When does a minor error/anachronism become a big deal for you?

[Chatterbox]

This question was prompted by my reading an ARC for a not-yet released book, and wondering whether I should mention something in a review. In the final pages of the book, the heroine discovers that someone's father is a duke ostensibly descended from James II (via bastardy, natch.) She asks her friend, a Brit, whether the person she knows -- a woman -- will become the next Duke (?!?!) He replies no, that the title will go to this woman's son. He didn't make the point that that only happens when there are no direct male heirs. I realized that I was heir-splitting (sorry, appalling pun), but it made stop and have to think about the laws of inheritance. And I hate it when a possible (or actual) error does that, much less an anachronism (such as eating potatos in medieval England...)

So, when does something small, that you read in passing, spoil the book for you altogether? Does there have to be a pattern of errors, or a succession of them? Are there some that are more egregious than others? Are there some you can tolerate?

curious what folks think, as I've seen references to this in connection to "wallbanger" books.

[boswellbaxter]

Small errors as to details like diet, clothing, etc. don't bother me unless there's a lot of them in a single book; it's errors of historical fact, as in one novel where Richard III was having a quarrel with his sister Anne in 1483 and the said sister had died back in the 1470's, that irritate me, especially where they could have been avoided, as in this case, just by doing the most basic research. Even then, I'm pretty forgiving if the errors are scattered. If the author boasts about the extensive research she's done and still makes those kinds of errors, though, Mr. Book meets Mr. Wall.

[michellemoran]

I would tell the author. There is a chance - since this is an ARC - that s/he may still be able to fix it before final publication. Then who knows, she may thank you in the back of the book. There are historical shortcuts I have to take for the sake of simplicity, sometimes, but I try my best to be anachronism free. I know that doesn't always happen, and I would be really grateful if - in the ARC stage - someone pointed out an error to me if there was one.

[EC2]

Michelle's right, I would tell either the author or the publisher. Even if it can't be fixed, at least it's knowledge going in for next time around. Whenever readers right to me re anachronisms or bloopers in detail, I take a deep breath and get over that initial feeling of OMG, no matter how I try there's always something, and I write back and thank them, and update my awareness.
As a reader, I grimace at anything that pulls me out of the story - which is more frequent in material set in the 11th through 13th centuries for obvious reasons - give me Regency and I'm fine unless they're driving around in BMW's! If it's just a momentary hiccup, I'll try not to go the wall-bang route and give leeway but I do feel that every error of detail is a step away from knowing the world of the people you are writing about. I am still reeling from Ariana Franklin's The Death Maze!

[Chatterbox]

Michelle/Elizabeth; I'll pass the comment along, although I think the book is already available in the UK. I know when I have an error in a published work, I want to bash my head against a wall, but (so far) none of those errors are in a form as permanent as a book. More like lining for birdcages.

Someone please tell me what was wrong with the Death Maze?? I'm not an early medievalist, except in the most desultory way, and I enjoy Frankllin's characters, but I will take your word for this, for very obvious reasons. But I'm curious... :-)

Tudor-era inaccuracies are more likely to have me flinging books around. Or, as I mentioned in another thread, basic inaccuracies about forms of address -- calling a Plantagenet king "Your Majesty" or a knight "Sir (last name)".

[Ariadne]

My husband (who reads a lot of WWI and WWII fiction) read a historical novel in galley form a couple years ago and found an error. He told me about it, and I confirmed it was a mistake. It was a minor one in the grand scheme of things, but since the Big Name author was known for his accuracy, it stood out. It had to do with when the name Windsor was adopted by the British royal family.

Since it was six months before the publication date, my husband emailed the author to let him know. He got a prompt response back saying sorry, he (my husband) was wrong - and the author cited a reference book which isn't exactly a major work in the field. I was quite surprised, but he may have figured my husband was a nitpicky pest and didn't consider the fact that he might've been right! The error remains in the published version of the novel.

[MLE]

I just ran across the use of eucalyptus and vanilla as fragrances in fifteenth-century France!:eek:
But I can live with that. The anachronisms that kill it for me are social attitudes that are out of line with the culture: nobles associating with commoners as equals (unless the plot goes out of the way to explain how this might have happened); women hopping in and out of the sack with no apparent concern for pregnancy and the market value of virginity; feminism (as though a woman would put the general rights of half the planet over the interests of those who would keep herself and her children alive); no apparent religious influence (or worse still, a pervasive modern skepticism) in cultures where death may be encountered at any turn; etc. etc.

The one thing that will yank me completely out of the story is goofs with working animals and their people. But then, I have earned my living in tandem with my llamas, and most writers' personal experience only goes as far as pets.

[Margaret]

Like MLE, I am much more bothered by errors that have to do with cultural mores and the psychology of the characters. Characters supposedly living in earlier eras who think and act like modern people are, to me, the worst form of anachronism. As a reader, I'm fairly intolerant of errors in periods I know a lot about, especially if they perpetuate common misperceptions about the era - for example, attributing customs of the medieval English royal courts to settings in pagan or early medieval Celtic times and places. As a reviewer, I try to be more tolerant, because I'm not an expert in all historical times and places, and I know there are similar errors in books set in other eras that I don't catch. It seems unfair to come down hard on authors writing in periods I know about while praising authors who are good storytellers but may be just as "inaccurate" in periods I'm less familiar with.

For me, it's far more important that a novel has something timeless to say about the human condition than that every historical detail be accurate. I do read historical fiction as an introduction to the history of a time, but I never assume the specifics are correct. If I want to know factual information about a historical period, I'll get it from a nonfiction history book based on primary sources.

