[ebooktalk] Re: Language In Books
- From: "Elaine Harris \(Rivendell\)" <elaineharris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ebooktalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:02:51 +1000
Thank you, Clare, for jogging my memory. I am not a Sarah Waters' fan in
general though loved "Nightwatch" but the anachronism passed me by; probably
because I was reading in a hurry in prep.l for an interview.
I did, however, come across a glaring anachronism in a post-World War ii
novel where someone Irish was worried that her future in-laws would not
approve of her, at which point Mother piped up with "What's not to like?"
Again, it just wasn't used then.
Take care,
Elaine
-----Original Message-----
From: ebooktalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ebooktalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Clare Gailans
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013 6:36 PM
To: ebooktalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ebooktalk] Re: Language In Books
Yes, I think this could be a big part of the reason why I read so many older
books. There are some wonderful new ones but an awful lot of rubbish. So
many books could do with an editor, being far too long, or full of spelling
or typographical errors, or just plain badly written. When it comes to
dialogue, I don't mind if it isn't in period, which for books written way
back in time would be hard to do. I think when it stands out as glaringly
wrong is when modern cliches are used. Over-reliance on them is surely lazy
even in modern books. I liked Sarah Waters' Night Watch, but unfortunately
can never forget that she had somebody reply, "I wish!" in the 1940s, when I
never heard this in real life until about ten years ago, and didn't like it
much then.
Clare
Other related posts:
