“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” John 10:10 NIV
Laurie Alice here. Often when I was a child, we neglected to lock the house door leading from the attached garage and into the kitchen.
We didn’t think about how vulnerable we were. Crime didn’t happen in our quiet neighborhood. Yet one night when the door stood unlocked, someone slipped into our house and stole my mother and sister’s purses off of the dining room table.
Not one of us, not even the dog, heard a thing, yet while we were sleeping, a thief invaded our home and took our possessions.
Even now, decades later, I feel sick to my stomach thinking about that incident. What utter horror to realize how, too easily, this thief could have taken more, including our lives.
Why someone takes what is not theirs to have more at other’s expense I do not comprehend, yet the world is full of thieves come to steal from our lives. We fall under the false idea that, to have an abundant life, we must have more shoes, a wider screen TV, chairperson of that special committee on which we sit, instead of remaining in a position as a worker bee.
During the Regency, life was no different. The “stuff” people wanted might have been different—a high perch phaeton instead of a cool new car, an invitation to Almacks instead of that committee chairship, a hand-painted fan from China instead of a Louis Vuitton handbag—but the sentiment is the same. The end results are the same now and then. In our pursuit of false roads to abundant life, we rob ourselves of what Jesus wants for our lives.
He promises abundance, the fullness of life. That may not come in the form of material possessions or a honored status. Jesus gives us a richness of life, a purpose well beyond the realm of stuff and into the completeness of everlasting life.
The only thing more enjoyable than having a good hobby is having two good hobbies – and being able to indulge them both at the same time. That’s why I was so excited when I first got a glimpse of Interweave Knits’ special issue “Jane Austen Knits”. Regency history and needlecraft? The combination was as enticing as chocolate and coffee. (Some things are just made to go together.) But does “Jane Austen Knits” live up to its promise?
The Articles
If you’re more a history buff than a knitter, this is where you’ll find the meat of the publication. The magazine includes 8 articles and essays, ranging from the scholarly (“The Mighty Muslin” and “Regency Fashion in Color”) to the journalistic (like the profile of a woman who sells sewing patterns for Regency-era clothing).
My favorite of the articles is the essay that graces the last page of the publication: “Jane Austen, Multitasker” by Rebecca Dickson. It’s a loving profile of Austen herself, highlighting her work ethic both in her writing and in her needlecraft. Austen’s example is an encouragement to any woman trying to pursue a dream while also handling the mundane details of life.
The Patterns
This magazine contains a generous 36 patterns, and they’re all beautifully photographed. Instead of trying to reproduce period-accurate clothing, the patterns are instead simply inspired by Austen’s work, taking Regency details and translating them into wearable modern clothing.
Despite this modernization, I can certainly see Georgiana Darcy wearing her namesake shawlette, a gorgeous lace affair, or Elizabeth Bennet carrying the Diamond and Cross Reticule to a ball a Netherfield. More modern patterns include the sleek Elinor Tunic, and the exquisitely detailed Lambton Top and Fiori Pullover. Most of the rest of the patterns fall somewhere between the sensibilities of the 1800s and those of today.
On my own to-knit list? The simple Short Stays vest, the Woodhouse Spencer and, someday, when my knitting skills improve, the jaw-droppingly gorgeous Meryton Coat, a beautifully stranded jacket inspired by the military uniforms of the era.
Conclusion
So, did “Jane Austen Knits” fulfill my hopes for a publication that promised to combine two of my favorite hobbies? Emphatically, yes. And, if you share my love of knitting and of Regency history, I’m happy to point out that it’s now on sale over at Interweave. I should also note: I bought my own copy of this magazine and haven’t been compensated for this review in any way. All opinions in this post are my own.
Even the president of the United States takes time to fill out his basketball predictions.
Ah, Spring. When a young American man’s fancy turns to brackets and basketballs and he is likely to put more consideration into picking which college to root for than he did selecting which college to attend. There’s a reason it’s called March Madness.
Kristi here, and the fascination with sports is not a new one. The Regency era saw a culture on the cusp of the organized sporting events. While many games remained unofficial skirmishes, there were several championship challenges emerging by the beginning of the Victorian era. And of course, all of them got gambled on.