[EC2]

Someone please tell me what was wrong with the Death Maze?? I'm not an early medievalist, except in the most desultory way, and I enjoy Frankllin's characters, but I will take your word for this, for very obvious reasons. But I'm curious... :-)



Eleanor and Henry were known to have been at Chinon during the time when they were supposedly in England during The Death Maze. The Young King didn't revolt until the Spring of 1173. Rosamund actually died in 1176, so couldn't have been a corpse in winter 1172/73. The entire scene where Eleanor has fires lit in the chamber and watches the dead, frozen solid, crown-wearing Rosamund defrost like a frozen popsicle is utterly bizarre and ridiculous. And then that cleric arrives and addresses Eleanor of Aquitaine as 'Nelly' - What!!! The Henry behind the curtain 'squelch' scene at the end had me laughing out loud. There's a reference to someone enclosing two marks in a letter. Ummm....given that the mark of the period consisted of 160 silver pennies, getting 320 of the things in a letter is going to be a bit difficult. There's a body found with a hunting horn on it and everyone is very suspicious of said horn and there's a question as to why he was carrying it. But hunting horns had to be carried by travellers then and blown to alert other travellers as proof that you weren't a highwayman trying to sneak up and rob them. Velvet as a fabric wasn't known, neither was the colour mauve (nit-picks). There's a ridiculous reference to chloroform (someone has an opium pad put over their nose and mouth) - eh? How would that work? Opium on its own isn't going to knock someone out. Those are only the ones I can remember. There were errors on nearly every page, of detail, of mindset, of twisting historical characters and in some cases making them look like petulant nincompoops. I counted over 50 mistakes all told - and then the website says that the author is accurate (cough!).

I just couldn't suspend my disbelief which is why I didn't get on with it. Seeing reviews that say how well researched it is, leave me astonished.

[Lauryn]

My very first introduction to HF was a novelised YA biography of Elizabeth I. (I was maybe 10 at the most when I read it.) I fell in love with the detailed descriptions of clothing, decor, and all the pomp and circumstance, and told my mother how wonderful this book was. She tells me now that she was horrified by how badly the research had been done, but was afraid to say anything at the time, for fear of driving me away from HF forever. (Now, we fight over which books are whose! :D)

I suspect that to the uninitiated (and possibly non-analytical), a well-written book that seemed very sure of its ground might pass for good research. And if I said I had spent more than a year researching my materials before I started writing, someone might be forgiven for believing that quantity = quality. However, as a seasoned procrastinator, I can make just about anything last an impressive amount of time, but that doesn't mean it was a job well done, or efficiently done.

[Telynor]

EC: what a hoot! Those mistakes would have had me flinging the book at the wall in record time. My biggest quibbles tend to do with daily living stuff -- such as velvet appearing before 1300 or so (trust me on this one, you need a very specialized loom for velvet...), New World foods appearing on tables before 1600, writers having Henry VIII's wives with the wrong hair colour -- there are enough portraits out there to figure out who had what, except in two cases, the Welsh being portrayed as pagans, and the whole 'secret pagan lore' claptrap, clothing mishaps -- I read one more Renaissance era novel where the heroine -isn't- wearing a corset, I shall howl like a banshee!, the underwear issue, authors trying to talk about Judaism or Islam and it's clear that they don't have a clue... Oh I could go on!

[Ash]

The anachronisms that kill it for me are social attitudes that are out of line with the culture:
.


I totally agree. I can handle some disconnects in little details, but when I see 21st century Western mores in 13th century Persia, I rather balk, and if it happens more than once, will set the book aside (sometimes even wall bang it, if there are other problems.

I can accept some diversion from historical accuracy if it doesn't affect the total historical story. But the author had better tell me about it in the author's note, which of course every historical fiction writer must have, in my book.

[Ash]

For me, it's far more important that a novel has something timeless to say about the human condition than that every historical detail be accurate. .

I'd agree with this, tho I probably still need basic assumption of accuracy in major points of time and in customs and culture.

[Chatterbox]

I counted over 50 mistakes all told - and then the website says that the author is accurate (cough!).

Wow, no wonder you were outraged! (And tks for taking the time to fill me in; sorry to revive your outrage...) I'm not intimately familiar with the timeline enough (relating Rosamund's death to the whereabouts of the family, the exact year of the revolt, etc.) to have caught those. I admit the melting scene was downright bizarre (and the reason I didn't like that book as much as the first and third in the series). And while I knew specialized looms were required for velvet, I had never thought about what year it might have been introduced...

But then again, I'd like to think that if I was going to sit down and set a series of books in an era, I'd devour every detail like that, especially timelines!

There is obviously a potential market for "historical accuracy cheat sheets" for wannabe HF authors. You could pen one for every quarter-century... or thereabouts: when is it OK for the colour mauve to appear, or a potato, or underwear? :D

[MLE]

Well this is somewhat OT, but these are foods which come from the new world: tomato, potato (yams and sweet potatoes are from Africa, they might have made it to Europe), both chocolate AND vanilla, avocado, squash, all the pepper plants (not talking about pepper the seasoning here, but peppers, as in chile, bell, etc.) corn (what was referred to as 'corn' in Europe was the head of any grain, but what we call corn today, which was then called maize), peanuts and bananas.
I'm sure there are more, but those are the biggest offenders as far as anachronisms. You have to imagine Italian cooking without tomato sauce.
Eggplant, while a member of the tomato-potato family, was widely cultivated in asia and had entered Spanish cuisine via north africa by 1500.

