RomanceLand Presents The Long Goodbye Starring Ms. Adele Ashworth
By Jane • Nov 27th, 2007 • Category: Letters of Opinion, Misc • •
Dear Ms. Ashworth:
Thank you for the prank you pulled on AAR this past holiday weekend which just last year was a place you vowed never to read again or post at again. At first, I was all worried that you were serious when you went after a reader complaining about your books being wallpaper historicals. But when I got to the end of the first page of posts and you were all “I don’t belong here anymore” and “I won’t post on these boards again“, I knew you were just pulling our legs and that your posts were one big joke.
Good one.
I admit to falling for your serious tone initially. I was foolishly worried that you were once again trying to belittle a reader who had a few, seeming innocuous comments about your writing. I felt sure that you remembered how poorly the past attempts went at trying to make the small things seem . . . well, small until a big old author spotlight shone on them.
Remember when readers were outraged about you changing your widow into a virgin widow and how you thought that was so small and minor that you were compelled to write a huge editorial for AAR to point out how wrong, wrong, wrong those readers were? And then when some readers were unhappy with the grammar and punctuation in Duke of Scandal, you felt compelled to write an open letter to readers who were so silly as to want grammatically correct books? “An author can write a sentence any way she wants to, dangling modifiers included. I find it extremely insensitive the way some of these discussions progress.” is I think what you said.
And remember how both times you promised that you weren’t going to participate in AAR boards anymore because people didn’t understand the points you were trying to make? And you made the big exit only to come back the next time your books were mentioned on the boards?
When you did this a third time over the historical accuracy issue, I realized that no one would do the same thing over and over and over so this was really just a big joke on all the readers at AAR. Possibly it could have been that you felt bad for Cornwell and perhaps wanted to take the light off of her. Personally, I would have pointed it to Jacquelyn Frank’s rant against Romantic Time’s editing staff for “ruining” her ode to her fans.
Unfortunately, the article I wrote was sliced and diced, and rather poorly at that, and so the true point and feeling of it was obliterated. It was meant to be a major ass-kissing, slurpy, lovey-dovey homage to all of you. Honestly, I had put all my heart and humor into it, not realizing there was a 500 word limit (and after all, how does one limit their love for their readers to 500 words??) and it was reduced without a final consult with me. Am I angry? Oh yeah. It sounds awkward and dorky, with references to things no longer there. Will it kill me? No. But that isn’t the point. The point is I was trying to do something nice that I knew you all would get to see and now it’s kinda ruined for us both.
Cornwell’s “they don’t call it the VAST Right Wing Conspiracy for nothing” complaints could have provided us giggles for well into another week. But you could have been taking one for the writing team and falling on your sword with your “goodbye cruel world” (my words, not yours) posts.
I like, particularly, how you employed most of the nonsensical arguments that authors like to toss out there in belittling the opinions of readers.
I don’t have any other complaints. and I sell lots and lots.
TDI was my best selling book to date, and I’ve received more reader mail on this book than all my others combined. Not one reader commented on the history, but every single reader who wrote me personally commented on the characters, even some on the opera angle.
This is how I translated this phrase (before I realized it was a joke): Those readers who choose not to comment on the characters or the opera aspect are not very smart because the opera and the characters is important. Not minor historical details because if minor historical details were important readers would email me about it and I wouldn’t go all “you’re pedantic” on their asses like I am doing now.
I am secure in my writing and have a very thick skin.
The grade and review didn’t bother me (after so many books, an author usually develops *very* thick skin), but I knew there would be some fallout over the story. There always is. . . .But what made me laugh (and I mean literally laugh) when the fallout began over historical inaccuracies in TDI was when readers complained that the “champagne flute wasn’t invented yet” and “women didn’t use cosmetic brushes in 1870.” It was truly a head-scratching, WTF? moment for me. I worked very hard to create a believable romance, with accurate historical detail and the most believable dialogue possible considering the time period and storyline  and yes, I took some creative license with a heroine-opera-singer-who’s-secretly-an-earl’s-sister-but-nobody-knows-who-she-is, kind of thing. But I never expected to frustrate readers because I had the hero drinking from a champagne flute instead of a glass in chapter one. The point is, I would never think of checking something like this.
Translation: So what that I have historical inaccuracies? These details are minor. The fact that a reader choose to provide these as examples in a thread that has nothing to do with me and everything to do with historical accuracy in romance books shows that some people have nothing better to do than walk around with a red pen unfairly attacking authors in a very disruptive way. I choose to ignore the fact that the entire conversation about historical accuracy was amply defended on both sides. I also choose to ignore that the gravamen of the complaint by the one reader was that the book did not work for her.
We all have our personal quirks and hot button issues. I generally won’t read lawyer stories. Robin has this thing about grammar. Jayne hates the faux Scottish dialect.
Because you don’t understand me, I am going to go away because you don’t share the same love for the romance genre that I do.
This used to be my favorite place to “hang out” as a reader and writer of romances, but clearly, as a “wallpaper historical writer” I don’t belong here anymore. I won’t post on these boards again. . . . I guess the fact that I (and every author) can’t please everybody is a reason not to post here anymore. No matter how well I’ve tried to explain myself (about this and other things I’ve written — Beware the Virgin Widow! Smile ), someone finds an argument with it. I simply cannot explain myself without someone arguing my approach, research, explanation, or writing abilities. I’m sure part of that is the nature of the boards, but there are a lot of readers who are just not happy with the romance genre at all anymore.
Translation: Despite the fact that I promised at least once before, if not more, never to come to AAR again, this time I really, really mean it because all you readers who are critical of the genre don’t love it in the right way, in the positive - “If you haven’t got anything to say, don’t say it” sort of way. I actually believe that I can please everyone and if I can’t please you, you don’t deserve my company.
You are probably right, Ms. Ashworth. Those fans at AAR who study the romance genre, who are passionate about it, don’t love it the way you love it. I suspect that the historical accuracy brigade is probably a tool of the Pentagon. Along with the cabal of readers who want good grammar and non virgin widows.
Jane is a long time romance reader whose passion is, you guessed it, reading. Jane also does not like to talk about herself in the third person, but apparently this is the way that this biography thing works (although in a true biography, someone else would be writing this blurb). Anyway, currently Jane loves urban fantasy authors Patricia Briggs and Ilona Andrews. She's really excited about this year's crop of historicals including Joanna Bourne's The Spymaster's Lady and Sherry Thomas' Private Arrangements and the upcoming Loretta Chase Her Scandalous Ways.
She's looking for a good contemporary author. Email her with a recommendation!
Email this author | All posts by Jane
I can kind of see where she’s coming from, because some readers get their panties in a bunch over the most trivial things. (they’re like the dweebs you just never ever want to see Star Wars with because not only do they miss out on the point and the fun of the movie, they spoil it for everyone else they’re with).
But. If I were writing a dinner party scene that took place in the Regency era, I’d find a couple of books that described dinner parties from that time in detail and use the equipment and sorts of menu items they described. Any time I’d use something for a scene, like a trip in a coach, I’d read up on coaches and road trips and try to work in some actual details. I wouldn’t make stuff up. It just seems common sense to me.
That sounds like I’m disagreeing with myself, but it’s a writer vs reader thing. I think a writer should take responsibility and try to be as accurate as possible. It’s really not that difficult. But I think readers needs to chill a little, especially if they want to be able to enjoy a variety of books, and understand that writers are human and will miss things. (Besides, do picky readers really want to sound like that Star Wars dweeb that everyone can’t stand? Because they often come across that way.)
Er, it is pretty silly though that she keeps stalking out of the room and slamming the door behind her only to sneak back in and do it again. Big exits really only work the first time.
I haven’t read any of Adele Ashworth’s work, so my comment is a general one about historical (in)accuracy. I think it’s fair enough for an author to slip up and get details wrong. One would hope those things will be picked up through research, editing and even beta readers, but they can still slip through. However, if a reader gives feedback about the inaccuracy, I don’t see why it can’t be taken with good grace and the error fixed in subsequent print runs. If you look through Eloisa James’s site, for example, she includes bits of trivia about details that she got wrong and corrected in later print runs or in subsequent books (under the heading “Mea Culpa”).
Some readers care about historical accuracy, and some don’t. But saying that those who do are expecting too much does, I think, a disservice to readers in general.