Royal Ascot – Horse Racing
Ascot, 1791
In 1711, Queen Anne acquired land near Ascot in which to hold horse races. The first race had a purse of 100 guineas. By 1813, races at Ascot were such a part of the fabric of England that Parliament stepped in, passing an act to ensure the racing grounds remained a public racecourse.
Prinny, the future King George IV, made Ascot one of the most fashionable social occasions of the year. After ascending to the throne, he had a new stand built for the exclusive use of guests of the royal family. The Royal Enclosure still exists today and admittance to it is very difficult to obtain.
An example of a modern day hat worn by an attendee in the Royal Enclosure.
The Royal Ascot was, and still is, a four day event. It was the only racing event held at the racecourse during the 19th century. England’s elite would gather to watch horses above the age of six barrel through the course in pursuit of the Gold Cup.
The grandeur of the original races continues today in the strict dress code requiring formal day dresses and those infamous hats for the attending ladies. Men must still wear the morning suits and top hats as a nod to the Regency era.
During the early 1800s, fashion was always important to the upper class and the Royal Ascot was certainly no exception. The importance of dressing right for the races even lent its name to the traditional wide morning tie, now known as an Ascot Tie.
The Royal Ascot takes place in June, one of the last hurrahs of Spring Season.
Players Vs Gentlemen – Cricket
A Cricket Game at Darnell
This amateur against professional game of cricket actually skipped over the true Regency. It began in 1806, disappeared for a while, and then re-established as a yearly tradition in 1819. It remained in place until 1962 where is phased out again only to be revived in recent years, with matches in 2010 and 2011.
At the time of conception the Gentlemen, or amateurs, were largely aristocratic men who had played during their school years. The Players were professionals, paid to play by various county cricket clubs.
Cricket Ball. Image courtesy of Ed g2s
Unlike professional athletes of today, the professionals weren’t hired to play each other but rather to play the gentlemen that were members of the cricket clubs. Rather like a tennis pro or golf pro at a modern day country club.
The game lasted for three days and usually took place at Lord’s. Not including the most recent matches, the Players had 125 wins to the Gentlemen’s 68. Today the Players are professional athletes from England’s competitive cricket circuit and the Gentlemen tend to be pulled from the University cricket teams.
Intercollegiate Sports – The Boat Race
The Boat Race, Oxford V. Cambridge, 1841
Colleges had always prized physical skill in addition to mental learning, but it wasn’t until the early Victorian era that they began to officially meet each other on the playing field. Prior to this point, most collegiate athletic competitions were between houses within the college.
Cricket and Rowing competitions between Oxford and Cambridge both started in the 1820s.
The Boat Race, as it is still referred to today, began in 1829 and has had a tumultuous history ever since. It would be another twenty-five years before the race settled into being an annual event, but the spirit and drive that propels people from different schools to meet on the field, or river in this case, of athletic competition was alive and well during the Regency. Currently Cambridge is on top, with 80 wins to Oxford’s 76. This year’s race will be held in April.
What sports competitions do you get excited over? What was the last major sporting event you went to see?
Isn’t it wonderful that God gives us spring to follow cold, dreary winter? We are accustomed to spring coming. It happens every year at the same time. We don’t doubt it. We accept it. God promised as long as the earth remains we would have seed time, and harvest, summer, and winter.
We accept it because He has proven it for thousands of years. We know that we know. What would happen if we treated every problem in our lives with the same faith? It will come to pass because God says it will. Nothing happens to us that does not go through God’s hands first. If we are chosen to walk through a difficult place. We should realize that God knows our strengths and weaknesses and trusts that we will come through said place stronger. He will never put us in a place we cannot come out of victorious.
I once saw a mama dog take her litter of six puppies into a patch of tall grass and leave them. The mama dog came out of the tall grass and sat on our lawn watching the place she left them. The puppies cried and whined wanting her to come get them. She sat there waiting until they used the senses God gave them to pick up her scent and follow it back to safety. I am happy to say all the puppies made it out, AFTER they quit crying and whining.
