setting the record straight

[ewein2412]

OOOOOOHHHH I just HATE being accused of anachronisms! :P :P :P

so, just in case anyone really wants to know:

"shag, v. To coit (with a woman): late C.18-20. Very gen. among soldiers in WW1." (Eric Partridge, A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English)

"twat; in C.18, occ. twait. The female pudend: mid-C.17-20. 2. Pej. term for a fool: low: since late C. 19." (ibid)

"blonde bombshell" in use widely since 1942. It was actress Jean Harlow's nickname before that (she died in 1937):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombshell_(sex_symbol)

BRING 'EM ON.

Which REMINDS ME. The notion that "all caps for emphasis has only been around since the Internet" is terrifically self-congratulatory. Do you think we all went around WHISPERING before the Internet was invented? I will save my typewriter keyboard rant for later, but to be brief, let me just quote Miss Climpson. I don't need to quote anyone else, really, since this passage from Strong Poison by Dorothy L. Sayers dates to 1930.

...

My dear Lord Peter—

I am sure you have been wondering what has happened to me. But at last I have NEWS! I have STORMED THE CITADEL!!! I am going to the house tonight and you may expect GREAT THINGS!!!

In haste,
Yours very sincerely,
Katharine A. Climpson

Comments

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

It's always surprising to me what people don't know about certain time periods.

My editor wanted me to clarify whether a woman's 'suit' had a skirt or pants....set in 1902. It had never occurred to me that I would have to clairfy that. Never.

But I would never have questioned 'tawdry' words. Most of those have been around forever!

[ewein2412]

It's not the ignorance that annoys me. It's the assumption of superior knowledge.

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

I understand ;o)

[ewein2412]

pants suits in 1902, indeed! fer gosh sakes.

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

My first thought was the cycling outfits of the time
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG02/hendrick/bloomers.jpg
which presumably was not what the editor was thinking of.

[ewein2412]

what is the woman on the right even DOING? (coasting, maybe?)

neither of them looks as if she has quite got the hang of it!

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

Getting ready for a trick-riding show?

This lady from the same time period looks more sedate. I think that's a skirt.
http://pzrservices.typepad.com/vintageadvertising/images/2007/07/01/1902_columbia_bicycle_catalog.jpg
I expect these are skirts, also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1iaF4Np2PU

[ewein2412]

obviously they are practicing their formation flying! They are much better at it than these guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bov5Vh6Sp9M

[boxofdelights]

That would be annoying.

I've been wondering why Code Name Verity is YA. Is there a clear distinction? Who makes that decision?

[ewein2412]

ooh, that's a tough one. The simplest answer is: I'm a YA author, and my YA agent sold this book to 3 different YA publishers, and nobody ever questioned that it was YA.

But you could ask the same question of The Winter Prince. I think that in the case of CNV, it has to do with the fact that both heroines are unfinished as adults - at least to my mind. Neither of them knows what they want to be when they grow up, they're untrained (apart from their war work), and they're sexually inexperienced (I think that's pretty clear). They're in the process of forming the emotional and vocational bonds that they'll use as adults. Okay, by the end of the book they're no longer teens, but they certainly aren't fully fledged grownups. But they're on their way. (or.. you know what I mean.)

So, yeah... that would be my distinction... YA implies some character growth and maturity takes place during the book which wouldn't necessarily be there in an adult book.

[3rdragon]

It's one of the things I like about reading your stuff: that by the time a book is published, I can be fairly sure that you have historical evidence for EVERY LAST DETAIL -- or have decided that it isn't there to be found.

[ewein2412]

I do try. I am sure there are flaws. (I know where some of them are... but they aren't anachronisms.) At any rate they aren't OBVIOUS.

Tanita rolls her eyes.

[(Anonymous)]

Sing it, sister.
It's not as if you have, you know, a HISTORY degree or several, and didn't do your damnedest to be sure and tie up all such loose ends.

Everybody's a critic. Pfffffft.

Re: Tanita rolls her eyes.

[ewein2412]

well, it's a folklore degree or several, but. ner.

[ellen-kushner.livejournal.com]

Not to mention

I AM ELOISE!!!!!

[ewein2412]

*MWAH*

you are the Empress of Vague Literary Allusions.

[shelver506.livejournal.com]

You tell 'em! It'd be one thing if they had phrased their point as an inquiry of clarification. But accusations? Bleh.