 |
1. Acronym: A word or name formed by combining the first letters or groups of letters from a phrase. SCUBA: self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. 2. Anatonym: A verb based on a part of the body. For example, foot the bill or toe the line. 3. Antonym: Words with opposite meanings. For example, wet and dry. 4. Aptronym: A name that is especially suited to the profession of its owner. For example, Sally Ride, the astronaut. 5. Capitonym: A word that takes on a new meaning when capitalized. For example, polish (pol-ish), Polish (Polish). 6. Eponym: A place, thing, or event named from a real or mythical person. The earl of Sandwich, who asked for meat between two slices of bread, is the eponym of the sandwich. 7. Heteronym: Words with identical spelling but different meaning and pronunciation. Bow as in bow and arrow, and bow as in bow of a boat. 8. Metonym: A word used to substitute for another word or phrase with which it is closely associated. Crown to refer to the monarchy, brass for military officers. 9. Patronym: A family name based on the name of an ancestor. Richardson (son of Richard), O’Reilly (son of Reilly), McDonald (son of Donald). 10. Pseudonym: From the Greek pseud (false) and onym (name), a false name or pen name. Mark Twain is a pseudonym for Samuel Langhorne Clemens. 11. Synonym: Words that mean the same thing. 12. Tautonym: Words composed of two identical parts, for example, tomtom or tutu. 13. Toponym: A word that began as the name of a place, such as hamburger (from Hamburg, Germany) and afghan (a soft blanket from Afghanistan). |
What happens in the Cave doesn't always stay there... Conversations and news from Ellora's Cave Publishing, an erotic romance publisher.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Words for Words
Editors and authors are word people. Words are our product, our love, our treasure. We study them, research them, discuss them, hoard them. So it’s really fun for us to talk about words that are about words.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Taking Stock of Your Characters
by Nick Conrad
Stock characters have existed since ancient times. Playwrights, especially, relied on them to convey points to the audience on a very visible, easily comprehensible level. In writing they are an example of showing rather than telling, as they are largely defined by their outward, most apparent aspects. Stock characters are a familiar and expected part of fiction, especially genre fiction—they embody familiar archetypes that help present back story in a minimal amount of words. They might also help steer the plot, although this must be done with care.
Stock characters frequently serve as minor characters, where they are often quite useful. A good example in romance would be the confidante. The heroine has a supportive, helpful best friend, often with a good sense of humor or some other trait to keep her charming and interesting. The confidante might be the one to encourage the heroine to follow her heart, especially if the heroine has doubts about her relationship with the hero. She might also help the heroine better understand her feelings. She might be a kindly old nursemaid who tells the heroine what to expect from love and marriage, or the gal pal who sips her latte as she helps the heroine realize, “Face it, honey, you’ve got it bad and he’s perfect for you.” This confidante might be privy to information the heroine is not, which can help to resolve a conflict—perhaps, during a heartwrenching misunderstanding, she can help clear the hero’s name in the eyes of the heroine. She could also serve as a means of stirring up conflict, though, by innocently passing on incorrect information about the hero.
Many stock characters appear only briefly in the story, some merely popping up for one scene. Such characters can be useful, as they easily provide information without clogging the narrative with pages of back story. They can also be neatly contained in their complexity—the image of the hardworking farmer, the street-smart tough guy or the eccentric hermit can tell many stories the moment they are introduced, because each tells an implicit story.
Now, if the character is a cardboard cutout who relies solely on stereotypes, then it’s a bust. Using exaggerated “thug talk” or backwoods English turns ordinary characters into caricatures, and then there’s no way to take them seriously. (Not to mention, it can get kind of offensive, as discussed in the last article.) So even stock characters deserve some research and development. Perhaps they only exist for one scene, and that’s fine, but “plot device” becomes a dirty word when it’s obvious to the reader what you’re doing. If the strings are showing that much, you might as well just give us the pages of back story or have a message in a bottle show up, because the effect is about the same.
The central characters of the story frequently embody archetypes that can make them seem like stock characters. Below are some familiar examples in romance:
The rogue hero who must be tamed by love
The virgin heroine
The ancient, world-weary immortal hero who is either desperate for love or reluctant to love because of some tragedy long ago
The frustrated, overworked heroine who gets no respect
The anti-hero who is an outcast from society and has a dark, checkered past
The jaded heroine who has given up on romance and is just looking for a night of great sex instead
The rebellious “bad boy” hero with a heart of gold
The heroine who has lost her ability to trust men, often because of mistreatment, abuse or violence in her past
The protector hero whose livelihood involves defending one’s homestead (warrior, police officer, outlaw cowboy) and who is fiercely overprotective of the heroine
Some readers are sick of these folks and would like never to read about them again. Others might have a special fondness for one or a few of them. We joke about the abundance of single, handsome titled men in Regency England, or about how many small-town sheriffs happen to be ex-Navy SEALs. Again, we don’t want characters to be cardboard cutouts, especially our main characters. But the descriptions in the list above, though specific and recognizable, have a lot of room for development. The key is to give characters the attention they deserve. Make them distinctive—don’t let their position or history do all the work of defining them. Okay, so your hero is a thousand-year-old vampire warlord with a dark, checkered past. But does he have a distinctive personality with a distinctive checkered past, or could he be replaced by a stand-in with a similar description? What is it about this character that makes him memorable? And is there an original plot, or is the implicit back story the stock character provides supposed to be doing all the work?
The above applies to villains, too. There’s no rule that one has to be sympathetic to the villain’s motives, but the motive still needs to be there. Making a villain eeeeeevil for the sake of being eeeeeevil tries the reader’s ability to suspend disbelief. Likewise, defining the villain solely by deed by piling multiple vile acts on the character—“And he’s a rapist, too! And he kicks puppies!”—makes for a weak villain.
Suspension of disbelief problems can come about for characters in the other direction, too. “Mary Sue” is a term that originated in fan fiction and has come to mean an overly idealized, easily recognizable character. Generally speaking, the Mary Sue outshines all other characters by being flawless, even when she or he appears to have flaws. For instance, such a character might have a tragic and painful past and most likely feels unnecessary guilt about it, or there might exist some sort of physical weakness or mental illness that is clearly intended to garner sympathy from the reader. Mary Sue characters are often the author’s attempt at self-insertion in the story, so it’s no wonder that they tend to get all the “good parts”. Typically, the character has some sort of trait or ability that surpasses that of other characters, or all the most interesting or intense action involves this character. Now, in genre fiction especially, it is not uncommon for the central characters to be involved in the majority of the action and to have special characteristics that distinguish them from other characters. They are the stars of the show, after all—in romance, the hero is supposed to be the most desirable man, and both he and the heroine should be likeable. (Who wants to root for a match between two people you can’t stand, or between a likeable character and a complete jerk?) But if either character has no flaws or said flaws only exist in a way that makes the character look better or more sympathetic, the Mary Sue factor is dangerously high.
If written well, stock characters with stock backgrounds can serve a much-needed purpose. Just remember to flesh out your main characters, and never use a character solely as a crutch. The pressure from above tends to stunt their growth.
Stock characters have existed since ancient times. Playwrights, especially, relied on them to convey points to the audience on a very visible, easily comprehensible level. In writing they are an example of showing rather than telling, as they are largely defined by their outward, most apparent aspects. Stock characters are a familiar and expected part of fiction, especially genre fiction—they embody familiar archetypes that help present back story in a minimal amount of words. They might also help steer the plot, although this must be done with care.
Stock characters frequently serve as minor characters, where they are often quite useful. A good example in romance would be the confidante. The heroine has a supportive, helpful best friend, often with a good sense of humor or some other trait to keep her charming and interesting. The confidante might be the one to encourage the heroine to follow her heart, especially if the heroine has doubts about her relationship with the hero. She might also help the heroine better understand her feelings. She might be a kindly old nursemaid who tells the heroine what to expect from love and marriage, or the gal pal who sips her latte as she helps the heroine realize, “Face it, honey, you’ve got it bad and he’s perfect for you.” This confidante might be privy to information the heroine is not, which can help to resolve a conflict—perhaps, during a heartwrenching misunderstanding, she can help clear the hero’s name in the eyes of the heroine. She could also serve as a means of stirring up conflict, though, by innocently passing on incorrect information about the hero.
Many stock characters appear only briefly in the story, some merely popping up for one scene. Such characters can be useful, as they easily provide information without clogging the narrative with pages of back story. They can also be neatly contained in their complexity—the image of the hardworking farmer, the street-smart tough guy or the eccentric hermit can tell many stories the moment they are introduced, because each tells an implicit story.
Now, if the character is a cardboard cutout who relies solely on stereotypes, then it’s a bust. Using exaggerated “thug talk” or backwoods English turns ordinary characters into caricatures, and then there’s no way to take them seriously. (Not to mention, it can get kind of offensive, as discussed in the last article.) So even stock characters deserve some research and development. Perhaps they only exist for one scene, and that’s fine, but “plot device” becomes a dirty word when it’s obvious to the reader what you’re doing. If the strings are showing that much, you might as well just give us the pages of back story or have a message in a bottle show up, because the effect is about the same.
The central characters of the story frequently embody archetypes that can make them seem like stock characters. Below are some familiar examples in romance:
The rogue hero who must be tamed by love
The virgin heroine
The ancient, world-weary immortal hero who is either desperate for love or reluctant to love because of some tragedy long ago
The frustrated, overworked heroine who gets no respect
The anti-hero who is an outcast from society and has a dark, checkered past
The jaded heroine who has given up on romance and is just looking for a night of great sex instead
The rebellious “bad boy” hero with a heart of gold
The heroine who has lost her ability to trust men, often because of mistreatment, abuse or violence in her past
The protector hero whose livelihood involves defending one’s homestead (warrior, police officer, outlaw cowboy) and who is fiercely overprotective of the heroine
Some readers are sick of these folks and would like never to read about them again. Others might have a special fondness for one or a few of them. We joke about the abundance of single, handsome titled men in Regency England, or about how many small-town sheriffs happen to be ex-Navy SEALs. Again, we don’t want characters to be cardboard cutouts, especially our main characters. But the descriptions in the list above, though specific and recognizable, have a lot of room for development. The key is to give characters the attention they deserve. Make them distinctive—don’t let their position or history do all the work of defining them. Okay, so your hero is a thousand-year-old vampire warlord with a dark, checkered past. But does he have a distinctive personality with a distinctive checkered past, or could he be replaced by a stand-in with a similar description? What is it about this character that makes him memorable? And is there an original plot, or is the implicit back story the stock character provides supposed to be doing all the work?
The above applies to villains, too. There’s no rule that one has to be sympathetic to the villain’s motives, but the motive still needs to be there. Making a villain eeeeeevil for the sake of being eeeeeevil tries the reader’s ability to suspend disbelief. Likewise, defining the villain solely by deed by piling multiple vile acts on the character—“And he’s a rapist, too! And he kicks puppies!”—makes for a weak villain.
Suspension of disbelief problems can come about for characters in the other direction, too. “Mary Sue” is a term that originated in fan fiction and has come to mean an overly idealized, easily recognizable character. Generally speaking, the Mary Sue outshines all other characters by being flawless, even when she or he appears to have flaws. For instance, such a character might have a tragic and painful past and most likely feels unnecessary guilt about it, or there might exist some sort of physical weakness or mental illness that is clearly intended to garner sympathy from the reader. Mary Sue characters are often the author’s attempt at self-insertion in the story, so it’s no wonder that they tend to get all the “good parts”. Typically, the character has some sort of trait or ability that surpasses that of other characters, or all the most interesting or intense action involves this character. Now, in genre fiction especially, it is not uncommon for the central characters to be involved in the majority of the action and to have special characteristics that distinguish them from other characters. They are the stars of the show, after all—in romance, the hero is supposed to be the most desirable man, and both he and the heroine should be likeable. (Who wants to root for a match between two people you can’t stand, or between a likeable character and a complete jerk?) But if either character has no flaws or said flaws only exist in a way that makes the character look better or more sympathetic, the Mary Sue factor is dangerously high.
If written well, stock characters with stock backgrounds can serve a much-needed purpose. Just remember to flesh out your main characters, and never use a character solely as a crutch. The pressure from above tends to stunt their growth.