God stretches and grows us to mold us in His image because He knows if we look, sound and act like Him, nothing can defeat us. When we go through the winters in our lives we have the promise that spring will come. Everything is cleaner and greener and bluer in spring. It is filled with new life and joy. One must realize that as wonderful as spring is, if we didn’t have the winter to keep the insect population down and the rains to replenish the earth we wouldn’t have the beautiful colors of spring to enjoy. If we look at our daily lives in the same way we will understand if it never rains we’ll never grow. Next time your life seems like winter will never end and the rains will never cease, remember Gods promise in Genesis 8:22. Winter will die and spring will be birthed without fail.
Every glass that is half empty is also half full. What matters is the way we see it. It is cold and rainy in the winter but the tiny seeds underneath the ground need it to grow. How many times have we unconsciously prayed on a rainy day, “Lord please let the rain stop.”? If we controlled the weather, would we ever let it rain? Unless we are having hot flashes, would we ever let an ice storm develop? I think I am very glad God hasn’t asked me to be in charge of the seasons. I am afraid my selfish love for spring would end up destroying the world He made.
Thirty days hath September, April, June and November; All the rest have thirty-one, Excepting February alone Which hath but twenty-eight, in fine, Till leap year gives it twenty-nine.
Just as young people desiring to bypass all the rigmarole to get married in Regency England could hightail it to Scotland, women could also thank the Scots for making it a law allowing women to propose to men one day a year, every four years on Feb. 29.
Tradition has it that this law came on the books back in 1288—and that if a man turned a woman down, he must pay a fine, anything from a kiss to a pair of gloves or even a silk dress. Another tradition has it that the spurned woman must be wearing a visible red petticoat if she wanted the fine paid. Tradition aside, there is no written evidence on the books of Scottish Parliament’s having passed such a law.
Another legend has it that it was over in fifth century Ireland that St. Brigit asked St. Patrick to allow women to propose to men, since, supposedly, men were laggards in this area. After a bit of negotiating, St. Paddy allowed it every four years on Leap Year Day.
The American Farmer, published in 1827, quotes this passage from a 1606 volume entitled Courtship, Love and Matrimonie:
Albeit, it is nowe become a parte of the Common Lawe, in regard to the social relations of life, that as often as every bissectile year doth return, the Ladyes have the sole privilege, during the time it continueth, of making love unto the men, which they may doe either by wordes or lookes, as unto them it seemeth proper; and moreover, no man will be entitled to the benefit of Clergy who dothe refuse to accept the offers of a ladye, or who dothe in any wise treate her proposal withe slight or contumely.
So, wherever or however the tradition developed, by the time of the regency, Leap Year as a year or a day of female initiative in the romantic sphere was well-known. 1812, 1816 and 1820 were all leap years. Even though the Gregorian calendar had made the bissextile year (having an extra day) official back in 1582, Britain ignored the date of Feb. 29, so legally it didn’t exist. British law conveniently “leaped over” the date, probably because of so many negative superstitions associated with it, especially concerning livestock and crops. Ignoring this day resulted in a tradition of “anything goes”—hence women proposing to men. According to the Encyclopedia Americana2004 Edition (Volume 17), King Henry VIII’s reign had an English law passed making February 28 the official birthday of “leaplings” or “leapers,” those born on Leap Year Day .
LEAP YEAR, OR JOHN BULL’S PEACE ESTABLISHMENT
[Published March, 1816, by S. W. Fores, 50, Piccadilly]
This British political cartoon satirizes the royal marriage of Princess Charlotte of Wales (the Prince Regent’s daughter) to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg on May 2, 1816.
The British Parliament settled £60,000 on the newlyweds, with £50,000 more for the prince should his bride pass away. The cartoon depicts the English nation on its hands and knees, a bit in his mouth, driven by Her Royal Highness with a horsewhip.
John Bull is the national personification of England, the way “Uncle Sam” is to the United States. He is loaded down with packages labeled with all the heavy tax burdens imposed on the populace at the time. After more than a quarter century of war with France, Britain’s people were financially exhausted. The Prince Regent’s extravagant lifestyle and building projects only filled them with disgust and caused a growing number of riots (one reason the Prince Regent preferred spending time at his seaside retreat, the Royal Pavilion at Brighton).
In the cartoon, Prince Regent George supports himself on crutches formed of dragons from his Brighton money pit. “Push on!” he shouts, “Preach economy! And when you have got your money, follow my example.” “Oh! my back,” groans John, crawling under the weight of his heavy burdens. “I never can bear it! This will finish me.”
