paranormal/time travel category.

4) I've surpassed my blogging goals so far. I just posted the second installment of my "Women In the Ranks" series and have already written the third. I've also posted two blogs on the writing life to this blog and have kept up with my personal blog at www.susanmacatee.blogspot.com/ on my life as a romance writer.

5) I've just begun world-building for my futuristic romance. I'm setting that story on an alien planet 300 years in the future. So, for now, I'm trying to build my planet.

I'd say the past few months have been very productive for me.

I love being a writer.

Gilded Age Opulence

For reasons I’d rather not examine, the amazing opulence and extravagance of the gilded age fascinates me. The book(s) I’m working on right now are about one (purely fictional) high-society American family during the Victorian age, which has lead me to research how they lived. This particular family is from Boston, who by in large were far more frugal than the society families of other cities, but “my” family has ties to New York. New York society was “the” society and honestly the worst of them all.

They were, for the most part, the “newly” rich—not like in Boston whose family and wealth could be traced back at least ten whole years before these “bouncers”. (a little sarcasm there). Ward McAllister, the Astors, and later, when finally accepted, the Vanderbilts. The men worked (often bilking poor innocents of money) while their bored, wealthy wives spent their money. In fact, they tripped over each other to prove their worth in wealth. Here are a few examples:

Mrs. Stuyvesant Fish gave a ball for her pet monkey.

C.K.G Billings had a stag dinner where guests arrived in riding habit and rode their horses up to the table.

Alva Vanderbilt, in an effort to become “accepted” by high society gave a ball for her daughter. It cost--in 1880’s dollars!--$75,000!

These same families would summer in Newport RI, where they could play tennis and sale their yachts. They lived in “cottages” which by any standard must be considered mansions. You can view them at:

http://www.newportmansions.org/page7016.cfm

and

http://www.destinationnewport.com/mansion.asp

This is just the beginning of my research. I imagine as time goes by I’ll find out more, which I hope to share, most especially about Ward McAllister and Mrs. Astor, the king and queen of New York society, who started the famed 400 club.

Women In the Ranks - Part II

Jennie Hodgers

Jennie Irene Hodgers was born in Clogherhead, County Louth, Ireland in 1843 or '44.

No one knows why or how she came to America or why she was living in Boone County, Illinois in the summer of 1862.

Unable to read or write, Jennie overheard volunteers talking about the cursory medical examination being given by war recruiters. No disrobing was involved. http://history.alliancelibrarysystem.com/IllinoisAlive/files/iv/htm2/ivtxt018.cfm

She enlisted in Company G of the 95th Illinois infantry under the name, Albert Cashier.

During the next three years, she fought under Ulysses S. Grant in 40 battles including the siege of Vicksburg, the Red River Campaign and combat at Guntown, Mississippi.

Soldiers serving with her described her as small, and a loner, but that was not uncommon for soldiers of the period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Cashier

Men described Hodgers as "unusually quiet and difficult to get to know ... he did not participate in the games and sports that often took place." http://history.alliancelibrarysystem.com/IllinoisAlive/files/iv/htm2/ivtxt018.cfm

After being mustered out of the army in 1865, Jennie continued to live as a man.

"In November 1910 Cashier was hit by a car and broke his leg." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Cashier The attending physician discovered Jennie's secret, but agreed to keep it quiet.

Stories of Jennie's early life and her reasons for her disguise vary. The most romantic one was given to an attending nurse at the hospital after she'd broken her leg. "In this account, Jennie said she had assumed male dress because she was in love. She said her lover enlisted at the same time, that her lover had been wounded and died during the Civil War. Before his death, he asked Jennie to promise she would never let another man see her in women's dress and that she never had." http://history.alliancelibrarysystem.com/IllinoisAlive/files/iv/htm2/ivtxt018.cfm

It could also be that she enjoyed her male privileges like voting and the use of tobacco.

Jennie died at Watertown State Hospital on October 10, 1915. She was given a military funeral and buried in "Sunnyslope Cemetery, with full military honors." http://history.alliancelibrarysystem.com/IllinoisAlive/files/iv/htm2/ivtxt018.cfm

Her headstone was inscribed with the name, "Albert D. J. Cashier."

For more on the life of Jennie Hodgers: All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies by Elizabeth D. Leonard.

Other links: http://www.geocities.com/pettigolass/hodgers.html

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=11809

Victorian Icon to Close

In the mid 1800s, Atlantic City was the place to holiday on the East Coast. Next came the railroad, and by 1878 A.C. was so popular a second line needed to be built. Visitors by boat also arrived, and it wasn’t long before Atlantic City became the premier resort city. The first ‘official’ road from the mainland to the island was completed in 1870 with a 30¢ toll.

