strange and random happenstance

The Ill-Kept Oath by C.C. Aune
Published by: Wise Ink Creative Publishing
Publication Date: September 27th, 2016
Format: Paperback, 416 Pages
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

Prudence and Josephine are the very best of friends as well as family. Therefore when Prudence heads off to London with their maiden aunt Amelia for her debut season it's no surprise that the letters fly back and forth between the cousins from the metropolis to Wiltshire. Josephine feels left behind and Prudence just wishes she were home. But Prudence knows the realities, unlike her cousin, she is penniless and therefore must make a great match. Which is complicated by what she and Josephine are about to uncover. The start of the season also coincides with Prudence's eighteenth birthday. Eighteen is a milestone birthday and she is surprised by her aunt with a box. Aunt Amelia claims it's full off nothing but rubbish but has been keeping it for Prudence as a bequest from her parents. Prudence knows next to nothing about her parents, she and her brother were orphaned at a young age, and to get a mysterious box and to be told they had a rare set of talents called the Inheritance, well, it makes her question everything she's ever known. But the box appears to be rubbish indeed, relics that are better off in the trash; an Elizabethan velvet overgown, a pair of elbow-length gauntlets missing a couple of digets, a stained wool cloak, a sword with a broken blade and a dented cross-guard, and a shining gold ring which needs repair. Despite their decrepitude Prudence keeps being drawn to them and even gets the ring repaired and takes to wearing it. She's wearing the ring in fact when her aunt agrees to accept an invitation from a Baroness Revelle. It turns out that Aunt Amelia and Lady Revelle have a history, as did Lady Revelle and Prudence's mother. Which might explain why Aunt Amelia wants to keep them apart. Lady Revelle claims to know about the ring Prudence wears as well as other things. Could Lady Revelle be the answer to the cousins' questions? Because Josephine has been dealing with magical artifacts of her own discovered in the attics of Greenbank Manor; a man's costume cut for a woman that must have belonged to her own mother as well as a pair of pistols. She's woken up more than once sporting the clothes and welding the weapons somewhere on the grounds of Greenbank. Plus, not that she likes to eavesdrop, but there's an encampment of troops in Wiltshire and she could have sworn that she heard Lieutenant Quimby talking about trolls to her father. Could all of this be related? Could magic really exist? And if so, Prudence and Josephine have been lied to by those whom they love the most and they need to know why.

Many lovers of Regency Magic were first introduced to this historical fantasy subgenre through Caroline Stevermer and Patricia C. Wrede's Sorcery and Cecelia or The Enchanted Chocolate Pot. Released in the late eighties this epistolary novel is really the go-to recommendation for this subgenre. I see why historically, but there are so many better books out there that whenever I see the recommendation to read it I instantly want to horn in on the conversation and be like, "but have you read..." and start just listing books. I can actually do it for quite awhile. But now I specifically want to say "but have you read The Ill-Kept Oath?" And then avoid shouting in someone's face that it's Jane Austen but with trolls! The non-troll reason being is that The Ill-Kept Oath has the same basic framework, two cousins who are best friends separated because one of them is having her first season and magical things start to happen which they write to each other about. I mean obviously the Regency and epistolary novels go hand in hand because of how Jane Austen herself originally wrote Sense and Sensibility, but the epistolary format has limitations. You only get access to what the characters are willing to tell their correspondent, not what else is happening in their life or what they are excluding. The Ill-Kept Oath uses an expanded epistolary form, we get letters, but we get so much more. So while this is very Sorcery and Cecelia meets Les Liaisons Dangereuses with a heavy helping of Sense and Sensibility it is so wonderfully it's own unique voice that I fell in love with it almost instantly. What's more it gave me hope in books again. A renewed love of reading. My mood is effected by what I read and for the week it took me to devour The Ill-Kept Oath I was walking on air. I had so much work to do and when I head to bed if I'm tired I will forgo reading. But it didn't matter how tired I was, I had to keep reading. I had to know more. I had to know what Lady Revelle was up to, The Ill-Kept Oath's own Marquise de Merteuil. I had to know all about what Prudence and Josephine's parents kept from them. And right there I have to call out the brilliance of this book. Often when adults keep secrets from their children in books the reasons are often lame. I mean, if it was my kid I'd totally tell them. Here it actually made sense for Amelia and Lord Middlemere to keep quiet. Of course now I can't wait to read about the fallout of that decision... Oh how I long for the sequel.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: C.C. Aune, Epistolary, Inheritance, Josephine Weston, Lady Revelle, Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Prudence Fairfeather, Regency Magic, Sense and Sensibility, Sorcery and Cecelia, The Ill-Kept Oath, Trolls, Wiltshire

