62 Comments
Leave a Comment
Share:
Sometimes I talk to people who aren’t romance writers or readers. Crazy, I know. I forget they don’t have the same lexicon we do. They’re not in our club and don’t speak our language. I vaguely remember how, when I first began reading historicals, I puzzled over what the ton was or why Beau Brummell was so important. I was vaguely confused at mentions of Tattersalls, and I couldn’t have told you the difference between a marquess and a viscount if my life depended on it.
Almost twelve books later, and I chat about countesses, privateers, and Prinny without a second thought.
Until someone who does not read romance asks me about my books.
I was at a birthday party for a friend’s toddler recently, and another mom asked me about my September book, When You Give a Duke a Diamond. I started to tell her about it, and she said, “What’s a courtesan?”
Okay, I went off on a tangent to explain who and what courtesans were and then I was back to the story and my hero, the sixth Duke of Pelham.
“So dukes are part of the royal family?” she asked.
No. Well, sometimes, yes. Okay, another tangent.
“And why are the prostitutes—”
“Whoa, now! They’re courtesans! Big difference!”
She narrowed her eyes. “Why are the courtesans called The Three Diamonds?”
I started to explain about Regency cant and the phrase diamond of the first water, but by then the party was over. I think I succeeded in confusing her more than convincing her my book was a fun read.
And then a few days later, I was running with a friend in boot camp, and she asked about the title of my next book, which releases in March. I told her it was If You Give a Rake a Ruby. “Why would you give a rake a ruby?” she wanted to know.
“No, not that kind of rake. A rake in Regency England was a womanizer or a roguish sort of man.”
“There’s that word again. Wasn’t your last book something about a rogue? What’s a rogue?”
“The Rogue Pirate’s Bride…”
“So it’s like Pirates of the Caribbean?”
“No, because my book deals with Barbary pirates and anyway, my hero is a privateer, not a pirate.”
“Uh-huh. Right.” And she sped up. Yep. Another reader running out to buy my books.
What confused you when you first started reading romance? Do you ever find yourself trying to explain the romance lexicon to your non-romance reading friends or husbands? One person who comments will receive a copy of The Rogue Pirate’s Bride.
Aug 28th
2012
1:34 am
pattigs Said:
I was so lost when I first started reading your books. I had no idea what the ton was or if it was a place. I’m still learning some of the phrases. After I read Lord & Lady Spy, I started to wonder why it was called a Regency romance. Thank goodness for google! I always have my iphone next to me so I can look up words I’m not sure about. Last night the book I’m reading mentioned Monte Cristo sandwiches, so I googled it and found the recipe. I like reading about knew things, it becomes a challenge for me to learn more.
-
Aug 28th
2012
5:09 am
Shana Said:
Patti, we historical authors sometimes forget that not everyone understands all the terminology so familiar to us. The good thing is the quick learning curve. Read a couple Regency historicals, and it all starts to become familiar.
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:09 am
Katherine Garbera Said:
I was confused about a lot of historical terms when I first started writing but then joined a critique group with two historical authors and learned all kinds of things. I’m still amazed when I visit historical sites here in the UK and remember Carol and Sue talking about them!
-
Aug 28th
2012
5:11 am
Shana Said:
Katherine, I think that’s why I like historicals more than paranormals. Both build worlds, but in historicals, you can actually see the places where the story took place–it’s more than just a part of the author’s imagination (although we use a lot of creative license).
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:45 am
pattigs Said:
Ok, I need help!
I can’t find the meaning of Prinny. Please explain.
Thanks!
-
Aug 28th
2012
5:12 am
Shana Said:
Patti, Prinny is the nickname for the Prince of Wales during the Regency. He was the regent since his father went mad (sick with porphyria). He eventually became George IV.
-
Aug 28th
2012
5:16 am
Patricia Schmitt Said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for teaching me something new!
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:31 am
Shana Said:
Any time!
-
Aug 28th
2012
6:07 am
Sheila M Said:
When I first started reading romances years ago, it was the titles that confused me. I can now discuss earls and dukes with the royal family if needed.
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:32 am
Shana Said:
Sheila, it does seem that every book has something to do with earls or scandals or rogues! But it’s definitely something you pick up on quickly.
-
Aug 28th
2012
6:07 am
Sandi in OH Said:
I don’t talk books with my non-reading friends. I have/had a friend who wouldn’t read a romance until her husband died. Now she reads them all the time. Go figure. We love to travel so we have been doing a great deal of that. I love to visit homes of Presidents, Presidential museums, etc. The lexicon was difficult when I first started historical. What I could never understand about the ton was the ability to eat such late meals and stay up all night almost every night. It’s not like they had electric.