[SonjaMarie]

I tried to read a book by Jean Plaidy on Anne Boleyn, can't remember which one exactly possibly "Lady In the Tower" and when she wrote that Anne's mother was already dead it was wallbanged. Anne's mother died after Anne was beheaded.

SM

[Chatterbox]

So one needs to imagine the impact of a young woman in 13th century Florence spilling her tomato sauce on her velvet-clad lap and yelling "goddammit" on readers....:eek:

[gyrehead]

This question was prompted by my reading an ARC for a not-yet released book, and wondering whether I should mention something in a review. In the final pages of the book, the heroine discovers that someone's father is a duke ostensibly descended from James II (via bastardy, natch.) She asks her friend, a Brit, whether the person she knows -- a woman -- will become the next Duke (?!?!) He replies no, that the title will go to this woman's son. He didn't make the point that that only happens when there are no direct male heirs. I realized that I was heir-splitting (sorry, appalling pun), but it made stop and have to think about the laws of inheritance. And I hate it when a possible (or actual) error does that, much less an anachronism (such as eating potatos in medieval England...)

So, when does something small, that you read in passing, spoil the book for you altogether? Does there have to be a pattern of errors, or a succession of them? Are there some that are more egregious than others? Are there some you can tolerate?

curious what folks think, as I've seen references to this in connection to "wallbanger" books.


I can't remember what book it was but there was one that had it's plot rely on a character being a possible claimant to the Frnech throne. A bastard. Whose claim to the Bourbon throne was through his mother. I wanted to hurt someone. I believe a Tasha Alexander novel also had some sort of through the female Bourbon tie that had me gritting my teeth.

I still have some leeway on matters. Slight detail mistakes can be made and lost in a great story. But I'm finding I'm much less forgiving than I use to be as research materials are much more available. Quite frankly, if I as an amateur history buff can spot some glaring mistakes, then the person getting paid to write historical fiction needs to at least seem to be as devoted to that particular event or person he or she is writing about.

My biggest beef is the complate disregard for people that even wiki gets right. It's one thing to gloss over the number of miscarriages or children who died. It is another to completely erase child who grew up and married and played political roles. To me, an author can claim it is "fiction" all he or she wants. But in some ways, while research is time consuming and should be thorough, the one advantage of history is that there are facts out there to rely on. There are details to help the author shape that world and that plot and the personalities. Write fantasy if you don't want to stick to basic facts. Or be totally up front and play with the facts as a writing style. Problem is most historical fiction authors seem to want it both ways. They use the excuse that they are writing fiction but then want you admire them for what they got right.

As much as I love the author notes in the back, I think they can annoy me even more when it seems the author wants you to give their homework a gold star when it seems all they did was lift facts and insert willy nilly and not only get things wrong but completely get the whys and hows etc. of what they do insert completely wrong.

As for the Duke inheritance thing? I read another book like that. Had me laughing because it tried to create a complex situation out of a simple one and ended up as a gordian knot of ill-researched shame. See, I know that most dukedoms don't pass through the female line. Even those that have in the past. It takes a re-writing of the patent. And one re-writing to make an allowance when there are no male heirs does not automatically mean another down the line is not required if the situation arises once more (see Dukes of Marlborough and Buccleugh for instance).

But I also know that mine knowing this makes me the rare weird reader. I get that. But again. If I can figure this out in my spare time for fun? The person who has made it his job needs to be just as much on the ball.

[Telynor]

Well this is somewhat OT, but these are foods which come from the new world: tomato, potato (yams and sweet potatoes are from Africa, they might have made it to Europe), both chocolate AND vanilla, avocado, squash, all the pepper plants (not talking about pepper the seasoning here, but peppers, as in chile, bell, etc.) corn (what was referred to as 'corn' in Europe was the head of any grain, but what we call corn today, which was then called maize), peanuts and bananas.
I'm sure there are more, but those are the biggest offenders as far as anachronisms. You have to imagine Italian cooking without tomato sauce.
Eggplant, while a member of the tomato-potato family, was widely cultivated in asia and had entered Spanish cuisine via north africa by 1500.

There is a tremendous amount of stuff being written these days about food in the past, which makes for gleeful reading. What is New world vs. Old world gets to be particularly entertaining, and I grit my teeth whenever I start hearing the words potato, tomato and chocolate in a novel before their proper times. If anyone is interested in that sort of thing, let me know -- I have all sorts of neat trivia about food in various periods. What gets really fun is trying to make and taste some of what they were coming up with -- it's actually better than we can imagine, usually.

[emr]

Well this is somewhat OT, but these are foods which come from the new world: tomato, potato (yams and sweet potatoes are from Africa, they might have made it to Europe), both chocolate AND vanilla, avocado, squash, all the pepper plants (not talking about pepper the seasoning here, but peppers, as in chile, bell, etc.) corn (what was referred to as 'corn' in Europe was the head of any grain, but what we call corn today, which was then called maize), peanuts and bananas.


In fact, bananas come from New Guinea and Southeast Asia. They were introduced around the 6th century in East Africa.
Quoted from Wikipedia:

By the tenth century the banana appears in texts from Palestine and Egypt. From there it diffused into north Africa and Muslim Spain. In fact, during the medieval ages, bananas from Granada were considered amongst the best in the Arab world. In 650, Islamic conquerors brought the banana to Palestine.

Bananas were introduced to the Americas by Portuguese sailors who brought the fruits from West Africa in the 1500s. The word banana is of West African origin, and passed into English via Spanish or Portuguese.