Most people aren't familiar with the actual text of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, instead they are familiar with the Christopher Hampton adaptation, who interestingly is an executive producer on this show. That adaptation for the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1985 has formed the basis of all the adaptations since, from John Malkovich and Glenn Close to Colin Firth and Annette Bening to Ryan Phillippe and Sarah Michelle Gellar, they were all inspired by that interpretation of the text. In fact the 2015 National Theatre staging of Hampton's play with Janet McTeer and Dominic West might be one of my favorite productions ever. And yet, even in perfection there are a lot of issues I have with the source material, issues that are resolved in this adaptation by almost completely ignoring the book, the play, and any other form of the original story, to tell their own tale where revenge is justified and at some point every cast member of Game of Thrones shows up. You think I'm joking? Melisandre is married to Jaqen H'ghar in the most terrifying fanfic mashup of all time. But then again Valmont looks like the lovechild of Eddie Redmayne and Christian Slater while Camille is a pre-revolutionary French doppelganger for Portia from The White Lotus. And of course Lesley Manville shows up because she is now contractually obligated to be in everything. The only way that she had time to stop in as Valmont's opponent, Madame de Merteuil, is that they do the unthinkable and kill her off in the first episode. What is Valmont without Merteuil? Well, that is one of the things this series plays with. It takes things that are familiar in the book and all it's adaptations and it plays with it. It bats it around like a playful kitten until you get something entirely new yet familiar. The book is an epistolary novel and it is with letters that we begin, letters as weapons. Weapons that can be used for real revenge not just petty jealousies. It's not Merteuil pouting that her lover lost interest, it's Camille systematically destroying the society that ground her down and didn't believe her when she cried rape. This is Dangerous Liaisons for the MeToo era. Yes, there might still be rape, but it's not Madame de Merteuil telling Valmont to rape a rival, it's the seed for revenge. In fact Merteuil's taking Camille under her wing is so that this young, wronged woman will be able to exact the revenge that Merteuil herself could never enact against her own husband, who in an interesting sideline is involved in a high end brothel which ties into some murders. This story is propulsive and no longer insular due to Camille's background. While we are still cocooned to some extent within the higher echelons of society we see truth, we see reality, we see historical figures and the unrest on the streets that will soon lead to revolution. And while we see flashes of the original story from time to time the story is cyclical with Camille becoming the new Madame de Merteuil and the end of this series really being the beginning. Ah, if only Starz hadn't toyed with us we'd actually be getting that second season which I think would have brought everything full circle. 

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: #MeToo, And the Emmy Goes To, Christopher Hampton, Dangerous Liaisons, Epistolary, French Revolution, Game of Thrones, Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Madame de Merteuil, National Theatre Live, Starz, Valmont

The Ill-Kept Oath by C.C. Aune
Published by: Wise Ink Creative Publishing
Publication Date: September 27th, 2016
Format: Paperback, 416 Pages
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

Prudence and Josephine are the very best of friends as well as family. Therefore when Prudence heads off to London with their maiden aunt Amelia for her debut season it's no surprise that the letters fly back and forth between the cousins from the metropolis to Wiltshire. Josephine feels left behind and Prudence just wishes she were home. But Prudence knows the realities, unlike her cousin, she is penniless and therefore must make a great match. Which is complicated by what she and Josephine are about to uncover. The start of the season also coincides with Prudence's eighteenth birthday. Eighteen is a milestone birthday and she is surprised by her aunt with a box. Aunt Amelia claims it's full off nothing but rubbish but has been keeping it for Prudence as a bequest from her parents. Prudence knows next to nothing about her parents, she and her brother were orphaned at a young age, and to get a mysterious box and to be told they had a rare set of talents called the Inheritance, well, it makes her question everything she's ever known. But the box appears to be rubbish indeed, relics that are better off in the trash; an Elizabethan velvet overgown, a pair of elbow-length gauntlets missing a couple of digets, a stained wool cloak, a sword with a broken blade and a dented cross-guard, and a shining gold ring which needs repair. Despite their decrepitude Prudence keeps being drawn to them and even gets the ring repaired and takes to wearing it. She's wearing the ring in fact when her aunt agrees to accept an invitation from a Baroness Revelle. It turns out that Aunt Amelia and Lady Revelle have a history, as did Lady Revelle and Prudence's mother. Which might explain why Aunt Amelia wants to keep them apart. Lady Revelle claims to know about the ring Prudence wears as well as other things. Could Lady Revelle be the answer to the cousins' questions? Because Josephine has been dealing with magical artifacts of her own discovered in the attics of Greenbank Manor; a man's costume cut for a woman that must have belonged to her own mother as well as a pair of pistols. She's woken up more than once sporting the clothes and welding the weapons somewhere on the grounds of Greenbank. Plus, not that she likes to eavesdrop, but there's an encampment of troops in Wiltshire and she could have sworn that she heard Lieutenant Quimby talking about trolls to her father. Could all of this be related? Could magic really exist? And if so, Prudence and Josephine have been lied to by those whom they love the most and they need to know why.

