At the same time I agree with wendy, shit bothers me when the story itself is bad. But you won’t find me with a red pen editing a book while I read it so I can go look at me I am so much smarter than the author.

And if it turns out I am wrong say well it still doesn’t sound right to me so rot your historical knowledge! sounds too much like wanting to have your cake and eat it too…[/quote]

LOL, Sybil! No, I am not saying that authors need to know each reader’s personal quirks. But at the same time, I think authors and editors need to be aware of the fact that sometimes a word that sounds modern can disrupt the reading experience even when it’s not actually modern.

I once read an interview with Anne Rice in which she mentioned that when she was writing her historical novel Cry to Heaven, she had a line in which the characters talked about advertising themselves. She checked the word “advertise” and it had been in use at the time the book was set. However, her editor still pulled the word out, because even though it was in use, the editor thought it would sound contemporary to readers and disrupt their reading experience. Anne Rice was annoyed about this, if I recall correctly.

Who was right? Ms. Rice or her editor? I think different readers will have different opinions on that. There is no absolute wrong or right here, there are only opinions, and different people’s reading experiences. But if the writers think about how readers experience reading, they can make an informed decision.

As for me, I was still pulled out by Brockway’s use of “nope” in My Dearest Enemy. Wrong or right, it doesn’t change the fact that my reading was disrupted at the time I came across that word.

In terms of other author’s historicals, I do agree with previous sentiments: they don’t bother me unless the rest of the book is lackluster. But one thing I do question is why write a historical romance if the history is irrelevant to the plot and characters? Why utilize any type of setting(even in contemporaries) if they’re only going to be used in a superficial manner? I’m of the school where the setting–down the year and season–has a point to my protagonists character/story arc.

At the same time I agree with wendy, shit bothers me when the story itself is bad. But you won’t find me with a red pen editing a book while I read it so I can go look at me I am so much smarter than the author.

And if it turns out I am wrong say well it still doesn’t sound right to me so rot your historical knowledge! sounds too much like wanting to have your cake and eat it too…

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. We sit there stunned and read the sentence again to be sure we read correctly. And by the time we close our gaping mouths we are in a different place than we were before. Which is why for me this has nothing to do with wanting to be “the history police.”

Although when you look up a word and it's clearly an anachronism, that's something different. At least if an author took time to check, I'll give her credit for that, even if the word sounds jarring to me in the context of the book (based on my own expectations).

I agree there is a difference and a clear anachronism is definitely worse, but the problem with the latter situation is that once I have to look up the word to find out whether or not it’s an anchronism, I’m no longer caught up in the spell that the author is trying to weave. Even if it turns out the word was in usage at that time and place, the magic of being transported to that time and place has obviously dissipated by then.

I want authors to get it right. I think that they should do the research and know the time period in which they write as well as a scholar of that period.

I agree! I don’t want to be jarred from a tale because of modern jargon or inaccurate historical details. It’s very easy to verify facts, back to medival times, and so IMO there is no excuse for blatant misrepresentations. Albeit, with the exclusion of possible or alternative history. Using the example of the two princes house in the Tower of London (then a royal residence), it is not known whether the boys were murdered or even when they died. Therefore, I can embrace a tale in which one or both of the princes survived (Blackadder, first part of the series) and find it intriguing.

Edward de Raaf, fifth Earl of Swartingham, frowned. “I’ve told you to call me Edward or de Raaf. This my lord stuff is ridiculous.” (p. 372)

I’m pretty sure that “stuff” used in that way is a 20th century invention. Oh, and I hate hate hate the use of “rod” for penis in historicals (thank GOD that Loretta Chase banished that horrific word from NQAL — I don’t think it’s even historically accurate). OTOH, I completely overlooked an anachronistic usage of the word “ego” from one historical (The Raven Prince?). We definitely all have our hot buttons. I can understand how all of our different nitpicks might feel really frustrating to an author, even if they’re perfectly legitimate from the reader’s perspective.

To give a more specific example, I love Brockway's My Dearest Enemy, but at one point, if I'm not mistaken, Brockway had her Victorian era British characters use the word “nope,â€? and it pulled me out of the story. It just didn't sound like a word that English Victorians would use, and no matter if Jane pulled out a thousand etymology dictionaries to show me that it was, she would not be able to change that reading experience for me.

Even etymology can be tricky, because the online etymology dictionary shows “nope” as appearing as early as 1888, where did it originate and what did it mean and how quickly did it spread, and who was using it? Dictionary.com claims it’s an Americanized usage 1885-90 and informal, which comports with what I’ve read of late Victorian texts in both GB and the US. The Online Etymology Dictionary shows it as an emphatic version of no. So IMO you can’t just rely on etymological sources (except perhaps the OED, which not only lists dates but actual textual references) to determine whether a particular word would be in use or even fashionable. Although when you look up a word and it’s clearly an anachronism, that’s something different. At least if an author took time to check, I’ll give her credit for that, even if the word sounds jarring to me in the context of the book (based on my own expectations).

To give a more specific example, I love Brockway’s My Dearest Enemy, but at one point, if I’m not mistaken, Brockway had her Victorian era British characters use the word “nope,” and it pulled me out of the story. It just didn’t sound like a word that English Victorians would use, and no matter if Jane pulled out a thousand etymology dictionaries to show me that it was, she would not be able to change that reading experience for me.

It’s true that I am far from an expert on history, but I have a set of beliefs about it, and whether or not those beliefs are based on actual facts doesn’t change the fact that they are there, and that when I read something that strongly conflicts with those beliefs, my brain will start asking questions about whether the characters are behaving in a way that makes sense for their era or nationality. Once it’s asking those questions, I’m no longer involved in the story itself, and instead, I feel annoyed.