I saw in Dark Fire that C.J. Sansom didn't know this but I didn't mind. I still love those books ;)

[Misfit]

So one needs to imagine the impact of a young woman in 13th century Florence spilling her tomato sauce on her velvet-clad lap and yelling "goddammit" on readers....:eek:

Let alone a recent book that has Elizabeth Woodville with bright red hair :confused::confused::confused::confused:

I'm pretty much in line with everyone else here. With the resources available to writers (and readers) in this day and age making up crap to titillate is just not necessary. It's one thing to write a "what if" novel about Elizabeth Tudor having a child, it's quite another for a well known author of NF to put that in her book. Unfortunately there are some people who will believe anything written is true, author's notes or not. It burns me to no end to sit in a conversation about The Other Boleyn Girl and hear someone say they love PG because she always gets her facts right - and if I recall its made pretty clear at the start of TOBG that she's writing a novel.

I have the worst time with medievals thanks to Penman and EC and when I end up with crap like Pillars I just can't bear it (gad those women running around with lose flowing hair :eek:). I get into periods like regencies or countries I know nothing about and much will go right over my head - which is why when I do go for a historical romance I try to stay away from the medievals now. Too much wall damage :o:p

[Margaret]

Thomas Mallon, one of the historical novelists who spoke at the Key West Literary Seminar this past January, urged authors to go back to primary sources when researching stories and setting details for their novels, not just because of the "accuracy" question, but because what really happened can often be more interesting than the obvious story that first comes to mind. While working on his novel Henry and Clara, about the couple sitting in the theater box with the Lincolns when President Lincoln was assassinated, he discovered unusual details about their lives in primary sources which contradicted errors historians had been perpetuating for over a century. He had to do a lot of drastic rewriting, but felt it made his story much better and more interesting.

My favorite novels are about the human condition and how people in the past were both strikingly different in their cultural attitudes and beliefs and strikingly similar in their essential emotions to people of today. To write deeply and believably about people of the past, I think it's necessary to get the essence of some historical period right. If an author does that, I'm inclined to be quite forgiving of scattered incorrect details about fabrics, window glass, etc. I'll even forgive an author who, for example, plops a supposedly sixth century story in a setting that more closely resembles the twelfth (as many Arthurian novels do), if the setting is internally consistent. BUT (and this is huge!) authors who don't research historical details quite deeply for whatever setting they're using are much less likely to capture the essence of that time, portray it consistently, or successfully imagine the thoughts and emotions of people living during that time.

For example, I couldn't get into Lawrence Schoonover's Queen's Cross, written in the 1950s, because his characters fit 1950s stereotypes - while reading about Ferdinand and Isabella, I kept picturing Ward and June Cleaver. I wall-banged Rosalind Miles's first Guinevere novel because she mixes sixth and twelfth century settings almost as if her characters are subject to random fits of time-travel. In both novels, the characters would have come across as stereotyped and uninteresting to me even if I knew nothing whatsoever about the historical periods in which they were set.

[SarahWoodbury]

I remember a book that was supposedly set before the Norman Conquest. Everyone had a surname and London appeared to much more closely resemble 17th century England. They also paid very close attention to the time (as in, 'we always eat our meal at 10 o'clock in the morning').

It is an interesting difficulty I've had in writing a book in the medieval period and earlier. You have to write about time differently because people aren't keeping track of the hours, minutes and seconds in the way we do. 'A second later' is also not exactly a phrase you can use.

[Tanzanite]

For example, I couldn't get into Lawrence Schoonover's Queen's Cross, written in the 1950s, because his characters fit 1950s stereotypes - while reading about Ferdinand and Isabella, I kept picturing Ward and June Cleaver. I wall-banged Rosalind Miles's first Guinevere novel because she mixes sixth and twelfth century settings almost as if her characters are subject to random fits of time-travel. In both novels, the characters would have come across as stereotyped and uninteresting to me even if I knew nothing whatsoever about the historical periods in which they were set.

I'm glad to hear that someone else hated the Miles book.

[Sheramy]

I become troubled if I'm pulled too much out of the story noticing these things. Sometimes an anachronism becomes a harbinger of worse things to come: I remember reading a pretty dreadful mystery with Alexander the Great many years ago in which the use of a spinning wheel around page 10 set off red flags that turned out to be very justified!

That being said, now that I've written my own book I understand how easy it is to miss a small detail, no matter how thorough you've tried to be, and am apt to be more forgiving. Example: only in the copyedited mss (so many drafts past the first one) did I think, hmm, did tipped matches that can be struck against a fireplace exist yet in 1889 Provence? (Answer: they had been invented, but since I couldn't verify them in Provence in the short amount of time I had to find out, I made a change.) Editor hadn't caught that either. One or two such tiny bobbles are really not a big deal. It happens. (I have to admit, though, that all this talk of wall-banging makes me really really nervous...)

Changes in chronology, etc that are made for purposes of the story I don't get worked up about if the author explains in the note why s/he has done it. It's not nonfiction -- artistic license here and there is ok.

Basically I need to feel immersed in the story world. If something jerks me out of it -- whether it's excessive boo-boos or something else -- I'm done.

[Ash]

Queen's Fool was a good example of a wallbanger for me. There was no way that a Jewish girl at that time and place could have found her way in the royal court without anyone realizing it. Plus there were many things about Judaism that she got wrong (its been too long since I've read it, but I was struck by them at the time). Only reason I finished it was that I really liked her portrayal of Mary Tudor.

