CHARACTERS AND REALITY

ReadModernLadyTableCityGIG Pat here:

I’m not entirely certain how the rest of the wenches find time to research and write their edifying blogs on fascinating subjects. When it comes my turn to blog, I’m usually musing on something much more pragmatic—like whether it’s better to leave off my glasses while doing housework.  I used to scrub the house every weekend, but now that I wear glasses, I don’t notice the grime on the kitchen cabinets or the dust on
Housekeeper the TV so there’s not as much to clean. It’s a miracle!

But it’s these little bits of reality that eventually get woven into the characters I write.  I make no pretense about it—I’m a character-driven writer.  Fitz (WICKED WYCKERLY) was chasing a six-year old shouting catchfart long before I researched the inns on the road to Brighton.  Blake (DEVILISH MONTAGUE) has been dueling in my head and Jocelyn stealing parrots before I knew where Wellington was in his battle against Napoleon that year. The characters and story almost always come before my research.
Wicked wyckerly final
That doesn’t mean I don’t research at all. If I am to have a character using a pen, I will most certainly determine the date and origin of the first inkpen—and that’s no simple matter since a fountain pen was designed in 1702, an American pen patent was filed in 1809, and a British one that was half quill in 1819, but it wasn’t until 1884 that Waterman produced a truly practical fountain pen.  While researching pens I might fall fascinated into quills and have a character produce odes to left wing feathers for their proper curve and crow feathers for their fine lines, cursing that the quills only last a week’s time. 
Quill

BUT, and I fear this is a very large exception—I will become so enamored of my character saying something like gobsmacked that it will never occur to me to check the origin of that word. Inventions, yes, words, no. Once upon a time I had copy editors familiar with Regency terms who might catch my idiosyncratic straying, but now copy editors rarely recognize when I turn a contemporary phrase into Regency language. I have no idea if Regency people ever used the phrase stubble it, (although I suspect Heyer did) but it works nicely when I really want to say stuff it. Nary an eyebrow has been raised over term or phrase.

I suspect part of my irrational use of both historical and contemporary language is generated because too many editors have questioned the real language of the period. Most Americans can’t pronounce marquess correctly, and editors have fits over gaol. If I give them sapscull, they’ll just change the spelling, so I do it for them.

But if I madly combine the real and the unreal, does it confuse the reader? Do you enjoy odes to quills or would you prefer that the heroine call the hero a sapskull and get on with the story?  And what character traits would you like to see portrayed in your favorite romance? Is near-sighted not romantic?

155 thoughts on “CHARACTERS AND REALITY”

  1. I’ve wondered why nearsighted characters never benefit from their ability to focus on things close to them more easily. I’m not the only person who removed her glasses when grading gems and put her nose in the tray – the close focus of the badly nearsighted is sometimes better than the magnified focus of the standard sight person.
    I like a disabled hero/ine as long as it’s not part of a miracle cure story. I completely hate when they have their ‘disability’ resolved via the insight of the significant other. I quite like a few imperfections – I read something recently that described the heroine’s bottom teeth as a ‘jumble’ and it was fantastic.

    Reply
  2. I’ve wondered why nearsighted characters never benefit from their ability to focus on things close to them more easily. I’m not the only person who removed her glasses when grading gems and put her nose in the tray – the close focus of the badly nearsighted is sometimes better than the magnified focus of the standard sight person.
    I like a disabled hero/ine as long as it’s not part of a miracle cure story. I completely hate when they have their ‘disability’ resolved via the insight of the significant other. I quite like a few imperfections – I read something recently that described the heroine’s bottom teeth as a ‘jumble’ and it was fantastic.

    Reply
  3. I’ve wondered why nearsighted characters never benefit from their ability to focus on things close to them more easily. I’m not the only person who removed her glasses when grading gems and put her nose in the tray – the close focus of the badly nearsighted is sometimes better than the magnified focus of the standard sight person.
    I like a disabled hero/ine as long as it’s not part of a miracle cure story. I completely hate when they have their ‘disability’ resolved via the insight of the significant other. I quite like a few imperfections – I read something recently that described the heroine’s bottom teeth as a ‘jumble’ and it was fantastic.

    Reply
  4. I’ve wondered why nearsighted characters never benefit from their ability to focus on things close to them more easily. I’m not the only person who removed her glasses when grading gems and put her nose in the tray – the close focus of the badly nearsighted is sometimes better than the magnified focus of the standard sight person.
    I like a disabled hero/ine as long as it’s not part of a miracle cure story. I completely hate when they have their ‘disability’ resolved via the insight of the significant other. I quite like a few imperfections – I read something recently that described the heroine’s bottom teeth as a ‘jumble’ and it was fantastic.

    Reply
  5. I’ve wondered why nearsighted characters never benefit from their ability to focus on things close to them more easily. I’m not the only person who removed her glasses when grading gems and put her nose in the tray – the close focus of the badly nearsighted is sometimes better than the magnified focus of the standard sight person.
    I like a disabled hero/ine as long as it’s not part of a miracle cure story. I completely hate when they have their ‘disability’ resolved via the insight of the significant other. I quite like a few imperfections – I read something recently that described the heroine’s bottom teeth as a ‘jumble’ and it was fantastic.

    Reply
  6. Of course near sighted is romantic, especially if both are near sighted and therefore neither can see the imperfections. Makes for a wonderful romance. And of course to call the hero a sapscull brings him down to earth nicely. An ode to a quill though seems a bit bird brained. If someone put all these things together I think it would make a wonderful story.

    Reply
  7. Of course near sighted is romantic, especially if both are near sighted and therefore neither can see the imperfections. Makes for a wonderful romance. And of course to call the hero a sapscull brings him down to earth nicely. An ode to a quill though seems a bit bird brained. If someone put all these things together I think it would make a wonderful story.

    Reply
  8. Of course near sighted is romantic, especially if both are near sighted and therefore neither can see the imperfections. Makes for a wonderful romance. And of course to call the hero a sapscull brings him down to earth nicely. An ode to a quill though seems a bit bird brained. If someone put all these things together I think it would make a wonderful story.

    Reply
  9. Of course near sighted is romantic, especially if both are near sighted and therefore neither can see the imperfections. Makes for a wonderful romance. And of course to call the hero a sapscull brings him down to earth nicely. An ode to a quill though seems a bit bird brained. If someone put all these things together I think it would make a wonderful story.

    Reply
  10. Of course near sighted is romantic, especially if both are near sighted and therefore neither can see the imperfections. Makes for a wonderful romance. And of course to call the hero a sapscull brings him down to earth nicely. An ode to a quill though seems a bit bird brained. If someone put all these things together I think it would make a wonderful story.

    Reply
  11. I think a hero with those wire-rimmed spectacles is dashing. Especially when he takes them off to beat the villain to a pulp. Secret identities! Superman!
    And I thought gobsmacked was a great Regency word until I looked it up. 1990. Sigh.

    Reply
  12. I think a hero with those wire-rimmed spectacles is dashing. Especially when he takes them off to beat the villain to a pulp. Secret identities! Superman!
    And I thought gobsmacked was a great Regency word until I looked it up. 1990. Sigh.

    Reply
  13. I think a hero with those wire-rimmed spectacles is dashing. Especially when he takes them off to beat the villain to a pulp. Secret identities! Superman!
    And I thought gobsmacked was a great Regency word until I looked it up. 1990. Sigh.

    Reply
  14. I think a hero with those wire-rimmed spectacles is dashing. Especially when he takes them off to beat the villain to a pulp. Secret identities! Superman!
    And I thought gobsmacked was a great Regency word until I looked it up. 1990. Sigh.

    Reply
  15. I think a hero with those wire-rimmed spectacles is dashing. Especially when he takes them off to beat the villain to a pulp. Secret identities! Superman!
    And I thought gobsmacked was a great Regency word until I looked it up. 1990. Sigh.

    Reply
  16. Call me cynical, but I suspect that, outside of a tiny group of very vocal enthusiasts who post obsessively on the web, most readers don’t have enough background in history to notice or care about inaccuracies.
    Many people’s only brush with history nowadays comes from movies, the BBC productions, and the romance novels they read. High schools no longer teach much History or assign what used to be called the Classics.
    Even people who obsess about things like the first documented use of four pronged forks often portray highly anachronistic attitudes and beliefs which to me are more glaring. All those career-oriented heroines. All those tiny families–four children and only to provide characters for the ongoing series.
    But my guess is that the only thing Romance readers won’t forgive is a love story that doesn’t seem plausible and heroes who don’t live up to the standards set for 21st century males.

    Reply
  17. Call me cynical, but I suspect that, outside of a tiny group of very vocal enthusiasts who post obsessively on the web, most readers don’t have enough background in history to notice or care about inaccuracies.
    Many people’s only brush with history nowadays comes from movies, the BBC productions, and the romance novels they read. High schools no longer teach much History or assign what used to be called the Classics.
    Even people who obsess about things like the first documented use of four pronged forks often portray highly anachronistic attitudes and beliefs which to me are more glaring. All those career-oriented heroines. All those tiny families–four children and only to provide characters for the ongoing series.
    But my guess is that the only thing Romance readers won’t forgive is a love story that doesn’t seem plausible and heroes who don’t live up to the standards set for 21st century males.

    Reply
  18. Call me cynical, but I suspect that, outside of a tiny group of very vocal enthusiasts who post obsessively on the web, most readers don’t have enough background in history to notice or care about inaccuracies.
    Many people’s only brush with history nowadays comes from movies, the BBC productions, and the romance novels they read. High schools no longer teach much History or assign what used to be called the Classics.
    Even people who obsess about things like the first documented use of four pronged forks often portray highly anachronistic attitudes and beliefs which to me are more glaring. All those career-oriented heroines. All those tiny families–four children and only to provide characters for the ongoing series.
    But my guess is that the only thing Romance readers won’t forgive is a love story that doesn’t seem plausible and heroes who don’t live up to the standards set for 21st century males.