In 1898 The Steel Pier opened. Throughout its 109 year history, it’s been referred to as "an Amusement City at Sea”, "Showplace of the Nation", and was known for such acts as the High Diving Horse (Disney did a movie based on a 1930s rider, Sonora Webster Carver called Wild Hearts Can’t be Broken), Rex the Wonder Dog, and a water-skiing canine during the 1930's. Even Frank Sinatra and Al Jolson preformed there.

The Pier entertained tens of thousands of visitors each day, with attendance reaching 80,000 the Sunday before Labor Day. Four theaters could accommodate 12,000 at a time. For one all-inclusive admission price, patrons could enjoy every concert, film, and attraction The Pier provided.

2007 will be The Pier’s last year – sold by its owner, Trump Entertainment Resorts, to developers, it’s scheduled to be to redeveloped into retail and entertainment attractions, and luxury condominiums.

http://www.steelpier.com/aboutus.asp
http://www.victoriana.com/Travel/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_Pier

Update on My New Year's Resolutions -- or How I Took Procrastination to New Heights

I’ve been meaning to post this blog, but like everything else in my life, I keep putting it off. Probably because I’ve never been a fan of New Year’s. Or resolutions. Most years I resolve not to make any resolutions because it’s just one more thing to keep up with.

But this year I did.

Along with the usual lose ten pounds and go through the house room by room to de-clutter and organize, I made some writing resolutions. To write more. Blog more. Procrastinate less. The good news is that so far this year, on more days than not I have managed to write. The bad news is I haven’t accomplished much.

In my household, the only quiet time I’m guaranteed is early morning. Real early morning. Earlier even than the dog cares to get up, but he gives one last longing glance toward the warm bed where my husband still has an hour yet to sleep, and dutifully follows me down the stairs. He takes care of his business outside, while I put on the coffee. Minutes later he’s back, and obligingly warms my toes while the first few sips of Nirvana rouse my sleepy brain.

With luck, I have ninety minutes before I have to wake the kids for school and get us all dressed. On a productive morning I can get a good ten pages or more done. (On a non-productive morning I end up forwarding e-mail jokes to unsuspecting friends and co-workers).

But it never fails that just as I’m getting into this routine, someone gets sick. My kids are still in that age group where swapping germs at school is a requirement. At my oldest son’s age, sneezing on someone else’s bologna sandwich in the school lunchroom is cause for a fit of giggles (and, sadly, not cause for finding a new sandwich). The youngest is at the age where your fingers still taste good –the longer you’ve gone between washings, the better. Murphy’s law being what it is, right around the time the kids are rebounding from whatever bug bit them, mom gets it. (I was always one of those people who never got sick. Until I had kids. But when I’m worn out and weary from too many early mornings and too many lost nights of sleep with sick kids, apparently even I’m susceptible.)

It’s been more than two weeks now since the last germs followed us home and wreaked havoc with our immune systems. And next week is February break, so there’s hope that if we make it through til Friday with no drippy noses or low-grade fevers, we’ll stay healthy through next week. (Of course having the kids home from school an entire week in the dead of winter brings tortures of its own). I still haven’t been able to get back into the swing of early mornings after this last bug, and the mornings I have been up early I’ve needed to clean several inches of snow off the car and shovel out the driveway (don’t even get me started on the kind of winter Upstate New York has seen this year).

But one of the nice things about the kids being home is they tend to sleep in. And I tend to not sleep in. So I’ll check back after next week and let you know if I managed to get back on the writing wagon. Or not.

Victoria & Eugenie

Queen Victoria’s deep and abiding friendship with the Empress Eugenie set standards within the mercurial arenas of Victorian society. Their circumferential lifestyles connected, because they took care to nurture an unexpected friendship.

Their marriages were both under magnifying lenses, critically. Yet, the very differences between Victoria’s monogamous and faithful Prince Consort and Eugenie’s notoriously and regularly unfaithful monarch lent them a dais of friendship on which they bonded. By comparisons in contrasts, each strengthened the other’s resolve. As a result, Eugenie spent inordinate amounts of time within Victoria’s court.

In common, the two women with disparate youths remained active in their chosen outdoor activities. Both were fair equestrians which provided outlet for constraints on their innate youthful spirits.