[sweetpotatoboy]

Queen's Fool was a good example of a wallbanger for me. There was no way that a Jewish girl at that time and place could have found her way in the royal court without anyone realizing it. Plus there were many things about Judaism that she got wrong (its been too long since I've read it, but I was struck by them at the time). Only reason I finished it was that I really liked her portrayal of Mary Tudor.

I completely agree. I finished the book but felt the same things as you. This might be the only Gregory I read.

[cw gortner]

Being a hf writer who's made inadvertent errors and had them kindly pointed out to me by vigilent readers, I must say I appreciate it. I'm human; I'm under deadline; and sometimes - gasp! - I mess up. But it's almost always inadvertent, and I'm always mortified. If I deliberately change something, as Michelle mentioned, to simplify the story, then I do try to make a point of mentioning it in my author's note, though my notes, like everything else in the manuscript, are subject to editorial cuts / revisions. Honestly, I try to keep it all upfront, but factual mistakes can, and will, happen even to the best intentioned.

Anarchronisms are a harder bugaboo to deal with. While some writers just do sloppy research, editors often want hf that appeals to the so-called "average" reader, i.e., not you! Most readers on this forum are very well informed historically; you're a marvelous and generous audience but not the average reader by any measure. If you were, Ms Gregory's career might be going a tad differently . . . :) Editors can be pretty strict about wanting characters that appeal to modern sensibility and a time period that reflects the era, but not too much, i.e., though most everyone in Tudor England, including the king, probably smelled bad because of hygiene practices and the lack of dry cleaning (all those heavy damasks and velvets, and no deodorant: ugh), most average readers really don't want to read about it. Ditto on bad teeth, lice, venereal issues and toilets (or lack thereof).

As a writer, we often walk fine lines between depicting the period and our characters realistically and creating commercially viable books for the publishers who pay us. A good example for me would be Juana's extreme religiousness. It is known she was an ardent Catholic but as my book went through its various incarnations, that aspect of her personality was increasingly cut back, until it ceased to exist. It just didn't work for an US audience, where religious backgrounds are so diverse. It made her look, well . . . freakish.

It's a tough call, so as a reader I tend to give the author the benefit of the doubt. If the story is well told and engaging, for me, that excuses a myriad of lesser sins. After all, if I want the "real" history, I'll read it. I read hf for entertainment, first and foremost. That doesn't mean I want or readily excuse shoddily researched books, but I must say, I've read some impeccably researched books that were utter bores and some not-so-well-researched books that were a total blast.

[Chatterbox]

Juana's religiosity, IMO, was more a sin of omission than commission... :-) Similarly, the hygiene issues, etc. aren't vitalto me. The fact that someone smelled would only have been worthy of comment if you're dealing with time travel, probably, otherwise it just wouldn't arise. Of course, you wouldn't want a noble remarking how smelly someone lower down the food chain was, because he probably wouldn't have noticed and/or might well have been just as smelly. A historical NF book I read recently about 18th century Paris (Diderot & the encyclopedistes) reminded me of just how bad things were that recently...

But giving Juana a happy ever after ending -- given the history -- would have been a serious offense....

You are completely right about the average reader, however. Most of my friends thing I'm nuts to know the odd details that I do know about various periods in history. (The charitable minority simply want me to go on Jeopardy and win pots of money.) They just want a good story....

[cw gortner]

That's funny! I was thinking that if they ever did a historical Jeopardy and pulled contestants from this forum, we'd have some instant millionaires for sure. Or Wheel of Historical Fortune:D I'm always astonished at some of the details people know here.

Alas, not so with the general public. In fact, when I did a recent informal survey at my office to gauge how many people knew who the Borgias were, very few did- though I got some interesting responses, like: "Isn't that a new pasta sauce?" or "I hate that show. HBO, right?"

I could only shudder . . .

[michellemoran]

though most everyone in Tudor England, including the king, probably smelled bad because of hygiene practices and the lack of dry cleaning (all those heavy damasks and velvets, and no deodorant: ugh), most average readers really don't want to read about it. Ditto on bad teeth, lice, venereal issues and toilets (or lack thereof).

You are right on the money, Christopher! When the mummy of Mutny was discovered (the narrator of Nefertiti) she had no teeth... Naturally, I left that out :rolleyes:

[cw gortner]

You are right on the money, Christopher! When the mummy of Mutny was discovered (the narrator of Nefertiti) she had no teeth... Naturally, I left that out :rolleyes:

Just as well. Those toothless girls just don't look nearly as good in the vulture headdress;)

[EC2]

Just as well. Those toothless girls just don't look nearly as good in the vulture headdress;)

There were probably other advantages....;)

Sorry,
I've lowered the tone. I'm off!

[cw gortner]

There were probably other advantages....;)

Sorry,
I've lowered the tone. I'm off!

Oh, no, please stay! Come sit by me.

[EC2]

Oh, no, please stay! Come sit by me.

Sorry - disappeared to walk the dog and am now heading off to watch a film with the neglected dh!
Michelle, I wonder at what stage in her life Mutny lost her teeth.

Best
EC
'Nothing sucks seeds like a parrot with no teeth!'

[Margaret]

You've brought up a really important issue, Chris, and one that all writers of historical fiction struggle with. Ultimately, we all read novels because they have something meaningful to say to us as we live in our present-day lives. For that reason, simply recreating in all its details a slice from the life of a person of the past (even if we could) is not the task of a historical novelist. Nor, for that matter, is it the task of a writer of contemporary novels to regurgitate the life of a modern person, from the morning toothbrushing routine to the evening television show before bedtime. A novelist always, always, always selects some details and scenes to include and others to be omitted, consciously or subconsciously choosing the details and scenes that make the thematic point that has drawn the writer to choose a particular character in a particular time to write about.

