Royal Wedding Excitement — Not
The Washington Post has a Sunday section (on Saturday, of course) about the Royal Wedding. One of the commentaries I’ve been seeing over the last week is that the U.S. doesn’t seem to be particularly interested in it. That’s a very different response than when Diana and Charles were married. Then it was a BIG DEAL. It seemed like it was everywhere. It was a fairy tale come to life, where the princess gets her prince (though Charles, IMO, was more of a frog).
Why not? Maybe it’s because it was different time then. Maybe it’s the 24 hour news cycle that’s made everything exciting and a major news event, so therefore, nothing is. Maybe it was Diana herself. She certainly had something about her that few other people have.
One of the things writers do is take their experiences and reshape them into the story (“Write what you know,” which usually gets misunderstood). I have a Queen in my story, and her sister, who died before the story started. The sister is like Diana, in the respect that everyone just loved her and loved taking photos of her and painting her. Since this is a character who never appears on page and all everyone has are the images, the fantasy image works, and I use what I remember from the Royal Wedding. But for the modern Queen, that’s based on the women in Washington, DC — the political leaders, the CEOs, the generals. Then I folded in my military experience, where you’re in a man’s world and have to adapt, plus all the commentary on women in the political world (it’s typical to get a detailed article on the cleavage a woman politician shows — but by celebrity standards was positively tame). That’s how you get “write what you know.” Taking shared experiences like this and speculating on what they can do if combined together.
Groceries today (Trader Joe’s). Later on a trip to the library to pick up a book I have on hold, Lonesome Dove, which I’ve heard is in omniscient. I’m hoping by then it’ll warm up a little. The heat’s off, and it’ll be miserable trying to write!