By contrast, Victoria forever indulged in nostalgia, to the point infamy. Eugenie did nothing if not look to the future and its hope, eschewing her own happiness for the sake of duty to her people and to her place in life. Victoria often was criticized for no fault of her own for a proclaimed dowdy appearance and was known to forever seek out her advisors on the tiniest details of protocol. Eugenie set the standards of European beauty and fashion at the highest levels, revered for her physical beauty and deportment.

Both women epitomized the evolving roles of women in a changeable era, where a moment mis-coiffed or misspoken saw a woman exited from societies. And yet, it was an era that honored the gentility of the heart.

Both remarkable women were ultimately revered by history and beloved in their own times.

[Majesty Magazine, Vol. 28 No. 2, "Kindred Spirits"]

Plotters vs. Pantsers

I decided to take a break today on the revisions of my time travel romance, Erin's Rebel, to do some work on my Civil War historical romance, Katie Rose.

I'd worked out a detailed plot and wanted to make some changes after taking a plotting workshop a while back. I think my "Women In the Ranks" blogs kept Katie on my mind. You see, Katie is an Irish immigrant who disguises herself as a man and follows her husband into the Rebel army after Yankees invade and loot their Virginia farm and shoot her father-in-law to death. When her husband is killed in battle, she stays in the army because she has nowhere else to go and her brother-in-law, who serves with her, protects her identity.

The plot for this story has really expanded and I'm trying to work in a subplot. I want to get all this done before I start the first draft.

I wasn't always a plotter. My first book, Under the Guns, was loosely plotted. I worked on that book in a workshop where I had one instructor helping me work through the plot and opening chapters, while another helped with the revisions once the book was finished.

With Erin's Rebel, I didn't really have a plot worked out. I just had a vague idea of where I wanted to go. And boy, did I go wrong! I had to finally work out a detailed plot and then scrap most of the chapters I'd already written.

Well, I learned my lesson. I've become a plotter. I'm hoping it will save me a lot of work on this second romance book.

But, I won't know 'til it's finished.

How do all of you work out your stories?

Victorian furniture, Belter

I love all Victorian furniture but the kind I love the most are those pieces made by John Henry Belter. He was a cabinet maker originally from Germany, who started his own business in New York. His furniture has all sorts of beautiful scrolling, mostly floral and leaf carving, and mostly in rosewood. Unfortunately he died fairly early, and was only making furniture between 1844 and 1863. His furniture was expensive at the time, and today because so few pieces were made, very difficult to find.

I have a picture, but unfortunately, I can't get it uploaded right now. I'll see if I can get it to work later. You may also see pictures of his work here:

http://www.mam.org/collections/americanart_detail_belter.htm

http://ah.bfn.org/a/archsty/rococo/met/index.html

For more information on Belter:

http://www.oldandsold.com/articles/article348.shtml

Writer's stage fright

So January is behind us and I don’t feel that I’ve accomplished very much, but I guess I have been plodding along.

With February comes a wonderful opportunity to participate in a “Romance Author Panel” at my local library on Tuesday, the 6th. Susan Barclay and I from No Law Against Love will be teaming with Eve Silver (His Dark Kiss) and Michelle Rowen (Angel with Attitude) to discuss the romance genre in general and trends we see happening. (I’ll be sure to mention the increased interest in Victoriana!)

Like I said, this is a wonderful opportunity--and I’m scared to death. Not only will I have to be a REAL WRITER (my fellow Victorians assure me my feelings of inadequacy are not unique) but I have good reason to be nervous. I’ve done something like this before.

In the summer of 2006, I had the opportunity to do a brief reading along with five other writers. As luck would have it, I was scheduled to go last. The first three writers had fabulous stories which they each told clearly and passionately. The fourth writer also had a great story, and one which was very emotional. By the time she finished reading, I was literally sobbing. I don’t mean wiping a bit of moisture from the corner of my eye, but gut-wrenching, gasping for breath, convulsive weeping.

And now, immediately, I must read. Read? Hell, I couldn’t even SEE. Every word ended with a sniffle--which really cuts into your reading pace, let me tell you. It was such a disaster that I finished one paragraph and announced it was enough. Mind you everyone else read their entire piece. The worst part of course, was that I was the ONLY one who was the least bit moved by my fellow writer’s words.

I learned my lesson though. In December, there was another reading opportunity. I received permission from the host to go first, although I did get the impression he thought I was pretty nervy. When I got to the podium I explained the reason behind my presumptuous behaviour and then read beautifully--although I still can’t get the hang of looking around at the audience without losing my place. And yes, I ruined it all by tripping over my coffee when I went back to my seat.