[michellemoran]

There were probably other advantages....

HA! But none she would have wanted to try out on Horemheb (who took her by force and married her...)

My guess is that it was a slow progression. Sand really didn't do any favors for the ancient Egyptians' teeth. She was found with a fetus and in all likelihood, she died in childbirth.

Nothing like having a helping of sand with your pomegranate.

[parthianbow]

How much I have enjoyed reading everyone's views on this topic - and now I'm going to throw in my as's worth (Roman joke :D ). I think most of the points that have been made are excellent, but I would like to say that while as modern people we may think that we can occupy the minds of those who have lived before us, we actually can't. We can only give our best shot at what they might have thought.

The opinions of people in periods nearer our time (e.g. 16th, 17th, 18th centuries) might be easier to guesstimate thanks to the larger amount of historical records, but those further back become harder and harder to make accurate judgements about. Sure, a Roman character shouldn't use over modern expressions or complain about the exact time etc., but he/she might still dislike slavery for example (let me explain - I have been accused of having 'modern' attitudes to things like slavery in my novel). Otherwise, for example, why did the Romans make manumission so common (it became so popular in the early Empire that the numbers of slaves allowed to be manumitted by an owner was fixed)? Why did Spartacus find so many supporters in 73 BC?

I agree that keeping the scenes realistic and accurate is very important. I've had the debate on a Roman website about the use of the word 'towel', which I won't use. Towelling wasn't invented then, so surely a 'drying cloth' is more appropriate. I also dislike characters constantly using seconds, minutes, yards and inches, which are commonly found in ancient HF books. The Romans used hours and had minutes, but as their hours were influenced by their geographical position (and sundial), it would have been impossible to accurately say 'I'll see you in five minutes.' Far better to say 'I'll see you in a quarter of an hour.' Ditto with 'a quarter of a mile' vs. 'a hundred yards'.

But we all make mistakes, and like CW Gortner has said, the reader will hopefully let the author off with minor errors. Worse ones are best passed on to the author or publisher. I'll hold my breath now in expectation...

And I can't resist adding - among the pages of a newish novel by a very celebrated Roman HF author, internationally famed for his accuracy, I recently found Caesar having his hair cut with a scissors. I gnashed my teeth. The Romans didn't have scissors! :D

[cw gortner]

Nothing like having a helping of sand with your pomegranate.

Too funny! It just goes to show, thank the gods for historical fiction!

[cw gortner]

And I can't resist adding - among the pages of a newish novel by a very celebrated Roman HF author, internationally famed for his accuracy, I recently found Caesar having his hair cut with a scissors. I gnashed my teeth. The Romans didn't have scissors! :D

Very good points. And nice to see you here! I just bought your book the other day at Barnes and Noble. I had no idea you were on the forum.

[cw gortner]

[QUOTE=Margaret;26753] Ultimately, we all read novels because they have something meaningful to say to us as we live in our present-day lives. For that reason, simply recreating in all its details a slice from the life of a person of the past (even if we could) is not the task of a historical novelist. [QUOTE]

A very well known hf author, a friend of mine, once said to me, "Fiction is life with the boring parts taken out." I think it applies to historicals in particular, and I echo Parthianbow's comments about mindset. This, for me, is the most interesting part about writing in this field: it's like being an archeologist and detective, rolled into one.

[michellemoran]

Actually, Parthianbow, I know this sounds crazy, but the ancient Romans did have scissors (http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/roman_surgical/images/scissors_e.jpg)! However, they didn't look too much like modern-day scissors, so maybe he should have called them by their Latin name of forfex!

[michellemoran]

Oh - and I meant to add - I love your books! Like CW, I recently bought the first one and devoured it in a few days.

[cw gortner]

Oh, I wouldn't want to get whatever is left of my hair cut by a pair of those.

[SonjaMarie]

Oh, I wouldn't want to get whatever is left of my hair cut by a pair of those.

Those say Surgical Scissors, so I wouldn't have wanted ANYTHING cut with those!

SM

[michellemoran]

HAH! Well, the modern cross-blade scissors, which may be what ParthianBow is talking about, were invented around 100AD (long after Caesar). Cutting would have been a lot better then. But imagine having surgery with that as one of the instruments? Nasty.

[EC2]

Actually, Parthianbow, I know this sounds crazy, but the ancient Romans did have scissors (http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/roman_surgical/images/scissors_e.jpg)! However, they didn't look too much like modern-day scissors, so maybe he should have called them by their Latin name of forfex!

I would call these shears, not scissors. They're the same thing that were used as scissors in the time period about which I write. I can imagine some kind of Australian beer advert with Julius sitting there, glass in hand saying he didn't give 'forfex.' (don't know if you're familiar in the USA with Four X beer!)

[michellemoran]

I can imagine some kind of Australian beer advert with Julius sitting there, glass in hand saying he didn't give 'forfex.' (don't know if you're familiar in the USA with Four X beer!)

HA! In my first novel there was a cat named Bastet, and I was so tempted to have Mutny say, "Come here you little Bastet!" I resisted that temptation, however, but just barely...

[cw gortner]

We really should write a hf farce. Between Bastet and the forfex, I think we're onto something. It could be like "History of the World Part 1", one of my all time favorite films. Remember the Vestal Virgins with the no-entry signs slung about their hips?:p

[SonjaMarie]

We really should write a hf farce. Between Bastet and the forfex, I think we're onto something. It could be like "History of the World Part 1", one of my all time favorite films. Remember the Vestal Virgins with the no-entry signs slung about their hips?:p

I'm still waiting for "History of the World Part II", gosh darn it!