Friday, January 4, 2008
It's Not "PC", It Just Makes Sense
by Nick Conrad
One of the biggest challenges for anyone writing fiction is how to construct the story and characters in a way that readers can relate to them. Sure, part of the fun of reading fiction is that it provides an escape from everyday life, and no one expects to fully identify with a third-level mage who's training to be a High Priestess to the Sun Goddess Axyklpmot when she falls in love with a dragon shifter. But regardless of a story's setting, an author rarely wants to make potential readers feel as though they are not welcome to read the story. Of course there's no way to universally appeal to everyone's sensibilities, but there is a way to actively alienate whole groups of people. And often, an author doing it doesn't even mean to.
The term "political correctness" gets thrown around a lot these days, especially with reference to the media. It calls to mind a stuffy, hypersensitive suppression of free speech in the name of not offending anyone. Some might even see it as language policing. But I'm not here to talk about being "politically correct". Such a concept seems, at best, a misinformed way of trying not to step on toes and, at worst, insincere or even ignorant. Although it would be wonderful if everyone could get along and people never made generalizations about whole groups, we all know we can’t just forcibly change people’s thinking. (And what good is freedom if you don’t have the freedom to think for yourself?) What I'm here to address are ways authors can be more considerate of their readers—all readers—because you never know who is going to pick up your book.
Sexist, racist language. Let’s talk about unnecessary adjectives. How often have you heard someone casually mentioning a “male nurse” or “ black lawyer” or “woman doctor”? That’s annoying and unnecessary. Often it happens because a profession is dominated by a specific group of people—especially a gendered group—and a person might think the male nurse or female doctor is novel or noteworthy. But there’s no hard and fast rule for who is best suited for a certain job, and whether or not it's intentional, that is exactly what those expressions imply. If you have a character who is a male nurse or a woman doctor, just describe the person as you would any other nurse or doctor. (Do you say "the female nurse" or "the male doctor"?) The pronouns and/or name will give the gender away soon enough. And if your lawyer’s black—well, you have to ask yourself how much that matters to the plot. If it's necessary and appropriate, have the lawyer mention it him or herself. (Example: The lawyer is talking about growing up black in Montgomery, Alabama in the 1950s.) If the character's color is important to the plot, the representation of that will come naturally. But if you’re just intent on visually depicting the character as accurately as possible, then what's wrong with giving a vivid physical description, the same as you would any character? Perhaps Linda has cocoa-colored or cinnamon-colored skin, just as she might have a coffee-and-cream or peaches-and-cream complexion. Skin is another physical feature and it comes in many, many shades. It's not forbidden to describe it.
Also, "black" is not a dirty word. Different people have different opinions on it, and unfortunately any word can be used as a weapon, but describing someone's race at all is not impolite in the proper context. Just don't make it the sole or central defining feature of a person when it's not appropriate. Some people might prefer to say "African-American" or "Asian-American," but use consideration when employing those words, too—if Peter has lived in England all his life, the term doesn't really apply, does it? Especially not if his family came from Jamaica, which is not located anywhere on the African continent.
Have some class. Please don't emphasize that a character is poor or comes from a rural setting by making them speak in a stereotypical "ruffian" or "country bumpkin" way. Just because a person has a lower income or lives in the country doesn't mean that person never had a formal education. And even if a person didn't have a formal education, it's not always apparent in the way they talk. Sure, not everyone uses perfect grammar (regardless of their background or education), but you can convey this without turning your character into a caricature. There's no need to exaggerate or dwell on how uneducated the person is. Also, uneducated does not mean dumb. You never know what a person might know—lots of high school dropouts are better read than many people with master's degrees, and just because a person is illiterate doesn't mean he or she might not have a slew of skills or smarts that many an avid reader couldn't begin to grasp. So just remember to look beyond the money in a character's wallet or the amount of culture in that character's background when you're deciding how that person thinks and acts. Explore all the dimensions—if you have an ignorant, not well spoken character, show us how and why, rather than just making that character "stupid" by default or to get a point across. When characters have a whole set of pre-designed characteristics just because they fit a certain image, we call them stock characters. Sometimes they have their place, but often it's just lazy.
Dated terms, and people are not adjectives. Sometimes there are terms that have slipped into the vernacular of a particular region or country with little thought to the origin. For instance, you might say, "I was gypped!" meaning nothing more than "I was ripped off!" or "I was cheated!" But this ignores the fact that "gyp" comes from "Gypsy"—as in, the Romani people—and that it was used as a derogatory term against them. The implication was that Gypsy/Rom people were inherently dishonest. (The term "Gypsy" itself is considered offensive by some, as it originates from the mistaken assumption that the Romani came from Egypt. However, some Romani use it themselves, and it is a term that is used all the time in historicals. We'll talk more about historicals in a bit.) Or maybe you’ve heard of an “Indian giver”—that term comes from a historical misunderstanding between Native Americans and English settlers, and the unfair generalization that came about as a result. Or maybe you casually refer to Asian or Asian-descended people as Orientals. While a large part of the Western world referred to Asia as the Orient at one time, no one really asked the Asian folks for their opinions. (Actually, in its time it was more common to call what is now the Middle East “the Orient”, and it only gradually became associated with points farther east.) As it turns out, not only is "the Orient" a rather outdated term, but when “Oriental” is used as an adjective it’s most often in reference to an artistic style evoking the “ancient” Orient—think of rugs and vases. Needless to say, such a term doesn’t go far in describing people. And independently of this, it’s kind of clunky to reduce people to adjectives by turning said adjectives into nouns (“the blacks”, “the gays”) when referring to them—it’s like that’s the only thing about them that’s important. Even if these characteristics apply to you, are you comfortable being referred to as “a white” or “a straight”? It's not that there's shame in either of those adjectives, but probably you’d prefer to have them attached to a noun—like “person”, “woman”, “individual”—that grounds you as a human being and puts you on the same level as the other people of the world. Regardless of how we view our own identities, all people are people first.
Historical accuracy versus historical ugly. If a term for a group of people was largely in use at the time outside of an offensive context (examples being Negro for black Americans before the 1960s, or Gypsies to refer to Romani people in a historical), then you're being timely. Now, naturally there are limits. Another, much harsher "N" word was also a casual, seemingly innocuous term used by white Westerners for black folks at one time, and it would be revisionist to deny that that was the case. But here is where it pays to do a little research. (Actually, it always pays to do research.) Pay attention to the context of such terms, and be conscious of which characters are using them and when. Don't be afraid to question how a particular instance reads. Is the meaning clear? Are the characters' sentiments clear? Conversely, you don't want to overdo it. It wouldn't make sense to refer to a railway worker of Chinese descent in the mid-1800s as Asian-American, for instance. Just keep the research tools handy and don't lose focus on your character development. It's not necessary to unleash a slew of racial slurs on your railway worker just because they might have been timely, but keep in mind that most of his American contemporaries weren't familiar with any other term for him beside "Chinaman", a term that isn't particularly polite by today's standards. Then it's up to you how you want to use that information.
This is obviously a very extensive topic, and a single blog article can hardly do it justice. So if you have anything to add, please don't hesitate to speak up in the comments.
One of the biggest challenges for anyone writing fiction is how to construct the story and characters in a way that readers can relate to them. Sure, part of the fun of reading fiction is that it provides an escape from everyday life, and no one expects to fully identify with a third-level mage who's training to be a High Priestess to the Sun Goddess Axyklpmot when she falls in love with a dragon shifter. But regardless of a story's setting, an author rarely wants to make potential readers feel as though they are not welcome to read the story. Of course there's no way to universally appeal to everyone's sensibilities, but there is a way to actively alienate whole groups of people. And often, an author doing it doesn't even mean to.
The term "political correctness" gets thrown around a lot these days, especially with reference to the media. It calls to mind a stuffy, hypersensitive suppression of free speech in the name of not offending anyone. Some might even see it as language policing. But I'm not here to talk about being "politically correct". Such a concept seems, at best, a misinformed way of trying not to step on toes and, at worst, insincere or even ignorant. Although it would be wonderful if everyone could get along and people never made generalizations about whole groups, we all know we can’t just forcibly change people’s thinking. (And what good is freedom if you don’t have the freedom to think for yourself?) What I'm here to address are ways authors can be more considerate of their readers—all readers—because you never know who is going to pick up your book.
Sexist, racist language. Let’s talk about unnecessary adjectives. How often have you heard someone casually mentioning a “male nurse” or “ black lawyer” or “woman doctor”? That’s annoying and unnecessary. Often it happens because a profession is dominated by a specific group of people—especially a gendered group—and a person might think the male nurse or female doctor is novel or noteworthy. But there’s no hard and fast rule for who is best suited for a certain job, and whether or not it's intentional, that is exactly what those expressions imply. If you have a character who is a male nurse or a woman doctor, just describe the person as you would any other nurse or doctor. (Do you say "the female nurse" or "the male doctor"?) The pronouns and/or name will give the gender away soon enough. And if your lawyer’s black—well, you have to ask yourself how much that matters to the plot. If it's necessary and appropriate, have the lawyer mention it him or herself. (Example: The lawyer is talking about growing up black in Montgomery, Alabama in the 1950s.) If the character's color is important to the plot, the representation of that will come naturally. But if you’re just intent on visually depicting the character as accurately as possible, then what's wrong with giving a vivid physical description, the same as you would any character? Perhaps Linda has cocoa-colored or cinnamon-colored skin, just as she might have a coffee-and-cream or peaches-and-cream complexion. Skin is another physical feature and it comes in many, many shades. It's not forbidden to describe it.
Also, "black" is not a dirty word. Different people have different opinions on it, and unfortunately any word can be used as a weapon, but describing someone's race at all is not impolite in the proper context. Just don't make it the sole or central defining feature of a person when it's not appropriate. Some people might prefer to say "African-American" or "Asian-American," but use consideration when employing those words, too—if Peter has lived in England all his life, the term doesn't really apply, does it? Especially not if his family came from Jamaica, which is not located anywhere on the African continent.
Have some class. Please don't emphasize that a character is poor or comes from a rural setting by making them speak in a stereotypical "ruffian" or "country bumpkin" way. Just because a person has a lower income or lives in the country doesn't mean that person never had a formal education. And even if a person didn't have a formal education, it's not always apparent in the way they talk. Sure, not everyone uses perfect grammar (regardless of their background or education), but you can convey this without turning your character into a caricature. There's no need to exaggerate or dwell on how uneducated the person is. Also, uneducated does not mean dumb. You never know what a person might know—lots of high school dropouts are better read than many people with master's degrees, and just because a person is illiterate doesn't mean he or she might not have a slew of skills or smarts that many an avid reader couldn't begin to grasp. So just remember to look beyond the money in a character's wallet or the amount of culture in that character's background when you're deciding how that person thinks and acts. Explore all the dimensions—if you have an ignorant, not well spoken character, show us how and why, rather than just making that character "stupid" by default or to get a point across. When characters have a whole set of pre-designed characteristics just because they fit a certain image, we call them stock characters. Sometimes they have their place, but often it's just lazy.
Dated terms, and people are not adjectives. Sometimes there are terms that have slipped into the vernacular of a particular region or country with little thought to the origin. For instance, you might say, "I was gypped!" meaning nothing more than "I was ripped off!" or "I was cheated!" But this ignores the fact that "gyp" comes from "Gypsy"—as in, the Romani people—and that it was used as a derogatory term against them. The implication was that Gypsy/Rom people were inherently dishonest. (The term "Gypsy" itself is considered offensive by some, as it originates from the mistaken assumption that the Romani came from Egypt. However, some Romani use it themselves, and it is a term that is used all the time in historicals. We'll talk more about historicals in a bit.) Or maybe you’ve heard of an “Indian giver”—that term comes from a historical misunderstanding between Native Americans and English settlers, and the unfair generalization that came about as a result. Or maybe you casually refer to Asian or Asian-descended people as Orientals. While a large part of the Western world referred to Asia as the Orient at one time, no one really asked the Asian folks for their opinions. (Actually, in its time it was more common to call what is now the Middle East “the Orient”, and it only gradually became associated with points farther east.) As it turns out, not only is "the Orient" a rather outdated term, but when “Oriental” is used as an adjective it’s most often in reference to an artistic style evoking the “ancient” Orient—think of rugs and vases. Needless to say, such a term doesn’t go far in describing people. And independently of this, it’s kind of clunky to reduce people to adjectives by turning said adjectives into nouns (“the blacks”, “the gays”) when referring to them—it’s like that’s the only thing about them that’s important. Even if these characteristics apply to you, are you comfortable being referred to as “a white” or “a straight”? It's not that there's shame in either of those adjectives, but probably you’d prefer to have them attached to a noun—like “person”, “woman”, “individual”—that grounds you as a human being and puts you on the same level as the other people of the world. Regardless of how we view our own identities, all people are people first.