    Reply
  19. Call me cynical, but I suspect that, outside of a tiny group of very vocal enthusiasts who post obsessively on the web, most readers don’t have enough background in history to notice or care about inaccuracies.
    Many people’s only brush with history nowadays comes from movies, the BBC productions, and the romance novels they read. High schools no longer teach much History or assign what used to be called the Classics.
    Even people who obsess about things like the first documented use of four pronged forks often portray highly anachronistic attitudes and beliefs which to me are more glaring. All those career-oriented heroines. All those tiny families–four children and only to provide characters for the ongoing series.
    But my guess is that the only thing Romance readers won’t forgive is a love story that doesn’t seem plausible and heroes who don’t live up to the standards set for 21st century males.

    Reply
  20. Call me cynical, but I suspect that, outside of a tiny group of very vocal enthusiasts who post obsessively on the web, most readers don’t have enough background in history to notice or care about inaccuracies.
    Many people’s only brush with history nowadays comes from movies, the BBC productions, and the romance novels they read. High schools no longer teach much History or assign what used to be called the Classics.
    Even people who obsess about things like the first documented use of four pronged forks often portray highly anachronistic attitudes and beliefs which to me are more glaring. All those career-oriented heroines. All those tiny families–four children and only to provide characters for the ongoing series.
    But my guess is that the only thing Romance readers won’t forgive is a love story that doesn’t seem plausible and heroes who don’t live up to the standards set for 21st century males.

    Reply
  21. I’m about to talk out of both sides of my mouth. I’ve seen online rants about the use of historically accurate words in books and mostly I think they are ridiculous, because if writers were to write in terms that were a true historical reflection of that time, most readers would be scratching their heads going huh. However, there have been times when a word or a phrase throws me completely out of the story and then I become one of those irritating people that rants about authors checking their stories or what no editor! I think it depends on how involved I am in a story as to whether I get thrown out or maybe I just like the author so much, I just overlook those little moments. I do remember a book a few years ago that mentioned a “flute” glass. The thought that went through my head the moment I read it was “I bet people are going to rant about that term, even though it’s historically correct.” and I was right, such a brouhaha and the use of the word was correct. I did think that particular incident reflected how much people think they know and how much they don’t know. And I don’t really have a point except, I’m really careful when I read something that may or may not be correct before I go into rant overload. And, I think that to expect an author to know when every little word should or should not be used is an impossible task. Sometimes you write something that is so much a part of you, that you are just not aware that it wouldn’t be used in the 18th century. Just don’t say clone, ego, right-on or groovy.

    Reply
  22. I’m about to talk out of both sides of my mouth. I’ve seen online rants about the use of historically accurate words in books and mostly I think they are ridiculous, because if writers were to write in terms that were a true historical reflection of that time, most readers would be scratching their heads going huh. However, there have been times when a word or a phrase throws me completely out of the story and then I become one of those irritating people that rants about authors checking their stories or what no editor! I think it depends on how involved I am in a story as to whether I get thrown out or maybe I just like the author so much, I just overlook those little moments. I do remember a book a few years ago that mentioned a “flute” glass. The thought that went through my head the moment I read it was “I bet people are going to rant about that term, even though it’s historically correct.” and I was right, such a brouhaha and the use of the word was correct. I did think that particular incident reflected how much people think they know and how much they don’t know. And I don’t really have a point except, I’m really careful when I read something that may or may not be correct before I go into rant overload. And, I think that to expect an author to know when every little word should or should not be used is an impossible task. Sometimes you write something that is so much a part of you, that you are just not aware that it wouldn’t be used in the 18th century. Just don’t say clone, ego, right-on or groovy.

    Reply
  23. I’m about to talk out of both sides of my mouth. I’ve seen online rants about the use of historically accurate words in books and mostly I think they are ridiculous, because if writers were to write in terms that were a true historical reflection of that time, most readers would be scratching their heads going huh. However, there have been times when a word or a phrase throws me completely out of the story and then I become one of those irritating people that rants about authors checking their stories or what no editor! I think it depends on how involved I am in a story as to whether I get thrown out or maybe I just like the author so much, I just overlook those little moments. I do remember a book a few years ago that mentioned a “flute” glass. The thought that went through my head the moment I read it was “I bet people are going to rant about that term, even though it’s historically correct.” and I was right, such a brouhaha and the use of the word was correct. I did think that particular incident reflected how much people think they know and how much they don’t know. And I don’t really have a point except, I’m really careful when I read something that may or may not be correct before I go into rant overload. And, I think that to expect an author to know when every little word should or should not be used is an impossible task. Sometimes you write something that is so much a part of you, that you are just not aware that it wouldn’t be used in the 18th century. Just don’t say clone, ego, right-on or groovy.

    Reply
  24. I’m about to talk out of both sides of my mouth. I’ve seen online rants about the use of historically accurate words in books and mostly I think they are ridiculous, because if writers were to write in terms that were a true historical reflection of that time, most readers would be scratching their heads going huh. However, there have been times when a word or a phrase throws me completely out of the story and then I become one of those irritating people that rants about authors checking their stories or what no editor! I think it depends on how involved I am in a story as to whether I get thrown out or maybe I just like the author so much, I just overlook those little moments. I do remember a book a few years ago that mentioned a “flute” glass. The thought that went through my head the moment I read it was “I bet people are going to rant about that term, even though it’s historically correct.” and I was right, such a brouhaha and the use of the word was correct. I did think that particular incident reflected how much people think they know and how much they don’t know. And I don’t really have a point except, I’m really careful when I read something that may or may not be correct before I go into rant overload. And, I think that to expect an author to know when every little word should or should not be used is an impossible task. Sometimes you write something that is so much a part of you, that you are just not aware that it wouldn’t be used in the 18th century. Just don’t say clone, ego, right-on or groovy.

    Reply
  25. I’m about to talk out of both sides of my mouth. I’ve seen online rants about the use of historically accurate words in books and mostly I think they are ridiculous, because if writers were to write in terms that were a true historical reflection of that time, most readers would be scratching their heads going huh. However, there have been times when a word or a phrase throws me completely out of the story and then I become one of those irritating people that rants about authors checking their stories or what no editor! I think it depends on how involved I am in a story as to whether I get thrown out or maybe I just like the author so much, I just overlook those little moments. I do remember a book a few years ago that mentioned a “flute” glass. The thought that went through my head the moment I read it was “I bet people are going to rant about that term, even though it’s historically correct.” and I was right, such a brouhaha and the use of the word was correct. I did think that particular incident reflected how much people think they know and how much they don’t know. And I don’t really have a point except, I’m really careful when I read something that may or may not be correct before I go into rant overload. And, I think that to expect an author to know when every little word should or should not be used is an impossible task. Sometimes you write something that is so much a part of you, that you are just not aware that it wouldn’t be used in the 18th century. Just don’t say clone, ego, right-on or groovy.

    Reply
  26. LOL, friends of the heart, all!
    Liz, I always know when it’s you, whatever disguise you use.
    I’m glad to hear that imperfections can be romantic, although I’ve had editors nix so many that I’m hesitant to go too far. Love the image of carefully removing the glasses before whacking the villain!
    But now we’ve raised another question–how much do we owe to the reading public to teach them REAL history, to keep our facts as straight as possible so they don’t continue this idiocy of thinking Regency society differed only in clothes?
    I agree that trying to keep historical language is an effort in futility, although I probably shouldn’t use gobsmacked “G,” but once upon a time, I learned history by reading historicals. Have we abandoned that concept?

    Reply
  27. LOL, friends of the heart, all!
    Liz, I always know when it’s you, whatever disguise you use.
    I’m glad to hear that imperfections can be romantic, although I’ve had editors nix so many that I’m hesitant to go too far. Love the image of carefully removing the glasses before whacking the villain!
    But now we’ve raised another question–how much do we owe to the reading public to teach them REAL history, to keep our facts as straight as possible so they don’t continue this idiocy of thinking Regency society differed only in clothes?
    I agree that trying to keep historical language is an effort in futility, although I probably shouldn’t use gobsmacked “G,” but once upon a time, I learned history by reading historicals. Have we abandoned that concept?

    Reply
  28. LOL, friends of the heart, all!
    Liz, I always know when it’s you, whatever disguise you use.
    I’m glad to hear that imperfections can be romantic, although I’ve had editors nix so many that I’m hesitant to go too far. Love the image of carefully removing the glasses before whacking the villain!
    But now we’ve raised another question–how much do we owe to the reading public to teach them REAL history, to keep our facts as straight as possible so they don’t continue this idiocy of thinking Regency society differed only in clothes?
    I agree that trying to keep historical language is an effort in futility, although I probably shouldn’t use gobsmacked “G,” but once upon a time, I learned history by reading historicals. Have we abandoned that concept?

    Reply
  29. LOL, friends of the heart, all!
    Liz, I always know when it’s you, whatever disguise you use.
    I’m glad to hear that imperfections can be romantic, although I’ve had editors nix so many that I’m hesitant to go too far. Love the image of carefully removing the glasses before whacking the villain!
    But now we’ve raised another question–how much do we owe to the reading public to teach them REAL history, to keep our facts as straight as possible so they don’t continue this idiocy of thinking Regency society differed only in clothes?
    I agree that trying to keep historical language is an effort in futility, although I probably shouldn’t use gobsmacked “G,” but once upon a time, I learned history by reading historicals. Have we abandoned that concept?