The last writer told an emotional, heart-breaking story. Several different people (strangers!) came up to me afterward to say how pleased they were I’d asked to go first. They all mentioned they saw me crying.

So, how will I embarrass myself this time?

Women In the Ranks - Part I

Sarah Emma Edmonds

Sarah Emma Edmonds was born in New Brunswick, Canada in 1841. She grew up on a farm, so along with her sisters, she participated beside her one brother to perform the hard physical work of farming. She tended to the animals, chopped wood, milked cows, planted and harvested. She also learned to ride horses, hunted and fished.

Her upbringing caused her to develop a lean, masculine-looking physique.

In 1860 she was nineteen. She moved south into the United States dressed in men's garb. Pretending to be a man, she called herself "Franklin Thompson". She worked in Hartford, Connecticut as a publishing agent, selling Bibles in Canada and Michigan.

In 1861 the Civil War began. She enlisted in Company F of the 2nd Michigan Infantry Volunteers, signing up for three years.

As Franklin Thompson, Sarah spent her first months of military service at the regimental hospital, serving as a "male" nurse. She then became postmaster and then a mail carrier.

One of her superior officers, General O. M. Poe, recalled that "Frank Thompson was effeminate looking, and for that reason was detailed as a mail carrier, to avoid taking an efficient soldier from the ranks." All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies, p. 171.

As a mail carrier, Edmonds carried two or three bushels of mail over a distance of 50 or 60 miles.

In her own words: "I was often compelled to spend the night alone by the roadside. It was reported that the bushwackers had murdered a mail carrier on that road and robbed the mail, and there seemed to be evidence of the fact, for, in the most lonely spot of all the road the ground was still strewn with fragments of letters and papers, over which I often passed when it was so dark that I only knew it by the rustle of the letters under my horse's feet." All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies, pp. 171-172.

She was also engaged in combat starting with the battle of First Bull Run in July 1861.

According to a Congressional report: "Franklin Thompson, gave his heart and soul to the regiment, sharing in all its toil and privations, marching and fighting in the various engagements in which it participated . . . (He was) never absent from duty, obeying all orders with intelligence and alacrity, his whole aim and desire to render zealous and efficient aid to the Union cause." All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies, pp. 172-173.

While serving, Sarah became good friends with a young medical steward and assistant surgeon for the 2nd Michigan. She fell in love with the man, confessing to him that she was female. She felt rebuffed when he told her he was betrothed.

Besides soldiering, Sarah also served the Union as a spy. She disguised herself as a a male fugitive slave, wearing a wig and coloring her skin with silver nitrate. http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/SpiesRaidersAndPartisans/sarahemmaedmonds.html/
At other times she portrayed a female Irish peddler by the name of Bridget O'Shea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Edmonds/

In Kentucky in the Spring of 1863, Sarah fell ill with chills and fever. She feared a hospital stay would expose her sex, so, after a request for a leave of absence was denied, she deserted the army. She checked herself into a civilian hospital, planning to return to the army once she'd recovered.

On learning that Franklin Thompson was wanted for desertion, she donned women's clothes, resumed using her real name and returned to the army to serve as a female nurse for the remainder of the war. All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies, p. 178

After the war ended, she published her autobiography, Nurse and Spy in the Union Army under the pen name of S. E. Edmonds. "In 1867, she married L. H. Seelye, a Canadian carpenter with whom she had three children." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Edmonds/

Beginning in 1886, she was given a government pension of $12 a month. She died in LaPorte, Texas and is buried in Houston, Texas. "She was inducted into the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame in 1992." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Edmonds/
For more on Sarah Emma Edmonds:

Sources: All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies by Elizabeth D. Leonard, pp. 170-185.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/SpiesRaidersAndPartisans/sarahemmaedmonds.html/

http://mariah.stonemarche.org/livhis/women/edmonds.htm/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Edmonds
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blbio_sarah_emma_edmonds.htm/

In "Women In the Ranks - Part II", I'll be talking about another woman Union soldier, Jennie Hodgers.

Victorian Exercise--Tennis Anyone?

The late 19th century brought exercise to the Victorians, both men and women—gymnasiums, bicycling and tennis.

Even in Victorian times, tennis has been around for centuries. It was, however, a “court” game, played indoors and generally confined to wealthy men. In England, 1873, Major Walter Clopton Wingfield, considered by some to be the inventor of modern tennis, brought the game outdoors, inventing “lawn” tennis. It was simpler than court tennis, which included a difficult scoring system and used the walls of the court; lawn tennis was in essence a combination of court tennis and badminton. It caught on fast and was soon the rage.