That’s just the reality of the situation. If I can’t suspend disbelief, I’m not going to enjoy the book.

The interesting thing about Asimov’s Robot Laws: many other SF authors also adopted them and applied them within the constructs of their own universes. So something that was wholly made-up is now a kind of fact within the fiction.

I think authors in several periods of historical romance–especially Regency and Scottish–have similarly developed their own fictional norms that in turn have been adopted by other authors for use in subsequent novels. The result is almost an alternative Regency universe, which is accurate enough to please most readers. (I mean, hey, I like those Julia Quinns as much as anybody.)

I actually find it all kind of cool.

TP – I know. But those winter nights can be lonely . . .

Elizabeth – I think that’s an interesting concept re: the regency-era fiction creating its own genre norms. I think Robin’s point of writers basing their research on reading others in the genre lends itself to this sort of thing. I am not familiar with Robot Laws though. Can you tell us more?

Ms. Spencer – I don’t really understand those ridding myself of virginity themes. I think it is done to create a sexual tension or allow a more sexual tone but I generally hate those themes.

Keishon – I do read some legal thrillers but rarely. Even the ones written by former legal professionals require quite a suspension of disbelief that is hard for me to do. To Kill a Mockingbird is so brilliant because its legal scenes are accurate, and not only accurate but instructive. There’s the scene where Atticus is questioning Ewell about his left handedness. Rather than come out and just ask the question about whether Ewell was left handed, Atticus challenges Ewell’s literacy and suggests he can’t write. Ewell doesn’t see what is coming and offers to prove he can write, which he does with his left hand. Brilliant. It makes for great courtroom drama in real life and in fiction.

Also the movie, My Cousin Vinnie, absolutely accurate, particularly when Vinnie is credentialing Marissa Tomei’s character as an expert. That’s pretty much exactly how you would do it in a courtroom.

Wendy said but I also don't want wallpaper history with a mediocre plot/character(s). That's worse than “badâ€? – that's boring
.

I agree, but isn’t the problem there more than just poorly researched material? I.e., a great story can make up for a wallpaper historical background and a bad story can bring down the historically rich book.

Robin sometimes feel that history in Romance novels is passed from novel to novel rather than from actual historical research to novel.

This is a huge thing, I think and perfectly stated. Readers fall prey to that easily because if the majority of what we read is ficton and romance fiction, our ideas of what is accurate is formed by those books, maybe even subconsciously. It’s unfair for us readers to then project our idea of what is “accurate” onto the author of a book when we ourselves are not certain of accuracy.

ClosetNerd: I would have a problem with historicals featuring transgendered characters, particularly one who was titled and was high in society. I would need a footnote or something that told me of a true life character who did this and was accepted. But if it is not meant to be transgendered, I guess I would wonder HOW you could ever put balls on a woman?

Tara Marie: I do want authors to be more accurate yet I feel like I can accept them if they are not. I suppose that attitude is not going to create historical excellence in the romance field, though.

Sherry Thomas: I am so glad that your book is set in a new time period I think the late Victorian era is full of the glamour and pageantry of the Regency era. It’s nice to hear that your editor is helping you because clearly some editors aren’t paying attention to these details. I am sure that it is tough to fact check an entire novel though.

Still, it was amazing to realize just how many little mistakes I’ve made along the way.

My copy editor, for example, threw out the use of “femme fatale”, since it didn’t come into usage until well into the twentieth century.

I’d decribed someone barging into the path of another like a “Dreadnought”. Only to discover that dreadnoughts didn’t exist until 1908.

And there were quite a few more like this, things that I as a reader would probably not even have noticed, but now on the other side, as an author, must take great care to prevent.

I'm more into characters these days than detailed history.

Where it gets dicey for me is where authors want to use some historical details and discard others because they don’t seem to fit or they’re difficult to use or whatever. So as a reader, when an author tries to sell me a character who is a “product of his or her time,” I feel the history is as important an element of the characterization as personality, appearance, vocation, etc., and I want it to be a reflection of conscientious historical research. If an author is going outside the bounds of historical fact, then perhaps an author’s note would be in order, or at least not the suggestion that the character is a representation of historical reality. For example, the raping hero Jane wrote about a while ago — if someone wants to claim that history is the basis for that characteristic, then give me all the historical nuances, because it wasn’t so black and white as women were property = hero can rape at will. Likewise, if an author wants to use the virgin widow as historically accurate, I want to know that the author *knows* this to be true and the hows and whys and wherefores of it; I can’t accept the assumption that virginity=value=virgin widow.

I loved The Raven Prince and felt that I could overlook the unlikely possibility of a young gentlewoman serving as the secretary for a titled man in the Georgian period.

I think books like The Raven Prince work so well because they author brings you to a point where you think “It might be possible.” You know it’s not likely yet the book works anyway.

I think historical fiction writers need one rule, if a writer includes specific details about history, they need to make sure it’s accurate, because someone’s going to call them on it if it’s not.l

I love those old time Susan Johnson books that included footnotes.

Me too. I don’t know how many times her footnotes sent me to google, encarta or the library for more details.

In the past I’ve loved books filled with historical detail. But I’ve mellowed over the years and find wallpaper historicals just as entertaining I’m more into characters these days than detailed history.

as far as errors go, accidentally giving Lady Windermere balls is a pretty big one.

These are the kinds of errors that make me wonder where the editor is in all this. I realize that e-pubs don’t all have the legions of editors that, say, Avon claims to sic on a book, but still . . . are we just to assume that the original copy looked even worse? I don’t know which scares me more, the idea that there’s no editing or that these final manuscripts have already undergone a significant upgrade.