Kat, for me it’s all in how it’s done, and so often on romance boards it’s done by readers ranting and throwing tantrums because of a detail like the shape of a glass. They so often act condescending and snotty, when a polite note to the author would do just as well.
I should say that this kind of attitude is by no means restricted to romance readers. Groups of readers of all kinds of books have these sorts as members. Especially SF.
Yeah, that’s fair enough. I imagine it would be galling if someone eviscerated one’s novel based on glassware. I would, however, make a distinction between historical accuracy and canon/world-building in sf/f or paranormal books. In those cases, I think it’s incumbent on the author to get all the details right and take it with good grace when readers spot inconsistencies.
I love historicals, but I generally don’t give a hoot about accuracy. I’m not reading for a history lesson, I’m reading to be entertained. Now if someone retires to the library and flips on the telly, I’m going to notice that. Glassware? Not so much.
I do think PDWs (Public Displays of Whinery) should be avoided at all costs. Regardless of what your readers think, you’re still selling books and you’re still published - a problem many of us struggling writers would gladly take off your hands.
I know you’ve used LOLcats plenty of times before, but this time it seemed particularly apt given that underneath her name in all of her AAR posts Adele Ashworth has a photo of a little girl holding a kitten.
Hmm. Kind of off-topic, but the issue about details has me mulling over something Elizabeth Bear posted recently on “fabulous reality”. How just the right details make fiction so vividly real. Most authors I know are incredibly OCD about details, probably because they can make or break that necessary suspension of disbelief. The devil IS in the details.
Awwwwww…. look at the kitty.
;) Sorry. I have nothing meaningful to add, I don’t read the AAR message boards or much in the way of historicals, so I can’t comment about much of anything but I really, really love the kitty.
I’m in line with Jan here; sometimes I think folks get their knickers in a twist over a fairly inconsequential item, jarring though it might be. They’re so focused on some small weedy sapling error, that they don’t see the story forest. It’s a book, not a diagnosis. If it’s ticking you off, it’s not doing its, entertaining you. But the darn book down. End of story (pun intended).
I honestly don’t think Ms. Ashworth’s response was all that bad, it (they) were quite rational when read objectively. Her mistake was she should have only posted once–if she *really* felt the need to do so –said her piece, and left it alone. These things can become a feeding frenzy, which never seems to die as much as lie (lay?) dormant for a while till the next flare up or the pot is stirred again. As an author, why stir your own pot? Especially when it’s probably your behind getting roasted.
We all know that the majority of readers are not online reading blogs, messageboards and the like. Only the hardcore users. *gg*. So while it doesn’t hurt for an author to pay some attention to the cyber-citizen readers who love the genre so much, in the end, they’re a minority sliver of pie. (god, I feel like I’m braiding metaphors here into a very clumsy french knot. gg). If indeed her sales are not reflective of a dozen or so critical posts on a couple of websites, she needs to, as Jay-Z says: dust that dirt off her shoulder.
Once someone feels strong enough about something to post their opinion, they’re rarely going to change minds no matter how often opposing opinions are posted. In fact the opposite is often true, the opinion becomes more entrenched, or the focus of the whole discussion shifts to another point of dissention. Did I mention the feeding frenzy phenomenon?
Argg!! on those damn typos. That should read: It’s a book, not a diagnosis. If it’s ticking you off, it’s not doing its job, entertaining you. Put the darn book down. End of story (pun intended).
poor wet kitty. clearly didn’t think that one through before plunging in.
;-)
Where I work, we take complaints seriously. The best thing Ms. Ashworth could have done was take responsibility for it and move on. OTOH, must agree with Jan and Vanessa: some readers drive me crazy with the need to nitpick at everything.
*Sigh* It’s tough not to get upset or frustrated when things that aren’t right get noticed by readers. BUT readers have a right to say what they think. And readers who are very focused on historical accuracy have a right to never buy another Ashworth again.
I’m with Kristen. I don’t get my panties in a wad over glassware. My big thing is dialogue and even then, it has to be VERY obvious to get my attention. I love Julie Garwood, but I’ve seen comments from other readers that she gets details wrong. *shrugs* I still love Julie Garwood.
If Ms. Garwood started slamming her readers for correcting the details? That might make a difference.
I would think that “growing a thick skin” would involve not reacting in a way that invites comparison with whining children.
While I agree with Jan and others that there are good ways to word one’s issue with any given book (be it historical inaccuracy, poor copy editing, etc.), I think the onus is on the author to be able to ignore the form of the complaint and see whether there’s substance to it.
After all, for most of us reading is not a career (i.e., our mortgage money doesn’t depend on it), while most writers are hoping their writing will eventually support them.
As I reader I was (and am) one of the ones who would be bothered by the glass being radically incorrect. As a writer (and research wonk) I’m most bothered the author’s response. Her comment “The point is, I would never think of checking something like this.” is telling, and quite frankly puts me off more than the error itself.
The devil is is the details, and so is my ability to sink into the world the author builds and thus enjoy the story. When incorrect details keep popping out at me I’m thrust out of the story time and time again.
At least the reader had the decency to point out SPECIFICALLY what bothered her. Many times you just get vague comments like “So-and-so writes wallpaper historicals” or “Her books are sooooo historically inaccurate” and you have no idea WHY the reader thinks this, or WHAT brought them to this conclusion.
Exactly. For all the readers out there complaining about historical accurateness, Garwood’s historicals often make these “best of” and “top 100″ romance lists - each and every time, because in the end, most readers don’t care. I am flexible: I can read wall paper and still enjoy it for what it is at the heart of it: a romance. I love Roberta Gellis and I’m sure no one has found or tried to find any errors in her romances. Hee. None of her romances made the all important romance readers best romance list despite that her work is more historically accurate and solidly researched.
I am a writer and I am a nitpicker. I don’t intend to take a 12 point program to cure it.
I am a historian, too. But as a writer I see keeping any historical I write as accurate as I can as a duty of care to my readers. It’s my job to do it, just as it’s my job to create believable characters and a good story.
I don’t write for one reader, I write for a bunch of ‘em, hopefully a big bunch so I have to try to appeal to the largest bunch I can. I know historians read novels and there are a group of writers historians are warned to avoid if they want their blood pressure to remain normal.
Can we just put paid to the “I don’t want to read a history book” comment? If you read a novel that reads like a history textbook, that’s bad writing, pure and simple. If you read a Sci Fi novel that consists of long lists of rocket ships and how they work that’s bad writing too, as is the fantasy novel with pages and pages of backstory and explanation.
But what I expect in historical novels that I read and enjoy is some similarity between the historical period in the book and the one that actually existed. Not for any pernickety reason but because I want to be transported to a different age when people thought and acted differently. I don’t want same-old same-old.
I have to admit I only read one book by Ashworth and it was a wall-banger for me, complete with jerky hero, TSTL heroine and a glaring historical inaccuracy that the plot depended on (the hero ‘giving up’ his title. They can’t).
The worst inaccuracies are ones that the plot depends on or that are repeated throughout the book. That’s why some readers get upset about title errors, because if a duke is addressed as “your lordship” on page one, you can bet he’ll be “your lordship” on page 385. And stupid names, for the same reason. Or when an illegitimate child inherits a title (impossible, though he can be awarded one) or when a title holder chooses the person who can inherit his title when he’s gone (another impossibility).
And I have to come clean here. I’m British and sometimes it really hurts to see my history used like this. I’m very careful to keep my American-set novels as close to reality and accuracy as I can (I usually try to find some US beta readers preferably living in the place where I set the book) so I’d love the same courtesy in return.
I’m not looking for perfection, just a reasonable approximation of reality.
The champagne flute glass wouldn’t have bothered me or the majority of the readers out there either because knowledge this detailed is not something anyone goes around thinking about while reading a historical romance novel. While I can appreciate an author willing to do the research and make sure everything is right - in the end, if the story doesn’t entertain me, who cares how historically accurate the book was? Let’s be for real here.
Disagree. I interpreted AA’s comments as explaining—albeit, in a clearly frustrated tone—what the hunt for accuracy looks like on the author’s end. And she’s got a point. Writing about a different time or place—you can do all the research in the world, but there are a million tiny, nuanced details of setting, manners, dialect, wardrobe, culture, interactions that you just never even think to pin down. Now if the flute had been overtly important to the story, characterizations, and plot, I can see where you’re coming from. But to say that it’s telling—what’s it telling you, that she does shoddy research? Her point is that you research til you’re drowning in it, and there are still details that you miss. Ashworth’s style doesn’t work for me, but it’s clear that she does her research, and it’s obviously important to her.