    Reply
  30. LOL, friends of the heart, all!
    Liz, I always know when it’s you, whatever disguise you use.
    I’m glad to hear that imperfections can be romantic, although I’ve had editors nix so many that I’m hesitant to go too far. Love the image of carefully removing the glasses before whacking the villain!
    But now we’ve raised another question–how much do we owe to the reading public to teach them REAL history, to keep our facts as straight as possible so they don’t continue this idiocy of thinking Regency society differed only in clothes?
    I agree that trying to keep historical language is an effort in futility, although I probably shouldn’t use gobsmacked “G,” but once upon a time, I learned history by reading historicals. Have we abandoned that concept?

    Reply
  31. Back for another comment. I miss the period language, or almost period language in the old regencies. Most books set in the Regency published now sound too modern to my ears. I don’t care about the occasional word, but when something 21st century gets in there (no one 200 years ago “enabled” bad behavior) it really throws me for a loop. And the plot should be believable in 19th century terms, although that doesn’t happen too much, either. I especially see this happening in some authors who write both historical and contemporary.
    That said, I agree with Jenny that most people nowadays don’t care about the history. They want a story they’re comfortable with. Unfortunately, what they’re comfortable with is a plot and language familiar to 21st century readers.
    What to do? I don’t know. I do know that I don’t like most of the newer authors, and I no longer like some of the ones I’ve read for years.

    Reply
  32. Back for another comment. I miss the period language, or almost period language in the old regencies. Most books set in the Regency published now sound too modern to my ears. I don’t care about the occasional word, but when something 21st century gets in there (no one 200 years ago “enabled” bad behavior) it really throws me for a loop. And the plot should be believable in 19th century terms, although that doesn’t happen too much, either. I especially see this happening in some authors who write both historical and contemporary.
    That said, I agree with Jenny that most people nowadays don’t care about the history. They want a story they’re comfortable with. Unfortunately, what they’re comfortable with is a plot and language familiar to 21st century readers.
    What to do? I don’t know. I do know that I don’t like most of the newer authors, and I no longer like some of the ones I’ve read for years.

    Reply
  33. Back for another comment. I miss the period language, or almost period language in the old regencies. Most books set in the Regency published now sound too modern to my ears. I don’t care about the occasional word, but when something 21st century gets in there (no one 200 years ago “enabled” bad behavior) it really throws me for a loop. And the plot should be believable in 19th century terms, although that doesn’t happen too much, either. I especially see this happening in some authors who write both historical and contemporary.
    That said, I agree with Jenny that most people nowadays don’t care about the history. They want a story they’re comfortable with. Unfortunately, what they’re comfortable with is a plot and language familiar to 21st century readers.
    What to do? I don’t know. I do know that I don’t like most of the newer authors, and I no longer like some of the ones I’ve read for years.

    Reply
  34. Back for another comment. I miss the period language, or almost period language in the old regencies. Most books set in the Regency published now sound too modern to my ears. I don’t care about the occasional word, but when something 21st century gets in there (no one 200 years ago “enabled” bad behavior) it really throws me for a loop. And the plot should be believable in 19th century terms, although that doesn’t happen too much, either. I especially see this happening in some authors who write both historical and contemporary.
    That said, I agree with Jenny that most people nowadays don’t care about the history. They want a story they’re comfortable with. Unfortunately, what they’re comfortable with is a plot and language familiar to 21st century readers.
    What to do? I don’t know. I do know that I don’t like most of the newer authors, and I no longer like some of the ones I’ve read for years.

    Reply
  35. Back for another comment. I miss the period language, or almost period language in the old regencies. Most books set in the Regency published now sound too modern to my ears. I don’t care about the occasional word, but when something 21st century gets in there (no one 200 years ago “enabled” bad behavior) it really throws me for a loop. And the plot should be believable in 19th century terms, although that doesn’t happen too much, either. I especially see this happening in some authors who write both historical and contemporary.
    That said, I agree with Jenny that most people nowadays don’t care about the history. They want a story they’re comfortable with. Unfortunately, what they’re comfortable with is a plot and language familiar to 21st century readers.
    What to do? I don’t know. I do know that I don’t like most of the newer authors, and I no longer like some of the ones I’ve read for years.

    Reply
  36. And now we can debate the thin and shifty line between being “accessible” and being too contemporary. *g*
    Personally, I like some real and accurate history in stories, but I’m one of the old guard.

    Reply
  37. And now we can debate the thin and shifty line between being “accessible” and being too contemporary. *g*
    Personally, I like some real and accurate history in stories, but I’m one of the old guard.

    Reply
  38. And now we can debate the thin and shifty line between being “accessible” and being too contemporary. *g*
    Personally, I like some real and accurate history in stories, but I’m one of the old guard.

    Reply
  39. And now we can debate the thin and shifty line between being “accessible” and being too contemporary. *g*
    Personally, I like some real and accurate history in stories, but I’m one of the old guard.

    Reply
  40. And now we can debate the thin and shifty line between being “accessible” and being too contemporary. *g*
    Personally, I like some real and accurate history in stories, but I’m one of the old guard.

    Reply
  41. I try to tread the fine line between historical accuracy, which I prefer, and accessibility to modern readers who know and care little about history.
    It was an eye-opener to me when my first editorial experience away from Harlequin was to have some of my Regency slang deleted — eg “chit” — too regency was the comment. It was explained to me that this would make the book more readable to a wider audience. Did I want a wider audience? Yes indeed. So my current books sound less “regency” than my Harlequins.
    But I still strive to come up with heroines (in particular) who have historically appropriate concerns that young women today will understand and sympathize with.

    Reply
  42. I try to tread the fine line between historical accuracy, which I prefer, and accessibility to modern readers who know and care little about history.
    It was an eye-opener to me when my first editorial experience away from Harlequin was to have some of my Regency slang deleted — eg “chit” — too regency was the comment. It was explained to me that this would make the book more readable to a wider audience. Did I want a wider audience? Yes indeed. So my current books sound less “regency” than my Harlequins.
    But I still strive to come up with heroines (in particular) who have historically appropriate concerns that young women today will understand and sympathize with.

    Reply
  43. I try to tread the fine line between historical accuracy, which I prefer, and accessibility to modern readers who know and care little about history.
    It was an eye-opener to me when my first editorial experience away from Harlequin was to have some of my Regency slang deleted — eg “chit” — too regency was the comment. It was explained to me that this would make the book more readable to a wider audience. Did I want a wider audience? Yes indeed. So my current books sound less “regency” than my Harlequins.
    But I still strive to come up with heroines (in particular) who have historically appropriate concerns that young women today will understand and sympathize with.

    Reply
  44. I try to tread the fine line between historical accuracy, which I prefer, and accessibility to modern readers who know and care little about history.
    It was an eye-opener to me when my first editorial experience away from Harlequin was to have some of my Regency slang deleted — eg “chit” — too regency was the comment. It was explained to me that this would make the book more readable to a wider audience. Did I want a wider audience? Yes indeed. So my current books sound less “regency” than my Harlequins.
    But I still strive to come up with heroines (in particular) who have historically appropriate concerns that young women today will understand and sympathize with.

    Reply
  45. I try to tread the fine line between historical accuracy, which I prefer, and accessibility to modern readers who know and care little about history.
    It was an eye-opener to me when my first editorial experience away from Harlequin was to have some of my Regency slang deleted — eg “chit” — too regency was the comment. It was explained to me that this would make the book more readable to a wider audience. Did I want a wider audience? Yes indeed. So my current books sound less “regency” than my Harlequins.
    But I still strive to come up with heroines (in particular) who have historically appropriate concerns that young women today will understand and sympathize with.

    Reply
  46. Kay, I’ll agree with you on “clone”, “right on” and “groovy” but I’ll take issue with you over “ego.” It’s one of those words that sound horribly modern, but depending on how it’s used, it’s historically accurate for regency characters to use it.
    From the on-line etymological dictionary:
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ego
    alter ego — 1539’s from a latin phrase used by Cicero.
    egoist and egoism were French terms borrowed in 1785
    egotism, egotist, meaning selfishness date from 1714
    egomania, 1825
    But it raises another oft-discussed point, that often perceived historical accuracy can clash with historical fact.
    I once had someone take me to task for my “incorrect Italian” — I scanned the page from the 19th century letter I’d got it from, and the woman wrote back praising me for my historical accuracy, she’d looked it up and realized I’d used 19th century language. But there are a whole lot of Italians out there who are no doubt cursing me for my “mistakes.” You can’t win.

    Reply
  47. Kay, I’ll agree with you on “clone”, “right on” and “groovy” but I’ll take issue with you over “ego.” It’s one of those words that sound horribly modern, but depending on how it’s used, it’s historically accurate for regency characters to use it.
    From the on-line etymological dictionary:
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ego
    alter ego — 1539’s from a latin phrase used by Cicero.
    egoist and egoism were French terms borrowed in 1785
    egotism, egotist, meaning selfishness date from 1714
    egomania, 1825
    But it raises another oft-discussed point, that often perceived historical accuracy can clash with historical fact.
    I once had someone take me to task for my “incorrect Italian” — I scanned the page from the 19th century letter I’d got it from, and the woman wrote back praising me for my historical accuracy, she’d looked it up and realized I’d used 19th century language. But there are a whole lot of Italians out there who are no doubt cursing me for my “mistakes.” You can’t win.

    Reply
  48. Kay, I’ll agree with you on “clone”, “right on” and “groovy” but I’ll take issue with you over “ego.” It’s one of those words that sound horribly modern, but depending on how it’s used, it’s historically accurate for regency characters to use it.
    From the on-line etymological dictionary:
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ego
    alter ego — 1539’s from a latin phrase used by Cicero.
    egoist and egoism were French terms borrowed in 1785
    egotism, egotist, meaning selfishness date from 1714
    egomania, 1825
    But it raises another oft-discussed point, that often perceived historical accuracy can clash with historical fact.
    I once had someone take me to task for my “incorrect Italian” — I scanned the page from the 19th century letter I’d got it from, and the woman wrote back praising me for my historical accuracy, she’d looked it up and realized I’d used 19th century language. But there are a whole lot of Italians out there who are no doubt cursing me for my “mistakes.” You can’t win.