In 1874, Mary Ewing Outerbridge brought the game to New York. From a prominent New York family, Outerbridge obtained permission to lay out a court at the Staten Island Cricket and Baseball club. In the meantime, up in Massachusetts, William Appleton introduced the game at his summer place in Nahant, with F.R Sears, both from Boston Brahmin families. In 1875 a tournament was held there. And the game’s popularity quickly spread.

However, the home of the National Championships started in 1881, Newport, Rhode Island, a vacation resort for people like the Vanderbilts and Astors. It was, of course, an all male tournament, but as would be expected considering that a woman brought tennis to the United States, a female tournament followed not too long after. The first woman’s tournament was played at the Philadelphia Cricket Club in 1887.

Men and women did play tennis together also, although not in championships. Men tended to disparage these sorts of games (at least in private), since they considered women poor players. It is interesting to note that, while men at this time wore long pants and were at a disadvantage in comparison to today’s players, women’s outfits were similar to their everyday dress—long sleeved dresses with long, trailing skirts, hats (with feathers!) and most outrageous of all, corsets! It’s amazing that they played at all. On the other hand, considering the huge meals they ate at this period of time, tennis was probably a pretty good idea.

Real writers?

I had an interesting discussion last week in my book club. We’d read The Handmaid’s Tale and were wondering about Margaret Atwood’s other works when someone said how writing one book a year was phenomenal. I pointed out that there are some authors who publish 3 a year, sometimes more, and he said, ‘Well, yes but we’re not talking pulp books here, this is real literature’. (I argued the subjectiveness of that statement and he immediately backpedaled but I think it was only because I disagreed with him.)

What does that say about our genre? No wonder romance writers have such a bad rep, especially since I highly doubt he’d had ever read a romance in his whole life. Maleness aside, I was the only one to contradict him. Does the world view us as not real writers? What actually constitutes a ‘real’ writer? If there is such a thing.

The Joy of Revision!

Okay. I know. A lot of writers hate revisions. And I've just gone through a drastic rewrite of my time travel romance, Erin's Rebel. I practically rewrote the outline, then tossed out about a third of the original story. I had to rewrite new chapters and scenes from scratch to replace all those tossed chapters.

But now, having done all that work, I've got a much better story to work with and have finally gotten to, what I consider, the good part of revision. I do have to add in some extra scenes and description to make it to my target word count, but the rest is just improving what I wrote. Polishing, if you will.

For me, it's much easier at this stage to rework what I've aleady written, instead of having to pull new material out of the air.

Even though I work from an outline when writing my first draft, this outline is very sparse. A scene in outline form may only be a couple of sentences, while the scene itself is three or four pages long.

If I'm lucky, when writing my first draft, I can eke out three or four new pages per day. When I'm revising, I can do from one to three chapters.

My other project, also a Civil War romance, is still in the outline stage and I have a lot of research yet to do. Although I like this new story and look forward to writing it, all of the hard work is still ahead on this one.

Erin's Rebel, on the other hand, is nearly fully formed. Although edits can sometimes be a headache, it's nothing compared with trying to work out an outline. Research at the revision stage is mostly limited to looking up the dates and outcome of a Civil War battle in the vicinity of my setting. Or checking on a word I used in dialogue to be sure it was in use during the period. The main research for the story, at this point, is behind me.

Yes, I definitely like the revision stage.

Women without souls

In the course of my reading, I was a little surprised to learn that Amelia Bloomer, the originator of the Bloomer costume so many of us are familiar with, didn't rush to sign the Declaration of Sentiments presented at the first Women's Rights convention in 1848. Although she agreed with most of the sentiments, she apparently felt that asking for women's suffrage went a tad too far. That is until the Spring of 1849, when the legislature of Tennessee declared that women had no right to own their own property because they had no souls. Amelia, a Quaker, became quite angry it seems and printed in her paper The Lily an editorial that said that if women had no souls then "we are not accountable beings, and if not accountable to our Maker, then surely not to man. . . " and that "Some men even act as though women had no souls, but it remained for the legislature of Tennessee to speak it to the world." Also, she said, "Although it may be an easy matter for them to arrive at such a conclusion, it will be quite another thing to make women believe it."

Personally, I think the Virgin Mary would have disputed the fact also. . . .