Many lovers of Regency Magic were first introduced to this historical fantasy subgenre through Caroline Stevermer and Patricia C. Wrede's Sorcery and Cecelia or The Enchanted Chocolate Pot. Released in the late eighties this epistolary novel is really the go-to recommendation for this subgenre. I see why historically, but there are so many better books out there that whenever I see the recommendation to read it I instantly want to horn in on the conversation and be like, "but have you read..." and start just listing books. I can actually do it for quite awhile. But now I specifically want to say "but have you read The Ill-Kept Oath?" And then avoid shouting in someone's face that it's Jane Austen but with trolls! The non-troll reason being is that The Ill-Kept Oath has the same basic framework, two cousins who are best friends separated because one of them is having her first season and magical things start to happen which they write to each other about. I mean obviously the Regency and epistolary novels go hand in hand because of how Jane Austen herself originally wrote Sense and Sensibility, but the epistolary format has limitations. You only get access to what the characters are willing to tell their correspondent, not what else is happening in their life or what they are excluding. The Ill-Kept Oath uses an expanded epistolary form, we get letters, but we get so much more. So while this is very Sorcery and Cecelia meets Les Liaisons Dangereuses with a heavy helping of Sense and Sensibility it is so wonderfully it's own unique voice that I fell in love with it almost instantly. What's more it gave me hope in books again. A renewed love of reading. My mood is effected by what I read and for the week it took me to devour The Ill-Kept Oath I was walking on air. I had so much work to do and when I head to bed if I'm tired I will forgo reading. But it didn't matter how tired I was, I had to keep reading. I had to know more. I had to know what Lady Revelle was up to, The Ill-Kept Oath's own Marquise de Merteuil. I had to know all about what Prudence and Josephine's parents kept from them. And right there I have to call out the brilliance of this book. Often when adults keep secrets from their children in books the reasons are often lame. I mean, if it was my kid I'd totally tell them. Here it actually made sense for Amelia and Lord Middlemere to keep quiet. Of course now I can't wait to read about the fallout of that decision... Oh how I long for the sequel.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 2 comments  

Labels: C.C. Aune, Epistolary, Inheritance, Josephine Weston, Lady Revelle, Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Prudence Fairfeather, Regency Magic, Sense and Sensibility, Sorcery and Cecelia, The Ill-Kept Oath, Trolls, Wiltshire

Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos
Published by: Doubleday Books
Publication Date: March 23rd, 1782
Format: Hardcover, 497 Pages
Rating: ★★
To Buy (different edition than one reviewed)

The Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont were once lovers. Yet their rupture wasn't acrimonious, in fact they are now perhaps closer than ever before. They have a voluminous correspondence telling each other of past, present, and future conquests. Salacious details pepper their letters that they know only the other will appreciate. Though the Marquise is already tiring on Valmont's most recent project. He has sequestered himself out in the country with his aunt because he is trying to bed his aunt's houseguest, Madame de Tourvel. Only he doesn't just want this devout young wife's body, he wants her body and soul. To speed up his conquest the Marquise de Merteuil offers a night back in her bed if he were to quickly accomplish the task and return to her in Paris because she has a job for him. The Marquise's former lover, the only one to ever jilt her, is to be married to the virginal Cécile de Volanges. She thinks it would be just if this young girl just out of the convent weren't so innocent when she reaches her wedding bed and for that she needs Valmont. Yet Valmont stalls and drags his heels, could this cad, this supreme seducer be falling for a little church mouse? Luckily the Chevalier Danceny comes on the scene as Cécile's music tutor. The two young ones fall madly in love and yet neither knows what to do! It will take all the cunning of the Marquise de Merteuil to pull this off, but when Valmont learns that Cécile's mother has been writing vitriol against him to Madame de Tourvel he instantly joins in the plan to take the virtue of young Cécile. Passion, love, seduction, the lives of this small and scheming group are about to change forever with Valmont joining the fray and not all will survive.

