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?