This information came out of The Bloomer Girls by Charles Neilson Gattey. I have yet to find anything to corroborate the decision by the Tennessee legislature. I would sincerely appreciate a comment posted by anyone who has information that either negates the assertion or can substantiate it.

Photography in the Victorian Era

One of the most important inventions of the nineteenth century was the development of photography. At the same time that men began to march off to war and wanted to leave their wives, mothers and sweethearts a memento, one photographic process replaced another and became cheaper, easier to produce, safer, and more durable.

Three photographic processes were especially popular at the same time: Daguerreotypes, ambrotypes and tintypes. These were one of a kind images which were almost always reversed left to right.

The Daguerreotype:

Period of Use: 1839 - ca. 1860
The earliest practical photographic process was the daguerreotype. Particularly suited for portraiture, the images created were so lifelike that some referred to the process as a "mirror with a memory."

A daguerreotype was made by exposing an image on a sensitized silver-plated sheet of copper. As a result, the surface of a daguerreotype was extremely reflective. No negative was used in the daguerreotype process. The image is almost always reversed left to right. A photographer might have used a mirror inside the camera to correct this.

The Ambrotype:

Period of Use: 1851 - 1880s

The ambrotype was also known as the “glass Daguerrotype.” It was a variation of the wet plate process, and was less costly than the daguerreotype. An ambrotype was made by slightly underexposing a glass wet plate in the camera. The finished plate produced a negative image that appeared positive when backed with velvet, paper, metal or varnish, making it the 19th century equivalent of the "instant photograph.”

Because of the fragility of the material, both the ambrotype and daguerreotype were usually enclosed in a glass case.

The Tintype:

Period of use: 1858 - 1910s.

Also called Ferrotype or Malainotype, tintypes were another variation of the wet plate process. Photographers painted an emulsion onto a varnished iron plate, which was then exposed in the camera. The low cost and durability of tintypes, coupled with the growing number of traveling photographers, enhanced the tintype’s popularity

Tintypes came in a variety of sizes, were cheaper and sturdier than earlier processes, and could be mailed. Because of this, the tintype was extremely popular during the Civil War.

http://www.floridamemory.com/OnlineClassroom/photographic-processes/

The Perils of Research

Having grown up on Victoria Holt, I adore the Victorian era. It seems so mysterious, so Gothic, and no matter how much research I do to shed light on it, the Victorian era still feels that way to me.

And I do a lot of research.

I didn't originally; I just wrote the story and assumed that if my characters used candles instead of electric bulbs, I was doing it right. I was, of course, proven wrong, but I don't regret those days. Back then I wrote for the pure joy of living the story. I wrote with fire and enthusiasm, and I suspect that if I had been worried about the research, I'd never have finished those manuscripts. For a beginning writer, knowing you can write an entire book is everything.

Now, though, I do that research. I do it before the book is started, in the middle of writing and at the end. Most of the time it's not a burden, but a pleasure. Sometimes it's too much of a pleasure. It's very easy to get caught up in what I'm reading and forget that I opened the research book to find out one little bitty piece of information, which, incidentally, probably will only get one line in my manuscript. And that one line is only to establish mood and atmosphere, and will probably be skimmed by the average reader. And yet, I want that line badly. Eight hours and 20 pages of notes later I've got lots and lots of information related to what I was originally researching--but I still don't have the one line. And the information I have, I may never use.

I did this with Victorian Jewelry. For the record, researching Victorian jewelry was not my favorite thing to do. I was reading the book while my sons and husband watched the Super Bowl in another room, and their occasional yelps and cheers reminded me strongly of what I was sacrificing for the sake of my career. But I kept reading the book on jewelry because my hero was going to darned well buy my heroine a necklace for Christmas, and I wanted to know what it would look like. And actually, any other necklace any other of my characters in any other book might wear. So I read this book and took pages and pages and pages of notes. I got the necklace figured out and finished the story. Yay!

Except that recently I went back over those notes. They make no sense at all. I can barely read my own writing. If I ever want to write another novel with Victorian jewelry in it, I'll have to take the book out of the library again. Probably in the middle of the World Series, (but NOT if the Red Sox are in it because, really, some sacrifices are just too great) while my family screams and groans, and I read an entire book once again so I can make sure that yes, my character would wear a dragon-fly brooch encrusted with emeralds in 1885.

Only to decide later that she's way too poor for that.

In my next life, I'm going to write contemporary romances.