SM

[michellemoran]

It could be like "History of the World Part 1", one of my all time favorite films. Remember the Vestal Virgins with the no-entry signs slung about their hips?

Timeless. :D

[cw gortner]

I'm still waiting for "History of the World Part II!"

SM

Me, too. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever see it. Madelaine Kahn, God love her, is gone, too. I adored her. Whenever I get the flu, the first thing I do is crawl into bed with chicken soup and watch "History of the World Part I" followed by "Young Frankenstein." I never get tired of them and they always make laugh and feel better. Terri Garr rolling in "ze hay" and Moses dropping the third tablet of Commandments; honestly, Mel Brooks is a comic genius.

[SonjaMarie]

Me, too. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever see it. Madelaine Kahn, God love her, is gone, too. I adored her. Whenever I get the flu, the first thing I do is crawl into bed with chicken soup and watch "History of the World Part I" followed by "Young Frankenstein." I never get tired of them and they always make laugh and feel better. Terri Garr rolling in "ze hay" and Moses dropping the third tablet of Commandments; honestly, Mel Brooks is a comic genius.

I'm not sure Mel ever planned a Part 2, sigh. I adore "Blazing Saddles" despite all it's political incorrectness.

Kahn was great in all those movies.

SM

[Kveto from Prague]

I liked "History of the world part one" when I were a wee lad. I remember thinking that the trailer ad for Pt 2 was legit:-)

for some reason i thought the roman with the hourglass watch was the funniest thing on earth

[parthianbow]

Sorry Michelle, forfex they might be, but those are not scissors as we know them. To quote the Cambridge dictionary: a scissors is 'a device for cutting materials such as paper, cloth or hair, consisting of two sharp blades which are joined in the middle, and two handles to put your fingers through.' Call me pedantic, but most readers will have thought of the modern scissors in the novel I'm referring to, when they needn't have.

If the famous author had referred to them as forfex I wouldn't have a problem. EC2 is correct in referring to them as a shears - I know all about them as a veterinarian as well as a HF author - they're known as 'dagging shears' and are still used today to trim the claggy bits of wool from the back end of sheep. They are rather crude, and texts survive decrying the chunks of flesh that were lost by the customers of Roman barbers. To quote from 'Daily Life in Ancient Rome' by Carcopino: 'Its efficiency therefore, left much to be desired, and it would not avoid the irregularities, which we call "steps" and which according to Horace's Epistles exposed the victim to public derision.'

As you say, Michelle, the modern scissors with a pivot came along much later, long after the Ides of March.
And we can picture the Aussie sheep shearer sitting down with his forfex and can of 4XXXX to enjoy the sunset.:D

Hi CW - thanks for the note. I'm a recent addition, and am enjoying the Panels of Flanders joke immensely too! Thanks for buying a copy of my book - I hope you enjoy it. I'll get a copy of yours asap too.

[Volgadon]

The opinions of people in periods nearer our time (e.g. 16th, 17th, 18th centuries) might be easier to guesstimate thanks to the larger amount of historical records, but those further back become harder and harder to make accurate judgements about. Sure, a Roman character shouldn't use over modern expressions or complain about the exact time etc., but he/she might still dislike slavery for example (let me explain - I have been accused of having 'modern' attitudes to things like slavery in my novel). Otherwise, for example, why did the Romans make manumission so common (it became so popular in the early Empire that the numbers of slaves allowed to be manumitted by an owner was fixed)? Why did Spartacus find so many supporters in 73 BC?

I think it is in the way it is presented.

[Volgadon]

I liked "History of the world part one" when I were a wee lad. I remember thinking that the trailer ad for Pt 2 was legit:-)

for some reason i thought the roman with the hourglass watch was the funniest thing on earth

You too? I was so disappointed when I realized that there was only one. At first I thought Mel was still going to make it sometime in the future.

[gyrehead]

[QUOTE=Margaret;26753] Ultimately, we all read novels because they have something meaningful to say to us as we live in our present-day lives. For that reason, simply recreating in all its details a slice from the life of a person of the past (even if we could) is not the task of a historical novelist. [QUOTE]

A very well known hf author, a friend of mine, once said to me, "Fiction is life with the boring parts taken out." I think it applies to historicals in particular, and I echo Parthianbow's comments about mindset. This, for me, is the most interesting part about writing in this field: it's like being an archeologist and detective, rolled into one.

I must be the odd duck out (the peanut gallery can keep mum right about now). I read for sheer entertainment and don't really care if I find analogies or relevance to my modern day existence. Certainly it has to be recognizable in terms of the common human condition or I'd be like one of those missing links standing in puzzlement at the monolith while Thus Spake Zarathustra booms in the background. And I can certainly draw those analogies in some way on my own. But if they are too blatant or forced or deliberate I tend to be turned off. Even the most gentle touch in terms of preaching or trying to enlighten simply does not work on me, cretin that I am

And for me one the biggest turnoffs is when the modern mindset seems to take the place of even trying to comprehend the notions and beliefs of the time. Few authors seem to either be able or even willing to try. Renault was one of the few to treat ancient day slavery with anything I find even remotely believable. I think it is actually sad that either political correctness or just a plain social mindset inability to think beyond our own experiences makes writing about social conditions that currently are seen as abhorrent but were completely acceptable for their time such a whitewash. If the character is good he or she hates slavery and treats every servant life a beloved family member. If it a man he admires a woman for her strength and modern day convictions despite the fact that he by law could slit her throat if he thought she was unfaithful.

