The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

When a pretty good, apparently well-researched historical novel with a good review in the NYT (which is how I found it) has rookie anachronisms which even half-competent editing or common sense should have caught.

A person imprisoned in the Tower of London, describing his cell, includes “a bucket for a toilet.” A toilet? In 1600? That’s not what toilet meant. I really don’t expect, don’t even want, turn of the 17th century characters to talk entirely in the vernacular, but I expect their vocabulary to be contemporaneous with their era. No Revolutionary War airports.

So much for all that research. And NYT reviews, at that. I should know better.

Curious, what book is it?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

When a pretty good, apparently well-researched historical novel with a good review in the NYT (which is how I found it) has rookie anachronisms which even half-competent editing or common sense should have caught.

A person imprisoned in the Tower of London, describing his cell, includes “a bucket for a toilet.” A toilet? In 1600? That’s not what toilet meant. I really don’t expect, don’t even want, turn of the 17th century characters to talk entirely in the vernacular, but I expect their vocabulary to be contemporaneous with their era. No Revolutionary War airports.

So much for all that research. And NYT reviews, at that. I should know better.

Even I know it's a chamber pot and not a toilet.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Even I know it's a chamber pot and not a toilet.

Nah, thunder mug or guzunder.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by issybird

When a pretty good, apparently well-researched historical novel with a good review in the NYT (which is how I found it) has rookie anachronisms which even half-competent editing or common sense should have caught.

A person imprisoned in the Tower of London, describing his cell, includes “a bucket for a toilet.” A toilet? In 1600? That’s not what toilet meant. I really don’t expect, don’t even want, turn of the 17th century characters to talk entirely in the vernacular, but I expect their vocabulary to be contemporaneous with their era. No Revolutionary War airports.

So much for all that research. And NYT reviews, at that. I should know better.

At least they didn't call it a bathroom. Though "toilet" started as a euphemism in about 1820 for the place rather than doing up one's self. The original meaning still survives. A bucket as a chamber pot would have been common in 1600. Perhaps someone can explain to me why Americans "go to the bathroom".

Plenty of cells in England might still use a bucket. It's not worthy of mention. What would have been memorable would be if it had had a real "garderobe", a seat over a hole on the outer wall. Only rich people had those.

[dewd]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

It seems like my Overdrive holds always coincide so I suddenly get 5 books at once.

You can always "Deliver Later" to step back one place in line: https://help.overdrive.com/en-us/2265.htm

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Curious, what book is it?

Boy, by Nicole Galland.

There were good elements about the book which combined real and fictional characters during an actual event, but errors of that magnitude always destroy my suspension of disbelief. I’m not a huge fan of historical fiction, which usually is much too prone to 21st-century sensibilities.

In fairness to my slur about NYT reviews, I’ve read or started ten books published this year including this one and most of them I discovered through reviews. Of the ten, two were very good, two were terrible and abandoned, and the other six were good enough, which is a decent average. At that, one of the very good ones was a nonfiction Tudor history and the desire to stay in that world for a bit led me to read Boy.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

Boy, by Nicole Galland.

Thank you. I actually bought it a while ago, but haven't read it yet.

As to 21st century sensibilities... yeah, I dislike them too, when they're too obvious. To an extent, they're unavoidable in fiction by modern authors; but they should not be blatant, at least. Unfortunately they often are.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Quoth

At least they didn't call it a bathroom. Though "toilet" started as a euphemism in about 1820 for the place rather than doing up one's self. The original meaning still survives. A bucket as a chamber pot would have been common in 1600. Perhaps someone can explain to me why Americans "go to the bathroom".

As far as I can guess. Most houses have both the Bath (or shower) and the toilet in the same (or connected) room. (central plumbing and heat made this a cheaper form of construction).

Plenty of cells in England might still use a bucket. It's not worthy of mention. What would have been memorable would be if it had had a real "garderobe", a seat over a hole on the outer wall. Only rich people had those.

I remember seeing one of those while touring the remains of a castle near Wales. It was also over the moat and it was very drafty. The guard told a tale of a "lucky arrow shot"

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Quoth

What would have been memorable would be if it had had a real "garderobe", a seat over a hole on the outer wall. Only rich people had those.

Maybe because they were to only ones who could afford a wall?
Apache

[ownedbycats]

[Quoth]

Are the desirable wings made of chicken?

[nana77]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Thank you. I actually bought it a while ago, but haven't read it yet.

As to 21st century sensibilities... yeah, I dislike them too, when they're too obvious. To an extent, they're unavoidable in fiction by modern authors; but they should not be blatant, at least. Unfortunately they often are.

If I may suggest a novel on times where castles and alikes were usual, "The Cook" by Harry Kressing it's quite a nice one (imho); https://neglectedbooks.com/?p=2077
It describes some chef's behaviours, but also interesting moments like administration of the banquets; and what would had to be, on those times, fulfill the stocks.

Btw, some time ago I'd found some menu from that era, and those was altogether quite polished even for some nowadays standards, like almond's flour or milk in most recipes. Reading it in its vernacular italian seemed quite contradictory.

[Renate]

Oh, I read "The Cook" a zillion years ago and remember it being quite good.
Maybe it needs a re-read.

[nana77]

Originally Posted by Renate

Oh, I read "The Cook" a zillion years ago and remember it being quite good.
Maybe it needs a re-read.

If someone reads the english explanation on Amazon, I only would argue that that character might be anything but "satanic"..

"beginning in a vein of innocent fairy tale and ending with satanic revels" (The Observer).

I mean, he can be evil, rude, or whatever, but "satanic"... wtf imho.

[JSWolf]

This is a real description of a book except there's no actual description.

You don't choose the book. The book chooses you... 'A book I was sorry to finish.' ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 'A timeless story that emphasizes the healing and transformative power of books.' ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ – Long ago, a bookshop was born – the beating heart of all those who find hope within the pages of a book. With the words penned upon the echo of old forests, new worlds are created. It's ready and waiting to welcome all those who know where to find it... Strangers Jo, Adelaide and Kye are the least likely people to find themselves across the threshold of a bookshop. But as their midnight book club shows them that a single book can change everything, all three realise that their own stories can be rewritten. – Readers love The Midnight Bookshop... 'This was an emotional and heartfelt read and had me invested from the start.' ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 'A thoroughly uplifting enjoyable read that will certainly leave you feeling better with the world. Amanda James always seems to write intriguing, sensitive books with that touch of magic and The Midnight Bookshop is no exception.' ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 'To appreciate the book fully you have to leave any preconceived ideas at the first page and open up you mind to a magical world.' ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 'This is quite an intriguing and magical story of fantasy and realism [and] in many ways, is a complex novel about relationships and Amanda James successfully weaves magic with realism to create a potent tale in an unforgettable way.' ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 'The book underscores the importance of community and self-reflection, especially in a time when many people feel isolated or overwhelmed.' ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 'This book had me rooting for all three of them and didn't disappoint.' ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ '[Amanda James'] writing so beautifully captured all the emotions throughout the novel.' ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 'Those who enjoy [magical realism] are going to love the fairytale aspects of this charming, well-written book with its uplifting message and sweet romance.' ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