If you are a fan of Colin Firth who is a completest, one day, after you've worked your way past such oddities as Femme Fatale, where he stars opposite Billy Zane and Billy's sister Lisa, you will stumble upon Valmont. In fact I would go so far as to say that only those attempting to watch Colin Firth's entire back catalog have seen this misfire of a film. Needless to say this addlepated film was overshadowed by the big screen version of Christopher Hampton's stage adaptation the year before starring Glenn Close and John Malkovich. A film that spent so much money on miscasting that their budget was stretched so thin that all those closeups that were thought artistic were really to hide the fact that they didn't have money for anything beyond a few nice costumes. Combined, these two adaptations left me scratching my head because I could not for the life of me understand why Les Liaisons Dangereuses was a classic, with or without Keanu Reeves. But then I saw a broadcast of the National Theatre Live production of Christopher Hampton's stage adaption starring Janet McTeer, Dominic West, and Elaine Cassidy and everything changed. I finally connected to these characters in the intimate setting of the Donmar Warehouse. I would even go so far as to say of all the "live" theater broadcasts I have seen over the years this one was hands down my favorite. This inspired me to finally read the book and all I am left with is the knowledge that Christopher Hampton is a genius given proper casting, and these characters need to be brought to life by talented actors in order to illicit any kind of emotional response.

The problem is this book is one of the most famous epistolary novels that wasn't written by Samuel Richardson. It's not the fame that's the problem it's the form. Epistolary novels over the centuries have expanded to not just be diaries or letters but here we're limited to the letter and Laclos likes to leave a little bit of a mystery. So instead of being extremely intimate, which is what a successful epistolary novel does, letting us into the character's innermost thoughts, the letters purposefully muddy the waters. Characters say one thing to one person and the exact opposite to another but they are both written in the same voice so there is no way to tell what the truth is even if there is a truth. This means you take the characters at face value, what they say is who they are, there are no lines to be read between and you're only sure of one thing, they all come across as dicks. On top of that these characters are interacting with each other between their correspondences and we never really hear what happens except in passing. This leads to the reader being distanced from the characters because of the elliptical way their story is being told. So if you weren't alienated by the characters being assholes, you're alienated by an author who thinks he's being clever. That is why this book works better adapted into another format. Taking the best of the material at hand and making it into conversations instead of having characters sitting in chairs on stage or screen and just reading and writing letters. Giving the story definition and having actors that are able to sell it. Because a good actor can make you root for a bad character any day.

The transference into another medium also helps in eliminating the book's other problem, it's overwritten. Seriously, send an editor in STAT. Again and again the characters go back to the same things, the same arguments, the same platitudes of love, on and on and on and if I read the word chimerical one more time I will scream. If you've read one letter from Valmont to Madame de Tourvel you've literally read them all. Valmont: I love you! Madame de Tourvel: Please don't say that. Over and over and over. The forward progress of the narrative is so infinitesimal that after a time you think nothing is going to happen. I mean, I knew that Valmont was to seduce naive young Cécile and it took FOREVER to get to that point. I'm not joking when I say that took HALF the book to happen. All told there are 175 letters over five months and almost all the action happens at the very end. In fact the big moments are almost swept under the carpet! Valmont's death is just, and he's dead! The Marquise de Merteuil's fate is basically a postscript! This book needed someone like Christopher Hampton to come along and slap it into shape, because Miloš Forman and Jean-Claude Carrière sure made a hatchet job with Valmont. Oddly enough the only forward momentum is not momentum at all but reminiscences. The stories of past conquests and bizarre take-downs that the Marquise de Merteuil and Valmont share are the only lucid and succinct storytelling in all 500 pages of this book. And those stories don't exactly make for the best reading, as it's the destruction of lives and the stealing of virtue.

