Three questions about historical (YA) fiction
Not a contest with prizes, I'm afraid, but just some questions about which I would love opinions, informed, unformed or whatever. I won't name the book concerned in questions 1 & 2, as it's first book and not big-name and I'm obviously not very impressed, though I'll be happy to do so in comments if anyone wants to rush out and get a copy (or avoid it).
1) The year is 1582. The book uses a very uneven mix of cod, er, archaic and modern language, but is obviously for the most part attempting some kind of olde language. (For example, just before the following quote, a character reflects that while she may look as beautiful as a rosebud waiting to be gathered she had already "been plucked and well swived".) And then there's this: X frowned. "You dragged me out of college to get you married off to advantage and you waste an opportunity like this to impress some rich young lady on a maid without prospects? Y, you need your head examining."
My answer: might come close! Okay, there's obviously a typo, and it's not well expressed anyway, but the combination of bad use of language and complete disaster wrt mindset makes it pretty distinctive.
Just a page or two after this, there's another impressive one though, in which POV character in the scene says he hopes he manage to "sustain the romantic illusion" in a joust - which I knew was totally wrong, though I've now forgotten the year in which "romantic" was first used in that sense that Steepholm supplied. Suffice it to say much, much later than the 1500 or 1600s. Same character also says to himself "the game's afoot" when the jousting starts.
Or - have another: in a discussion about the rich bride this impoverished Earl has to land to repair the family fortunes, he says "I'd prefer her to agree to the match because she wants it, not because others tell her to marry me." His brother chuckles in reply, "That's very enlightened of you."
Any other answers?
As I said behind cut #1, this character has become an earl on his father's death, and the family has been ruined by the time he inherits, by his father's belief in alchemy and support of one (perfectly honest) alchemist. Earl of Dorset, btw, just in case it might be some crap little earldom in -- oh, wild Ireland or something.
It doesn't feel at all right to me, though I'm obviously no expert in the kinds of money one believer could spend on supporting an alchemist. (Just the one, with a dependent daughter, who appears to have received next-to-nothing for her own maintenance. So we're not talking about a *hive* of alchemists with expensive tastes being supported.)
If anything, this feels to me like an attempt to co-opt the very typical situation in Regencies of a head of family gambling away all the money onto an Elizabethan setting. I'm sure it *could* be done, but it still feels more than a bit off. (Also odd that the feckless alchemist father appeared in _Alchemy and Meggy Swann_, done very credibly, and in this, done not so credibly.)
Finally, and mostly arising from reading The Queen's Daughter, by Susan Coventry, but I didn't get around to asking after the question occurred to me --
I think of this as the territory of teens and young adults of today, though not of course, unknown in oldies like myself. (Not that I'm sure I can do a perfect roll - I can cross my eyes excellently, but I'm not sure there's a proper arc being followed in the eye roll attempts.) Anyway! I was very surprised to see it coming up in The Queen's Daughter, where it was actually Joan's father, Henry II of England, who rolled his eyes at Joan, which (from memory) she said was more distressing to her than straight chastisement.
I was sure Steepholm would be able to quote me a nice Renaissance line proving that the eye roll has been with us for centuries, but no. So then I started wondering about the source of the eye-roll: my initial assumption was that it originated as a look up heavenwards, in a "Heaven/God grant me patience!" sort of way. Which still makes sense, especially if it truly is older than I'd assumed. But my second thought was that it might be the equivalent of the finger rolling by the head gesture, indicating that the person to whom you're talking is astray in the wits.
But these are very different derivations, and now it seems that I *must* know the history of the eye roll - not that it makes any real difference to ANYthing, of course, but I'm consumed with curiosity. And does it occur universally, or is it more culturally specific?
The userpic, btw, says "It's exactly like American football only you do it with a crown", in case it's hard to read. From the Reduced Shakespeare Company - they cover all Shakespeare's history plays while running madly around on stage passing around, you guessed it, a football, as a stand in for the crown. The RSC = utter brilliance.
1) The year is 1582. The book uses a very uneven mix of cod, er, archaic and modern language, but is obviously for the most part attempting some kind of olde language. (For example, just before the following quote, a character reflects that while she may look as beautiful as a rosebud waiting to be gathered she had already "been plucked and well swived".) And then there's this: X frowned. "You dragged me out of college to get you married off to advantage and you waste an opportunity like this to impress some rich young lady on a maid without prospects? Y, you need your head examining."
My answer: might come close! Okay, there's obviously a typo, and it's not well expressed anyway, but the combination of bad use of language and complete disaster wrt mindset makes it pretty distinctive.
Just a page or two after this, there's another impressive one though, in which POV character in the scene says he hopes he manage to "sustain the romantic illusion" in a joust - which I knew was totally wrong, though I've now forgotten the year in which "romantic" was first used in that sense that Steepholm supplied. Suffice it to say much, much later than the 1500 or 1600s. Same character also says to himself "the game's afoot" when the jousting starts.
Or - have another: in a discussion about the rich bride this impoverished Earl has to land to repair the family fortunes, he says "I'd prefer her to agree to the match because she wants it, not because others tell her to marry me." His brother chuckles in reply, "That's very enlightened of you."
Any other answers?
As I said behind cut #1, this character has become an earl on his father's death, and the family has been ruined by the time he inherits, by his father's belief in alchemy and support of one (perfectly honest) alchemist. Earl of Dorset, btw, just in case it might be some crap little earldom in -- oh, wild Ireland or something.
It doesn't feel at all right to me, though I'm obviously no expert in the kinds of money one believer could spend on supporting an alchemist. (Just the one, with a dependent daughter, who appears to have received next-to-nothing for her own maintenance. So we're not talking about a *hive* of alchemists with expensive tastes being supported.)
If anything, this feels to me like an attempt to co-opt the very typical situation in Regencies of a head of family gambling away all the money onto an Elizabethan setting. I'm sure it *could* be done, but it still feels more than a bit off. (Also odd that the feckless alchemist father appeared in _Alchemy and Meggy Swann_, done very credibly, and in this, done not so credibly.)
Finally, and mostly arising from reading The Queen's Daughter, by Susan Coventry, but I didn't get around to asking after the question occurred to me --
I think of this as the territory of teens and young adults of today, though not of course, unknown in oldies like myself. (Not that I'm sure I can do a perfect roll - I can cross my eyes excellently, but I'm not sure there's a proper arc being followed in the eye roll attempts.) Anyway! I was very surprised to see it coming up in The Queen's Daughter, where it was actually Joan's father, Henry II of England, who rolled his eyes at Joan, which (from memory) she said was more distressing to her than straight chastisement.
I was sure Steepholm would be able to quote me a nice Renaissance line proving that the eye roll has been with us for centuries, but no. So then I started wondering about the source of the eye-roll: my initial assumption was that it originated as a look up heavenwards, in a "Heaven/God grant me patience!" sort of way. Which still makes sense, especially if it truly is older than I'd assumed. But my second thought was that it might be the equivalent of the finger rolling by the head gesture, indicating that the person to whom you're talking is astray in the wits.
But these are very different derivations, and now it seems that I *must* know the history of the eye roll - not that it makes any real difference to ANYthing, of course, but I'm consumed with curiosity. And does it occur universally, or is it more culturally specific?
The userpic, btw, says "It's exactly like American football only you do it with a crown", in case it's hard to read. From the Reduced Shakespeare Company - they cover all Shakespeare's history plays while running madly around on stage passing around, you guessed it, a football, as a stand in for the crown. The RSC = utter brilliance.