    Reply
  49. Kay, I’ll agree with you on “clone”, “right on” and “groovy” but I’ll take issue with you over “ego.” It’s one of those words that sound horribly modern, but depending on how it’s used, it’s historically accurate for regency characters to use it.
    From the on-line etymological dictionary:
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ego
    alter ego — 1539’s from a latin phrase used by Cicero.
    egoist and egoism were French terms borrowed in 1785
    egotism, egotist, meaning selfishness date from 1714
    egomania, 1825
    But it raises another oft-discussed point, that often perceived historical accuracy can clash with historical fact.
    I once had someone take me to task for my “incorrect Italian” — I scanned the page from the 19th century letter I’d got it from, and the woman wrote back praising me for my historical accuracy, she’d looked it up and realized I’d used 19th century language. But there are a whole lot of Italians out there who are no doubt cursing me for my “mistakes.” You can’t win.

    Reply
  50. Kay, I’ll agree with you on “clone”, “right on” and “groovy” but I’ll take issue with you over “ego.” It’s one of those words that sound horribly modern, but depending on how it’s used, it’s historically accurate for regency characters to use it.
    From the on-line etymological dictionary:
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ego
    alter ego — 1539’s from a latin phrase used by Cicero.
    egoist and egoism were French terms borrowed in 1785
    egotism, egotist, meaning selfishness date from 1714
    egomania, 1825
    But it raises another oft-discussed point, that often perceived historical accuracy can clash with historical fact.
    I once had someone take me to task for my “incorrect Italian” — I scanned the page from the 19th century letter I’d got it from, and the woman wrote back praising me for my historical accuracy, she’d looked it up and realized I’d used 19th century language. But there are a whole lot of Italians out there who are no doubt cursing me for my “mistakes.” You can’t win.

    Reply
  51. I was thinking Sigmund Freud and his buddies. I agree with perceived and real history. I blame Hollywood. I’ve read diaries, journals and letters and often am amazed at some of the modern words that pop up. Or words that pop up, but mean something else today. Throw into the mix, the difference between British English and American English…don’t know that much about other types of English. I would have to think that just like today, there was variation in the way people talked and that all of the words that were in use were not written down for us to read.

    Reply
  52. I was thinking Sigmund Freud and his buddies. I agree with perceived and real history. I blame Hollywood. I’ve read diaries, journals and letters and often am amazed at some of the modern words that pop up. Or words that pop up, but mean something else today. Throw into the mix, the difference between British English and American English…don’t know that much about other types of English. I would have to think that just like today, there was variation in the way people talked and that all of the words that were in use were not written down for us to read.

    Reply
  53. I was thinking Sigmund Freud and his buddies. I agree with perceived and real history. I blame Hollywood. I’ve read diaries, journals and letters and often am amazed at some of the modern words that pop up. Or words that pop up, but mean something else today. Throw into the mix, the difference between British English and American English…don’t know that much about other types of English. I would have to think that just like today, there was variation in the way people talked and that all of the words that were in use were not written down for us to read.

    Reply
  54. I was thinking Sigmund Freud and his buddies. I agree with perceived and real history. I blame Hollywood. I’ve read diaries, journals and letters and often am amazed at some of the modern words that pop up. Or words that pop up, but mean something else today. Throw into the mix, the difference between British English and American English…don’t know that much about other types of English. I would have to think that just like today, there was variation in the way people talked and that all of the words that were in use were not written down for us to read.

    Reply
  55. I was thinking Sigmund Freud and his buddies. I agree with perceived and real history. I blame Hollywood. I’ve read diaries, journals and letters and often am amazed at some of the modern words that pop up. Or words that pop up, but mean something else today. Throw into the mix, the difference between British English and American English…don’t know that much about other types of English. I would have to think that just like today, there was variation in the way people talked and that all of the words that were in use were not written down for us to read.

    Reply
  56. I completely agree with Anne regarding perception and reality. I’ve been in many discussions where the person is Outraged! Simply Outraged! over a perfectly correct word. And I recall the heat Edith got for one of her Avon books where social difference was the huge issue – too many readers found it absurd that it loomed so large in both characters minds because they didn’t understand how large it would have loomed in actual lives.
    Pat – I gave up using my name because there are a shocking number of lizm’s out there and I’d hate to ruin their reputations for brevity or logic.
    But on to me talking out of both sides of MY mouth – while I freely admit that all history tests from 6th to 11th grade were passed on the basis of fiction reading and not actual study, we also used to have the Aleen Malcom 13 year old ‘women’. Historically correct maybe, to current personal standards – not so much. I don’t know – I enjoy my trips to Regencyland as well as my trips to well researched tales – I just try to stay out of the red light district. After you’ve seen it all and done half of it the interest in reading about it wanes. (Ok, maybe 20% of it, but Lauderdale in the 70’s and San Francisco in the 80’s? Wait – that might explain a lot)

    Reply
  57. I completely agree with Anne regarding perception and reality. I’ve been in many discussions where the person is Outraged! Simply Outraged! over a perfectly correct word. And I recall the heat Edith got for one of her Avon books where social difference was the huge issue – too many readers found it absurd that it loomed so large in both characters minds because they didn’t understand how large it would have loomed in actual lives.
    Pat – I gave up using my name because there are a shocking number of lizm’s out there and I’d hate to ruin their reputations for brevity or logic.
    But on to me talking out of both sides of MY mouth – while I freely admit that all history tests from 6th to 11th grade were passed on the basis of fiction reading and not actual study, we also used to have the Aleen Malcom 13 year old ‘women’. Historically correct maybe, to current personal standards – not so much. I don’t know – I enjoy my trips to Regencyland as well as my trips to well researched tales – I just try to stay out of the red light district. After you’ve seen it all and done half of it the interest in reading about it wanes. (Ok, maybe 20% of it, but Lauderdale in the 70’s and San Francisco in the 80’s? Wait – that might explain a lot)

    Reply
  58. I completely agree with Anne regarding perception and reality. I’ve been in many discussions where the person is Outraged! Simply Outraged! over a perfectly correct word. And I recall the heat Edith got for one of her Avon books where social difference was the huge issue – too many readers found it absurd that it loomed so large in both characters minds because they didn’t understand how large it would have loomed in actual lives.
    Pat – I gave up using my name because there are a shocking number of lizm’s out there and I’d hate to ruin their reputations for brevity or logic.
    But on to me talking out of both sides of MY mouth – while I freely admit that all history tests from 6th to 11th grade were passed on the basis of fiction reading and not actual study, we also used to have the Aleen Malcom 13 year old ‘women’. Historically correct maybe, to current personal standards – not so much. I don’t know – I enjoy my trips to Regencyland as well as my trips to well researched tales – I just try to stay out of the red light district. After you’ve seen it all and done half of it the interest in reading about it wanes. (Ok, maybe 20% of it, but Lauderdale in the 70’s and San Francisco in the 80’s? Wait – that might explain a lot)

    Reply
  59. I completely agree with Anne regarding perception and reality. I’ve been in many discussions where the person is Outraged! Simply Outraged! over a perfectly correct word. And I recall the heat Edith got for one of her Avon books where social difference was the huge issue – too many readers found it absurd that it loomed so large in both characters minds because they didn’t understand how large it would have loomed in actual lives.
    Pat – I gave up using my name because there are a shocking number of lizm’s out there and I’d hate to ruin their reputations for brevity or logic.
    But on to me talking out of both sides of MY mouth – while I freely admit that all history tests from 6th to 11th grade were passed on the basis of fiction reading and not actual study, we also used to have the Aleen Malcom 13 year old ‘women’. Historically correct maybe, to current personal standards – not so much. I don’t know – I enjoy my trips to Regencyland as well as my trips to well researched tales – I just try to stay out of the red light district. After you’ve seen it all and done half of it the interest in reading about it wanes. (Ok, maybe 20% of it, but Lauderdale in the 70’s and San Francisco in the 80’s? Wait – that might explain a lot)

    Reply
  60. I completely agree with Anne regarding perception and reality. I’ve been in many discussions where the person is Outraged! Simply Outraged! over a perfectly correct word. And I recall the heat Edith got for one of her Avon books where social difference was the huge issue – too many readers found it absurd that it loomed so large in both characters minds because they didn’t understand how large it would have loomed in actual lives.
    Pat – I gave up using my name because there are a shocking number of lizm’s out there and I’d hate to ruin their reputations for brevity or logic.
    But on to me talking out of both sides of MY mouth – while I freely admit that all history tests from 6th to 11th grade were passed on the basis of fiction reading and not actual study, we also used to have the Aleen Malcom 13 year old ‘women’. Historically correct maybe, to current personal standards – not so much. I don’t know – I enjoy my trips to Regencyland as well as my trips to well researched tales – I just try to stay out of the red light district. After you’ve seen it all and done half of it the interest in reading about it wanes. (Ok, maybe 20% of it, but Lauderdale in the 70’s and San Francisco in the 80’s? Wait – that might explain a lot)

    Reply
  61. Pat, both the 1736 Canting Dictionary and Grose’s Vulgar Tongue (1811) list ‘stubble it’ as hold your tongue. So rest assured. :o)
    I’m like you in that my characters come first. Then I research like mad to make sure everything will work and I hate taking liberties with anything history. I will if it’s absolutely necessary, but even if I write Regency Werewolves, I still want the ‘world’ to be real and accurate. Even if one person appreciates the fact that I got it right, that’s what matters to me.
    My problem with the research though…there’s too many rabbit trails and if I’m not careful, I can spend the day in research that has nothing to do with my story. I learn a lot! But I lose my writing time so…