I don’t expect authors to get every little thing right, nor do I expect them to try. I expect them to get right that which speaks to the story, the characters, and the plot. Yes, setting is certainly a big part of that. But champagne flutes? I wouldn’t miss it either way if wasn’t important to the story.
eh.. this is one of those things where people have strong opinions and there is no right/wrong. It depends on what your threshold for historical accuracy is. And everyone argues their opinion and can’t really change someone else’s and there is a lot of posting and people getting angry and me getting tired and going to another website.
I don’t expect authors to get everything right either–and I’m one of those who wouldn’t have caught the champagne flute–but by golly I expect them to behave better than dissing the readers who do catch these mistakes.
No, anu, I think her point is that researching the small stuff isn’t worth her time, or that knowing this stuff is unnecessary. Add this to the glaring historical errors pointed out by Lynne and I’m left wondering just what she does bother to research? *shrug* I guess it’s all in how it hits you (meaning that yes, Janice is right).
Hey another Adele Ashworth Reader Bashing episode. I was afraid she wasn’t going to keep up the trend this year. Good to see some things don’t change.
…but by golly I expect them to behave better than dissing the readers who do catch these mistakes.
Precisely. An author may feel that readers are being too nitpicky, but saying so only makes the author look whiny. Especially when said author has done the fandom flounce multiple times.
(Fandom flounce: Announcing that you are leaving fandom forever and ever because everyone here is JUST SO MEAN. Doing a fandom flounce and then coming back makes observers laugh even harder than they did when you flounced in the first place.)
I like the kitty better. Than the hissy fits.
Having written an inaccurate historical myself I don’t see any point in suggesting people shouldn’t criticise this failing. You did it wrong, it’s a fair cop. It’s like blaming the police man for catching you shoplifting and calling him a pedant because it was only a box of tic tacs–or blaming the umpire for being all caught up in the actual rules rather than just loving the beauty of the game. A mistake is a mistake and you acknowledge that and move on.
I also got the impression Ashworth felt researching the small stuff wasn’t worth the effort it might require. Tsk tsk.
Sure, it takes time to research small details like this. So? It takes time to do anything accurately and well. Writing historical fiction demands more than a good imagination. You have an obligation to get the details of history down as correctly as you can. It was a “head-scratching, wtf” moment for me when she said she wouldn’t even think of checking a detail like that. If you’re not going to review your work thoroughly, with an eye to catching even a tiny mistake like the type of glass your character drinks from, why are you even writing historicals? I don’t understand that. Half the fun in writing them is getting the details right. A lot of the satisfaction and pride in craft comes from knowing you’re accurately recreated a time period you never personally experienced. Mistakes can be made, sure; but to blow it off the way Ashworth does? To me, that’s just terrible.
There’s no integrity in defending sloppy work. That Ashworth does so, instead of conceding that she made an error that needs correcting, tells me she’s producing the kind of work I wouldn’t care to read. She’s just lowering the bar, as far as I’m concerned, and it’s a bar that doesn’t need to be lowered any further.
You know what I couldn’t care less about? Whether Roarke from the In Death series wears boxers or briefs (or goes commando, for that matter). Don’t. give. a. flying. anything. But some readers of the series seem to care enough to argue the matter extensively. Back and forth, on and on, they debate. But no one comes charging in to wave the finger of ‘you’re being too picky’ or ‘you’re not reading the series the right way’ — I guess because their discussions are so obviously homage to the series.
I also didn’t care about the champagne flute. But I care a lot about readers being able to vent about stuff on a READER board. To me, it seems far ruder to consider writing a private note to an author to correct her than to talk with other readers about the details in a book that bug you.
Some people think historical details are insignificant. Some people think grammatical coherence is insignificant. Some people think copyediting is insignificant. Some people can’t stand heroes with moustaches or heroines with red hair. Isn’t it better to talk about all that on a READER board, and to be able to feel safe doing so? And in safe I mean not having the author show up and, IMO, suggest that a reader who gets caught up on something in the first few pages of the book — something that perhaps the author thinks is insignificant — isn’t reading the genre the right way, somehow? Because I think that’s what Ashworth was intimating, from her (oft-repeated) assertions that her books sell (ergo, your nitpicky opinion doesn’t matter), she writes and reads Romance for the “story” (ergo if you think stuff is important I don’t you’re reading wrong), and writing Romance is hard (just you try it — and IIRC she actually said this once straight out).
No kidding writing good Romance is difficult. My job is difficult, too. Most work is, else it wouldn’t be called work. And of course Ashworth is entitled to her opinion and to her research (or lack thereof as the case or cup may be). Authors make mistakes, readers make mistakes, editors make mistakes — it happens. I very much agree with Ashworth that it’s important to enjoy the romance and the story. But for each of us what it takes to do that may be different. I get pushed out of a story when, for example, I find no fewer than ten grammatical, punctuation, and proofing mistakes within the first ten pages of a book. The reader who commented on the champagne glass (which was within the first twenty pages, I think) got bugged by that. Maybe she collects glassware or is a crystal historian. I don’t know. I don’t even know if she was correct. I know I spent about fifteen minutes recently trying to figure out if they had scented candles in Georgian England after a reference from the latest Eloisa James book. Why? Because a) I was clearly not completely engaged at that moment, and b) candlemaking is a bit of a hobby for me, so I was curious for reasons that had nothing to do with the book. I’d still love to know the answer to the question, too, as I couldn’t find it through Googling.
Anyway, I think I’m just tired of the insinuations that readers who are “too critical” or “too nitpicky” (let’s define that one — seriously) aren’t just as much fans of the genre as those who debate the state of Roarke’s underwear. And I read Ashworth’s intervention on the AAR board as just that kind of insinuation — whether she meant it that way or not.
And dammit I wish those old threads were still available online! Although during last year’s fiasco Laurie deleted a good chunk of the thread after someone called “anonymous author” posted, and unfortunately she deleted a wonderful post by commenter “Emma” that I thought was thoroughly brilliant and a wonderful meditation on the integrity of the genre.
A number of authors have enjoyed healthy careers by not writing historically pristine Romance, and more power to them that they have found a niche in the market. But to me, if you’re selling well and you’re happy with your own books, why blast readers who aren’t? Especially when they aren’t addressing you directly? Just because you don’t feel the need to research x, y, and z doesn’t mean that readers who think those things are important are violating some universal reading contract. Maybe Ashworth’s sales go up when she takes readers to task on AAR, though, because it’s happened with her last three books. And she says she doesn’t care about negative reviews and such.
I don’t even know if she was correct. I know I spent about fifteen minutes recently trying to figure out if they had scented candles in Georgian England after a reference from the latest Eloisa James book.
Wasn’t scented candles an American discovery?
Going to look!
The New England colonists innovated Bayberry candles, but I don’t know beyond that.
Psst: http://www.craftcave.com/candle/history.shtml
But it depends on the scent.
Hit the submit button too fast. I miss the edit feature. Bayberry candles have a nice scent. I’m not sure what a Native American camp with people burning candlefish would have smelled like but I’m sure it wasn’t pleasant.
Thanks for the link, DS.
Here’s the reference in the book:
I know it’s completely stupid, but I tend to be curious about completely stupid stuff.
What this boils down to for me was this
A curious reader would spend the time, and I don’t think it’s ridiculous for an author to take the time to do it, too. She’s acting like Googling takes as much effort as getting in her car and driving 30 miles to the nearest library. Yes, some obscure facts can take time to research by Googling, but I don’t think the history of the champagne flute is one of those. I bet I could find the answer to this in one minute or less.
An author that wants me to believe the story she’s writing is insulting me when she can’t take one minute or less to make sure she gets her facts right.
Unbelievability in the historical romances published these days is why I can’t read very many of them anymore. Could it also be part of why the sub-genre has been on the decline?
Firstly - there are historical authors who are very accurate; there are those who are not. Those who are not should not get involved in threads on reader blogs about historical accuracy in their novels. That is a no-brainer.
Secondly - mistakes and anachronisms do bother me but I will overlook them if I am really enjoying a book. By contrast, if the book is crap, I will nitpick every little thing. I have read one Ashworth book and the only reason I finished it was out of a kind of appalled fascination at how bad it was. That’s just my opinion. She sells books so obviously other people rate her. But this might explain the degree of nitpicking on the blogs.