Sources: English Caricaturists and Graphic Humourists of the Nineteenth Century/Chapter 3, Wikisource.org; Smithsonian Magazine.com; http://www.altiusdirectory.com/Society/leap-year.html; http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Leap-Year-Superstitions/; http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/historical/a/leap_year_2.htm; http://voices.yahoo.com/leap-year-2008-history-facts-798349.html?cat=37
What does the word “diverse” mean to you when you see it in relation to books and publishing? For some, it is joy. It means being seen. It’s a celebration. For others, it is a tag to “otherize” and foment hate. In publishing, it means a journey fraught with both peril and joy. Today, I’m going to give you a state of affairs. In true fashion, I will present the history of diverse publishing in the U.S., work through some of the issues, and then invite you to be a part of the conversation.
Vanessa Riley standing on her porch being diverse, holding two genres: mystery and romance… with Black people.
Let’s Unpack the Word Itself
“Diverse” is often used in publishing as shorthand for books that feature nonwhite characters, non-Western settings, LGBTQ+ protagonists, or disabled representation. But here’s the thing: diverse only exists in contrast to what’s considered “normal”—a category still largely defined by whiteness, heterosexuality, and able-bodiedness.
The term can unintentionally center whiteness as the default, as seen in publishing practices where diverse books are often marketed as niche or special interest, rather than universal. For example, promotional materials might highlight the diversity of a story as its primary selling point, rather than focusing on its universal themes or compelling narrative, subtly reinforcing the notion that these stories are “different.” Similarly, books featuring nonwhite protagonists are frequently segregated into separate categories, making them less visible to mainstream audiences. When someone says, “This book is so diverse,” what they’re often implying is, “This book is not about the kind of people or places I usually read about.” And if the word diverse causes discomfort, it’s worth asking why. What is it about encountering other perspectives that feels threatening, or so unfamiliar it warrants a disclaimer?
Subscribe for free. Get Vanessa’s take on publishing, challenges, and opportunities, drawing from her journey as an indie author turned traditionally published powerhouse: 25 novels and counting.
A Timeline of Diverse Movements in Publishing
The truth is, the push for diverse stories is nothing new. Starting as early as 1965, one can track the movement or small earthquakes that have changed the publishing industry:
* 1965: Formation of the Council on Interracial Books for Children, challenging racist stereotypes in children’s literature and advocating for inclusive stories.
* 1969: Launch of the Coretta Scott King Book Awards, recognizing outstanding African American authors and illustrators.
* 1975–1990s: A handful of authors break through (or are allowed to breakthrough), leaving a lasting impact on readers:
* James Baldwin – The Devil Finds Work (1976)
* Mildred D. Taylor – Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry (1976)
* Toni Morrison – Song of Solomon (1977)
* Maya Angelou – And Still I Rise (1978)
* Octavia E. Butler – Kindred (1979)
* Lucille Clifton – Two-Headed Woman (1980)
* Audre Lorde – The Cancer Journals (1980)
* bell hooks – Ain’t I a Woman? (1981)
* Angela Davis – Women, Race, & Class (1981)
* Alice Walker – The Color Purple (1982)
* Gloria Naylor – The Women of Brewster Place (1982)
* August Wilson – Fences (1985)
* Virginia Hamilton – The People Could Fly (1985)
* Rita Dove – Thomas and Beulah (1986)
* Walter Mosley – Devil in a Blue Dress (1990)
* Terry McMillan – Waiting to Exhale (1992)
* Eva Rutland – The House Party (1991)
* Beverly Jenkins – Night Song (1994)
* Brenda Jackson – Tonight and Forever (1995)
One of my beloved bookshelves.
* 2000s: The #WeNeedDiverseBooks movement emerges, pushing publishers to examine their rosters. The next remnant of influential writers and works come to the forefront of publishing:
* Edwidge Danticat – The Dew Breaker (2004)
* Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie – Half of a Yellow Sun (2006)
* Toni Morrison – A Mercy (2008)
* Jesmyn Ward – Salvage the Bones (2011)
* Marlon James – A Brief History of Seven Killings (2014)
* Ta-Nehisi Coates — Between the World and Me (2015)
* Colson Whitehead – The Underground Railroad (2016)
* 2018: The Cooperative Children’s Book Center reports that books by or about Black, Indigenous, and People of Color make up only 10% of published books. (This has improved but remains a concern.)
