Am I Too Picky?

[londonronnie]

So, there I am reading happily away and thoroughly enjoying my latest m/m purchase, when one of the main protagonists in the story mentions taking his O Levels and A Levels. In 1882...

Is it just me? Would anybody else on my flist have had their bubble burst by such an obviously incongruous statement? The author seemed to have done quite a bit of research up to that point, so I found it pretty disappointing that she'd let this howler slip through.

Hopefully I can get back into the swing of the story when I pick it up again at bedtime. Maybe I'm just too fussy about this sort of thing...

Comments

[lukadreaming.livejournal.com]

It would throw me out of the story like a shot -- and I'd start to wonder what other errors there might be that I hadn't spotted!

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

The annoying thing was that I was really enjoying the story up to that point, and then I felt quite narked that it had been spoilt for me.

And yes, I feel as though I'm now going to be Googling every supposed fact to check on its accuracy. Shame...

[scherwood]

I wouldn't care, but then I have no idea what O and A levels are. *g*

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

Ah, ignorance is bliss! *g*

(Just so you know, O and A Levels were the exams that most schoolkids took in the UK up to the late 1980s. The reason why I was thrown out of this story is because they weren't introduced until the 1950s!)

[scherwood]

LoL - naaaa, I just don't let a thing like that ruin a story. *shrug*

ah, okok. thanks for letting me know. :)

[linnhie.livejournal.com]

And to be even pickier, O and A levels weren't UK exams, but English ones!

Not sure about Wales or NI, but Scotland has a quite separate education system and we had O grades and Highers. The O grade is now defunct but the Higher lives on.

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

There you go! That's the reason why you should always get someone who knows to check these things!

LOL

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Heee - not a Brit writer perhaps? Or editor, for that matter...? *headdesk*

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

Nope, American in both cases. At least the author is, I'm assuming that the editor is too.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Come to think of it, at least she got back as far as "O"-levels rather than GCSEs... *g*

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I can't remember which book it was, but I'm sure I've read it. Yes, I'd be very much jolted. That's a stupid mistake, and should definitely be picked up. Trouble is, of course, is that many small publishers (and even bigger ones, to be honest) don't have specialist histoircal editors. They will assume that the author knows what they are talking about. I'm more likely to forgive one or two tiny mistakes when it's clear that the author has done the majority of their research.

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

Actually, I've had some correspondence with the author in the past and she seems a thoroughly nice person so I won't mention any names. To be honest, I'm just as disappointed on her behalf that this error slipped through.

I've now discovered that a revised edition of the book was published last year (my copy is dated 2005) so I'm hoping that this particular slip-up might have been corrected in the newer edition.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, it is the one I thought. I spotted the same errors, and others (railroad for example) and mentioned them in the original review, but they were taken out for the new version, so I amended the review.

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

I got to the "railroad" bit last night! *g*

I'm pleased to hear that the newer version has had those errors removed - now I'm wishing I'd bought that one instead!

[windrain10.livejournal.com]

It would not throw me out of the story b/c I'm so very ignorant about British schooling, but yes, that being said, I would be irritated myself if something were so very wrong. Like a story I read once (set in a TV show that aired in the early 1970s), where the kids were "home watching DVDs". Believe me in the 70s, kids in America were not watching DVDs.

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

Yes, the same thing would apply to me if it was an error regarding the US school system, which I know nothing about. Trouble is, once you know something's incorrect it's difficult to get it out of your head.

Believe me in the 70s, kids in America were not watching DVDs.

Nope! *g* Or even videos (at least not here in the UK!).

[greengerbil.livejournal.com]

Ack! That would be enough to throw me out immediately!

I've had to resign myself to the occasional Americanism in even the well-researched novels, it's as if the writer's spent all her time making sure the history's right and then forgotten about the speech.

Not blatant stuff, but referring to the 'second floor' of a house when it's blindingly obvious that it's the first floor that's meant! I suppose it's just about allowable - though I still find it jarring - when it's in authorial voice, but the protagonists would have thought of and spoken of the first floor up from the ground as - first floor. DUH!!

So there.

Hmf.

/rant.

Er... sorry! In answer to your question - no, I don't think it's just you!

ETA - oh, I should have said that the story was set in Edwardian England...