I feel, in a way, sorry for Ms. Ashworth and for any author of historical fiction. (Had she handled herself better in this situation, my sympathy would be somewhat deeper.) From what I’ve been able to gather, fans of historicals are among the most vigilant citizens of Romanceland, and their standards are exacting.
I wrote a paranormal contemporary that had an ancillary but important historical element. And I nearly drove myself batwacky doing research. Don’t get me wrong–I loved doing the research, which I found absorbing nearly to the point of addiction. But that was the problem. I realized after a while that I could easily sink many, many months–hell, years–into mining the fourteenth century. In fact, the research could have consumed far more time than the writing itself. So, at some point, I simply had to draw the line and cut myself off.
Maybe authors of pure historicals also feel that way. I mean, let’s face it, distinguished, tenured history professors devote their freakin’ lives to learning about other times and places . . . and still don’t know it all. Should writers of popular commercial fiction be held to a higher standard? I think not. Far as I’m concerned, as long as they get most of their facts straight and, more important, evoke a sense of period through adroit handling of narrative and dialogue, they’ve done well.
(You all should check out some of the interviews with Eloisa James and Mrs. Giggles’ reviews of her earlier work. As Mary Bly in real life, this author is a Fordham University professor of Renaissance, and specifically Shakespearean, literature. Yet when she started writing historical romance, even she got stuff wrong!)
She got stuff wrong because she wrote in a period she’d never researched and she assumed that romance readers didn’t care about the history (note that she begged and scrambled to fix the errors in the second printing). I doubt if she’d have made as many errors if she’d written a romance set in the court of Elizabeth I (or maybe she would, since she’s a literature professor, not a history professor).
I’d probably not notice the candles (other than to think they sound irritating) but this sounds a bit odd to me: “the meal would be fraught with unfamiliar foods and servants he’d never seen before.”
I can see how the meal (i.e. the mealtime) could be fraught (i.e. tense) as a result of there being unfamiliar food and servants. However, because of the lack of punctuation after “fraught,” I was reading this as “fraught with food and servants.” That just sounds weird, whether “fraught” is understood to mean “upset” or “filled with.” I think it would work better with a comma: “the meal would be fraught, with ….”
And now that I think about it, having a character named after a fruit could be distracting too. I also don’t find the title “Duke of Fletcher” very convincing, because I can’t think of any places in the UK that it could come from, and as a surname it doesn’t sound aristocratic (since “fletcher” means “maker of arrows”, like “thatcher” means “maker of thatches”).
I’m just mentioning all this because it’s a demonstration of how different people can be pulled out of a story by different things, and how varied those things can be. On the other hand, it’s not entirely fair because I was reading that paragraph out of context and possibly if I’d been reading quickly while engrossed in the story, I might not have noticed all of them.
Since apothacaries and such have been making salves and ointments using beeswax and animal fat for a long, very long time, I imagine scented candles have been around forever too.
Stands to reason.
The standards in academic writing are MUCH higher, though. If a scholar publishes information inaccurately, someone will call them on it publicly (usually in an article or book). Scholars are challenged constantly for their opinions and conclusions, as well, and if authors think that critiques of their books feel personal, I wonder how they’d feel about being criticized regularly in the strongest possible terms for their *opinions* — which is basically how academic research proceeds.
Of course people make mistakes and sometimes rely on incomplete information to create their positions — whether that be academic arguments or fictional settings. I don’t think readers of either expect perfection. I think this whole discussion simply turns right back to whether or not Romance is a genre that *should* be critiqued, and if so, whether there are limits or rules for such critique.
K.Z…thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking all morning as I follow this thread.
I have a paranormal series coming out that features a historical character from the Georgian period. I’ve done a ton of research, particularly in word usage for his dialogue. Writing scenes from his point of view were exhausting. Yes, I tried to get it right but after a while, you just have to get on with telling the story. I’m not a historical writer, but I’ve tried very hard to be true to the period’s spirit.
I contacted several people in trying to decide how a group of men from 1747 England would react to a brother making a sign of the cross. Was it shocking? Was it a sign of papism? Or was it a hold-over and not something anyone would have even noticed? I contacted Anglican clergy and even a historian affiliated with the Anglican Church in England. All this for a sign of the cross?
That’s insanity. I ended up taking it out.
I know there are probably errors in my book, no matter how many books I read, how much I googled, how many times I consulted with Jo Beverly (the woman’s a font of knowledge and INCREDIBLY gracious with her time). I tried my best. When I read historicals and happen upon something that doesn’t quite ring true for me or even that I know to be incorrect, I let it go. Only if an author makes error after error after error would I stop reading.
History can also be contradictory. One person may insist a certain thing to be true when in reality, it is not. I’ve run across such anomalies in research before…learning things that I knew readers would think were wrong when they were not. I’ve usually left such things out, but it has taught me to give authors the benefit of the doubt and not get mired in the details to the point where I can’t enjoy the story.
I’m giggling, thinking about how much research I did in order to make it believable that my hero would not only know what coffee was in 1747, but that he would have tasted it. I made it work by having him travel extensively to Italy, where they were already drinking it like crazy. Or maybe it was Istanbul. I don’t remember…I just remember that I covered it!
I wondered about the whole title thing, too, Laura, but I still don’t understand that whole system so had no clue whether James’s references were correct or not. I need to sit down and figure all that out, but it seems so intimidating for some reason, lol. The whole surname v. title thing totally confuses me, especially when characters are referred to familiarly by either.
The study of literature would likely give her more than enough knowledge about history. When I was in college and studying American literature (primarily the Romance period, oddly enough) I was pretty much an “expert” on all aspects of life at that time. You had to know the politics and the culture and the music and the mores, etc. in order to understand the context of the work. Many lit majors also minored in history for this very reason.
Of course, I’m sure I’ve forgotten it all by now.
I think Eloisa James mentioned that she had glossed over some historical accuracy in some places to ‘create a mood’ instead. Or maybe that was Kleypas. I don’t recall.
At any rate, are historical inaccuracies okay if the author mentions it in an author’s note at the end of the novel? I’ve seen those before and it’s never bothered me.
I’ve been following this whole discussion more or less through email, and since I’m here I’ll just say I’m 100% on board with anu and K.Z.
But what drew me back online was this:
I’ll have to disagree here. I’m sure if you asked point blank if perfection is expected, you’d get a negative answer. Yet, I have the distinct impression that historical romance readers who get vastly and continually irritated by certain errors (perceived or real) are in fact expecting *no* errors at all. Any fact– no matter how obscure or small– that they know or feel is easily verifiable, should never be screwed up or missed, by the author. If not perfection, then darn close to it, is what they’d like. Problem is, perfection takes time, time that could be spent delving into character, or fleshing out plot, or polishing voice, or a multitude of other elements that bring the magic to story-telling and the romance. I’m not advocating carelessness, or underestimating reader intelligence, etc., but at some point, the author just has to get on with telling the story as per Julie Leto’s comment.
Granted, Ms. Ashworth was frustrated and that frustration came through in the tone of her posts (as perhaps sarcasm?). And it didn’t help that she tried repeatedly, and fruitlessly, to make her point. But I honestly don’t think she was dissing readers. I got the feeling she was really genuinely perplexed that a small fact, that didn’t *even occur* to her to check, should cause such a fuss.
Having said that, considering her previous experience on the AAR reader messageboards, it might do her well to stay away from them. As Robin pointed out, they are for folks to talk freely about books, good, bad, indifferent; the chances of an author reading a comment that stings, or worse, are better than average.
Hi everybody. Please forgive my intrusion here, but I wanted to post a couple of comments.
First, I was never trying to whine at AAR. I was really, *really* just trying to explain myself. I would never, EVER diss a reader. I was really frustrated, but it doesn’t matter how much I say that because for some reason it never comes across that way. I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic, and I care more than any of you can imagine about readers enjoying my books. I wish that somehow I could get that across, but the more I post, the more people seem to take my comments the wrong way.
I don’t make much money doing this. I love my work, and I try very hard to please everyone. I feel horribly if someone spends $$ on my books and doesn’t like them, or feels the research wasn’t done appropriately. As for the champagne flute… honestly, I never, EVER, even imagined looking something like that up for historical accuracy, and I apologize.
