Loretta: MR. IMPOSSIBLE is the second in the series of books about the Earl of Hargate’s expensive sons, whom he wants married and out of his hair. The hero of MISS WONDERFUL was an extreme Regency beau. The new hero is an extreme Regency buck. When I described Rupert Carsington to my agent, she said, "He’s a cowboy." That’s the perfect twenty-first century word for him. In the nineteenth century he’s a black sheep, a rogue, a scamp, a rapscallion - and a large pain in the pocketbook for his father. Fed up with bailing him out of jail, Rupert’s father has sent him to Egypt, ostensibly to assist the British Consul-General, but actually to make Rupert someone else’s problem. Very soon the consulate feels the same way, so when Daphne Pembroke, a brilliant but introverted language scholar, demands their help in finding her kidnapped brother, they stick her with Rupert - along with the bill for getting him out of jail. In other words, brain meets brawn - with, I hope, entertaining results.

I loved working on this story. Every character was a joy to write. The research was so much fun. I’ve always been addicted to ancient Egypt. But while reasonably familiar with what was going on in the late Victorian and Edwardian periods, I knew almost nothing about the place in the Regency era. So the research was an eye-opener. Egypt in 1821 makes the U.S. wild, wild West look like a tea party: one truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tale after another. So much material for fiction that I’m toying with the idea of setting another book there, somewhere down the line.

Bee: Your first book published was ISABELLA. Will you tell us how you went about about getting an agent and publisher to consider your book?

Loretta: It took me two years to write ISABELLA, because I was learning as I went along. When it was finished and had been proofread and critiqued by several people, I sent it to Walker and Company. At the time, Walker was publishing hardcover traditional Regencies, mainly for the library market, and was one of the few publishers who’d accept work over the transom. I did not have an agent. I was too intimidated to query an agent. I preferred the anonymity of the slush pile to having to sell myself to an actual human being. Because I had been a "Writer’s Digest" subscriber for years and years, I knew the drill: publication comes only after several rejections. Wanting to get the rejections over with as quickly as possible, I immediately started another book. So imagine my emotions when Ruth Cavin, Regency editor at Walker, called me some months later to say that she found ISABELLA "delightful" (yes, I remember the word) and hoped it was still available (!). The agent came into my life later, when another publisher wanted to publish my work. At that point, with two publishers interested, it was much easier to overcome my shyness and call an agency.

Bee: You switched from traditional Regency to a more sensual style, what brought that change? Are you more comfortable in one style over the other?

Loretta: It’s doubtful I would have changed if my Avon editor, Ellen Edwards, hadn’t suggested it. I wasn’t sure I could write a bigger book. She believed I could, and she was a wonderful guide as I made the transition. She continued to be a guide and inspiration throughout her time editing me at Avon. As to sensuality - every love scene is a challenge; sometimes it’s the toughest part of writing a story. It would be much easier to close the bedroom door and stick to witty repartee or slapstick. I doubt the readers would be happy, though, and the characters would probably get pretty cranky.

Bee: You write prequels and sequels, and I find it is nice to check in with previous characters. What made you decide to follow these lines? Will we seen Dain and Jessica or Lydia and Vere again?

Loretta: When writing a novel, one builds a world. The sequels and prequels are ways of returning to that world and exploring it further. It’s interesting to take a peripheral character in one book and bring him to center stage in another and find out what makes him tick. It’s interesting, working out how to redeem an intriguing villain. Right now, I’m fascinated with the Carsington family dynamics. What's it like for these men, having an incredibly powerful, manipulative father? What’s this particular brother’s problem? How does he feel about his siblings? What’s in the individual and the collective past? And then there’s the fun of finding each sibling the perfect mate.

I have no idea if or when I’ll revisit characters from previous books. At the moment, my mind is on the Carsington men and a couple of peripheral characters in their lives. But who can say? One day I might wake up with a wild idea about Dain or Ainswood or some minor character in that group and turn it into a novella or a full-length book.

Bee: You tend to lean towards strong female characters and rather befuddled, confused male characters. Is this something you enjoy in other books?