* 2020: The murder of George Floyd spurs demand for anti-racism literature. Publishers pledge to diversify catalogs and increase representation in leadership. The #PublishingPaidMe movement highlights disparities in compensation for BIPOC authors.
Present Day
Initiatives like Blackout Bestsellers Week have faded, with sales and visibility campaigns showing diminishing participation. On June 25, 2025, Publishers Weekly headlined: “Layoffs Hit Little, Brown Editorial; Tracy Sherrod, More Depart.” The article states: “With the departure of Sherrod, the trade publishing industry has now seen three high-profile Black women depart from top positions since the big publishers made a public commitment to increase their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the wake of the 2020 murder of George Floyd. Lisa Lucas was dismissed from Pantheon Schocken last month after three years at the imprint, while Dana Canedy left her role as SVP and publisher of the Simon & Schuster imprint in 2022, after two years.”
In August, the New York Times followed up with, “‘A Lot of Us Are Gone’: How the Push to Diversify Publishing Fell Short.” It detailed a system that allows trailblazers to become fatigued, new entrants discouraged, and emphasized the emotional toll of continuously advocating for inclusion in a resistant system.
Why This Matters to Me
Critics argue that many efforts remain performative. A lot of discourse feels performative. I remember a widely circulated screed on illustrated covers, advocating for photography instead. I sat there, quietly eating my lunch, knowing my most widely circulated and bought romance books are with illustrated covers—like A Duke, The Lady, and A Baby. Its sales dwarf my photorealistic covers, which showcase beautiful Black characters instead of race-ambiguous caricatures.
The trade cover of A Duke, The Lady, and A Baby.
I, a Black female writing disruptive stories about the true history of Black women and women of color—of Black folks finding love and dignity within systems that discourage anything but conformity—sometimes feel lost. A recent comment on my 2025 historical romance, A Wager at Midnight, read: “Love the diverse characters in this book. It doesn’t take away the romance or the fun. It actually enriches the romance.”
Say What?
I want to make something clear: reviewing is hard. Putting your thoughts out there, especially in today’s fraught cultural climate, takes guts. I have no intention of criticizing this reviewer personally. In fact, maybe they’re doing a service by signaling to nervous readers that diverse stories won’t accidentally make them “woke.”
A reader made a Funko Pop of Scarlet from a Wager at Midnight. That’s a reader’s excitement for the story.
But comments like these invite a larger conversation about how we perceive books by and about people who exist outside of the dominant narrative. While I deeply appreciate the kind words, the phrasing raises questions: Do readers, particularly white readers, still need reassurance that stories with diverse characters are “safe” to enjoy? Is the word diverse itself triggering? Does it bring hesitation?
Literature is one of the safest ways to explore unfamiliar perspectives. It costs nothing to empathize with characters who look different from you. In fact, it enriches you. Diverse or diversity shouldn’t trigger you. Ask why it does.
Moving Forward
Below are my personal thoughts on how we can reach a point where any book can excite any reader without clauses or pauses:
* Books by authors of color should be marketed as universal stories.
* Readers should challenge themselves to read widely all year, not just in February.
* Reviewers should recognize that their willingness to review, as well as the words they use, are invaluable in shaping narratives about what stories matter.
And if you want to read a “diverse” romance, check out A Wager at Midnight. I promise it’s a terrific read, full stop.
Be A Part of the Conversation
Add your comments and share your experiences. Authors, feel free to contribute your insights as well. I’ve posted a poll on Spotify to explore where readers stand. There’s no judgment—having open discussions is key to moving forward.
This is Vanessa. I’m looking forward to hearing from you!
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vanessariley.substack.com/subscribe
For those of us immersed in the Regency time period, the year 1812 holds numerous significant incidents–incidents that set history on a course from the old world and into the new. Power changed hands in government and wars, the Industrial Revolution dug in its heels, and Great Britain, for all it became the most far-flung empire in history, began to receive its first glimpse of a shocking truth—they would not always rule the waves.