I wish there was a better way for me to explain myself, but the truth is, authors are far less arrogant than they are humble and insecure. We’re creative people, not go-getters. It hurts us more than you know when we’re thought about in any negative light.
As for the picture on my posts at AAR… that’s my daughter, Caroline, taken about three years ago, when she was seven, and her kitten, Fifi (whom she named). I picked that picture because I loved it.
Thanks to all of you, and I wish you all the best,
Adele
Yes, Kalen, very true about EJ, which is why I really admire her (aside from the fact she can turn a damned good phrase!) But just to play devil’s advocate here, it could be argued that a multi-credentialed academic–and her credentials ain’t nothin’ to sneeze at–should know better than to make foolish assumptions about readers and should have a much healthier respect for the value of research. Moreover, literature and history are intertwined. So Ms. James pretty much stepped in it all around . . . and knew she did.
My point is simply this: Even the most intelligent and well educated authors make mistakes. It’s how writers deal with the realization of those mistakes that separates the true pros from the hacks. If, after seeing the error of their ways, they can gracefully say “Mea culpa” to their readers–maybe even poke a bit of fun at themselves–and then go about correcting their ways with dogged determination and a commitment to future quality, I applaud them.
Fallibility has never bothered me. But egotistical defensiveness has.
I couldn’t stand it any more. I just went on a 10 minute stroll through Google. Saw lots of champagne flutes for sale. Heard about Marie Antoinette’s bosom more than I really wanted to.
Found a web-site (http://www.champagne.com/en_don_effervescence.html) that says:
“Always served chilled, Champagne wines were first enjoyed from conical glasses with stems. During the 19th century, the shallow Champagne saucer or coupe became fashionable, but true wine lovers still preferred the ‘flute’.”
The site claims to be “The Official Website for Champagne Wines,” associated with “Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne.” My French is non-existent, but that sounds fairly credible to me.
Also, the Online Etymological Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com) says that flute “Meaning “tall, slender wine glass” is from 1649.”
So, if I were writing a novel set in England in the mid-1800’s, I would feel fairly justified in my characters drinking champagne out of flutes. However, if I were writing that book, I would probably have my characters using the saucer-shape. Would I have looked it up in the first place? Maybe.
Anyway, my curiosity is satisfied.
As for the champagne flute… honestly, I never, EVER, even imagined looking something like that up for historical accuracy, and I apologize.
Historical innacuracies really don’t bother me, but my pet peeves are usually character driven to be fair. I suspect that if you’d just posted a short paragraph apologising for the innacuracy, without seemingly trying to shove a broom handle up readers bottoms, I don’t think the shitstorm would have happened.
It may be an idea to put a disclaimer about historical innacuracies in future books though, if you don’t already.
As for the picture on my posts at AAR… that’s my daughter, Caroline, taken about three years ago, when she was seven, and her kitten, Fifi (whom she named). I picked that picture because I loved it.
Caroline looks very sweet, and it is a lovely photo. The LOLkitten’s rather cute too. I just wondered if Jane had chosen the LOLkitten because of your photo, but given that she’s used them before, I suspect she just wanted to use a LOLkitten.
K. Z. Snow commented,
Exactly.
If that were true, no fan of historical Romance could read historical Romance, IMO. I doubt I’ve read ONE historical Romance that was error free. And I can tell you from my experience — as a reader who reads and prefers historical Romance — that the books in which I get frustrated by historical errors are those I’m not very engaged in to begin with. That doesn’t mean another reader won’t be enraptured by those same books. But if I’m already unable to connect to the storytelling, I’m gonna be in a somewhat detached state of mind, making me less likely to skip over inaccuracies. And as a reader for whom most of my very favorite Romances evah are in the historical category, it sucks those proverbial donkey balls to be thrown out of historical Romance novels by the history itself. And different readers are different in what pulls them out of a story.
As I’ve said a few times, I really think this discussion goes back to that persistent question about the value of Romance as a genre compared to other genres. And personally, I do think it’s insulting to the genre to suggest that ‘it’s only Romance’ and history doesn’t really matter in historical Romance (not that you’re doing this — just that I’ve seen it asserted more than a few times). It’s sort of an interesting dilemma how there are arguments for more respect for Romance articulated simultaneously with those calling readers out for having expectations that are too high for ‘mere Romance.’
I so totally understand how frustrating it must be for authors to see many of the comments readers make about their books. In fact, there are times I’ve wanted an author to publicly clarify a point of history when I’ve had a question or been involved in a discussion about a book. But ultimately, I think authors need to write the books they write regardless of what readers think or say. Because to me it’s a bit like parallel universes in these author - reader activities. Both authors and readers do what they do, and there will never be an author who pleases every reader or a reader who is pleased by every author’s books.
Yes, but this is History with a capitol H, as opposed to history with a small h. The devil’s in the details of daily life, and that’s what frequently trips people up. I don’t think that the study of literature is all that likely to enlighten you about many of those details (nor is the study of history, unless you’re in a program that focuses on applied history, of which we have a grand total of one here in the U.S.). I certainly have degrees in both literature and history (as well as philosophy and creative writing) and none of that prepared me answer a question about how a dairy was run in Georgian England.
It’s easy to Google dates, famous people, etc. It’s a bit harder to find out how a candle was lit, or even how a horse is ridden, or even how it feels to be in the clothes . . . how many heroines have you seen climb a tree? Now think about the fact that the corset she’s wearing has a busk, so she can’t bend at the waist. And the sleeves of her gown and straps of her corset limit the upper range of arm motion. Now tell me how she got up that tree?
I’m not disparaging academics, I’m one myself, I’m just saying that being an academic doesn’t mean you’re also knowledge when it comes to applied history (with a small h).
Wow. I must confess here that I wrote my first post before actually reading the Dear Author blog post (I “jumped” here from another blog and it took me directly to the comments).
That said, I’m absolutely speechless after reading Jayne/Jane’s original blog post. To take apart things I said and do “translations” that attack me is… I can’t even find a words to describe my feelings as a human being. Did I wound you in another life or something? I’m really, really just speechless at what I perceive as hostility and loathing. Or something. I just really can’t believe what I’ve just read about a person you don’t even know.
I won’t take the time to take your post apart and explain myself because it’ll no doubt only add fuel to the fire. One thing I must say, though, is that it might help to check *your* facts before you post sarcastic comments to someone. Example: you said, “you thought that was so small and minor that you were compelled to write a huge editorial for AAR to point out how wrong, wrong, wrong those readers were?”
No. I wasn’t compelled to point out to readers how wrong they were. Laurie Gold ASKED me to write a piece on the Virgin Widow for the ATBF because of the stir my book created, and I said I would. She thought it would make for interesting dialogue and unfortunately for me, I thought so at the time.
To think I hold *any* reader in such silly, slight regard is beyond reproach. You’ve put words in my mouth and made me a punchline — including a picture of my daughter, which I find appalling. I’m absolutely struck dumb by the hatred (and sarcasm) aimed at me — personally — in your post.
I’m a middle-aged, divorced woman trying to make a living in Suburbia, USA. I attend terrible high school band concerts and boring PTA meetings just like other middle-class moms. I don’t regard myself as special, and I’m certainly not rich or making substantial money from writing romance. I do this because I love it. The fact that I’ve created such enmity from posts on a bulletin board is incredible to me, and all I can do is apologize for a final time for whatever I’ve done or said that has left such a severely negative impression about me.
That said, no, I won’t be posting on the AAR board ever again. You’ve clearly made your point, and anything I could ever offer from this point forward would only leave me apprehensive about how readers might perceive what I have always thought were thoughtful comments.
So now I’ll slink away into the background.
Sincerely,
Adele Ashworth
You’ve put words in my mouth and made me a punchline — including a picture of my daughter, which I find appalling.
I was the only one who mentioned the picture of your daughter, and that’s because I’d been following the threads at AAR and noticed the picture and that it included a kitten, and I wondered if there was a subconscious image association going on which prompted Jane to post a picture of a kitten. But Jane has often posted LOLcats in the past, so that probably wasn’t her reason at all.
I don’t think anyone intended any of these comments to be snide or nasty about your daughter or either of the kittens. They all look very sweet, as I said.
Wow. I must confess here that I wrote my first post before actually reading the Dear Author blog post
Here in Blogland, that kind of oversight will always come back and bite you in the arse.