Loretta: One thing I made up my mind about at the beginning was strong heroines. It might be a reaction to all those nineteenth century English novels I studied, where the strong/complex/sexy/interesting women tend to be the bad girls and usually come to a bad end. But it’s the feminist in me, too. I like and admire strong women, in books, movies, and real life. As to the men ... befuddled and confused? Well, yes. My stories are romances. They’re about falling in love. They’re about feelings. Women tend to be very tuned into their feelings. They spend a lot of time thinking and talking about them. Men do not. So they are not usually at their articulate best when they are falling in love.

This doesn’t mean I see men as confused and befuddled. Far from it. They tend to go after what they want. They dare. They want to solve problems rather than talk about them. They take things apart and put them back together. Basically, they’ve got that testosterone thing going that I find deeply fascinating. These are all sweeping generalizations, of course. But in my stories, I try to keep the Mars/Venus dichotomy in mind because it’s interesting and poignant and funny - and, generally speaking, true.

Bee: Your last two books, MISS WONDERFUL and MR. IMPOSSIBLE, seem to harken back to a more traditional Regency feel. Is this something internal to you or is the market changing?

Loretta: This subject has come up before (see the FAQ section on my Web site). I’m not sure why the last two books seem to have that "more traditional Regency feel." I wouldn’t have thought MR. IMPOSSIBLE is remotely like a traditional Regency - but then, I’m not sure what the benchmarks are. What I can say is that my style and treatment arise from characters, setting, and story. The feel of the book isn’t something I consciously set out to create, so if it matches a market trend, that’s dumb coincidence.

Bee: There was a bit of a hiatus between your last book in the 1990s and MISS WONDERFUL. Was it hard to go back to writing or did you have other projects?

Loretta: I was exhausted, and spent a while just resting my brain and doing the things that my deadline-focused life had not permitted - like having a life. I can’t remember how long I went without writing, but it wasn’t long. Then I did other projects, both experimental/artistic and for commercial gain. Getting back into the historical romance groove wasn’t easy, mainly because I wasn’t getting back into the same exact groove. The world had changed; I had changed. The author of ISABELLA was not exactly the same person as the one who wrote LORD OF SCOUNDRELS - and she isn’t exactly the same as the one who wrote MR. IMPOSSIBLE. The Loretta Chase who emerged from what I call my "sabbatical" needed to make herself a new groove. That was no small challenge - and frankly, it was scary - but then, writing is a scary business. Writers have to live inside their own heads for hours at a stretch, and that place isn’t always pretty.

Bee: What drew you to Regency England as a time period?

Loretta: When I started, it was the only kind of historical romance I felt capable of writing. My college career had given me a good background in English history and literature. I had read and expounded upon the classic nineteenth century English novelists, and loved the joy in and appreciation of language and wit. So it felt like familiar territory. As time passes and my research library continues to grow, my appreciation of the era only increases. So much was happening at the time, so many fascinating people were doing amazing things, that there’s no chance of running out of subject matter.

Bee: What do you read when you are not writing?

Loretta: Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, over and over. Other nineteenth century English novelists, though not necessarily over and over. Murder mysteries of various kinds. Patrick O’ Brian. Janet Evanovich. Jennifer Crusie. P.G. Wodehouse. Terry Pratchett. Various non-fiction - Bill Bryson and Simon Winchester are particular favorites. "The New Yorker". And I do read research books for fun. There’s a virulent strain of history geek in me, if you want the truth.

Bee: Do you have any advice for would-be authors?

Loretta: Yes. Practice. Unless you’re a literary genius, it’s the only way to get good at writing. It’s the only way to get good at anything. How many hours a day does, say, a pianist practice? The more useful kind of practice comes in a controlled environment. I didn’t really learn how to write intelligibly until college. But then I got lots of practice writing papers, and the benefit of expert criticism by some very tough professors. So if you’re in a situation where you can or must take college courses, take the ones that demand many hours of reading and writing. I never recommend Creative Writing courses. I know some are highly regarded. However, too many strike me as prejudiced against or uninterested in popular fiction. As a result, they do not seem to be the best training ground for people who want to write romance.

Another useful kind of practice is a job that involves extensive writing. It can be in a law office or a newspaper or a p.r. firm; there are many, many possibilities. These kinds of jobs don’t necessarily teach you how to come up with great characters and plots (that’s another skill set), but they do train you to write clear, concise, organized prose so that you can tell your wonderful story well. Note that all of my suggestions involve producing work under a deadline. So along with improving skill in using language, one develops discipline, which may be the most valuable of all the writer’s tools.