And virtue is indeed stolen. That is my biggest hangup with Les Liaisons Dangereuses, does consent mean nothing? Again, this is why seeing it on stage or screen works, because the actors can give a look, perform an action, that changes what is being said. Yet here the correspondence is in black and white, there is no middle ground, and to me Cécile is forced into a sexual relationship with Valmont, both from his actions and the Marquise de Merteuil's peer pressure. While Laclos is again elliptical, what you gather is that Valmont rapes Cécile and then she enters into a relationship with him against her will and her heart's desire. This isn't cool people. This isn't right. While I said that an adaptation can create a middle ground to what is happening I want to make it VERY clear that in life there is no middle ground when it comes to consent. I think this was the most shocking discovery to me in reading this book, I knew the lead characters were not likable people, but I thought that their liaisons were based more on seduction than blunt force. The number of times that poor Madame de Tourvel says no and is ignored? What I took to be the central love story that reformed Valmont is nothing more than a man not realizing that no means no and his target becoming so worn down she gives up. And while reading this book at any time would have made me point these problems out, in this day and age with the Time's Up movement and #MeToo, I was struck by how this book revels in the very worst in humanity. Consent should be enthusiastic and no should always, ALWAYS, mean no.

But I wonder if perhaps that's why it was so controversial at the time. Did people behave like this or were they scandalized to think people could behave like this? Or was this just showcasing the lax morals of the previous generation that was about to be overthrown through revolution? That notion actually playing into the recent revival by the National Theatre. While this book is still very scandalous, I don't think that is the reason why it is a classic. The reason why Les Liaisons Dangereuses has lasted is that it's humor, underneath all the horrors, is wry and arch. The book has a humorous self-deprecating style wherein the characters actually comment on Danceny being the hero of the tale, and oh, such a dud of a hero. Like Thackeray's Vanity Fair it's a book where the anti heroine and hero are the compelling characters. You get a vicarious thrill to think of someone destroying another for sport, but in the end you get the added thrill that the assholes get their due. Because THAT is the key when you have unlikeable characters. If these reprehensible examples of human life don't get what's coming to them it's just glorifying their existence. Because they pay for their sins the scales balance in the end. Which makes me really want to sit down with Laclos and ask him what his personal opinions were on issues of consent because you have to wonder, what with Valmont dying and the Marquise de Merteuil getting smallpox, losing an eye, and being shunted off to Amsterdam where something too horrid to mention happens, if he was actually just wanting to write something salacious that would sell and in the end it rather ambiguously states his real opinions through death and disfigurement.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: #MeToo, Colin Firth, Consent, Dominic West, Epistolary, Les Liaisons Dangereuses, National Theatre Live, Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, Rape, Sweet Reads, Thackeray, Time's Up, Valmont, Vanity Fair

Sorcery and Cecelia or The Enchanted Chocolate Pot by Patricia C. Wrede and Caroline Stevermer
Published by: HMH Books for Young Readers
Publication Date: April 15th, 1988
Format: Hardcover, 316 Pages
Rating: ★★★★
To Buy (different edition than one reviewed)

Kate and her younger and far more eligible sister Georgiana are debuting in London this season under the watchful eye of their Aunt Charlotte. While back in Essex Kate's best friend and cousin Cecelia is stuck rusticating with her father, her brother Oliver, and her Aunt Elizabeth. Cecelia would give anything to be in London with Kate, while after a few days in London Kate would give anything to be back in the country. The only thing keeping each other sane is their voluminous correspondence with each other. Luckily both their lives soon become far more interesting, as do their letters. Their neighbor in Essex, Sir Hilary Bedrick, is invested into the College of Wizards in London and at the ceremony Kate stumbles on something and someone very magical and dangerous, a wizard named Miranda. Miranda soon appears in Essex where her stepdaughter Dorothea is making a splash as well as fast friends with Cecelia. There appears to be a plot afoot to marry Dorothea off to Thomas Schofield, the Mysterious Marquess of Essex, who also happens to be a wizard. Soon their are missing brothers, fake fiances, undiscovered magical abilities, gambling, dancing, horses, borrowed books, and one very interesting chocolate pot. Working in two different locations can the two cousins save the day and perhaps get a little happily ever after?