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:34 am
Shana Said:
Sandi, they only stayed up late and ate late meals during the Season. When they were in the country, they kept country hours, which were earlier. And this wasn’t most of the population doing this, only the very wealthy. It helps to have servants do your cooking and cleaning so you can lie in bed all day.
-
Aug 28th
2012
6:34 am
Ashley Said:
I love that I can use my Nook to highlight words or phrases and google a result while reading a book. It has made the Regency novels so much easier to follow. And I agree that at first I had an incredibly hard time understanding the peerage ranks.
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:35 am
Shana Said:
Ashley, I love that I can look up new terms too. I wanted to see pictures of bracket clocks the other day because a book I was reading mentioned them, and it was easy to highlight the phrase and bring up images.
-
Aug 28th
2012
6:36 am
sheryl nyary Said:
I sometimes struggle when I read Regency Romance I just get confused about the titles and who has more power or rank. I had to learn what the Ton was and what it stood for. Anyway, sometimes someone will ask what I am reading and I just tell them its a romance. I really don’t elaborate.
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:37 am
Shana Said:
Sheryl, I definitely try to make sure that all the intricacies of rank aren’t a main part of my stories. Readers don’t want to have to think too much about all that. I did have fun when I wrote Pride and Petticoats because my heroine was an America, and she knew nothing about all of the titles. the poor hero tried very hard to teach her. I got to let out some of my frustration with all the research when I wrote Charlotte.
-
Aug 28th
2012
6:54 am
Kristan Higgins Said:
The clothes were always so confusing for me. But it didn’t stop me from reading them! I still mispronounce a lot of those words, though. Marquis, valet, etc…
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:39 am
Shana Said:
Kristan, the clothes still confuse me. I’m always looking things up.
mar-kwess (and marquess unless you’re French)
val-ett (unless you’re French)
Try this one marchioness.
-
Aug 28th
2012
7:21 am
Karin Anderson Said:
I actually don’t have trouble explaining it. However, since my mom is a Presbyterian Pastor I have a LOT of people ask me if she/her congregation are ok with me reading romance. My mom reads it, too!
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:40 am
Shana Said:
Karin, I got to a Methodist church, and they’re pretty much okay with me writing romances. But most of my friends in Sunday school don’t reads them. I’m fine with that. I do think if they read them, they’d find romance really celebrates family and love and marriage–all very traditional values.
-
Aug 28th
2012
7:34 am
Blythe Gifford Said:
Oh, dear. I can see I’m the history geek here. While the Regency is not my home era, I feel as if I grew up reading about English royalty, back to the Plantagenet era. (Plantagenet: That’s the family of kings that ruled England for roughly 300 years, from about 1200 to 1485.) It’s some of the contemporary romances that use terms that give me pause…
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:42 am
Shana Said:
Blythe, you are not the only history geek, I’m sure. And I am always so thankful for all the history geeks who blog and post articles about “boring” topics on which I always seem to need more information.
-
Aug 28th
2012
7:47 am
CateS Said:
I still sometimes wonder about the peerage… especially after reading that the Duchess of Cambridge has to curtsy to the the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie unless she’s with the Duke of Cambrige…
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:43 am
Shana Said:
Cate, I don’t even pretend to know all of the intricacies. Did Kate have to curtsey because she’s a commoner? Really, I’m sure the princesses don’t even care.
-
Aug 28th
2012
7:53 am
Connie Fischer Said:
I think the word, “ton” was a word that I questioned. I understood what it meant but I didn’t know how to pronounce it. I actually studied the different titles of the aristocracy so I would understand who would outrank someone else. It’s ironic you post this today because my daughter has recently started reading this genre. She admitted that she was so confused at first but once she caught on, she’s now hooked! Yippee!! One more person with whom to discuss my favorite novels!
In addition, I have to get on my soapbox for a quick minute here. I have always hated history as it’s taught it schools because it is dry and boring. However, if students would be allowed to read, report on and discuss a historical novel that takes places during the time period being studied in class, I think we would find more students really loving history and making good grades. *stepping down off soapbox*
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:44 am
Shana Said:
I agree, Connie. I learned way more about history from fiction books than I did in school. When I taught A Tale of Two Cities, I always talked a lot about history and the French Revolution, and the kids learned more about the revolution from reading and discussing the book than they did in their history class.