    Reply
  62. Pat, both the 1736 Canting Dictionary and Grose’s Vulgar Tongue (1811) list ‘stubble it’ as hold your tongue. So rest assured. :o)
    I’m like you in that my characters come first. Then I research like mad to make sure everything will work and I hate taking liberties with anything history. I will if it’s absolutely necessary, but even if I write Regency Werewolves, I still want the ‘world’ to be real and accurate. Even if one person appreciates the fact that I got it right, that’s what matters to me.
    My problem with the research though…there’s too many rabbit trails and if I’m not careful, I can spend the day in research that has nothing to do with my story. I learn a lot! But I lose my writing time so…

    Reply
  63. Pat, both the 1736 Canting Dictionary and Grose’s Vulgar Tongue (1811) list ‘stubble it’ as hold your tongue. So rest assured. :o)
    I’m like you in that my characters come first. Then I research like mad to make sure everything will work and I hate taking liberties with anything history. I will if it’s absolutely necessary, but even if I write Regency Werewolves, I still want the ‘world’ to be real and accurate. Even if one person appreciates the fact that I got it right, that’s what matters to me.
    My problem with the research though…there’s too many rabbit trails and if I’m not careful, I can spend the day in research that has nothing to do with my story. I learn a lot! But I lose my writing time so…

    Reply
  64. Pat, both the 1736 Canting Dictionary and Grose’s Vulgar Tongue (1811) list ‘stubble it’ as hold your tongue. So rest assured. :o)
    I’m like you in that my characters come first. Then I research like mad to make sure everything will work and I hate taking liberties with anything history. I will if it’s absolutely necessary, but even if I write Regency Werewolves, I still want the ‘world’ to be real and accurate. Even if one person appreciates the fact that I got it right, that’s what matters to me.
    My problem with the research though…there’s too many rabbit trails and if I’m not careful, I can spend the day in research that has nothing to do with my story. I learn a lot! But I lose my writing time so…

    Reply
  65. Pat, both the 1736 Canting Dictionary and Grose’s Vulgar Tongue (1811) list ‘stubble it’ as hold your tongue. So rest assured. :o)
    I’m like you in that my characters come first. Then I research like mad to make sure everything will work and I hate taking liberties with anything history. I will if it’s absolutely necessary, but even if I write Regency Werewolves, I still want the ‘world’ to be real and accurate. Even if one person appreciates the fact that I got it right, that’s what matters to me.
    My problem with the research though…there’s too many rabbit trails and if I’m not careful, I can spend the day in research that has nothing to do with my story. I learn a lot! But I lose my writing time so…

    Reply
  66. Like Anne, I have an editor who doesn’t read Regency-speak, so I’m forced to assume if she doesn’t get the language, a very large number of readers won’t either. It’s the price we pay to sell the large quantity of books we need to sell to cover costs these days. And it’s the reason our lovely category Regencies died out.
    Ak, I should have checked “stubble it” in Grose. I checked “gob” and that’s a perfectly acceptable term, but the combination of gob and smack must have an interesting derivation. “G”
    And working through my revisions as I am this morning, I can see where it’s very easy to let errors slide in. The first draft sent to an editor has been polished to a fare-thee-well, with all the words and facts checked. But once the ripping and tearing begins, it becomes a matter of sewing huge chunks of material back together again, and Things Happen. And there’s seldom time for a re-polish. That’s where we used to rely on copy editors, but the ones who knew their history have apparently retired, I fear.

    Reply
  67. Like Anne, I have an editor who doesn’t read Regency-speak, so I’m forced to assume if she doesn’t get the language, a very large number of readers won’t either. It’s the price we pay to sell the large quantity of books we need to sell to cover costs these days. And it’s the reason our lovely category Regencies died out.
    Ak, I should have checked “stubble it” in Grose. I checked “gob” and that’s a perfectly acceptable term, but the combination of gob and smack must have an interesting derivation. “G”
    And working through my revisions as I am this morning, I can see where it’s very easy to let errors slide in. The first draft sent to an editor has been polished to a fare-thee-well, with all the words and facts checked. But once the ripping and tearing begins, it becomes a matter of sewing huge chunks of material back together again, and Things Happen. And there’s seldom time for a re-polish. That’s where we used to rely on copy editors, but the ones who knew their history have apparently retired, I fear.

    Reply
  68. Like Anne, I have an editor who doesn’t read Regency-speak, so I’m forced to assume if she doesn’t get the language, a very large number of readers won’t either. It’s the price we pay to sell the large quantity of books we need to sell to cover costs these days. And it’s the reason our lovely category Regencies died out.
    Ak, I should have checked “stubble it” in Grose. I checked “gob” and that’s a perfectly acceptable term, but the combination of gob and smack must have an interesting derivation. “G”
    And working through my revisions as I am this morning, I can see where it’s very easy to let errors slide in. The first draft sent to an editor has been polished to a fare-thee-well, with all the words and facts checked. But once the ripping and tearing begins, it becomes a matter of sewing huge chunks of material back together again, and Things Happen. And there’s seldom time for a re-polish. That’s where we used to rely on copy editors, but the ones who knew their history have apparently retired, I fear.

    Reply
  69. Like Anne, I have an editor who doesn’t read Regency-speak, so I’m forced to assume if she doesn’t get the language, a very large number of readers won’t either. It’s the price we pay to sell the large quantity of books we need to sell to cover costs these days. And it’s the reason our lovely category Regencies died out.
    Ak, I should have checked “stubble it” in Grose. I checked “gob” and that’s a perfectly acceptable term, but the combination of gob and smack must have an interesting derivation. “G”
    And working through my revisions as I am this morning, I can see where it’s very easy to let errors slide in. The first draft sent to an editor has been polished to a fare-thee-well, with all the words and facts checked. But once the ripping and tearing begins, it becomes a matter of sewing huge chunks of material back together again, and Things Happen. And there’s seldom time for a re-polish. That’s where we used to rely on copy editors, but the ones who knew their history have apparently retired, I fear.

    Reply
  70. Like Anne, I have an editor who doesn’t read Regency-speak, so I’m forced to assume if she doesn’t get the language, a very large number of readers won’t either. It’s the price we pay to sell the large quantity of books we need to sell to cover costs these days. And it’s the reason our lovely category Regencies died out.
    Ak, I should have checked “stubble it” in Grose. I checked “gob” and that’s a perfectly acceptable term, but the combination of gob and smack must have an interesting derivation. “G”
    And working through my revisions as I am this morning, I can see where it’s very easy to let errors slide in. The first draft sent to an editor has been polished to a fare-thee-well, with all the words and facts checked. But once the ripping and tearing begins, it becomes a matter of sewing huge chunks of material back together again, and Things Happen. And there’s seldom time for a re-polish. That’s where we used to rely on copy editors, but the ones who knew their history have apparently retired, I fear.

    Reply
  71. I actually went to the workshop “Talking the Talk” at RWA10 with Lauren Willig, Miranda Neville, Janet Mullany and Madeline Hunter where this very subject was discussed. It was generally agreed that you do your best to be accurate AND accessable. I find it ridiculous when purists get up in arms over some minor transgression (although I plead guilty for having my Regency heroine use “memory bank” as she wistfully stored her time with the hero into it—hey, there were memories AND banks then, yes?). You can’t catch everything, and why would you want to?

    Reply
  72. I actually went to the workshop “Talking the Talk” at RWA10 with Lauren Willig, Miranda Neville, Janet Mullany and Madeline Hunter where this very subject was discussed. It was generally agreed that you do your best to be accurate AND accessable. I find it ridiculous when purists get up in arms over some minor transgression (although I plead guilty for having my Regency heroine use “memory bank” as she wistfully stored her time with the hero into it—hey, there were memories AND banks then, yes?). You can’t catch everything, and why would you want to?

    Reply
  73. I actually went to the workshop “Talking the Talk” at RWA10 with Lauren Willig, Miranda Neville, Janet Mullany and Madeline Hunter where this very subject was discussed. It was generally agreed that you do your best to be accurate AND accessable. I find it ridiculous when purists get up in arms over some minor transgression (although I plead guilty for having my Regency heroine use “memory bank” as she wistfully stored her time with the hero into it—hey, there were memories AND banks then, yes?). You can’t catch everything, and why would you want to?

    Reply
  74. I actually went to the workshop “Talking the Talk” at RWA10 with Lauren Willig, Miranda Neville, Janet Mullany and Madeline Hunter where this very subject was discussed. It was generally agreed that you do your best to be accurate AND accessable. I find it ridiculous when purists get up in arms over some minor transgression (although I plead guilty for having my Regency heroine use “memory bank” as she wistfully stored her time with the hero into it—hey, there were memories AND banks then, yes?). You can’t catch everything, and why would you want to?

    Reply
  75. I actually went to the workshop “Talking the Talk” at RWA10 with Lauren Willig, Miranda Neville, Janet Mullany and Madeline Hunter where this very subject was discussed. It was generally agreed that you do your best to be accurate AND accessable. I find it ridiculous when purists get up in arms over some minor transgression (although I plead guilty for having my Regency heroine use “memory bank” as she wistfully stored her time with the hero into it—hey, there were memories AND banks then, yes?). You can’t catch everything, and why would you want to?