I must confess to being surprised myself at the hostile tone of this post. I read through much of the thread and nowhere did I get the impression that Ms. Ashworth was in any way shape or form dissing readers. I thought she was expressing frustration that she (and NO ONE) can please all of the people all of the time. The whole flute thing was JUST AN EXAMPLE.
And I also didn’t see where she is saying she doesn’t care about historical accuracy, but rather that she can’t get EVERYTHING.
An example - while not the same at all, does explain what I’m trying to say.
My husband was a neat freak and I’m not. He would get on my case about the house not being neat enough on occasion and every so often I would spend HOURS AND HOURS cleaning it so it would be perfect when he got home from work. Inevitably when he got home, he didn’t notice how clean it was, the vast amount of time I spent trying to get it right; he found the one thing I just happened to miss. Used to frustrate me to no end.
I think that’s what Ms. Ashworth was trying to say, that no matter how much research she did, she couldn’t get it ALL right because we aren’t perfect machines who obsess over the smallest of details.
First I love the kitten picture. Poor wet kitten.
However, I did feel this blog topic was tacky, unkind and almost gleeful. Won’t stop me from visiting the site, so I can’t proclaim any moral superiority on my part.
Robin, Historical Romances are my absolute favourite read, also. And I agree that if a book is not engaging you (general you, not specific) then you’re more likely to get distracted by errors and nitpicks. I guess that I’m wired a bit differently in that I would distracted by the *lack of* whatever it is that should be holding my attention. Pacing off? Thin and/or unbelievable characterization? Inconsistency re plot development? Lack of chemistry? Awkward phrasing? Writerly ticks that become pet peeves (don’t even get me started on ‘his cock twitched’). Those are the things that I’ll start to obsess on, rather than wonder if, indeed, the heroine’s gown could/would have been made out of such and such type fabric during that era, etc.
I have no problem regarding the critiquing of the genre. It’s just that the dynamics between the romance author and (some) fans almost makes it impossible because things can never quite stay in the ‘objective’. It almost always devolves into snarky personal attacks, or accusations of personal attacks, or highjackings by swarming mary-sueish fans, or finger wagging admonishments to play nice, etc.
Ms. Ashworth, I don’t think anyone accused you of being sarcastic. I know I put it in brackets, with a question mark, in reference to how your ‘frustration’ might have been misinterpreted as such and was the reason why folks believed you were condescending /dissing your readers.
You know, for most of this year I’ve tended to not comment publicly on posts that I’d bet money on were going to generate a lot of heat. After awhile online, you’re sure to get your fill of the train wrecks. Different trains, same wrecks. But gotta say I’m really surprised at the legs on this one.
Kristie, great–and very clear–analogy. That’s exactly how I thought Ms. Ashworth felt.
I am not a snarker by nature. I don’t do it well and I often don’t get the humor of it. But I do understand what I read to be Jane’s anger, because I got angrier and angrier at the threads on AAR. Now you and I will probably disagree on this, Kristie, because you expressed some confusion at what you referred to as “anal-retentive readers,” but I felt like the comment on the champagne flute was basically a hiccup on the DI thread, and basically started a brief discussion on whether the details were accurate or not. And while I appreciate Ashworth’s message of authors not being able to catch absolutely everything, I was put off by comments like this:
I honestly don’t know how you can read those comments as anything but critical of the reader who commented on the champagne flute, as well as any other reader who points out anything “insignificant” — whatever that may be. Like the “anonymous author” who, during the scuffle over the last Ashworth book and its copyediting issues, basically suggested that reader standards for good grammar are too high. Admittedly, that conversation is still playing in the background for me, and it’s certainly coloring my reaction to the conversation this time around. But I really and truly read Ashworth’s comments as a strong suggestion that readers aren’t appreciating the genre properly if they comment on certain details in its books — be those details about history or grammar or whatever. And when I infer that sentiment from an author, it has a much different tenor than when another reader says it, IMO. And, IMO, it was implied more than once, and has been implied by more than one another in various forms an in various venues. And as a reader, it always comes across to me as an instruction on how the genre should be read in order to be seen as a “real” Romance reader.
I’m not. A lot of what goes on in Romanceland frustrates or amuses me to a very moderate level. But this go around as to reader expectations in the genre really gets me going. History, grammar, page length, whatever, I see it as a version of the same thing.
LOL, that makes sense. I’ve read a couple of books set in historical periods I know a little bit about, and in addition to those things I have also been bugged by the history, because I saw the bad history as serving the other stuff that frustrated me. God knows I will argue to the death over stuff I feel is or isn’t supportable in the text of a book. So I cannot criticize authors with strong opinions. I’ve been directly challenged by a few of them. And I can’t defend every reader out there, as I’ve been vocal about instances where I thought readers stepped over the line, too (and I’ve been accused of that, as well). But I really do feel passionately that there is a certain resistance to reader critique, and a defense of ‘it’s only entertainment’ or ‘it’s only Romance,’ both of which make me nuts, because they always sound to me like assertions that the genre is less than, somehow.
LOL, Robin, I am a fanatic In Death reader and I can’t even remember if Robb ever mentioned what Roarke’s underwear is. Maybe in one book or two, who knows. I do know that J R Ward seems to have a fetish for boxers given the number of times it has been given prominence in her BDB books, but I don’t remember anything about that in the In Death books. Eve’s underwear probably, but not Roarke’s. I do recall some people speculating whether Roarke wears boxers or briefs and even discussing it but there was probably no criticism about it or nitpicking because it has more to do with what people like to think Roarke wears and not because it has something to do with accuracy or research. And, you’re quite right, it is obviously a homage to the series.
As for historical accuracy or research or whatever else we would like to complain about, I quite agree that people tend to nitpick if they don’t like the book but if they do, then they are quite very forgiving. I’m reading Georgette Heyer’s The Devil’s Cub and I’m a bit irritated that she does not seem to do any math regarding the age of her characters w/c does not really add up. But I like her books (just recently discovered) so I’m trying to forget that Leonie was 19 and single when she came to England in These Old Shades, while she’s 40 in the sequel with a 24 year old son.
Robin, would you email me privately? AdeleAshworth@yahoo.com
thanks,
Adele
I never post here and only lurk, but the blog entry seemed to be a “bait the author” so she will respond. And she did. I was sorry to see that, but can’t blame her for defending her work. Personally, I didn’t think her posts at AAR were that bad, and I don’t think she is an author who is behaving badly. As for her historical errors? I didn’t notice, and I’m sure 90% of her readers didn’t. So, what is her crime? Being defensive in her response or that she appeared at AAR after she said she wasn’t coming back. Who cares? She changed her mind…whatever.
About Adele Ashworth’s being an ABB.
I think Jane is totally wrong to label Ms. Ashworth an Author Behaving Badly. In this case, the label is stretched to such an extent that it loses all meaning. I mean, c’mon. The title of Author Behaving Badly has a long, proud, and noble history. Some truly heinous wrongs have been done in its name. Once upon a time, you had to go on a rampage in defense of your jailed husband to get into the club.
Certainly, I do not think Ms. Ashworth’s transgressions are worthy enough to let her lay claim to the great tradition of ABBs. I mean, she disagreed with readers, that’s what it comes down to: Some readers thought X was important, and she said nope, it’s not important enough to worry about, why’re you stressin’.
This is what counts as ABB now? That’s all it takes? Damn, I guess it’s true, us kids these days really don’t know what it means to work for something, even for such a great prize as the mantle of ABB. That a tradition that has brought us all such trainwreck-loving joy should become weakened enough for a bit of “You’re Wrong” and “I’m taking my marbles and going home” gets you into the Hall of Shame… Is nothing sacred anymore? The Jaid Blacks of the genre mock all you pansies.
any, that’s seriously funny (to me at least) and yet… I still believe that, regardless of whether the original post here was justified, Ms Ashworth should have left well enough alone–here and at AAR.
I’ll state right up front that Adele is a very good friend of mine, so my comments may color what I am about to say, however, this blog is really appalling, and exactly why I never post or ever read the boards over at AAR. I’ve been told there are many wonderful discussions over there, but actions like these do nothing to entice me to participate.
Did you, as the author of this blog entry, sit down look at your words and feel proud of them when you wrote them? Did your snarky, nasty tone make you feel good about your writing? Because as working authors, Adele and I, and all the rest of us who work darn hard to write books that people will enjoy– would never sit down and write such venom and expect anyone to ever read us again. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Mistakes do happen. Pushing publish on this blog entry was yours.
