Quote:
Originally Posted by Joykins
IIRC Milan wrote about this at some point on her blog but I cant search it up now. She used the word "shag" (for sex) in one of her Victorians. The word dates to the 1700s being used like that but it sounds "off" or "too modern" for readers of historicals--despite being perfectly authentic.
Historical authors do run into this from time to time. Gillian Bradshaw wrote a book about ancient Rome that had a (former) female gladiator in it. Someone complained that female gladiators were laughably, unbelievably inauthentic. Bradshaw (a classical scholar) responded with citations...
|
It's not so much one slip of a modern word but the writing in a whole. I haven't look at Milan's style so I can't say where I put her. I don't have a problem with adding things that aren't historical accurate like a female gladiator. I do however have a problem when a women set in regency times acts like a modern woman when we know she would be shunned by the ton if that were the case. My imagination doesn't stretch that far.