Always the question of what’s too far, eh Lynne C?

See, viral marketing works!

And the more extreme I go, the more accurate to the time I get, the more doubtful I am that this will fly, the better the readers seem to like it. Since I love writing with all the depth and accuracy I can manage, I intend to carry on doing it.

I’ve got a couple of your books loaded into my CyBook. I can’t wait to read them (just have to find the time to read at all; I’m in the process of moving and it’s a major time suck!).

While not strictly romances, Dorothy Dunnett's Lymond books are some of the most romantic written during the 20th century. Dunnett never stopped to translate or explain, because her characters, and by extension her readers, were so immersed in the language of the era. Like Sayers, who she admired, Dunnett spoke several languages and peppered her books with obscure quotations, some of which were absolutely crucial to an understanding of the action.

And my editor made me pull “Like Caesar's wife she was no longer above reproach”. *sigh* I the phrase was both well known and basically self-explanatory.

I only started reading historical romances maybe five years ago, and I spent so much time while reading those first few books trying to guess what “fichu” and “curricle” and all the other unfamiliar words were…I almost stopped reading them . . . But I agree – I wouldn't expect a contemporary writer to explain a “microwave” or “jeans”.

As a writer of historical fiction, I don't want to irritate and insult the devotees of the subgenre by explaining things that are-’to them-’as familiar as jeans and microwaves. I guess if I were going to chose, I'd have to say my preference is for the camp of Sayers, Dunnett and Heyer . . . but then I was recently told by an agent that it was clear that I “really liked history” (and she didn't mean it as a compliment).

I think of Emma Bull’s War for the Oaks and truly, little of the world is explained right away but by the end of the story we know that there are dark faeries, light faeries and worlds that exist parallel to ours, particularly when the sun goes down. Ditto with McKinley’s Sunshine.

I understand where a deeper knowledge of a subject might lead to a deeper appreciation of the story. While not a book, My Cousin Vinny, is a good example of this. I marvel at the way in which the movie takes elements from an actual trial and makes those elements funny and entertaining but totally accurate. I have a deep appreciation for how the trial scenes were constructed, how evidence was introduced, how procedural rules were followed and/or enforced in a totally non info dumping manner.

I’d have to read the book to know exactly what they meant of course, but I would hope that if a mythology would be used that heavily, that it would be explained within the context of the book to the point that the reader does understand. And maybe it is understandable to other readers. Anyone here read it (I’ll search DA’s archives after, which makes so much sense…)? Do you think the whole Norse mythology aspect was understandable in the book, especially if you were not previously familiar with Norse myth?

I wouldn’t want to feel like I should have taken a primer course before the book after having read it. If anything, I would hope the book would explain SO well that I would be excited to go on and learn more about traditional Norse mythology. Not that I’m saddling the author with that responsibility. Let’s just blame my coffee for this morning’s ramble.

But I agree – I wouldn’t expect a contemporary writer to explain a “microwave” or “jeans”.

Last week I read through Deanna Raybourne’s Lady Julie Grey series and never was I more grateful for my new Sony’s dictionary! That woman has an impressive vocabulary and I took advantage of the dictionary to make sure what I was getting from the context was right.

I guess like everyone else has already said, I’d prefer to get it from context. If it’s really important to the plot, and a rare word, I’d expect I should be able to get it from context or it had better be explained.

That long-winded-ly being said, I would prefer to learn a new word within the context of the story, especially if it’s to do with the worldbuilding. I’ve come across some that were so alien to me though that even if the sentence went on to allude to the meaning there was no way I was going to get it till I looked it up. It’s really just a once-in-a-while hazard.

What I absolutely hate is a ham-fisted conversation between two colleagues explaining to each other what they do for a living! Oy.

What I hate only slightly less is having a character explain everything to a newbie, in a sort of infodump-via-PowerPoint. One recent example was the season premiere of NCIS, which was structured so that Tony was describing each member of the team, and their function on the team, to an outside party. It was easy to tell it had been done as a primer for people watching the show for the second or third time, having before caught only a few repeats on the USA Network or something. I could see why it was being done, but it was irritating as hell for any of us who had seen the show before and knew all of the characters already.

An authorial explanation is more likely to throw me out of the story, unless it’s done in a way that makes sense within the story — I can buy a character explaining the difference between a phaeton and a curricle to someone visiting from a far distant country, but not the character explaining the difference to his older brother.

It’s almost as bad as an author mentioning another movie, book, or song as a form of description to a scene. I CAN NOT stand that at all. If I’m forced out of the book by the mention of such a thing it kills my connection to the book! ARGH! I know I’ve gone off topic a bit but it has the same reaction from me.

Beautifully put.

(Wait, does that make the shortest reply I’d made to DA?)