So for those playing ABB bingo we have
A3) The counter attack
B2) Rallying others to join the counter attack
D7)’I hope you’re proud of yourselves’ guilt trip
I am not quite sure if ‘you’ll be sorry’ counts as a sinister threat and no-one has mentioned libel yet. But of the next commenter will be good enough to refer to the Nazis I’ll win the toaster oven
Kalen, just saw your post:
I just don’t see it. I went back and re-read the thread, and I did not at all get the sense that Ashworth dismisses the small stuff. She and several authors said that they spend hours tracking down the smallest stuff—regardless how heavily it weighs in the story. But as has been said umpteen times by now, there is so much that you don’t know that you don’t know. She said that she tries not to sweat it anymore, that she does however much she can and that she thinks to, and then writes the story as she sees fit. And she doesn’t apologize for it. Maybe that’s the problem, that she doesn’t express regret and apologize for what may or may not be an inaccuracy. There’s no, “Oh my god, the flute! How did I miss the champagne flute?!”
But that strikes me as pretty disingenuous on Ashworth’s part, anyway. That she let fly a post rife with defensiveness and frustration tells me that she very much takes it to heart, that it all matters to her, as I bet it matters to most authors.
What I don’t get is why people would have a problem with her expressing her opinion. The “I’m never posting here again” thing, sure, that got an eyeroll from me. But the substance of what she said continued the conversation on accuracy. She posted to disagree that the flute was as big a deal as some thought it was. Lots of readers did the same thing, both on the threads at AAR and now here. Why can’t she do the same? I saw people on those threads having a conversation loaded with different opinions. Possibly, it could be elevated to an “argument.” But so what if it is? That’s what we’re supposed to do, argue about the big and small stuff! I saw no signs of a chilling effect. The conversation didn’t stop when she weighed in, she in fact kept it right on rolling, and lots of people posted both for and against. Seemed to be situation normal, certainly not worth an entire blog post chiding her behavior.
What is worth a post is the topic of historical accuracy. This is a discussion with no end and no resolution, and that’s as it should be. Me, I have no set opinion on it. I always want more accuracy than, I want more details to be right than wrong. But the most important truth to me is the one the author wants to tell about two people falling in love and learning how to love each other. As long as the author stays true to the story and the characters, I’ll go wherever he or she leads. That’s true for me in any genre.
But what counts as “truth” is different for everyone and even from every book. Worldbuilding, plot contrivances, and illogical motivations are my big hang-ups, as grammar and accuracy are issues for others. The only thing that we all can agree on is this: It’s all about the story and the author’s talent in conveying it. Bottomline.
Some books, I gloss right over the anachronisms because I’m in love with the h/h or the dialogue or whatever. With others, I’ll pick so many nits, there’s nothing left to read. I absolutely think it’s valid to nitpick, whether about champagne flutes or aristocratic titles or anything else that makes you wonder. I just think that going the opposite route—saying, yeah it’s fudged, but it’s no big deal—doesn’t necessarily equate to uncritical reading. Sometimes, you pick and choose what levels of authenticity will satisfy. I don’t think that means that as a writer, you don’t try you’re damnedest, nor that a reader is always lazy, just that there’s a point where you have to let it go, wherever that point may be for each of us.
And it’s not exclusive to the romance genre, either. From movies like the Patriot to the WWII movie U-571 to Shakespeare in Love to Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series—in which plot contrivances go against the logic of the world Jordan himself created!—everybody across the arts argues about the distance between “authentic” and “accurate.” How much does one impinge on the other, and how much does it matter—it’s up for debate everywhere.
But if the next commenter will be good enough to refer to the Nazis I’ll win the toaster oven
E8) “I’ll be sure to write every book trying to please the trivia-Nazis. [/end sarcasm]”
(I expect a bagel tomorrow for lunch, lightly browned. *g*)
Bingo!
Man, spend one day stuck at the airport because of a snowstorm and I miss all this!
I’m a nit-picky reader when it comes to grammar, character inconsistencies, French, and GLARING historical inaccuracies. Generally, I’ll give the author the benefit of the doubt–unless they try to dismiss me as a reader and the errors as trivial. I had one author who drove me absolutely nuts with French errors on every other page, but when I emailed her about it, she was gracious and self-deprecating and I continue to buy her. And she’s corrected the mistakes in her newer books.
The irony here is, given that several people have researched the issue and discovered the detail which started the whole thing is true (champagne flutes were in use in that period), had Ms. Ashworth stayed mum…everyone would have just assumed she’d done her research and been correct.
Which is, as Julie Leto pointed out above, so often the case. I had a heck of a time with my medieval, with people insisting my research was incorrect (although they had nothing to back that up except an “everyone knows” argument). In my first (trunk) novel, the hero and heroine in 1250 England have a discussion about her saddle, and how she can be expected to ride astride. Contrary to popular belief, the sidesaddle was in use at that time–when Empress Matilda escaped from a castle in Oxford almost a hundred years before, chroniclers made snotty comments about her riding “like a man”, and there are extant carvings etc. that show women riding sidesaddle–but so many people believe the sidesaddle wasn’t invented until the 15th century that I eventually decided to leave the entire question out rather than have a reader think I was being anachronistic when I wasn’t.
It’s a fine line, I guess…
I can see both sides of this so clearly.
Readers can and will nitpick, and are entitled. They spent their time, and mostly likely their money on the book. Writers can and will become frustrated with nitpicking. And are entitled. They spent a great deal of time and effort to produce the book.
For me, it’s all about approach.
I think the champagne flute/glass–particularly since it appears it was a toss-away line (and which seems to be accurate anyway) was a silly complaint. I understood–or felt I did–AA’s meaning in she didn’t think to check the accuracy of it. I once had characters pumping their own gas in Oregon. Not because I was lazy, but because I was oblivious and had no idea that self-service gas was state regulated. I simply assumed since I had to pump stupid gas in MD, everyone did. Mistake–and I got called on it. Did it matter to the story? No, not a bit. And my reaction was: Crap, I coulda, shoulda put an attendant in the scene. But I didn’t think to check on that detail. So I understand that completely.
I think Jane reacted to AA’s frustration and over-reaction. It’s so much about tone. My feeling is both blogger and writer are justified in expressing opinion–but both the tone of the blog and the tone of AA’s self-defense headed into harsh territory. I can even get why each delved into the harsh.
Adele, if you’re listening, I understand your frustration, and I understand the instinct to defend yourself. It’s been my experience that it’s far better to vent some of that frustration off-board to pals, until you’re able to address the criticism or the reader’s point more objectively. If you state you’re leaving the board, or will never comment there again (I did that myself on a site years ago), you’re probably inviting snark.
It may not seem altogether fair from our side of the page, but reality isn’t always balanced and fair.
Jane, I understand exactly why (or think I do) you took AA’s comments as you did and blogged about it. The tone of the defense, the comments about this being a popular book, the complaints about nit-picky readers. It puts readers on the defensive.
I feel your column could have been more balanced, given the nature of the initial complaint. But that may be just me as I, again, found the complaint silly. Would I have addressed the complaint differenty (or at all)? Yes. But we all have our different styles and our individual thresholds.
I think this post was totally uncalled for. I’ve read the threads referenced in this post where Ms. Ashworth engaged in what I considered to be open, honest discussions with readers. She made an effort to explain herself (which she didn’t have to do and perhaps shouldn’t have done given the resulting firestorm), but isn’t open discussion exactly what you want over here at AAR? A little give and take, a little contact between authors and their readers, a mish-mash of opinions that garner you more and more comments and readers? Even better when served with a side dish of controversy, obviously.
Is an author not allowed to be a person? If Reader X approached Ms. Ashworth at a cocktail party and asked about the inaccuracy of the champagne flute, would Ms. Ashworth not be allowed - nay, expected - to provide an explanation and/or opinion as to why she thought it a minor detail at the time, and was much more focused on the overall 300+ pages of the actual novel and how people might enjoy it? You may agree or disagree with her thoughts and comments, but it’s highly doubtful that the cocktail party would have degenerated into public ridicule like this. Cyberspace provides a wonderful platform for discussion, but sometimes comments are taken completely out of context. The nuances of conversation don’t always translate.