Historical accuracy versus historical ugly. If a term for a group of people was largely in use at the time outside of an offensive context (examples being Negro for black Americans before the 1960s, or Gypsies to refer to Romani people in a historical), then you're being timely. Now, naturally there are limits. Another, much harsher "N" word was also a casual, seemingly innocuous term used by white Westerners for black folks at one time, and it would be revisionist to deny that that was the case. But here is where it pays to do a little research. (Actually, it always pays to do research.) Pay attention to the context of such terms, and be conscious of which characters are using them and when. Don't be afraid to question how a particular instance reads. Is the meaning clear? Are the characters' sentiments clear? Conversely, you don't want to overdo it. It wouldn't make sense to refer to a railway worker of Chinese descent in the mid-1800s as Asian-American, for instance. Just keep the research tools handy and don't lose focus on your character development. It's not necessary to unleash a slew of racial slurs on your railway worker just because they might have been timely, but keep in mind that most of his American contemporaries weren't familiar with any other term for him beside "Chinaman", a term that isn't particularly polite by today's standards. Then it's up to you how you want to use that information.
This is obviously a very extensive topic, and a single blog article can hardly do it justice. So if you have anything to add, please don't hesitate to speak up in the comments.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Venereal Disease
No, no, it's not what you think! ‘Terms of venery’ are an element of the hunting culture of feudal through modern times in Great Britain. It was an indication of good breeding and knowledge to know the special term for a company of animals.
So here are some of the less common collective nouns. Could be an interesting way to spice up your writing! Or just impress people that you actually know stuff like this. (And if you read Ellora's Cave or Cerridwen Press books, you may recognize a few titles!)
So here are some of the less common collective nouns. Could be an interesting way to spice up your writing! Or just impress people that you actually know stuff like this. (And if you read Ellora's Cave or Cerridwen Press books, you may recognize a few titles!)
|
1. Garland of Druids 2. Shrewdness of apes 3. Trogle of snakes 4. Ostentation of peacocks 5. Siege of herons 6. Watch of nightingales 7. Unkindness of ravens 8. Leap of leopards 9. Troop of kangaroos 10. Clowder of cats 11. Cowardice of curs 12. Cete of badgers 13. Crash of rhinoceroses |
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Dear Santa...
|
'Tis the season for giving and receiving. If we're going to make a list for Santa, we might as well go all-out and ask for what we really want. |
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
And the Winner is...
Okay, here's a winner, a reminder, and a new contest.
Word Libs Winner
The winner of our Word Libs game is Red Garnier! Red wins an ebook download of her choice (EC, Cerridwen, or TLC). Red, please email Martha@ellorascave.com and let her know what title and the format you need. Here is the "story" Red created in the game:
She wants to be free...
Titty has been a chairy in her father's Hornyville since she was eight-thousand-to-the-decimal years old. He wants to twister her off to the highest broomie, but she wants to find crookedy love. Could the wormy bookmark who has been a-la-pirouetting around her father's grounds at night be her key to freedom?
He wants to be tamed...
Dick is a fantasizing gypsy, free from the dirty-trunks of USA society. But his crotch longs for love. When he spots the cheesily-gallivanting woman in the lord's Hornyville, he knows she is the one for him. But can he swing-ala-ding her from her catatonical father before it's too late?
Cover Letter Critique
See the blog post http://redlinesanddeadlines.blogspot.com/2007/11/cover-letter-critiques.html . Send in your cover letter to be critiqued (to redlinesdeadlines@gmail.com). If your letter is selected, you'll win a free ebook download. We'll be posting the first critiques in early January!
Comments Contest
When we return from the holidays, the editors will laugh over--err, uhh, seriously review--all the comments posted on the December blog articles, and will select what we consider the three best comments. Each of those people will win a free ebook download. So go give us feedback on some of the articles!
Holiday Hiatus
Hey, we're taking a break for the holidays! We will have a Thursday 13 tomorrow, and then will resume posting blog articles after the new year. So come back and see us on January 3rd.
Word Libs Winner
The winner of our Word Libs game is Red Garnier! Red wins an ebook download of her choice (EC, Cerridwen, or TLC). Red, please email Martha@ellorascave.com and let her know what title and the format you need. Here is the "story" Red created in the game:
She wants to be free...
Titty has been a chairy in her father's Hornyville since she was eight-thousand-to-the-decimal years old. He wants to twister her off to the highest broomie, but she wants to find crookedy love. Could the wormy bookmark who has been a-la-pirouetting around her father's grounds at night be her key to freedom?
He wants to be tamed...
Dick is a fantasizing gypsy, free from the dirty-trunks of USA society. But his crotch longs for love. When he spots the cheesily-gallivanting woman in the lord's Hornyville, he knows she is the one for him. But can he swing-ala-ding her from her catatonical father before it's too late?
Cover Letter Critique
See the blog post http://redlinesanddeadlines.blogspot.com/2007/11/cover-letter-critiques.html . Send in your cover letter to be critiqued (to redlinesdeadlines@gmail.com). If your letter is selected, you'll win a free ebook download. We'll be posting the first critiques in early January!
Comments Contest
When we return from the holidays, the editors will laugh over--err, uhh, seriously review--all the comments posted on the December blog articles, and will select what we consider the three best comments. Each of those people will win a free ebook download. So go give us feedback on some of the articles!
Holiday Hiatus
Hey, we're taking a break for the holidays! We will have a Thursday 13 tomorrow, and then will resume posting blog articles after the new year. So come back and see us on January 3rd.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Seasonally Adjusted Story
by Helen Woodall
Dearest Editor,
I know you will be wanting to buy some Christmas stories with Christmas just around the corner so I am sending you my latest masterpiece. I just know you will love it as much as I do.
Originally it was going to be about Halloween but life intervened – you know how it does – and I didn't get it finished. But I just changed the pumpkin pie into mince pie so I am sure everything will be fine.
Love from
Your Favorite Author
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hello Author,
I am sorry to inform you your book is not acceptable as it is. You need to do some more revising.
I can quite understand that it may snow at Halloween and Christmas where you live, but you sent your hero and heroine off on vacation to Uncle Charlie’s in Australia – and December is summer there. They need sunscreen and flip flops, not coats and snow boots.