Epistolary novels were once all the rage. There's something voyeuristic to reading a book of correspondences that just makes you not want to put the book down. There's the immediacy of wanting to know what happens next that sometimes isn't their in more traditional books. Plus, because you are reading diaries, letters, innermost thoughts, you have this feeling that it's not just voyeuristic but wrong and the owner of these letters could arrive at any moment and take them away, giving a frisson of excitement to your reading. Jane Austen was raised on these books and it's no wonder then that she experimented with this format. Sense and Sensibility, when it was still Elinor and Marianne, was an epistolary novel. But Jane abandoned this approach because she didn't like having to keep her characters apart for the whole narrative, which is an aspect to this style that must be adhered to. The fact that Sorcery and Cecelia is able to convincingly keep to this style when Jane Austen herself wasn't I think deserves a tip of the hat for being that little bit magical and all the more Regency.

Wrede and Stevermer created this epistolary book by playing the letter game. The game is played when two (or more) participates exchange letters back and forth that are telling a story. The first writer sets up the characters and the basic story and why the characters corresponding need to be apart and then the next writer builds on it. The letters fly back and forth, with the authors trying to one-up each other all while never discussing plot or character outside of the letters. It's a fun game that can be used as a writing exercise, a way to do collaborative writing, or a way to just have fun. I think of it as that drawing exercise I remember doing in first grade where a sheet of paper would be divided into three sections and someone would draw the first section of an animal and then it was hidden, then the next child would draw the middle of the animal, while the final child finished off the animal having no idea what came before. Personally I was always annoyed because I wanted to do the drawing all by myself. When I was younger I hated working collaboratively, so the letter game sounds a bit of a nightmare to me; like doing those improve stories where you just go all out back and forth, sometimes through the alphabet. The key I think is to do this with someone you trust, and the end result of Sorcery and Cecelia is that you can tell Wrede and Stevermer trusted each other and had fun in the process.

One of the by products of having coauthors on a book that goes back and forth between two narrators is that you have two very distinct voices. If you were writing any book with more then one narrator, if the voices of these characters don't come across as two different people it does nothing but annoy and alienate your readers and makes me really pissed. You either go all out or go home. But one of the problems that arises is that perhaps you start to favor one voice, or in this case, one author over the other. You can't help but compare and contrast and even re-reading this book all these years later I couldn't help but want to smack Cecelia. Of the two authors I feel as if Wrede is trying to not only one-up Stevermer but to wrest complete control of the story while making everything a little too much a pantomime. I couldn't help but think of Heads You Lose once or twice and how the combative natures of the writers amusingly fueled the plot. But Wrede isn't trying to be combative, but she is too forceful in her sections and it makes me long for the Kate sections. Stevermer writing Kate has the right level of collaboration while also having a better written heroine. As for the writers kind of mirroring these characters when I met them... let's just say that also reinforced my opinions.

But going back to talking about the aspect of an epistolary novel adding an immediacy to the story I think that the letter game ups this. Because the two authors aren't collaborating outside the letters they are sending back and forth there is no plotting in advance. It's all cause and effect, with breathtaking fluidity. Wrede and Stevermer might each have an idea or where they want the story to go and how they want it to end, but they can easily throw a wrench in each others ideas knowingly or unknowingly. This makes you, as the reader, want to just keep reading in a headlong rush because you and the authors don't know what will happen next! The suspense is palpable. The suspense is real. It's like watching a game, you don't know how it's going to turn out so you can't look away. Usually it's only tightly plotted books that have the ah ha moments perfectly placed for revelations that make suspense last, but here it's just the letters of two girls living in a magical England, and that makes me smile. Anyone who thought Regency England was all staid conversation and glacial plots should be handed this book to knock their prejudices aside.

Though for me the most important aspect of this book is that it kick-started a whole new generation of writers. It's amazing how many authors works who I love that list Sorcery and Cecelia as one of, if not the most favorite book of theirs. I kind of wish that I had found this book when it came out back in the eighties. At that age reading such a fun, madcap romp, with a little magic and romance, I can see why Gail Carriger and Stephanie Burgis point to this book and go yes, this book is inspirational. Who knows what might have happened with my reading habits if I had stumbled on this book earlier? Perhaps I would have found Jane Austen prior to senior year in high school. Maybe my book nerdiness would have onset earlier. But overall, I am grateful for the publishers that saw two writers having fun and realized that that joy was infectious and should be put out into the world, because it's magical.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Caroline Stevermer, Chocolate, Epistolary, Gail Carriger, Heads You Lose, Jane Austen, Letter Game, Patricia C. Wrede, Regency Magic, Sense and Sensibility, Sorcery and Cecelia, Stephanie Burgis