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…

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.