I am especially fond of mysteries from the 30′s and 40′s and enjoyed Dorthy L. Sayers, though she wasn’t my favorite. I think one of the reasons my verbal skills tested off the charts by the 5th grade was thanks to my intense reading habits and the quality of writing that used to be the norm. Yes, they used a lot of Latin (never took Latin), but mostly the writers used vocabularies you just don’t see today. Like the ‘dumbing down’ of magazines and newspapers, the vocabulary is that of the ‘average’ 12 year old.

Today books are riddled with slang, supposed foreign phrases and terms, and sex. We have 100 words for killing, but ‘consensus’ is consistently misused. (If I read ‘consensus of opinion’ one more time I’ll scream) Don’t get me started on sex substituting for plot and writing ability. It’s like flashing skin or blowing things up in movies to distract people from the complete absence of PLOT!

In working life, various disciplines speak and write in a specialized verbal shorthand with definitions slightly shaded in their meaning that are unique to a group. I’m a member of a voluntary consensus standards organization and each standard has a place for Definitions and Terms. Why? Because aside from those terms define by an equation, we tend to define them a little differently depending on the group using the term. They are similar, not identical, and the differences can mean a lot in the application of term. When I’m speaking before a group I always tell them to stop me and ask for clarification if I say something they don’t understand. I KNOW I’m guilty of using acronyms and coined terms!

There is another factor. Readers, especially those who began young and have good retention, have larger working vocabularies and even bigger recognition vocabularies than non-readers. Most kids now are playing video and develop a specialized vocabulary specific to that environment and nowhere else. It’s a self-isolating past-time. Deliberately so. It marks them as ‘different’ and in their minds superior in some way. They interact with those with the same verbal skills and the same concept of superiority. Like to like for comfort in establishing a pecking order and hierarchy. Adults play the same game of separation. Over-educated people use their language skills to intimidate or impress or to elevate themselves above the ordinary. Throw in a few Latin, French, Italian, Japanese or Russian phrases to impress. Some writers do exactly that. Others actually add to their stories.

I could no more speak or write hip hop jargon convincingly than I could suddenly develop a fluency in Russian. I’d look ridiculous trying – though Russian would my better bet at success. You know the phonies when they speak – and when they write. I had a co-worker that would use a word he was obviously unfamiliar with, awkwardly working it into a sentence. I finally asked if he had a ‘word a day’ calendar or something. He did. It was admirable he was making an effort to expand his working vocabulary, but there was no mistaking what he was doing.

Words are a writers stock in trade. Use them well and readers get lost in a story. Use them badly and they’re nothing bust a constant distraction. I read fantasy for years before it began the cross-over into romance. Many writers have a foot in both worlds. With a few notable exceptions, I have found the fantasy worlds in romance less compelling than those in the classic fantasy genre. But the most frequent complaint I’ve had about books from romance and mystery ‘urban fantasy’ and ‘paranormal’ genres is poor world-building. At times it like watching a 60 year old trying to be hip and speaking bad teenage slang. It takes a very special skill set to build alternate worlds/reality. It’s easier to create an urban fantasy that’s of this world with various supernatural beings living side-by-side with normal people, ‘Muggles’. Yes, J. K. Rowling did it and you could watch her writing and ‘world’ evolve as she gained confidence as a writer and Harry grew into his power.

Language is an living entity. Old words take on new meanings, new words are added, some words drop from use. The context and setting define much of the meaning of any word – and the subtler intent of using unusual, foreign, or specialized words to provide atmosphere – or just impress the reader. Just like my mental image of Bilbo’s thumbs, words have new and/or different meanings and it’s ONLY through context that they are understood.

In Brockmann’s most recent book, one of the characters uses the term ‘Occam’s razor’ and the phrase is then explained by one character to another. I’d honestly rather the author had flattered my intelligence, and assumed I would know the term – or that I would have the wit to look it up if it was an unfamiliar usage.
I like that Sayers assumes (incorrectly, as my French teacher would tell her) that I can follow a scene without translation – makes me feel cleverer than I am.

I recently read a rom novel that's riddled with Romaji words (which, incidentally, were never translated nor explained) and I found this so irritating.

Very typical of anime otaku trying too hard to be kakkoii. (for those of you who don’t speak the language otaku = geek or obsessive fan / kakkoii = cool)

I would’ve returned the book as it’s not written in English or proper Japanese.

(I may keep a book riddled with correctly used kanji because at least that shows that the author is literate in Japanese.)

I didn’t have to look up the references because at the time I was writing a graduate thesis on Renaissance English literature and was familiar with enough of them already, and (as I said) didn’t care enough about the rest.

I’ve occasionally looked at the Niccolo books because, as I freely granted above, Dunnett writes a top-notch story and gets the time period beautifully right. But by every thing I know about my own tastes and interests I should have loved the Lymond Chronicles too, instead of becoming one of the few books I have actually physically hurled against the wall; and life is too short to populate my head with people I simply don’t like.

I have always acknowledged that most people think I’m nuts for not liking these books. But, as I said, I think there is value in reminding people that tastes do vary, and it is okay not to like a particular work, even one that is as almost universally beloved.

And apologies to all for dragging the thread off topic.