Archive for the ‘History’ Category

Fear and the Oxford English Dictionary

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

So, Book #2 has a bit of a running theme here and there with breath, and the word breathtaking, and riffs thereon.  It’s enough of a theme that it becomes material to a crucial scene in the book, a scene that I could not imagine rewriting in any way to be anything other than it was.

Imagine my wince of pain when the infinitely wise Franzeca Drouin pointed out that the OED does not list “breath-taking” until Mark Twain uses it in . . . 1880.  Ow.

Or, to use more historically inaccurate language: Fuck.(*)

A frantic search ensued for synonyms or near synonyms.  As the search drew on, I would have settled for things that might have looked like synonyms if viewed in extremely dim lighting.  And I was tempted.  I was sorely tempted.  Historical accuracy be damned; how many readers were going to notice that the word “breathtaking” is not period for 1844?  But down that road lies a million different historical inaccuracies, and once you start down that dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny and turn your books into historicals breathtaking (ha ha) in their wallpaperishness.

Finally, I checked google books and found this.

Whew–breath-taking, figurative sense, 1831.  There are a few more in the 1830s to 1840 range.  And I am content, sitting at 1844.  This just goes to show that the OED is not omniscient.  Almost, but not quite.

*heaves giant sigh of relief*

* Fuck, of course, has been in use as a noun and a verb for ages–”I’m eager for a fuck” is period even though it sounds ridiculously modern to my ear, as is “he fucked her.”  But fuck as a general expression of dismay is not.  Alas.

A question

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

Blogging will be light in March.

But here’s a question.

Why is it, in historicals, that all carpets are Aubusson, all vases are Sevres (or, more precisely, “precious Sevres”), and all gowns are made by Worth?

I mean, I realize these are excellent manufacturers, but not all purses have to be Prada and some stiletto heels are made by manufacturers other than Mahnolo Blahnik.  The only thing more cliched than a Sevres vase is a precious Sevres vase, and the adjective is only applied to make the reader wince when it is tossed against a wall in a fit of pique–presumably, because the man doing the tossing has been trying to get a hold of a vase by another manufacturer and is furious at the stranglehold monopoly that Sevres keeps in Regency times.  Damn those vase cartels!

I want options!

All righty then–it’s back to my broken Grecian urn–which is my non-Sevres vase.

My Workshop!

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

I’ve been meaning to flog my workshop–uh, I mean, tell you how much you really want to go to my workshop at the Beaumonde/Hearts through History conference on July 30th.

It’s entitled Women, Property, and Personhood (not the title that’s showing up on the Conference List), and it’s a short look at the legal development of property rights in England (and only England, sorry, Scotland has its own courts of equity and I’ve never researched anything from them), with a particular look at how they pertain to women’s property rights and personhood. As this is a writer’s conference, the focus is on plots rather than particulars of the law.

You are probably thinking something like this: “Oh great. I would rather be bludgeoned to death with a baby seal then attend, at 9:45 in the morning no less, a workshop that delves into legal details from three centuries ago. Well, look at it this way: This workshop is 55 minutes long. The subject matter could fill a small room chock full of microfiche. If I tried to convey a great amount of legal detail, (a) I would run out of time before I hit 1400 A.D., (b) you would all fall asleep, and (c) there would be no guarantees I would get to material that would be useful to you.

So what I’m doing, instead of conveying vast amounts of factual detail, is giving a very broad overview of how people thought about property throughout history. I’ll explain how these give rise to a number of rules, and I’ll hand out a common checklist of “ways to figure out if you may be making a legal error.” The last half of the workshop will be hands on–we will examine wills and devises from actual romance novels, and I’ll show you how to use my checklist to figure out whether they can (or can’t) hold up, and if they can’t hold up, I’ll explain ways that the author could have achieved the exact same plot points.

In short, it’s designed to be useful for writers, to facilitate your plots (rather than to pull them to pieces), and to be more fun than you ever imagined law could be. Which, believe it or not, is pretty darned fun!

So come, and win various and sundry prizes, such as CDs containing scans of complete legal treatises (some of which are not available on Google Books), and never-seen-before-dare-you-to-wear-them buttons promoting the coolest, legally-accuratest Regency-set trilogy that 2009 will see!


Courtney Milan’s Blog is proudly powered by WordPress
entries (RSS) and comments (RSS).
content © Courtney Milan, 2006-2009
author photo © Jovanka Novakovic | bauwerks.com
cover copyright © 2010 harlequin enterprises limited
cover art used by arrangement with harlequin enterprises limited. all rights reserved.
® and ™ are trademarks of harlequin enterprises limited and/or its affiliated companies, used under license
home \"home books \"books about \"about contact \"contact faqs \"faq articles \"articles