    Reply
  76. LOL, Maggie, glad my subject was pertinent to the overall discussion in the ether and that we’re all pretty much in agreement. I suppose if there are writers who want to make every word accurate, that’s their niche and they can have it.
    And if I can have gobsmack, I guess you’ll have memory bank, but I like mine better. “G”

    Reply
  77. LOL, Maggie, glad my subject was pertinent to the overall discussion in the ether and that we’re all pretty much in agreement. I suppose if there are writers who want to make every word accurate, that’s their niche and they can have it.
    And if I can have gobsmack, I guess you’ll have memory bank, but I like mine better. “G”

    Reply
  78. LOL, Maggie, glad my subject was pertinent to the overall discussion in the ether and that we’re all pretty much in agreement. I suppose if there are writers who want to make every word accurate, that’s their niche and they can have it.
    And if I can have gobsmack, I guess you’ll have memory bank, but I like mine better. “G”

    Reply
  79. LOL, Maggie, glad my subject was pertinent to the overall discussion in the ether and that we’re all pretty much in agreement. I suppose if there are writers who want to make every word accurate, that’s their niche and they can have it.
    And if I can have gobsmack, I guess you’ll have memory bank, but I like mine better. “G”

    Reply
  80. LOL, Maggie, glad my subject was pertinent to the overall discussion in the ether and that we’re all pretty much in agreement. I suppose if there are writers who want to make every word accurate, that’s their niche and they can have it.
    And if I can have gobsmack, I guess you’ll have memory bank, but I like mine better. “G”

    Reply
  81. I love messing about with language, looking up word origins, and using period slang. But it can get a little self-indulgent for a writer. There comes a point you have to let the nifty historical details go and just write the story.
    I don’t mind give up Victorian words like ‘scientist’ or clairvoyant’. But Regency folks didn’t say ‘Shut up’, unless they were talking about closed doors. And ‘Unconscious’ didn’t mean you were knocked out. It meant you were unaware.
    I want to use those words. I really do.
    Sometimes you need the simple, straightforward, dramatic word more than you need absolute historical accuracy.

    Reply
  82. I love messing about with language, looking up word origins, and using period slang. But it can get a little self-indulgent for a writer. There comes a point you have to let the nifty historical details go and just write the story.
    I don’t mind give up Victorian words like ‘scientist’ or clairvoyant’. But Regency folks didn’t say ‘Shut up’, unless they were talking about closed doors. And ‘Unconscious’ didn’t mean you were knocked out. It meant you were unaware.
    I want to use those words. I really do.
    Sometimes you need the simple, straightforward, dramatic word more than you need absolute historical accuracy.

    Reply
  83. I love messing about with language, looking up word origins, and using period slang. But it can get a little self-indulgent for a writer. There comes a point you have to let the nifty historical details go and just write the story.
    I don’t mind give up Victorian words like ‘scientist’ or clairvoyant’. But Regency folks didn’t say ‘Shut up’, unless they were talking about closed doors. And ‘Unconscious’ didn’t mean you were knocked out. It meant you were unaware.
    I want to use those words. I really do.
    Sometimes you need the simple, straightforward, dramatic word more than you need absolute historical accuracy.

    Reply
  84. I love messing about with language, looking up word origins, and using period slang. But it can get a little self-indulgent for a writer. There comes a point you have to let the nifty historical details go and just write the story.
    I don’t mind give up Victorian words like ‘scientist’ or clairvoyant’. But Regency folks didn’t say ‘Shut up’, unless they were talking about closed doors. And ‘Unconscious’ didn’t mean you were knocked out. It meant you were unaware.
    I want to use those words. I really do.
    Sometimes you need the simple, straightforward, dramatic word more than you need absolute historical accuracy.

    Reply
  85. I love messing about with language, looking up word origins, and using period slang. But it can get a little self-indulgent for a writer. There comes a point you have to let the nifty historical details go and just write the story.
    I don’t mind give up Victorian words like ‘scientist’ or clairvoyant’. But Regency folks didn’t say ‘Shut up’, unless they were talking about closed doors. And ‘Unconscious’ didn’t mean you were knocked out. It meant you were unaware.
    I want to use those words. I really do.
    Sometimes you need the simple, straightforward, dramatic word more than you need absolute historical accuracy.

    Reply
  86. I have become quite fierce since purchasing a reproduction of an 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, “compiled originally by Capt. Grose.” The dictionary has stubble it for hold your tongue, but chit means only an infant or baby, not a young woman. Gob is there but not gobsmacked, which is too bad as I love that word.
    As several others have said, however, I’m perfectly willing to talk out of both sides of my mouth and accept things I know are anachronisms if they somehow fit the story. Julia Quinn’s Lost Duke of Wyndham had a scene in which the hero and the heroine discuss the word “truthiness”. It clearly wasn’t a word in the Regency and it isn’t a word now (unless you are Steven Colbert). The conversation worked for me because the scene was meant to be humorous and because Quinn, the reader, and the H/H clearly know it’s not a word (“but it should be”). Quinn is not trying to pass something off as authentic when it is not, she is having fun and inviting her readers along.
    That said, I do appreciate authors who try for accuracy in vocabulary, setting, and character. When I want a 21st C character facing 21st C issues, I read a contemporary. When I read an historical I want a sense of what it was like to live within a society other than my own. So to all the Word Wenches and other historical authors out there — keep up the balancing act and keep fighting the good fight (despite the dearth of copy editors). I for one appreciate your work.

    Reply
  87. I have become quite fierce since purchasing a reproduction of an 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, “compiled originally by Capt. Grose.” The dictionary has stubble it for hold your tongue, but chit means only an infant or baby, not a young woman. Gob is there but not gobsmacked, which is too bad as I love that word.
    As several others have said, however, I’m perfectly willing to talk out of both sides of my mouth and accept things I know are anachronisms if they somehow fit the story. Julia Quinn’s Lost Duke of Wyndham had a scene in which the hero and the heroine discuss the word “truthiness”. It clearly wasn’t a word in the Regency and it isn’t a word now (unless you are Steven Colbert). The conversation worked for me because the scene was meant to be humorous and because Quinn, the reader, and the H/H clearly know it’s not a word (“but it should be”). Quinn is not trying to pass something off as authentic when it is not, she is having fun and inviting her readers along.
    That said, I do appreciate authors who try for accuracy in vocabulary, setting, and character. When I want a 21st C character facing 21st C issues, I read a contemporary. When I read an historical I want a sense of what it was like to live within a society other than my own. So to all the Word Wenches and other historical authors out there — keep up the balancing act and keep fighting the good fight (despite the dearth of copy editors). I for one appreciate your work.

    Reply
  88. I have become quite fierce since purchasing a reproduction of an 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, “compiled originally by Capt. Grose.” The dictionary has stubble it for hold your tongue, but chit means only an infant or baby, not a young woman. Gob is there but not gobsmacked, which is too bad as I love that word.
    As several others have said, however, I’m perfectly willing to talk out of both sides of my mouth and accept things I know are anachronisms if they somehow fit the story. Julia Quinn’s Lost Duke of Wyndham had a scene in which the hero and the heroine discuss the word “truthiness”. It clearly wasn’t a word in the Regency and it isn’t a word now (unless you are Steven Colbert). The conversation worked for me because the scene was meant to be humorous and because Quinn, the reader, and the H/H clearly know it’s not a word (“but it should be”). Quinn is not trying to pass something off as authentic when it is not, she is having fun and inviting her readers along.
    That said, I do appreciate authors who try for accuracy in vocabulary, setting, and character. When I want a 21st C character facing 21st C issues, I read a contemporary. When I read an historical I want a sense of what it was like to live within a society other than my own. So to all the Word Wenches and other historical authors out there — keep up the balancing act and keep fighting the good fight (despite the dearth of copy editors). I for one appreciate your work.

    Reply
  89. I have become quite fierce since purchasing a reproduction of an 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, “compiled originally by Capt. Grose.” The dictionary has stubble it for hold your tongue, but chit means only an infant or baby, not a young woman. Gob is there but not gobsmacked, which is too bad as I love that word.
    As several others have said, however, I’m perfectly willing to talk out of both sides of my mouth and accept things I know are anachronisms if they somehow fit the story. Julia Quinn’s Lost Duke of Wyndham had a scene in which the hero and the heroine discuss the word “truthiness”. It clearly wasn’t a word in the Regency and it isn’t a word now (unless you are Steven Colbert). The conversation worked for me because the scene was meant to be humorous and because Quinn, the reader, and the H/H clearly know it’s not a word (“but it should be”). Quinn is not trying to pass something off as authentic when it is not, she is having fun and inviting her readers along.
    That said, I do appreciate authors who try for accuracy in vocabulary, setting, and character. When I want a 21st C character facing 21st C issues, I read a contemporary. When I read an historical I want a sense of what it was like to live within a society other than my own. So to all the Word Wenches and other historical authors out there — keep up the balancing act and keep fighting the good fight (despite the dearth of copy editors). I for one appreciate your work.

    Reply
  90. I have become quite fierce since purchasing a reproduction of an 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, “compiled originally by Capt. Grose.” The dictionary has stubble it for hold your tongue, but chit means only an infant or baby, not a young woman. Gob is there but not gobsmacked, which is too bad as I love that word.
    As several others have said, however, I’m perfectly willing to talk out of both sides of my mouth and accept things I know are anachronisms if they somehow fit the story. Julia Quinn’s Lost Duke of Wyndham had a scene in which the hero and the heroine discuss the word “truthiness”. It clearly wasn’t a word in the Regency and it isn’t a word now (unless you are Steven Colbert). The conversation worked for me because the scene was meant to be humorous and because Quinn, the reader, and the H/H clearly know it’s not a word (“but it should be”). Quinn is not trying to pass something off as authentic when it is not, she is having fun and inviting her readers along.
    That said, I do appreciate authors who try for accuracy in vocabulary, setting, and character. When I want a 21st C character facing 21st C issues, I read a contemporary. When I read an historical I want a sense of what it was like to live within a society other than my own. So to all the Word Wenches and other historical authors out there — keep up the balancing act and keep fighting the good fight (despite the dearth of copy editors). I for one appreciate your work.

