Three questions about historical (YA) fiction

[lady_schrapnell]

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

Comments

[generalblossom]

I think the "head examined", enlightment and romantic are all undoubtly anachronisms. The "head examined" would bother me as being a very obvious anachronism, the implication of psychoanalysis

[lady_schrapnell]

Oh, I quite agree that too much (supposedly) historically accurate language would be a pain to read - it's a fine balance, but certainly the mish-mash of very noticeably old and very obviously anachronistic (the head examined could so easily have been avoided, it's especially annoying!) makes it read so badly. Even when the expressions are perfectly possible they often sound wrong. It didn't help that I'd read the Karen Cushman a short time before - she uses (mostly, if not always) accurately archaic language with such -- hmm, every word that comes to mind is French, whatever that means! It comes off as a lot of fun, anyway, so this, set in the same decade, and with a similarly situated (in ways) main character, suffered a lot by the comparison.

The Earl does seem to be the Earl of Quite a Lot, but that's interesting about the Stephenson series! It's not a make-or-break point anyway, but it is just interesting, so thanks.

[generalblossom]

Well, I do trust your instincts for something being "off". Sometimes it is much easier to point at symptoms, small trivial details, the symptoms rather than the cause. Small details one can wave off, but when something is just alien to the reader in the mindset of author regarding worldbuilding and characterization, that is irreconcilable.

As for example, I just finished reading the new GGK, and I so need a good rant to exorcize it. It was not the details, it´s his mindset and what he considers *believable* universe and characters.

[lady_schrapnell]

Yes, you've summed it up exactly. (Plus I just went to your Goodreads page to see your - er, progress - through the GGK - enjoyed those short rants very much!)

[sartorias]

Sounds to me like someone did their research in silver fork novels written after 1970, and just decided to go ahead and set the time in 1500s because, as we all know, Bob, the Olden Days Were All Alike.

[lady_schrapnell]

Yes! Reminds me of the Friends ep where Rachel gets the table from Pottery Barn and tries to convince Phoebe it's an antique - when asked what period it's from she answers "It's from Yore". :)

[sartorias]

LOL!

[sarah_prineas]

I guess it would depend on the book. If the author were really going for period verisimilitude, those anachronisms would bug the heck out of me. But in a frothy romance novel, not so much. Given that the romance itself is mostly an anachronism for the period, right?

[lady_schrapnell]

I don't know just what the author is going for! At times it seems to attempt verisimilitude, at times, a bit of froth (though it's not *my* cup of froth), and at times it seems to try to present the romance as if it is accurate for the period. But yes, it could have been the romp we're still looking for in this setting, but fails pretty conclusively.

[sarah_prineas]

Even those short snippets were FAIL for me, so I quite agree!

[semyaza]

Lovers and madmen have such seething brains

[lady_schrapnell]

Hee - I like the idea of Joan's being upset because she thought her father had just had inspiration for a fine bit of poetry instead of paying attention to the scolding he was giving her!

We did a bit more digging (or rather steepholm dug through the O.E.D. and I fetched out the context for a few of the examples), and the eye rolling at another person in sarcasm or disgusted disbelief does seem to be pretty modern, at least from what we found there. I love that Wilkie Collins quote!

[semyaza]

It's a fascinating question though because it seems to be a natural gesture that's has taken on new meaning with each century. I don't know how one could determine whether it was universal historically (as opposed to universal now because of cultural bleed).

I meant to say -- I find it hard to believe that an Earl of Quite a Lot (hee!) could be beggared by an alchemist. As for language -- I prefer a neutral modern English (neutral in the sense of non-slangy) blended with the occasional, appropriate use of period slang. It's almost impossible to be correctly archaic.

[lady_schrapnell]

It would have been very helpful to have found a few "Do you roll your eyes at us, Sir?" lines from appropriate sources, but instead we've had to settle for deducing (not proving, obviously) the negative instead. As with your Collins quote, and also we found one from Great Expectations, and as it was Joe rolling his eyes to the ceiling, it was absolutely certain that it wasn't going to be in sarcasm. (Much though Pip deserves it at that point! It was the excruciating scene in which Joe goes to visit Pip in London.) But the later the expression comes to signify sarcasm or disapproval, the less convinced I am by the "God give me patience" meaning I'd assumed, so am still puzzled

[sarah_prineas]

I've been stewing about this.

So I'm with JRR Tolkien that an author of fantasy (and let's say, in this instance, historical romance) has to not only demand "suspension of disbelief" of the reader, she has to demand "belief." Middle-earth is real and what happens there matters, both within the story, and personally, for the reader.

A corollary to that is that the author, too, must BELIEVE. She must believe in the world she is creating and the people who inhabit it. Tolkien would say--and I agree--that the language should reflect that belief. The verisimilitude should arise out of the language itself, not just the random historical facts or period dialogue ("swiving"!) the author includes to simulate the period. Egregiously anachronistic language should feel wrong to the truly believing author, if she is fully inhabiting the time and place of her novel.

Yes, it's a lot to ask of an author, especially the author of a frothy romance (and I love frothy romance).

[lady_schrapnell]

I really like the distinction between just suspension of disbelief and actual belief! And yes, that is a lot to ask of an author, it's true, but if the author isn't fully inhabiting the time and place of the novel, why set it then and there?

I've been trying to think of any frothy romance that I've read that was enough to carry me into belief, but have been hampered by the fact that I've read a ton of Regencies, but not much other historical romance, and Regencies aren't generally frothy in quite the way I think you mean. But I can almost imagine how that might work.

(Last night, btw, I gave myself a break from this book, which is now bristling with sticky flags marking all kinds of things, and started Savvy - talk about a contrast!)

[sarah_prineas]

Whenever I find a continuity error in a novel, I think bad thoughts about the author's degree of belief.

Of course, editing happens, too...

SAVVY is lovely! The author is a dear friend of mine. If you like the book, for sure try the sequel, SCUMBLE, which I think is even better.

[lady_schrapnell]

Ah yes, editing - I don't think you were on my flist a few years ago when I ranted about a book just published by Oxford University Press which started off with house slaves in Rome who had iron leg fetters (very convenient for going up and down the stairs in the house in which they lived, or going to market, which one was said to do regularly) which they cut off with a dagger and vegetable knives as soon as the master died. Editing didn't happen, WHY?

It was your recommendation that sent me towards Savvy, and I'm already definitely getting Scumble!