-
Aug 28th
2012
9:22 am
Lois M. Said:
Well, this one is arguably embarassing… but once upon a time, when I started reading Regencies, it took me a while to catch on to what the Elgin marbles were. I kind of figured they were little marbles, not that they were ancient statues MADE of marble… sorry, folks.
Oh, and already have the book, so count me out of the contest part!
Lois
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:44 pm
Shana Said:
Lois, I don’t think that’s embarrassing. I didn’t know what those were for a long time either. I think I looked them up eventually.
-
Aug 28th
2012
9:44 am
eli yanti Said:
for me is the era, i don’t know this book is from what era : regency, victoria or other
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:47 pm
Shana Said:
Eli, sometimes the author is vague about that, and it irks me. I like to know, if not the exact year, the era. Regencies are from about 1800-1820. Before that is usually considered the Georgian, though I’m not certain how many years the Georgian encompasses. Victorian is during the reign of Queen Victoria, which was 1837-1876.
-
Aug 28th
2012
12:20 pm
Fenfur Said:
Hahahaha. The idea that always gets people confused for me is the you can never show an ankle and the whole chaperone thing.
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:47 pm
Shana Said:
Fenfur, I always look at old pictures and wonder why it was okay to have your chest hanging out but you couldn’t show an ankle. Strange…
-
Aug 28th
2012
12:34 pm
Lora Patten Said:
I can thank my early love of reading and vocabulary for my lack of confusion regarding Historical Romances and other genres. I can thank my family lineage on my father’s side for my knowledge of royal appointments and the aristocratic food chain as I put it
(I have ancestral ties to Scottish royalty and aristocracy). While it is difficult to explain sometimes in layman’s terms to a “Historical romance virgin” what certain terms and phrases mean, I try to simplify them into what the associations would equate to in today’s terms and most people pick up on that quite easily.
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:48 pm
Shana Said:
Lora, Scotland and Ireland have a whole other set of peers. I get confused by some of the differences!
-
Aug 28th
2012
1:25 pm
catslady Said:
I’ve been reading romance for so long that I don’t remember a time that I was confused (except the rankings but I can’t remember military rankings either lol). I guess I look things up when I don’t know it. I still use a dictionary which proves how old I am lol. As to telling other people, I just tell them they should just try them and find out for themselves and to quit criticizing something if they haven’t tried it (I have no tolerance for reading snobs lol).
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:49 pm
Shana Said:
catslady, yes! Military and clergy rankings. I always, always have to look that stuff up. It never sticks in my brain.
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:35 pm
Gayle Cochrane Said:
I like looking things up and finding new words, so I am happy when I don’t know a word. I am still confused by the carriages, and other vehicles of transportation. I picture them in my mind, but if I had to draw one it would probably be a mess.
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:50 pm
Shana Said:
Gayle, I usually try to be vague about the type of carriage my characters are in. If I say gig or phaeton, a lot of readers don’t know what to picture. The boxy carriages are what most people are familiar with anyway.
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:36 pm
Na S. Said:
When I first started reading romances I didn’t really realize it was a romance. I just picked it up for the story and ended up liking it. Later I realized romance was in fact a genre and the focus was on the couple’s journey towards their HEA. Knowing I can expect an HEA is a huge plus for me. I guess I was a little confused on why romances had such a focus on the bodice-ripper look on their covers (thinking 80-90s type covers). It doesn’t matter because I’ll always read the blurb and read the book if the story calls to me. I love the romance genre!
-
Aug 28th
2012
2:51 pm
Shana Said:
Na, I agree that the best part of romance is the HEA. I don’t know why “bodice-ripper” covers have continued. I guess they sell.
-
Aug 28th
2012
5:03 pm
Cathy P Said:
I have been reading romances for so long that I almost forget what used to confuse me. I think it was the difference between a marquis and viscount, the different time periods and dress over the years, and what a diamond of the first water was. I always look up a word in the dictionary if I’m not familiar with it.
-
Aug 28th
2012
6:56 pm
Shana Said:
Cathy, if you know what a diamond of the first water is, you’re ready for my new book!
-
Aug 28th
2012
7:10 pm
Emily McKay Said:
I started romances when I was eleven. I read a lot of Presents. So there were all kinds of British terms and phrases I was baffled by. Flat? What’s a flat? But my “favorite” was “the pot calling the kettle black.” I knew pot, I guessed kettle. But for the life of me, I shouldn’t figure out why they were talking to each other.
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:20 pm
Shana Said:
That reminds me of my daughter, Emily. I told her to hold still so I could put on her bloomers. She looked down, saw they were pink, and said, “Mommy those aren’t blue. They’re pinkners.”