George, Prince of Wales
By 1811, few people denied that the king was permanently mad and could no longer be head of state. The Regency bill passed making his eldest son, also a George, the Prince Regent, or the head of the government. The king, however, still showed enough glimpses of restoration to health that “Prinney” didn’t assume full powers of his role until 1812.
A gamester and profligate spender, the Prince Regent was forever petitioning Parliament for money. This placed him in the power of Parliament and the role of royalty in actually running the government of the kingdom began to diminish.
While Prinney assumed his role as head of Great Britain, a man known as Captain Ludd assumed a different kind of leadership role mostly in the north. The Luddite Rebellion fills books it is such a complex subject, a small war that ultimately took soldiers into Nottingham and York and Lancashire to put it down. Many men died.
The simplest way to explain the Luddite Rebellion is that the weavers, mostly those making stockings, couldn’t make a living. They usually had to rent their looms, the prices for their products were controlled, and they couldn’t change a thing. The Industrial Revolution was bringing in steam looms, machines that were too much competition. So the Luddites started smashing up looms and not letting people work. They sabotaged the industrial looms and spinning machines. Violence reigned powerfully for several months and took about a year to put down in full.
Smashing of the Looms
A way of life was coming to an end. The cottage industry of weaving with one or maybe three looms at home was no longer viable in a world quickly becoming mechanized through steam power.
May 11, 1812 saw a horrendous incident when a man stormed into Parliament and shot the prime minister in front of witnesses. Many thought this a French plot, but it was a disturbed individual who thought he hadn’t been served justly by the government. Although the consequences of this assassination weren’t to be known for many years, it brought in a different government that delayed necessary reforms in laws and taxation that would have happened sooner had Perceval lived.
Wellington and George Overlooking Waterloo
On a brighter note, the war with France, that had been dragging on for nearly twenty years and not going all that well for Great Britain, finally took a turn for the better. Arthur Welsley, AKA Wellington, won the Battle of Salamanca in Spain and the tide was turning against the French at last. Of course, Napoleon didn’t help himself by invading Russia. Tremendously weakened his forces and, I think had a damaging psychological effect on the French people. The emperor was no longer invincible.
Finally for the purposes of this article, is the War of 1812, as we know it here in the United States. In England, it’s a blip on the radar, not even taught in advanced history classes. I once laid out some facts about it to a British friend who said I had to be mistaken. In no way could this fledgling country with about eighteen naval vessels, none great, have beaten down the most powerful maritime power the world had known.
But it happened. Great Britain was impressing our men because the war with France had so decimated their supply. On the smallest pretext, they boarded our ships and took away anyone they could pretend was really English and didn’t’ care about the rest. They also tried to tell us where and with whom we could trade. We said, Uh, no way, you don’t rule us any more, and did as we pleased. We declared war in June, which was kind of stupid of us rather like a domestic tabby taking on a Siberian tiger.
USS Constitution vs. HMS Guerriere by Anton Otto Fischer
But we had our privateers. We built the best small, fast, and maneuverable vessels in the world. We armed them and ripped apart the British merchant fleet, taking hundreds of merchantmen until the merchants put pressure on Parliament and the United States signed the Treaty of Ghent on Christmas Eve 1814 and got everything we wanted, including the Northwest Territory. Interestingly, we didn’t win a single land battle, most of them in Michigan and Canada. Not to mention the British burned our national capital.
Britain faced the fact that she could be defeated on the high seas. Although we had a long way to go to be as powerful as England in the maritime realm, we showed our claws and made this powerful nation back down. To be fair to Great Britain, they were a bit preoccupied with France.
The Regency is a fascinating turning point in history. 1812 may have the most collective number of those turns of any year of this short but significant time period.
I love chocolate. I love my husband. I don’t love these things in the same way, though. It’s one of the frustrating things about the English language. We have the word like and we have the word love and there’s nothing in between. I used to think we should introduce the word “loke” into our vocabulary to establish a level between like and love. Then I could say I loke chocolate and I love my husband.
We toss the word love around a lot in the United States. That can’t be said for every other country in the world. I had a friend from England once that got a bit fed up with our usage of it. When someone said, “I love chocolate” my friend would make a face and say “Why don’t you marry it then?” Not terribly original, but it gets the message across.