    Reply
  91. I no authors do a lot of research in writing a historical book. But I don’t mind a view contemporary words in the story.As long as it’s not the slang words kids use today

    Reply
  92. I no authors do a lot of research in writing a historical book. But I don’t mind a view contemporary words in the story.As long as it’s not the slang words kids use today

    Reply
  93. I no authors do a lot of research in writing a historical book. But I don’t mind a view contemporary words in the story.As long as it’s not the slang words kids use today

    Reply
  94. I no authors do a lot of research in writing a historical book. But I don’t mind a view contemporary words in the story.As long as it’s not the slang words kids use today

    Reply
  95. I no authors do a lot of research in writing a historical book. But I don’t mind a view contemporary words in the story.As long as it’s not the slang words kids use today

    Reply
  96. Very interesting post, Pat.
    I’d like to add something about the differences between American English and English English. Words can mean something very different on this side of the Atlantic.
    Take ‘hunting’. If I’ve got this right, ‘hunting’ in America means going after an animal with a gun.
    In England, it means going after an animal, but not with a gun. For example, in fox-hunting, the fox is killed by the hounds, not shot by a huntsman. This makes sense. Just imagine how dangerous it would be having the entire hunt galloping across fields, jumping hedges, and all carrying loaded guns!

    Reply
  97. Very interesting post, Pat.
    I’d like to add something about the differences between American English and English English. Words can mean something very different on this side of the Atlantic.
    Take ‘hunting’. If I’ve got this right, ‘hunting’ in America means going after an animal with a gun.
    In England, it means going after an animal, but not with a gun. For example, in fox-hunting, the fox is killed by the hounds, not shot by a huntsman. This makes sense. Just imagine how dangerous it would be having the entire hunt galloping across fields, jumping hedges, and all carrying loaded guns!

    Reply
  98. Very interesting post, Pat.
    I’d like to add something about the differences between American English and English English. Words can mean something very different on this side of the Atlantic.
    Take ‘hunting’. If I’ve got this right, ‘hunting’ in America means going after an animal with a gun.
    In England, it means going after an animal, but not with a gun. For example, in fox-hunting, the fox is killed by the hounds, not shot by a huntsman. This makes sense. Just imagine how dangerous it would be having the entire hunt galloping across fields, jumping hedges, and all carrying loaded guns!

    Reply
  99. Very interesting post, Pat.
    I’d like to add something about the differences between American English and English English. Words can mean something very different on this side of the Atlantic.
    Take ‘hunting’. If I’ve got this right, ‘hunting’ in America means going after an animal with a gun.
    In England, it means going after an animal, but not with a gun. For example, in fox-hunting, the fox is killed by the hounds, not shot by a huntsman. This makes sense. Just imagine how dangerous it would be having the entire hunt galloping across fields, jumping hedges, and all carrying loaded guns!

    Reply
  100. Very interesting post, Pat.
    I’d like to add something about the differences between American English and English English. Words can mean something very different on this side of the Atlantic.
    Take ‘hunting’. If I’ve got this right, ‘hunting’ in America means going after an animal with a gun.
    In England, it means going after an animal, but not with a gun. For example, in fox-hunting, the fox is killed by the hounds, not shot by a huntsman. This makes sense. Just imagine how dangerous it would be having the entire hunt galloping across fields, jumping hedges, and all carrying loaded guns!

    Reply
  101. You are frighteningly correct, Elizabeth, and the nuances aren’t always known by author, editor, or reader. Which might be why it’s so very difficult to sell american books in the UK and vice versa. But in America, hunting is normally done on foot by only a few people, unless it’s a fox hunt, so I assume clarification comes with context. One hopes!

    Reply
  102. You are frighteningly correct, Elizabeth, and the nuances aren’t always known by author, editor, or reader. Which might be why it’s so very difficult to sell american books in the UK and vice versa. But in America, hunting is normally done on foot by only a few people, unless it’s a fox hunt, so I assume clarification comes with context. One hopes!

    Reply
  103. You are frighteningly correct, Elizabeth, and the nuances aren’t always known by author, editor, or reader. Which might be why it’s so very difficult to sell american books in the UK and vice versa. But in America, hunting is normally done on foot by only a few people, unless it’s a fox hunt, so I assume clarification comes with context. One hopes!

    Reply
  104. You are frighteningly correct, Elizabeth, and the nuances aren’t always known by author, editor, or reader. Which might be why it’s so very difficult to sell american books in the UK and vice versa. But in America, hunting is normally done on foot by only a few people, unless it’s a fox hunt, so I assume clarification comes with context. One hopes!

    Reply
  105. You are frighteningly correct, Elizabeth, and the nuances aren’t always known by author, editor, or reader. Which might be why it’s so very difficult to sell american books in the UK and vice versa. But in America, hunting is normally done on foot by only a few people, unless it’s a fox hunt, so I assume clarification comes with context. One hopes!

    Reply
  106. I don’t mean to be ‘frightening’, Pat! And my comment was just that – a comment.
    I remember reading an American Regency (a terrific read, I might add) where the hero, as a child, was put on top of a pony, given a gun, and sent fox-hunting.
    It made me laugh – but I went on reading.

    Reply
  107. I don’t mean to be ‘frightening’, Pat! And my comment was just that – a comment.
    I remember reading an American Regency (a terrific read, I might add) where the hero, as a child, was put on top of a pony, given a gun, and sent fox-hunting.
    It made me laugh – but I went on reading.

    Reply
  108. I don’t mean to be ‘frightening’, Pat! And my comment was just that – a comment.
    I remember reading an American Regency (a terrific read, I might add) where the hero, as a child, was put on top of a pony, given a gun, and sent fox-hunting.
    It made me laugh – but I went on reading.

    Reply
  109. I don’t mean to be ‘frightening’, Pat! And my comment was just that – a comment.
    I remember reading an American Regency (a terrific read, I might add) where the hero, as a child, was put on top of a pony, given a gun, and sent fox-hunting.
    It made me laugh – but I went on reading.

    Reply
  110. I don’t mean to be ‘frightening’, Pat! And my comment was just that – a comment.
    I remember reading an American Regency (a terrific read, I might add) where the hero, as a child, was put on top of a pony, given a gun, and sent fox-hunting.
    It made me laugh – but I went on reading.

    Reply
  111. For me, the most important thing is not wrecking the historical mood. For example, using “mount” as a synonym for “horse” or “hallway” for “corridor” don’t throw me out of a book, but if a Regency heroine finds her circumstances “surreal” (as one did in a contest entry I read), I’m likely to stop reading.

    Reply
  112. For me, the most important thing is not wrecking the historical mood. For example, using “mount” as a synonym for “horse” or “hallway” for “corridor” don’t throw me out of a book, but if a Regency heroine finds her circumstances “surreal” (as one did in a contest entry I read), I’m likely to stop reading.

    Reply
  113. For me, the most important thing is not wrecking the historical mood. For example, using “mount” as a synonym for “horse” or “hallway” for “corridor” don’t throw me out of a book, but if a Regency heroine finds her circumstances “surreal” (as one did in a contest entry I read), I’m likely to stop reading.

    Reply
  114. For me, the most important thing is not wrecking the historical mood. For example, using “mount” as a synonym for “horse” or “hallway” for “corridor” don’t throw me out of a book, but if a Regency heroine finds her circumstances “surreal” (as one did in a contest entry I read), I’m likely to stop reading.

    Reply
  115. For me, the most important thing is not wrecking the historical mood. For example, using “mount” as a synonym for “horse” or “hallway” for “corridor” don’t throw me out of a book, but if a Regency heroine finds her circumstances “surreal” (as one did in a contest entry I read), I’m likely to stop reading.

    Reply
  116. Hey, Pat! Terrific post, as always. Since the topic is Regency lingo, I have a question. In The Wicked Wyckerly, I noticed you used the word “blunt” several times in referring to money. Would you mind sharing the origin. I went looking and couldn’t find anything except the usual definitions referring to dullness or a type of cigar. Anyway, I like the word so much–it sounds so Regency hip–that I want to use it in my current wip, but I’m afraid to do so until I know something about it’s meaning in this context.
    If I’ve just posted a completely ignorant question that anyone in the beau monde could answer, just consider the source and be gentle.

    Reply
  117. Hey, Pat! Terrific post, as always. Since the topic is Regency lingo, I have a question. In The Wicked Wyckerly, I noticed you used the word “blunt” several times in referring to money. Would you mind sharing the origin. I went looking and couldn’t find anything except the usual definitions referring to dullness or a type of cigar. Anyway, I like the word so much–it sounds so Regency hip–that I want to use it in my current wip, but I’m afraid to do so until I know something about it’s meaning in this context.
    If I’ve just posted a completely ignorant question that anyone in the beau monde could answer, just consider the source and be gentle.

    Reply
  118. Hey, Pat! Terrific post, as always. Since the topic is Regency lingo, I have a question. In The Wicked Wyckerly, I noticed you used the word “blunt” several times in referring to money. Would you mind sharing the origin. I went looking and couldn’t find anything except the usual definitions referring to dullness or a type of cigar. Anyway, I like the word so much–it sounds so Regency hip–that I want to use it in my current wip, but I’m afraid to do so until I know something about it’s meaning in this context.
    If I’ve just posted a completely ignorant question that anyone in the beau monde could answer, just consider the source and be gentle.