In Australia chrysanthemums flower in May, not December. And birds do not fly south to escape the winter. South is the Antarctic. It is very cold there.
Your Editor
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dearest Editor,
Since it took you a whole month to read my book I am not going to be able to get it ready in time for Christmas now, so I have made it into a Valentine’s Day story. The pumpkin pie/mince pies are now jelly cakes in the shape of a heart – so very romantic.
I have changed the flowers and the birds. Did you know Begonias flower all year round? I can use them in every book I write and never have to worry again!!!
Love from
Your Favorite Author
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hello Author,
Maybe because you have changed the dates of your story so much, there is now nothing at all to make it a real Valentine’s Day story. Jelly cakes in the shape of a heart are indeed a lovely romantic gesture but they do not specifically say “Valentine’s Day”. Nor do Begonias.
Perhaps you should decide on a holiday and stick to it. Do some research specifically about that holiday and then weave those items into your story – spooky details for Halloween, maybe some carols for Christmas, or something unusually romantic for Valentine’s Day. Really the whole point about writing a holiday story is that the season is an integral focus of the plot – it brings the characters together for a reason or to a specific place or to do something different from normal.
If you send your characters to some special location you should use that location in the story. Uncle Charlie lives in Queensland – there is a very famous coral reef there that I am sure would make a wonderful background for a romantic scene.
I am sorry to inform you that your book is still not acceptable in its current form.
Your Editor
Dearest Editor,
I know you will be wanting to buy some Christmas stories with Christmas just around the corner so I am sending you my latest masterpiece. I just know you will love it as much as I do.
Originally it was going to be about Halloween but life intervened – you know how it does – and I didn't get it finished. But I just changed the pumpkin pie into mince pie so I am sure everything will be fine.
Love from
Your Favorite Author
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hello Author,
I am sorry to inform you your book is not acceptable as it is. You need to do some more revising.
I can quite understand that it may snow at Halloween and Christmas where you live, but you sent your hero and heroine off on vacation to Uncle Charlie’s in Australia – and December is summer there. They need sunscreen and flip flops, not coats and snow boots.
In Australia chrysanthemums flower in May, not December. And birds do not fly south to escape the winter. South is the Antarctic. It is very cold there.
Your Editor
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dearest Editor,
Since it took you a whole month to read my book I am not going to be able to get it ready in time for Christmas now, so I have made it into a Valentine’s Day story. The pumpkin pie/mince pies are now jelly cakes in the shape of a heart – so very romantic.
I have changed the flowers and the birds. Did you know Begonias flower all year round? I can use them in every book I write and never have to worry again!!!
Love from
Your Favorite Author
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Hello Author,
Maybe because you have changed the dates of your story so much, there is now nothing at all to make it a real Valentine’s Day story. Jelly cakes in the shape of a heart are indeed a lovely romantic gesture but they do not specifically say “Valentine’s Day”. Nor do Begonias.
Perhaps you should decide on a holiday and stick to it. Do some research specifically about that holiday and then weave those items into your story – spooky details for Halloween, maybe some carols for Christmas, or something unusually romantic for Valentine’s Day. Really the whole point about writing a holiday story is that the season is an integral focus of the plot – it brings the characters together for a reason or to a specific place or to do something different from normal.
If you send your characters to some special location you should use that location in the story. Uncle Charlie lives in Queensland – there is a very famous coral reef there that I am sure would make a wonderful background for a romantic scene.
I am sorry to inform you that your book is still not acceptable in its current form.
Your Editor
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Research Books
by Mary AltmanJane Austen’s Guide to Good Manners: Compliments, Charades & Horrible Blunders by Josephine Ross is an entertaining and witty yet only vaguely informative look into the Regency era. This compact hardcover was written less as a research manual and more as a collection of rules regarding etiquette, covering general manners, forms of introduction, formal calls, dancing and dining, dress, matrimony, family and servants. The author uses source quotes from Jane Austen’s collection of books and letters to lay out her rules, most of which will already be familiar to the Regency reader.
What this book lacks in information it makes up in charm. Henrietta Webb’s illustrations appear liberally throughout the book, making it a pleasure to read. In all honesty, I would not recommend this book as a source material; however, I would strongly recommend it as a gift for lovers of Jane Austen and the Regency period. It’s a quick, fun read and quite beautiful to look at.
What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist—the Fact of Daily Life in 19th-Century England by Daniel Pool is far more informative. It covers everything from currency and measurements to the rules of whist, presentation at court and life in the workhouses. I found this to be a useful book filled with interesting facts. It’s accessible and easy to read and extremely entertaining. It isn’t without faults, however.
Pool’s book suffers from a lack of organization. He lumps everything together by subject and occasionally fails to clarify when the events he’s describing take place. Because he covers information from the Regency through the Victorian period, this grew confusing at times. Additionally, several of his claims have been contested, so if you’re using this book as your source material, be sure to double-check your facts. Even with those problems, the wealth of information outweighs any difficulty sifting through it. The glossary alone is worth it.
Jack Aubrey Commands: An Historical Companion to the Naval World of Patrick O’Brian by Brian Lavery is a beautiful, detailed coffee table book that delves into the lives of His Majesty’s Navy. It has less to do with O’Brian’s books than you’d imagine from the title, but the information provided is detailed and the illustrations and diagrams are completely accurate. This book covers everything from tacking and wearing to life at sea, with historical quotes, model ships and colorful maps working to bring the world of the seaman to life. I highly recommend this book.
What this book lacks in information it makes up in charm. Henrietta Webb’s illustrations appear liberally throughout the book, making it a pleasure to read. In all honesty, I would not recommend this book as a source material; however, I would strongly recommend it as a gift for lovers of Jane Austen and the Regency period. It’s a quick, fun read and quite beautiful to look at.
What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist—the Fact of Daily Life in 19th-Century England by Daniel Pool is far more informative. It covers everything from currency and measurements to the rules of whist, presentation at court and life in the workhouses. I found this to be a useful book filled with interesting facts. It’s accessible and easy to read and extremely entertaining. It isn’t without faults, however.Pool’s book suffers from a lack of organization. He lumps everything together by subject and occasionally fails to clarify when the events he’s describing take place. Because he covers information from the Regency through the Victorian period, this grew confusing at times. Additionally, several of his claims have been contested, so if you’re using this book as your source material, be sure to double-check your facts. Even with those problems, the wealth of information outweighs any difficulty sifting through it. The glossary alone is worth it.