The thing is we use the same word when we say we love God, and I think that’s a problem. We have just equated God with chocolate. That’s not good. When we take a concept, like love, and weaken it, we begin to lose the power that word can have.
Photo by Jen Smith
How many times have you seen someone say something like this in a book or a movie: “I love him. Well, I don’t love love him. I love him like a brother or a friend or in that I love my dog kind of way. Not that he’s a dog, I just think of them the same.”
Okay, so the part about the dog isn’t ubiquitous, but you get my point.
Jesus had several words for love when He walked the earth. Unfortunately, this distinction is often lost when we translate the Greek into English. Take the following passage from John 21 verses 15-17.
When they had eaten breakfast, Jesus asked Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said to Him, “You know that I love You.” “Feed My lambs,” He told him. A second time He asked him, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” “Yes, Lord,” he said to Him, “You know that I love You.” “Shepherd My sheep,” He told him. He asked him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved that He asked him the third time, “Do you love Me?” He said, “Lord, You know everything! You know that I love You.” “Feed My sheep,” Jesus said.
Two different forms of the word love are used in this passage. Agape and phileo. Agape referred to deep, true, unconditional love while phileo was used more for general love more akin to loyalty and affection. If we take those differences into account, the passage above reads more like this:
When they had eaten breakfast, Jesus asked Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said to Him, “You know that I am your friend.” “Feed My lambs,” He told him. A second time He asked him, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” “Yes, Lord,” he said to Him, “You know that I am your friend.” “Shepherd My sheep,” He told him. He asked him the third time, “Simon, son of John, are you My friend?” Peter was grieved that He asked him the third time, “Are you My friend?” He said, “Lord, You know everything! You know that I am your friend.” “Feed My sheep,” Jesus said.
Peter was saddened because he had to own up to the fact that he wasn’t giving Jesus the true love that his savior wanted.
What kind of love are we offering Jesus? Do we love Him like chocolate? Our dogs? Our family? Or are we giving Him the ultimate love that He offered to us? Let’s start thinking about the meanings behind our usage of the word “love” so that when we say “I love you, God” we really mean it.
I can wax on about the lovely aspects of the Regency era and the fiction it has spawned, but to reign in my thoughts, I’ll limit my reflections to four elements, each beginning with a letter of LOVE.
L … The Language is delightful. Where else can you read such bits of “slang” as charming as the cant of the Regency? Aren’t there a few celebrities today about whom it could be said “She has more hair than wit”? Referring to someone as “attics to let” wouldn’t be kind, but it is a rather smile-provoking turn-of-phrase. I’ll leave this topic with one more of my favorites: “Stepping into parson’s mousetrap”, which reflects some gentlemen’s views on marriage.
O … Society had Order and structure which is lacking today. When’s the last time most of us had an “at-home day” upon which your friends knew you’d be at home and expecting visits. Have you gone to a tea, musicale, ball, or garden party of late? The fascinating protocol of hosting, attending, making guest lists, sending invitations, and subtle gradations of how deep one shall bow or curtsey; these bygone rules are distinct and keep our interest.
V … Feminine Virtue was the order of the day. The unmarried maiden’s virtue was carefully guarded, so as to bring a pure virgin to the marriage altar. This virtue is sadly absent today, and reading about a day in which purity was guarded can be an inspiration. Reading Christian Regency fiction allows one to recapture the thrill of a first kiss, perhaps at the altar, without the seamy pages that follow in secular romances.
E … If you read for Escape, Regency England is a delightful place to visit. Most of us will never make it over to intriguing Bath, Brighton, or Tunbridge Wells. We won’t tread the ground of Northumberland, Sussex, or the like. But, ahh, flip open the typical Regency, and you’re transported to a lovely place and time, all bound within the pages of the book in your hands.
_by_Albert_Anker%2C_Sotheby's.jpg "\"Knitting Girl Watching the Toddler in a Cradle\" by Albert Anker (PD-Art|PD-old-100)")
_-_Aldolphe_William_Bougvereav.png "Untitled Painting by William-Adolphe Bouguereau ((PD-Art|PD-old-100)")