    Reply
  119. Hey, Pat! Terrific post, as always. Since the topic is Regency lingo, I have a question. In The Wicked Wyckerly, I noticed you used the word “blunt” several times in referring to money. Would you mind sharing the origin. I went looking and couldn’t find anything except the usual definitions referring to dullness or a type of cigar. Anyway, I like the word so much–it sounds so Regency hip–that I want to use it in my current wip, but I’m afraid to do so until I know something about it’s meaning in this context.
    If I’ve just posted a completely ignorant question that anyone in the beau monde could answer, just consider the source and be gentle.

    Reply
  120. Hey, Pat! Terrific post, as always. Since the topic is Regency lingo, I have a question. In The Wicked Wyckerly, I noticed you used the word “blunt” several times in referring to money. Would you mind sharing the origin. I went looking and couldn’t find anything except the usual definitions referring to dullness or a type of cigar. Anyway, I like the word so much–it sounds so Regency hip–that I want to use it in my current wip, but I’m afraid to do so until I know something about it’s meaning in this context.
    If I’ve just posted a completely ignorant question that anyone in the beau monde could answer, just consider the source and be gentle.

    Reply
  121. I’m following this fascinating discussion with great interest.
    A book I find really helpful is the Dictionary of Historical Slang, edited by Eric Partridge and published by Penguin.
    ‘Blunt’, for example, means money, especially cash, and dates from 1714. It was used throughout the 19th century, eg in Dickens’ ‘Oliver Twist’. The DHS says, ‘Etymology doubtful. Perhaps from the blunt rims of coins; perhaps, however, ex John Blunt, Chairman of the South Sea Company.’
    The South Sea Company was a joint stock company, founded in 1711 to trade, cheifly in slaves, with South America. In 1720, it offered to take over a large share of the National Debt – an offer which was accepted by Parliament.
    This resulted in an enormous rise in the value of the shares. The subsequent slump – or burst – of the South Sea Bubble ruined hundreds of investors and implicated three ministers on charges of corruption. It was a huge scandal.
    Devon, I hope this helps!

    Reply
  122. I’m following this fascinating discussion with great interest.
    A book I find really helpful is the Dictionary of Historical Slang, edited by Eric Partridge and published by Penguin.
    ‘Blunt’, for example, means money, especially cash, and dates from 1714. It was used throughout the 19th century, eg in Dickens’ ‘Oliver Twist’. The DHS says, ‘Etymology doubtful. Perhaps from the blunt rims of coins; perhaps, however, ex John Blunt, Chairman of the South Sea Company.’
    The South Sea Company was a joint stock company, founded in 1711 to trade, cheifly in slaves, with South America. In 1720, it offered to take over a large share of the National Debt – an offer which was accepted by Parliament.
    This resulted in an enormous rise in the value of the shares. The subsequent slump – or burst – of the South Sea Bubble ruined hundreds of investors and implicated three ministers on charges of corruption. It was a huge scandal.
    Devon, I hope this helps!

    Reply
  123. I’m following this fascinating discussion with great interest.
    A book I find really helpful is the Dictionary of Historical Slang, edited by Eric Partridge and published by Penguin.
    ‘Blunt’, for example, means money, especially cash, and dates from 1714. It was used throughout the 19th century, eg in Dickens’ ‘Oliver Twist’. The DHS says, ‘Etymology doubtful. Perhaps from the blunt rims of coins; perhaps, however, ex John Blunt, Chairman of the South Sea Company.’
    The South Sea Company was a joint stock company, founded in 1711 to trade, cheifly in slaves, with South America. In 1720, it offered to take over a large share of the National Debt – an offer which was accepted by Parliament.
    This resulted in an enormous rise in the value of the shares. The subsequent slump – or burst – of the South Sea Bubble ruined hundreds of investors and implicated three ministers on charges of corruption. It was a huge scandal.
    Devon, I hope this helps!

    Reply
  124. I’m following this fascinating discussion with great interest.
    A book I find really helpful is the Dictionary of Historical Slang, edited by Eric Partridge and published by Penguin.
    ‘Blunt’, for example, means money, especially cash, and dates from 1714. It was used throughout the 19th century, eg in Dickens’ ‘Oliver Twist’. The DHS says, ‘Etymology doubtful. Perhaps from the blunt rims of coins; perhaps, however, ex John Blunt, Chairman of the South Sea Company.’
    The South Sea Company was a joint stock company, founded in 1711 to trade, cheifly in slaves, with South America. In 1720, it offered to take over a large share of the National Debt – an offer which was accepted by Parliament.
    This resulted in an enormous rise in the value of the shares. The subsequent slump – or burst – of the South Sea Bubble ruined hundreds of investors and implicated three ministers on charges of corruption. It was a huge scandal.
    Devon, I hope this helps!

    Reply
  125. I’m following this fascinating discussion with great interest.
    A book I find really helpful is the Dictionary of Historical Slang, edited by Eric Partridge and published by Penguin.
    ‘Blunt’, for example, means money, especially cash, and dates from 1714. It was used throughout the 19th century, eg in Dickens’ ‘Oliver Twist’. The DHS says, ‘Etymology doubtful. Perhaps from the blunt rims of coins; perhaps, however, ex John Blunt, Chairman of the South Sea Company.’
    The South Sea Company was a joint stock company, founded in 1711 to trade, cheifly in slaves, with South America. In 1720, it offered to take over a large share of the National Debt – an offer which was accepted by Parliament.
    This resulted in an enormous rise in the value of the shares. The subsequent slump – or burst – of the South Sea Bubble ruined hundreds of investors and implicated three ministers on charges of corruption. It was a huge scandal.
    Devon, I hope this helps!

    Reply
  126. Thank you for explaining that, Elizabeth. I’m a wee bit slow to get back here somedays, but I adore word discussions.
    Devon, Eric Partridge is a very reliable source should you find any of his word reference books. He started with a slang thesaurus written (my memory may be wrong) in the late 18th century, so he’s pretty darned accurate.

    Reply
  127. Thank you for explaining that, Elizabeth. I’m a wee bit slow to get back here somedays, but I adore word discussions.
    Devon, Eric Partridge is a very reliable source should you find any of his word reference books. He started with a slang thesaurus written (my memory may be wrong) in the late 18th century, so he’s pretty darned accurate.

    Reply
  128. Thank you for explaining that, Elizabeth. I’m a wee bit slow to get back here somedays, but I adore word discussions.
    Devon, Eric Partridge is a very reliable source should you find any of his word reference books. He started with a slang thesaurus written (my memory may be wrong) in the late 18th century, so he’s pretty darned accurate.

    Reply
  129. Thank you for explaining that, Elizabeth. I’m a wee bit slow to get back here somedays, but I adore word discussions.
    Devon, Eric Partridge is a very reliable source should you find any of his word reference books. He started with a slang thesaurus written (my memory may be wrong) in the late 18th century, so he’s pretty darned accurate.

    Reply
  130. Thank you for explaining that, Elizabeth. I’m a wee bit slow to get back here somedays, but I adore word discussions.
    Devon, Eric Partridge is a very reliable source should you find any of his word reference books. He started with a slang thesaurus written (my memory may be wrong) in the late 18th century, so he’s pretty darned accurate.

    Reply
  131. I hate glaring historical inaccuracies and have stopped reading many a book because of it – in fact I stopped reading Julia Quinn especially because of it! My main annoyances are mixing of the classes, modern day language and children being the centre of attention as they are today. ( Don’t get me started on that one – I just read a book where the Duke and Duchess were looking after their own children!)
    Fortunately the authors here have been to England, Scotland or Wales and know their history. I am disappointed that an editor would “correct” a historically appropriate word or situation. Maybe a good topic would be “Controlling Editors – Fact or Fiction”

    Reply
  132. I hate glaring historical inaccuracies and have stopped reading many a book because of it – in fact I stopped reading Julia Quinn especially because of it! My main annoyances are mixing of the classes, modern day language and children being the centre of attention as they are today. ( Don’t get me started on that one – I just read a book where the Duke and Duchess were looking after their own children!)
    Fortunately the authors here have been to England, Scotland or Wales and know their history. I am disappointed that an editor would “correct” a historically appropriate word or situation. Maybe a good topic would be “Controlling Editors – Fact or Fiction”

    Reply
  133. I hate glaring historical inaccuracies and have stopped reading many a book because of it – in fact I stopped reading Julia Quinn especially because of it! My main annoyances are mixing of the classes, modern day language and children being the centre of attention as they are today. ( Don’t get me started on that one – I just read a book where the Duke and Duchess were looking after their own children!)
    Fortunately the authors here have been to England, Scotland or Wales and know their history. I am disappointed that an editor would “correct” a historically appropriate word or situation. Maybe a good topic would be “Controlling Editors – Fact or Fiction”

    Reply
  134. I hate glaring historical inaccuracies and have stopped reading many a book because of it – in fact I stopped reading Julia Quinn especially because of it! My main annoyances are mixing of the classes, modern day language and children being the centre of attention as they are today. ( Don’t get me started on that one – I just read a book where the Duke and Duchess were looking after their own children!)
    Fortunately the authors here have been to England, Scotland or Wales and know their history. I am disappointed that an editor would “correct” a historically appropriate word or situation. Maybe a good topic would be “Controlling Editors – Fact or Fiction”

    Reply
  135. I hate glaring historical inaccuracies and have stopped reading many a book because of it – in fact I stopped reading Julia Quinn especially because of it! My main annoyances are mixing of the classes, modern day language and children being the centre of attention as they are today. ( Don’t get me started on that one – I just read a book where the Duke and Duchess were looking after their own children!)
    Fortunately the authors here have been to England, Scotland or Wales and know their history. I am disappointed that an editor would “correct” a historically appropriate word or situation. Maybe a good topic would be “Controlling Editors – Fact or Fiction”

    Reply

Leave a Comment