Jack Aubrey Commands: An Historical Companion to the Naval World of Patrick O’Brian by Brian Lavery is a beautiful, detailed coffee table book that delves into the lives of His Majesty’s Navy. It has less to do with O’Brian’s books than you’d imagine from the title, but the information provided is detailed and the illustrations and diagrams are completely accurate. This book covers everything from tacking and wearing to life at sea, with historical quotes, model ships and colorful maps working to bring the world of the seaman to life. I highly recommend this book.Historical Clichés
They're tried, they're true, they're trite. They've made their way into infamy among readers, who decry them as much as they love them (in the way you love your husband who always leaves the seat up, or your sweet aunt who sends you the same ugly sweater every year). What's that, you say? You've never read about virgin widows or brooding heroes? Gentle reader, there is no way you've read more than one historical romance if you've never encountered a single genre cliché. Actually, chances are you haven't read any at all.
So after looking at the clichés, what are some examples of atypical historical elements you've encountered? Characters, settings, plot lines? Tell us your favorite unusual historicals.
So after looking at the clichés, what are some examples of atypical historical elements you've encountered? Characters, settings, plot lines? Tell us your favorite unusual historicals.
|
1. The heroine is a blushing virgin who is so unaware of her genitals and what they do that she is shocked and perplexed when the hero gives her pleasure. Double points if she's at a loss for words to describe what's happening. 2. The Virgin Widow: The heroine's cruel/inattentive/impotent husband either never consummated the marriage or never gave her an orgasm. 3. The heroine is the innocent, inexperienced ward; her unwilling guardian is older, wealthy and socially prominent, has had a string of beautiful and enticing mistresses. Let us guess whom he falls in love with... 4. He's got the bluest blood of the realm! If you believed Romancelandia, every other peer in England is a duke--and a handsome, unmarried one at that! 5. Old Boney won't get the best of him! The hero is a peer but is also secretly a spy for England! Bonus points if he works with a secret cabal of other spies, all of them dashing and brooding and rich...and future heroes in an on-going series, of course. 6. The innocent governess and her dark, vaguely threatening master of the house is a gothic classic. Bonus points if he has a relative locked somewhere on his estate. 7. You can't have a governess without a child, and one of Romancelandia's favorite clichés is the dissolute rake forced to raise a child (usually a daughter who is unnaturally bright and/or saucy), only to be transformed by her innocence and the love of her female caregiver. 8. The Devil of Fill-in-the-Blank always wears black, always rides in a black coach with matching black horses and always tosses about dark stares and sardonic glances as he storms around Regency London. 9. You can't have Beauty and the Beast without the Beast! Thankfully, minor burns and scars are enough to make many Romancelandia heroes brood excessively about their hideous features. Hey, sometimes even a limp will do! 10. Heroines should have flaws. Unfortunately, many of them seem to share the exact same flaws--either fiery tempers and brash manners or bookish ways and a need for spectacles, without which they cannot be trusted not to trip, fall and tumble onto any available lap in a moment's notice. 11. Apparently young girls in all historical periods knew the best way to meet the man of your dreams was to masquerade as a boy. Be a squire to his knight, stable lad on his estate, new footman in his townhome, or cabin boy on the ship he captains. 12. Get thee to a nunnery! If a medieval heroine's not already in a convent (where she probably nurses the hero back to health), she's on her way to one. 13. The hero or heroine must marry as soon as possible or they'll lose their fortune/disgrace the family's good name. Bonus points if the reluctant marriage is mandated in the will of a recently deceased parent or guardian. |
Monday, December 10, 2007
Wallpaper Needs Walls
By Raelene Gorlinsky
Okay, you’ve researched the period in which you are setting your historical story. You are sure that your characters are wearing appropriate clothing, traveling in the right kind of carriage, even speaking appropriate slang. They don’t flick a lighter for their cigarette, use non-stick cookware in the kitchen, or have polyester clothing with zippers. So you’ve got it right? Wrong. What you may be producing is a “wallpaper historical”. The term refers to stories where the correct “things” and look are there, but the characters and possibly the plot action are not an accurate reflection of the times.
True historical accuracy includes reflecting the social mores, behavior, attitudes and dialogue of the people in the specific time period and geographical location. To be believable, your characters must think and feel and react the way people did back then – not like a modern person just dropped into that time.
We are all the result of the society in which we are raised. A medieval man was biologically identical to a 21st century one, but his mind was filled with completely different knowledge, what was important to him was not the same, the options that would even occur to him in any given situation would be different, as would the choices he made. And I’m sure teenagers have been burdened with excess hormones and overblown emotions since we became homo sapiens, but the way they reacted to that would not have been the same then as it is now.
Some eras, most notoriously Georgian/Regency/Victorian, had very structured and rigid rules that were part of the culture and governed society. The rules were based on a person’s social class, gender, age, and marital status. Acceptable behavior for an unmarried young woman versus married lady versus widow were different, for example. Any breaking of society’s rules would lead to social disgrace and other consequences. This was especially true for the upper classes.
It was the appearance, the public conformance to the rules, that was critical—what went on in private could be very different. Yes, characters in historicals can indeed do things that were "wrong" by society's rules. That's a standard feature in such stories. But two things must be present to keep the historical accuracy:
~ the character has to know that what s/he is doing is improper and could get them in trouble.
~ if "caught", the appropriate consequences must occur. Social disgrace or ostracism, loss of position or money, forced engagement, whatever.
Here’s a scene: Your 18-year-old heroine is out shopping, and sees a majorly luscious guy walking in her direction. She realizes he’s one of her older brother’s friends, and she’s dying to meet him. As he passes her, she says in a friendly but not pushy way, “Oh, hello. Aren’t you Devlin Devereux? I’m Thomas Tremaine’s sister; I’ve seen you with Tom.” Seems okay? It is if your character is shopping on Main Street USA today. But if she is on Bond Street, London, in 1820, she is asking to be given the cut direct, to become a laughingstock and be snubbed by the ton, possibly be banished to the country by her embarrassed family until society forgets about her improper behavior. Not only shouldn’t your young lady have been so forward as to approach a man to whom she has not been formally introduced by a family member or other proper person, she likely wouldn’t have even thought of doing such a thing – she was raised with the social rules and restrictions of her world, and her mind functions within that. What would have sprung to her mind on seeing this desirable guy would have been something like hinting to her mother that brother Thomas might introduce a few of his moneyed and marriagable friends at the next ball they attend.