In my opinion, Ms. Ashworth has given you exactly what you wanted, and more, and you’ve flayed her for it. The scent of blood from her wounded feelings has created quite a stir, and prompted this gleefully spiteful attack. Stir the pot, then sit back and watch the comments roll in. Never mind the woman who’s bleeding in the corner - the woman who just wanted to entertain her readers and have a nice life, never knowing that a champagne flute would drag her down.
I have a sudden urge to go rent the movie “Mean Girls”.
Terri said-
“Never mind the woman who’s bleeding in the corner - the woman who just wanted to entertain her readers and have a nice life, never knowing that a champagne flute would drag her down.”
How the hell has this blog prevented Ms. Ashworth from entertaining her readers and having a nice life? She says herself that the book’s selling well and that she’s gotten quite a bit of positive feedback about her current book. It’s entirely her choice if she gives more weight to the criticism than the praise. I hope Ashworth doesn’t need universal love and approbation to “entertain her readers and have a nice life”. She’ll never have it. It doesn’t happen. It would be wise to accept that fact and move on.
I’m in agreement with Nora Roberts on this one. I see both sides of it, and have sympathy for both. I think it’s so easy to misspeak on the internet, especially since we don’t have body language and facial expressions to aid us. Ashworth’s posts at AAR and Jane’s blog here both made me cringe a little when I first read them. Though I must add that the attempts to lay guilt by Ashworth’s defenders aren’t helping her cause.
I am not going to apologize for the tone of the article nor for what I said because that would be completely disingenuous. I believe in what I wrote and the reason I wrote it in the sarcastic tone is that I actually felt that it was less combative than what I originally wrote.
Anu is right, of course, Ashworth’s "I’ll never post again" proclamations aren’t up to the standard set by Jaid Black. In the pantheon of ABB behavior, it’s on the weak side, but I like to lump all these posts under one tag.
I find it offensive anytime an author says, in response to criticism, that it seems that "there are a lot of readers who are just not happy with the romance genre at all anymore." That phrase is one that hopes to perpetuate the fannish community rather than a critical one. Coupled with the claim that Ashworth stated "I don’t write historical fiction; I write historical romance", the charge to readers is that the romance genre is not on the same level of other fiction. That readers are holding the romance genre and its creators to a standard of excellency to which authors don’t want to be measured.
Which is two faced to me. On the one hand, romance authors want to be taken seriously as a genre; to not be insulted in the mainstream media; to be viewed as worthwhile literature and on the other, readers who take issue with historical details, grammar or plot devices that make a book more commercially appealing, are nit picky and not in line with those who truly love the genre?
If this was the first time Ashworth had made these statements, I wouldn’t have posted a thing. This, however, is patterned behavior which occurred for Duke of Sin, Duke of Scandal, and now The Duke’s Indiscretion.
What is the point of saying "It was truly a head-scratching, WTF? moment for me" or "Not one reader commented on the history" or "TDI was my bestselling book to date" or "I didn’t receive any complaints about small, insignificant details, like what the hero drank champagne from in chapter one" or "But looking up something like the history of champagne flutes when the story is about opera and music is ridiculous" or or "I don’t understand the animosity from those who open the book on page one and start taking notes with a red pen" and "This isn’t about a genre we all know and love anymore, it’s about finding flaws — period" if not to say to the reader who is being picky - you are out of line?
What is the point of saying "I won’t post on these boards again"? Because that reads like someone is trying to guilt the readers/posters into apologizing for being picky readers. Just like I wondered what does the marital status, PTA participation have to do with anything?
What is the point of picking out one post out of 47 (now 90) that discussed historical accuracy in romance books which referenced many authors inluding Heyer and Kleypas as if Ashworth was the only one being discussed.
I don’t have any problem with Ashworth expressing her opinion but she didn’t stop there. She went on to suggest that if it wasn’t important to her and all her other readers, why is it important to this one out of step picky reader. Her posts were not about the champagne flute. Her posts were about why are readers being so critical and that those that are simply don’t love the genre the RIGHT WAY.
Nice parsing of the issues (I hope I’m using that word right!) I think the point was getting lost although it seemed to me that there was very little real interest in the flue question.
Funny, no one jumped on the make up brush– most brushes at that time were made of hog’s bristles so they were not soft enough for applying make up. A haresfoot was used. I presume the claws were removed.
A haresfoot? Gross!
“Let me just powder my nose,” Charlotte said, and rubbed Bunny Foo-foo’s toes across her freckles.
Barf!
Jane, I apologize for offending you. I really, really can’t understand ANYONE being this angry for something *I* said in a post on a BB. I’m flabbergasted and heartbroken for offending *any* reader by my explanations. I swear that was never my intention. I don’t know how to put it any more bluntly. I’m sorry.
Adele
Gurgle,
Writing historical accuracy is darn hard work. Picking and choosing the right words, studying the politics of the time, not to mention bathing, eating, decor, and the like.
I nearly cried while researching word origins and their periods of origin. Who knew that beauty wasn’t a word yet invented by the time of my story.
So, in honesty, I do feel great sympathy for authors who cheat the margin. I might or might not have researched the flute thing, based on where my priorities were at the time.
I guess I didn’t have such a strong reaction to Adele’s comments because she might have been speaking to (for?) me. I am most likely her “type” reader.
It’s not that I’m not discerning, but when I pick up a Historical Romance I want the history to serve the romance. On the other hand, when I read Historical Fiction, I want enough story to frame the History and bring it alive through the various details.
While, yes, I love when I stumble across a romance that has all those little touches that lend extra verisimilitude to the story. But if given a choice, I would much rather a romance that feels real with nuanced emotion and complex/deep characterization, etc, and *just enough* historical detail for the world-building to be grounded and the rules/consequences to carry weight, without bogging down the pacing. That’s it. That’s enough history for me re a romance novel. If there’s more details, fantastic (as long as I don’t begin to wonder where the hell the relationship between my H/h went, and why I seem to more than I ever wanted to about 19th century watch-making).
I think that’s what Ms. Ashworth was driving at, or at least that’s what I took away. Not that there’s a right way to read a romance; nor that the correct details were unimportant, just that their importance are measured to service the story/romances she writes.
When someone is on the defensive, it’s probably a good thing to read between the lines and give a little leeway re benefit of doubt, especially when we don’t have the filters of facial expression, body language, etc.
~Though I must add that the attempts to lay guilt by Ashworth’s defenders aren’t helping her cause.~
God, ain’t that the truth? That kind of response leaves no room for middle ground, or understanding the other pov. At all.
I do think it’s a mistake for a writer to defend by saying the book was/is popular or well-received by others. It doesn’t matter. This reader, or this set of readers, didn’t like, wasn’t satisfied, had questions. So that’s the point to be addressed. And that sort of reply puts that reader’s, or set of readers’ back(s) up. Easy enough to see why.
Criticism of the work, or the research into the work can and does sting. But it doesn’t destroy.
Way back I had a reader post on a board complaining about one of my books because I said the heroine wore slacks–and the reader felt, strongly, I should’ve said pants. My initial reaction was: Huh?? But I remember responding in what I thought was a light-hearted manner.
And got hammered by many of the readers on the board. I’m sure I got somewhat defensive as the thread ran on, though I remember trying to keep it light. Until I had to stop, just step away because for whatever reason this exchange was going down the toilet and making the reader, and me, angry.
Obviously I didn’t see the point of her serious annoyance with my word choice–but in hindsight I realized I simply should have addressed that–her dissatisfaction instead of however jokily trying to brush it off. The fact that I remember this exchange illustrates that it stung–and stayed with me.
It taught me a lesson (I had to learn more, but it taught me at least one.) And I made a point in future books to have the heroine wear pants. No slacks.
Today, it’s unlikely I’d respond at all. But I’d think about the comment, and consider the reader’s pov. I’d still think it was nitpicky, that it had nothing to do with the story–but if it yanked the reader out of that story, I’d be smart to ask myself if the nit picked was valid.
We need to be able to respond. I feel the writer/reader dialogue on sites like this is so healthy and interesting. But the reality is writers need to think carefully before responding, and take a little extra care in tone and approach.
Ms Roberts, excuse me while I fangirl you– and I don’t even read your books that often.
You look good, write bestsellers and come across as emotionally healthy and resilient on the internet.
FTW!
I agree with DS.
I feel a fangirl squee coming on everytime I read one of your posts.
Thank you for your good sense and equitable attitude.
Jane,
So what? Just cuz you disagree doesn’t mean that she’s wrong or is insulting to readers. It