Though it has never been openly said, too often reading this hindsight Potemkin Village Rainbow Coalition attempts to cast historical figures in a better light I get the sense that somehow writing about slavery as a norm in a time when it was a norm can only be done if there is some kind of character to serve as the modern voice to wag his or her finger and remind us that even if it was the norm, "slavery is bad" (cue music and graphic "The More You Know"; fade out). I use slavery as the example here but you can insert gender dominance, serfdom etc. But slavery also is one of the chief culprits. Simply because it was the main suppressive instrument for thousands of years. And it is probably the most over-used methods of applying modern sensibility to a past in what I often feel veers from platitude to outright farce. So I certainly am not attacking anyone here for their writing or their reading. If a writer identifies with the character then it seems impossible to portray that character as accepting anything that the modern day writer finds unacceptable. Or all too often even just unpleasant. It seems that whitewashing of historical figures is not only becoming more common but it undermines and defeats what I read history and historical fiction for. I want the meat. I want the salacious. Even and yes because it comes wrapped in dysfunction and nasty mindsets of the day. Forget the apt correlation between modern day cinema and the ancient Roman games. For me I'm not ashamed to say that on some level, historical fiction and biography is Jerry Springer with (hopefully) better english and more interesting (but not "better") people. I just don't like being mollycoddled when it comes to reading about socio-cultural practices that are now considered bad. Or needing to have the author reassure me that in no way is there support for this now unacceptable practice through the voice of one of the characters.

And I guess really the only disservice is to me individually. Still, I would love to be able to read a book that is able to treat the matter as the norm without having to serve up, via an overly self-aware character armed with modern day outrage, some homily that turns the matter into either an after school special against the matter or some kind of skit from the Dave Chappelle show.

We really should write a hf farce. Between Bastet and the forfex, I think we're onto something. It could be like "History of the World Part 1", one of my all time favorite films. Remember the Vestal Virgins with the no-entry signs slung about their hips?:p

At first I was thinking Terry Prachett re-writes Graves. Bumbling Praetorians who accidently keep offing the Julio-Claudians until they are down to Claudius. But then I thought of Max Barry doing the Reformation Era Popes and pox-ridden Francois I and gouty Henry VIII. A Dorothy Dunnett meets Shibumi meets Flesh Gordon. I see Martin Luther running from the Inquisition with a luscious poison-ringed Lucretia by his side and a lusty lecherous Michelangelo trying, but never quite succeeding in bringing up the rear; historical acuracy be damned. Totally impossible and outrageous romps with Anne Boleyn, Diane de Poitiers and Roxelana. Think of the comic possibilities when Luther hides out in the Jewish Quarter only to find out in just a matter of days the Doge and his Council are going to conduct a house to house pants down search for the fugitive. You could make it a series and have the first book end there on a cliffhanger as Michelangelo gleefully pulls out his chisel and paint knife....

[Leyland]

It could be like "History of the World Part 1", one of my all time favorite films. Remember the Vestal Virgins with the no-entry signs slung about their hips?:pI'm so with all you that believe HOTW P1 is one (if not the one) of the greatest movies ever conceived and filmed! Young Frank and Blazing Saddles ranks right up there with it. I can watch them all over and over and ..... I laugh the same every time.

I've signed off on a few non-public accounting documents over the years as the Countess de Monet. Sigh. No one at the firms got it, or else they didn't want to say anything! Perhaps when I reach a thousand posts here, I can give myself that title. Hint hint to the mods.

By the way, as to the OP, truly minor slip ups don't bother me much. I'm all about discovering details of the past, but won't sweat the small stuff.

[michellemoran]

Sorry Michelle, forfex they might be, but those are not scissors as we know them.

Ha-ha. True. You're not going to cut much hair with those!

[Ash]

Me, too. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever see it. Madelaine Kahn, God love her, is gone, too. I adored her. Whenever I get the flu, the first thing I do is crawl into bed with chicken soup and watch "History of the World Part I" followed by "Young Frankenstein." I never get tired of them and they always make laugh and feel better. Terri Garr rolling in "ze hay" and Moses dropping the third tablet of Commandments; honestly, Mel Brooks is a comic genius.

I add to those two: Blazing Saddles, Monty Python Holy Grail or LIfe of Brian, Airplane, Top Secret...Not all Mel Brooks, but from the same family, certainly! Great for being sick or down in the dumps.

[cordaella]

Sorry Michelle, forfex they might be, but those are not scissors as we know them. To quote the Cambridge dictionary: a scissors is 'a device for cutting materials such as paper, cloth or hair, consisting of two sharp blades which are joined in the middle, and two handles to put your fingers through.' Call me pedantic, but most readers will have thought of the modern scissors in the novel I'm referring to, when they needn't have.

I don't think most readers would care two hoots about this. In any case, both Lewis & Short and Cassells define forfex as "a pair of shears or scissors". Thus your author means the Roman equivalent of scissors - and if he's who I think he is, he would have given it some thought.

If the famous author had referred to them as forfex I wouldn't have a problem.

But non-Latinist readers might, if they didn't work out the meaning from context - and not all readers want to make that effort.

Still, this sort of criticism seems overly nit-picky to this reader, who's come to the conclusion that she can forgive small anachronisms in well-grounded historical novels with strong characters and plots but not in shallow, careless ones that fail to ring true to their time in the bigger picture.