It is all just confusing and distracting. This will teach me not to fall in love with place-holder character names, now won’t it?

Maybe I can find something Medieval.

I noticed the Imogens and wondered about it.

Hmmm . . . I hmmmed to myself. Maybe it’s one of these meme thingums.

@ MaryK —

Bryght is Jo Beverley’s character.
I love him.
Hopelessly, since he is fictional.

@JoB: Maybe you could work the origin of the name into the text?

She did. The father had a thing for history. It was really well done and quite funny.

I say go for the unique name because not every reader will criticize and it's not predictable how readers will react. Plus IMO we need to be reconditioned to appreciate historical diversity of names.

Jo’s ‘Arcenbryght' sure makes the grade (as so all the characters in the family, LOL!).

I had a similar problem to my “George” problem with my second book. I chose something unusual (or so I thought) for my heroine: Imogen. And then a couple of months before my book hit the shelf, Eloisa James came out with a book with heroine of the same name. *sigh*

I find the name thing really interesting. When my first book came out, I was told by a couple of writers at a conference that they’d loved the book, but wished the hero had been named something sexy, like “Jack” or “Jake” (note: these names don't hit the *sexy* for me). Now at the time, I was in a writing group where the other three members were working on books with heroes named Jack, Jake and Jake. I swear I blew my drink out my nose laughing.

When it comes to names, I feel like we can't win for trying.

I agree. We say we want distinctive characters, but sometimes that can be measured in narrow terms. We readers often have ideas about what is historically accurate that may not be right, but we hold to them b/c a) we’ve been conditioned by the genre itself to expect certain names, b) character names are definitely part of the character’s description, and c) we can have contradictory wants in terms of characters – want “historical” name but tolerate modern manners, etc.

I say go for the unique name because not every reader will criticize and it’s not predictable how readers will react. Plus IMO we need to be reconditioned to appreciate historical diversity of names.

I'm thinking of naming a French girl, ‘Marianne'. This will prove to be a mistake.

LOL!

I feel your pain.
I’m thinking of naming a French girl, ‘Marianne’. This will prove to be a mistake.

What's a writer to do?

Yes, indeed. ‘Cade’ is perfectly possible as a first name taken from a traditional family name. There’s no reason a Regency character couldn’t be named ‘Cade’ or ‘Case’ or ‘Cody’. They’re all plausible. An author can’t be faulted for using a name not documented in use in the period.

Still, that ‘modern sound’ would give me a little blip in the believe-meter.

‘Arcenbryght’ is just as unusual as Cade, but I didn’t have an instant’s doubt of it.

‘Cade' hits on Googlebooks as an uncommon English patronym. It's a minor C in Shakespeare. ‘Jack Cade', Henry VI.

I've never seen it used in the period as a first name. I'd call it possible, but not likely. It could be a nickname for Kincade.

So the short answer is -’ ‘No, not so much a period-appropriate first name.' To me -’ this is just me -’ it 'sounds' a little 1980s-daytime-television-ish. It's a minor matter, but the editor should have flagged it for the author's reconsideration. IMHO.

I'll agree that “Cade” strikes me as modern, but considering that I found the following Surnames used as Christian names in either Who’s Who in Late Hanoverian Britain or my 1779 edition of The Peerage, it's not out of the question: Granville, Richmal, Sydney, Spencer, Rowland, Heneage, Washington, Vere, Willoughby, Anne-Holles (yes, first name for a man!), Sackville, and Brownlow.

I think we should just ignore Anon. He/she obviously craves the attention that her/his immature comments generate.

Anon, I don't think any of the ladies that run this site purport to be “professional reviewers”. They run a blog and give their opinion. If you think their musings are subpar, I'm not sure why you're hanging around. This is all subjective anyway, so I'm not sure why you're taking all of it so seriously, or rather, personally. Kind of sad really.

Your need to insult shows a severe lack of manners and confidence. I saw this in a whole host of comments on another thread. It's sad. People should be able to state their opinions in a calm, professional manner, without attacks.

Should not all this be edited for lack of pertinent content as well?

P.S. I’m hanging around strictly for the cheap entertainment factors.

Your need to insult shows a severe lack of manners and confidence. I saw this in a whole host of comments on another thread. It’s sad. People should be able to state their opinions in a calm, professional manner, without attacks.

Have a good one all. I’m done here.

@ Courtney. Title for a time-travel Romance about a ditsy Valley Girl who ends up in 1550. Maid of Fail.

Make sure Ditsy V. Girl takes on Torquemada and all the other intellectually challeneged freaks who believed only particular books were fit to be read and that only particular people ought to be allowed to read them. That would mean revising the setting to the 1400′s instead but….

“Whaddya mean there’s an index of forbidden books? EW AS IF!”

‘Cade’ hits on Googlebooks as an uncommon English patronym. It’s a minor C in Shakespeare. ‘Jack Cade’, Henry VI.

I’ve never seen it used in the period as a first name.
I’d call it possible, but not likely. It could be a nickname for Kincade.

So the short answer is — ‘No, not so much a period-appropriate first name.’ To me — this is just me — it ‘sounds’ a little 1980s-daytime-television-ish. It’s a minor matter, but the editor should have flagged it for the author’s reconsideration. IMHO.

@ Courtney. Title for a time-travel Romance about a ditsy Valley Girl who ends up in 1550. Maid of Fail.

[edited for lack of content pertinent to the review]

Then I picked up this book due to the cover and actually gave it a read. Jane, like you said, the beginning was great and then it all went downhill from here. Cade seemed totally bipolar in some situations and if he was a real guy, man, I would love to give him a swift kick in the ‘nades.

[edited for lack of content pertinent to the review]