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:25 pm
bn100 Said:
I think it was words written with a Scottish/Gaelic accent.
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:47 pm
Shana Said:
bn100, those can still be a challenge for me. I much prefer authors, like Margo, who go lightly on the dialect.
-
Aug 28th
2012
8:48 pm
donna ann Said:
Most of the usual items for me though figured most out by the context over time though some I still don’t really know (I know a Duke out ranks all but royalty, but after that, I still don’t know the order — I’m so American that way
). Sometimes it’s the correct pronounciation that gets me. I prob “say” several historical words incorrectly as I read if they are no longer in regular use.
-
Aug 29th
2012
6:39 am
Shana Said:
Donna, I’m sure I say words wrong too. I have to be careful which excerpts I choose to read because if they contain French, I totally stumble.
-
Aug 28th
2012
10:52 pm
Spav Said:
I was definitely confused when I started reading historical romance. Especially the ton and all the rules that at times made no sense to me (I mean, what the heck is all that about ruining someone’s reputation? I still don’t know how many ways there is to do that.)
-
Aug 29th
2012
6:40 am
Shana Said:
Spav, that’s definitely the fun in historical romance–all those rules and how can we get around them. I do remember being confused about all of them too, so I’m with you on that.
-
Aug 28th
2012
10:54 pm
Jennifer L Said:
I was confused by peerage titles when I first started reading historical romance. The timeline of the British monarchy makes my head spin on occasion. I have a hard time remembering which king/queen ruled when. Recently, I found a great book – The Kings and Queens of England and Scotland – which has helped me keep track.
-
Aug 29th
2012
6:41 am
Shana Said:
Jennifer, I have a hard time remembering that too! I actually have a ruler with all the kings of England and the dates they ruled on the back of it. it’s great for quick reference.
-
Aug 29th
2012
9:02 pm
Janie McGaugh Said:
It’s been a lot of years since I first started reading Regency romances, so my memory isn’t so clear. However, considering that I was about 14 at the time, I’d say that it was figuring out the terminology and the different titles and forms of address.
-
Aug 30th
2012
4:53 am
Shana Said:
Janie, I can imagine that all of the intricacies of the ton were pretty confusing to a 14-year-old. I didn’t start reading them until my 20s, and I struggled!
-
Aug 30th
2012
5:51 am
sienny Said:
i started reading really young, with enid blyton’s book. but i started reading romance novels when i’m in high school, and i have no difficulties. but the first time i read historicals, i got confused with the titles. which title higher than which, and the culture. but it’s fun! i really like that glimpse of the past, even if it’s partly fiction
-
Aug 30th
2012
9:43 am
Shana Said:
I think that’s my favorite part of historicals, sienny–that you get a glimpse into the past.
-
Aug 30th
2012
11:59 am
Kim Said:
Congratulations on the new release. I can’t say I was that confused about anything. It was more like refreshing my memory from past history classes.
-
Aug 30th
2012
3:43 pm
Shana Said:
Kim, your history classes must have covered those topics more than mine. I could tell you about wars but not about social things. Fiction has been an education for me!
-
Aug 30th
2012
10:02 pm
LilMissMolly Said:
Not much confuses me when reading historical romance, except when the author write in a Scottish Brogue. A few words here and there are not bad, but complete paragraphs?? I’m glad that has pretty much stopped in the current novels.
-
Aug 31st
2012
7:02 am
Shana Said:
LilMissMolly, I really don’t think any editor would allow a writer to get away with that these days. I remember struggling with some of the dialect in Gone With the Wind when I first read it, too.
-
Sep 2nd
2012
6:20 pm
John Hathorn Said:
Shana,
There is an old adage that only a mother will think her daughter has been a GOOD GIRL when she comes home with a Gideon Bible in her purse. But, if the daughter knows what a courtesan is and the mother doesn’t, is the mother still to believe that her daughter is a GOOD GIRL because she has been doing research at the library?
Google: “Armand Gabriel Allard Duplantier,” an ancestor of mine. He could be a character in one of your novels. French, friend of Lafayette, supporter of the American Revolution, lived in France and Louisiana, home (Magnolia Mound) still exists in Baton Rouge, lived through French Revolution and Napoleon’s reign, his home is located on the first highland up the Mississippi River and that land was included in the Louisiana Purchase.
-
Sep 2nd
2012
9:15 pm
Shana Said:
I’m pretty sure my mother knows what a courtesan is O_O, so what does that say!! And John, I am not surprised at all that you have such colorful relatives.
-