Victorian Interests

I'm interested in a lot of different historical periods, and several of my WIPs aren’t remotely connected to this timeperiod. My undergraduate degree is in American History and is about as generalized as you can get. Why did I choose to write in this era? A lot of reasons. Mostly, however, it’s because of the delineation within its own society - straight-laced and proper, and new and exciting. Societal rules were strict and strictly adhered to – in public. Behind closed doors was something no one ever talked of. New inventions popped up all the time and were the talk of both rich and poor alike. So much was going on during these 64 years that it's almost impossible to think of them all! Physics and combustion, governmental upheavals, great literary works, everything we base our society on now, began then.

It's fascinating, how can one not be intrigued? What interests you in this time? What made you decide to write – or read – about this era?

Victorian Women Fight Back, Declaration of Sentiments

In my next book, Stalking Star, the heroine is a woman’s right’s activist in 1886. To fully understand the movement and how she feels about it, I’ve been doing some research. I thought it would be horribly dull, since I’ve never had much interest in Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, Susan B. Anthony or any of the rest. I’m learning, much to my surprise, that these women were not the cardboard women that I thought I knew, but actually quite intelligent and sometimes pretty funny. I’ll write about that more in a later blog.

For this week, however, I wanted to post parts of the Declaration of Sentiments, which was read at the first Women’s Rights’ Convention held in Seneca Falls, July 1848. It was modeled (as you’ll see) after the Declaration of Independence and was read by Elizabeth Stanton. Most of what they said I already knew, but to “hear” it in their own voices gives, I think, a better understanding of how women at this period in time felt about their societal roles. The movement was not just about getting the right to vote. It was about getting the right to vote (which might sound a little dull to today’s woman) so that they might have some say over their lives and the laws of the time, which were written almost exclusively with men—women’s superior!—in mind.

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries on the part of man towards woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

These are some of the grievances that Stanton read: (these, to me, are the most flagrant):

Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
He has made her, if married, in the eyes of the law, civilly dead.
He has taken from her all rights in property, even to the wages she earns.
He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women--the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.

I knew that at this time when a wife committed a crime, if her husband was present, he could be prosecuted for that crime (short of murder), since the wife was subordinate to the husband and by law, required to obey him. This was part of English law, and incorporated into the laws of the U.S. http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/blackst.html


That children went to the husband in the situation of a divorce I knew on a sort of peripheral basis. It does give us a greater understanding of why women would stay in a horrible marriage even if she had the means, the grounds and the emotional strength to file for divorce. Few women would risk losing her children, and you would imagine that the more brutal the man, the more she would fear for their welfare. I admit, however, that I haven’t any additional information or sources for this assertion. It’s something I’ll probably research at a later date.

In the meantime, for anyone interested in the full Declaration of Sentiments, you can read it at this web site:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Senecafalls.html

Women In the Ranks -- Intro

Female Civil War Soldiers

Although I've started revisions on my time travel romance, Erin's Rebel, I'm also revising an outline for a new Civil War romance I'm calling, Katie Rose. Katie is a widowed Irish immigrant who takes up the rifle while disguised as a man in the Confederate ranks.

Through my research for this upcoming book, I've learned many interesting facts and have read biographies of the women who actually served in both the Union and Confederate armies pretending to be men.

Since women weren't allowed to join the army during this period in history as they can today, this was the only way they could serve as soldiers.

How did so many accomplish this and hide the fact that they were women?

A few of the women I'll highlight include: Sarah Emma Edmonds, Jennie Hodgers and Sarah Rosetta Wakeman. Although these three all served in the Union Army, I'll also include stories of female Confederate soldiers.

The main reference book I'll be using is All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies by Elizabeth D. Leonard, but I'll also use a few other source books as well as supply interesting links for further reading.

In past blogs on this site, I've talked about women who served as nurses and even one who was a Union surgeon. But through this series of blogs, I plan to highlight the true stories of these brave, unsung women heroes who fought alongside the men in battle. I'll talk about why and how they hid their identities, as well as their day to day challenges. I'll also provide interesting links for further reading.

Hope you enjoy.

Source: All the Daring of the Soldier: Women of the Civil War Armies by Elizabeth D. Leonard: Penguin Books, copyright 1999: ISBN: 0-14-029858-4

Anglo-Zulu War 1879

This war signaled end of Zulu independence, and shouldn't be confused with the Boer Wars (1880-1881 and 1899-1904). It was a complicated transfer of land and succession to King Mpande of Zululand (1840-1872), Boers, the king's sons, and the Utrecht district (read the background here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zulu_War#Background).

The new king Cetshwayo kaMpande (1872-1879) refused British demands of outrageous reparations for a minor boarder schirmish. In January 1879, a British force under Lieutenant General Frederick Augustus Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford invaded Zululand. Apparently, even though they declared a state of war to exist when Cetshwayo refused their demands, there was no authorisation by the British Government

Confused? It’s way more complicated than this. But the bottom line is all about colonialism.

http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/
http://www.anglozuluwar.com/
http://www.answers.com/topic/anglo-zulu-war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zulu_War

Standard Oil 1870

Incorporated by John D. Rockefeller in 1870, Standard Oil used effective but widely criticized tactics, to absorb or destroy most of its competition.

State laws tried to limite the scale of all companies (probably insitituted in response to the Robber Barons, Rockefeller included), Rockefeller (and his partners) developed innovative ways of organizing to manage their increasing enterprise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
http://www.history.rochester.edu/fuels/tarbell/MAIN.HTM

Victorian, childbirth & drugs

For much of the last 25 years the notion of using painkilling drugs during childbirth has been considered by many to be passé at best, poor parenting at the worst. The idea of “natural childbirth” took root in the last quarter of the twentieth century as being the “best” way to have a child because it spared the baby being exposed to drugs, which passed through the placenta. The mother’s pain was considered almost irrelevant, and as one woman pointed out to me “What’s wrong with a mother if she can’t handle a little pain for the sake of her child?” The best way to have a child was to learn to breathe. Breathing, it seemed, made the pain go away.

Many a Victorian woman would have looked at us like we have three heads.

At the time religion taught women that childbirth was God’s punishment for listening to the snake in the garden of Eden. A lot of Victorian women didn’t care. They didn’t know about the passage of the drugs to the infants, they didn’t have access to modern medicine such a c-sections, and forceps, sometimes improperly used, could cause horrible tears and sometimes irreparable damage. Childbirth could be a slow, painful death. Victorian women wanted drugs.

The original drug of choice was laudanum, a morphine derivative. Then, in 1847, Ether was introduced, shortly followed by chloroform (used in NYC in 1848). By the middle of the 19th century (among urban woman) both were often administered by doctors. They were not used by midwives, however, who had neither the training or the apparatus to use the drugs. Such training was withheld by the medical profession. Is it any wonder that the profession of midwifery slowly died out?

Doctors did have concerns over the use of drugs though. They masked the pain, and some claimed they slowed down childbirth. Therefore in the beginning, drugs were often used with great caution, some doctors only employing them in extreme cases, others only when asked. By the end of the century, using drugs during birth was a common occurrence and thus, childbirth, though still dangerous to women, was at least a little less dreaded.

Sources: Brought to Bed, Childbearing in America, 1750 to 1950, Judith Walzer Leavitt

Dreyfus Affair 1894

French Captain, Alfred Dreyfus, was falsely accused, court marshaled, and sentenced to Devil’s Island Prison in French Guyana in 4 months for passing military secrets to Germany.

His conviction was based on incomplete and flimsy evidence, the fact that he was Jewish, and the French military’s need for a speedy trial.

To read more: http://bartleby.com/65/dr/DreyfusA.html

http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=6767
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_Affair

Utah enters the Union 1896

In 1850, President Millard Fillmore named Brigham Young the first governor of Utah territory. Then reports spread that Mormon leaders disregarded federal law and publicly sanctioned polygamy. In 1857, President James Buchanan removed Young (he had over 20 wives and one must wonder how he…procreated with all his other duties) as governor, and sent U.S. Army troops to Utah to establish federal authority. Tensions continued until Wilford Woodruff, president of the Mormon Church, issued his 1890 Manifesto. In it, he renounced the traditional practice of polygamy and reduced the domination of the church over Utah communities. Renunciation of polygamy was also a key factor in statehood.

Six years later, the territory of Utah was made the 45th state.

http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4643
http://www.utah.com/visitor/state_facts/statehood.htm
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/struggleforstatehood.html

Victorian first: First Female White House Staffer 1890

President Benjamin Harrison welcomes Alice Sanger as the first female White House staffer today in 1890.

It has been speculated that Ms. Sanger's appointment wasan olive branch to the growing women’s suffrage movement. In 1890, two of the most influential women’s suffrage organizations, the American Woman Suffrage Association and the National Woman Suffrage Association, combined to become the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Their demands included stronger female property rights, employment and educational opportunities for women, improved divorce and child custody laws and reproductive freedom.

If Ms. Sanger actively supported women’s suffrage or not is unknown. But Harrison’s appointment ofof her indicats a (cautious) step toward strengthening female representation in government.