Say it over and over: historical characters should not act like modern people.
Something to watch out for is individual or group behavior that is a reflection of modern custom. For example, after dinner, the members of a household in past did not all go off and do their own thing. Fires to heat a room and lamps to light it were expensive. Either the whole family gathered in one room, or the gentlemen in one room and the ladies in another. Young children were not usually present; they’d been sent upstairs to bed.
Also take into consideration what legal options the characters, especially women and minors, had available to them. Many an historical story has been ruined by women doing things that they just would not have been able to during that time period. Could your character really have gone to a bank and withdrawn money? Hired and fired household staff? Made decisions about managing her property? Remember that for most of history and in most parts of the world, women were nothing but property themselves. They were “owned” by their father or husband. They had no control over their money or property, they had few legal rights. The extent to which they could make decisions or run things was limited to what their “owner” allowed them.
Dialogue: Just because you’ve put some period terms in your characters’ mouths does not necessarily make them sound right. Now, don’t get carried away – a whole book filled with dialect drives a reader crazy. Do not write a dinnacanna-type story, for example. A little bit of slang or dialect to set the tone is fine, then cut back on it. But make the speech patterns and common language historically accurate. How do you do this? Read lots of text that is original to that period. Especially letters written then. They reflect the “voice” of the people of that time.
Oh, and by the way, while you were doing all that research you DID go to primary sources, right? Wikipedia does not count, nor does reading something in another novel. You have to find the original source of the information in order to be sure it is correct.
So, share your stories of books you've read where unfortunately the wallpaper had no walls to stick to. Or most especially the books you recommend because the author did get it right.
Okay, you’ve researched the period in which you are setting your historical story. You are sure that your characters are wearing appropriate clothing, traveling in the right kind of carriage, even speaking appropriate slang. They don’t flick a lighter for their cigarette, use non-stick cookware in the kitchen, or have polyester clothing with zippers. So you’ve got it right? Wrong. What you may be producing is a “wallpaper historical”. The term refers to stories where the correct “things” and look are there, but the characters and possibly the plot action are not an accurate reflection of the times.
True historical accuracy includes reflecting the social mores, behavior, attitudes and dialogue of the people in the specific time period and geographical location. To be believable, your characters must think and feel and react the way people did back then – not like a modern person just dropped into that time.
We are all the result of the society in which we are raised. A medieval man was biologically identical to a 21st century one, but his mind was filled with completely different knowledge, what was important to him was not the same, the options that would even occur to him in any given situation would be different, as would the choices he made. And I’m sure teenagers have been burdened with excess hormones and overblown emotions since we became homo sapiens, but the way they reacted to that would not have been the same then as it is now.
Some eras, most notoriously Georgian/Regency/Victorian, had very structured and rigid rules that were part of the culture and governed society. The rules were based on a person’s social class, gender, age, and marital status. Acceptable behavior for an unmarried young woman versus married lady versus widow were different, for example. Any breaking of society’s rules would lead to social disgrace and other consequences. This was especially true for the upper classes.
It was the appearance, the public conformance to the rules, that was critical—what went on in private could be very different. Yes, characters in historicals can indeed do things that were "wrong" by society's rules. That's a standard feature in such stories. But two things must be present to keep the historical accuracy:
~ the character has to know that what s/he is doing is improper and could get them in trouble.
~ if "caught", the appropriate consequences must occur. Social disgrace or ostracism, loss of position or money, forced engagement, whatever.
Here’s a scene: Your 18-year-old heroine is out shopping, and sees a majorly luscious guy walking in her direction. She realizes he’s one of her older brother’s friends, and she’s dying to meet him. As he passes her, she says in a friendly but not pushy way, “Oh, hello. Aren’t you Devlin Devereux? I’m Thomas Tremaine’s sister; I’ve seen you with Tom.” Seems okay? It is if your character is shopping on Main Street USA today. But if she is on Bond Street, London, in 1820, she is asking to be given the cut direct, to become a laughingstock and be snubbed by the ton, possibly be banished to the country by her embarrassed family until society forgets about her improper behavior. Not only shouldn’t your young lady have been so forward as to approach a man to whom she has not been formally introduced by a family member or other proper person, she likely wouldn’t have even thought of doing such a thing – she was raised with the social rules and restrictions of her world, and her mind functions within that. What would have sprung to her mind on seeing this desirable guy would have been something like hinting to her mother that brother Thomas might introduce a few of his moneyed and marriagable friends at the next ball they attend.
Say it over and over: historical characters should not act like modern people.
Something to watch out for is individual or group behavior that is a reflection of modern custom. For example, after dinner, the members of a household in past did not all go off and do their own thing. Fires to heat a room and lamps to light it were expensive. Either the whole family gathered in one room, or the gentlemen in one room and the ladies in another. Young children were not usually present; they’d been sent upstairs to bed.
Also take into consideration what legal options the characters, especially women and minors, had available to them. Many an historical story has been ruined by women doing things that they just would not have been able to during that time period. Could your character really have gone to a bank and withdrawn money? Hired and fired household staff? Made decisions about managing her property? Remember that for most of history and in most parts of the world, women were nothing but property themselves. They were “owned” by their father or husband. They had no control over their money or property, they had few legal rights. The extent to which they could make decisions or run things was limited to what their “owner” allowed them.
Dialogue: Just because you’ve put some period terms in your characters’ mouths does not necessarily make them sound right. Now, don’t get carried away – a whole book filled with dialect drives a reader crazy. Do not write a dinnacanna-type story, for example. A little bit of slang or dialect to set the tone is fine, then cut back on it. But make the speech patterns and common language historically accurate. How do you do this? Read lots of text that is original to that period. Especially letters written then. They reflect the “voice” of the people of that time.
Oh, and by the way, while you were doing all that research you DID go to primary sources, right? Wikipedia does not count, nor does reading something in another novel. You have to find the original source of the information in order to be sure it is correct.
So, share your stories of books you've read where unfortunately the wallpaper had no walls to stick to. Or most especially the books you recommend because the author did get it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)