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

Not blatant stuff, but referring to the 'second floor' of a house when it's blindingly obvious that it's the first floor that's meant!

Trouble is, unless you're aware that there is a difference in US/Brit terminology you're just going to assume that the same term is used everywhere. That's why a Britchecker is so important IMHO (or a US-checker if it's the case of a Brit writing a story set in the States).

In answer to your question - no, I don't think it's just you!

Thanks! *g* Sometimes I just wonder if it's me lapsing into Grumpy Old Woman mode... ;-)

[krisserci5.livejournal.com]

Just to be fair. . . . my son has been out of school 12 years.. . and I'm sure that the type of testing has changed but I haven't a clue to what or even really if it has. School stuff just seems to be the same and unless one is a teacher or a parent . . one can just think it's the same. . . .to hear my dad talk as I was growing up school was expected to teach hog roping.

I want to like the story, especially the characterization. . . so if that's okay the rest doesn't bother me - errors are made, even by those living in the time period.

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

unless one is a teacher or a parent . . one can just think it's the same.

Yes, I can understand that, but IMHO that's why it's so important to have your work checked by somebody else, especially if you're going to refer to specific things such as O Levels etc.

[constant-muse.livejournal.com]

shouldn't really judge it without the context, but I will anyway. *g*
That would worry me a lot because it's not just the detail of the title given to school certificates, but the structure behind it; comprehensive state secondary education to the age of 16 or 18. Not in 1882!
And what sort of education then is the character supposed to have had, other than an anachronistic one?

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what I thought too - it's not just that one little detail, it's an entire social context that the author appears not to grasp. I can deal with isolated factual errors, this is on a different level.

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's how I feel too. And it's such a shame because up to that point nothing in the story had struck me as being anachronistic.

[msmoat.livejournal.com]

It would totally and completely throw me out. I haven't much tolerance for that sort of error--particularly when it is supposed to be at some level of professional publishing. I'd have a hard time getting back into the story.

But then I am picky. *g*

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

I haven't much tolerance for that sort of error--particularly when it is supposed to be at some level of professional publishing.

As erastes has pointed out above, many publishers don't have specialist historical editors, and yet I think we as readers do tend to expect more in the way of accuracy from a professionally published novel than we would from purely amateur piece of fanfic. I'm not sure why that should be, because I know for a fact that many fanfic writers do a tremendous amount of research for their stories.

[nakeisha.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough yes, this would throw me out. Other things that throw folk out, tend not to bother me, but this would, very much so.

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

It seems to be a pretty personal thing, doesn't it.

How are you, btw? You don't seem to have been around on LJ very much lately. Hope everything's ok.

[nakeisha.livejournal.com]

It does indeed. I'm always fascinated what throws folk out of a story and what doesn't.

I'm here *g* I'm aware I haven't been posting on LJ much, other than my Twitter posts. Twitter is dangerous *g* You get into the habit of doing quick posts there and somehow LJ gets neglected. I must try to amend that - thanks for noticing and caring *Hugs you*

[linnhie.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's pretty jarring ; a bit like Mr. Darcy texting Lizzy....

It seems odd if the author had researched quite thoroughly in other areas. I think even the terminology of O and A levels sounds reasonably modern so this in itself should have been a clue. You have to get ALL period details right, so I hope that despite this error, the character referred to their exams in appropriate period dialogue!

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, IIRC the speech itself was spot on! *g*

[llamabitchyo.livejournal.com]

You're not too picky. I got totally fussed last night because in a long fic set in another universe, the main character dropped a "c'est la vie" into conversation.

"Rar!!!! There is no France in this universe!!! Therefore there is no random French!!!"

(Also get super bugged at fics which take place in worlds in which there is no Christianity/Judaism and yet somehow there's Christmas and references to flowers being Stars of Bethlehem. I say anything that throws the reader completely out of the story is worth a mini-rant or two.)

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

Aaarghhh! That's even worse in lots of ways, because the author hasn't even researched a world that's of their own making!

No excuse for that, is there!

[callistosh65.livejournal.com]

It would proabably make me giggle. Which, yes, would rock me in me chair a bit and jolt me out of the story.*g*

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

Yep, giggling at that particular point would definitely have jolted you out of the story! *g*

[hagsrus.livejournal.com]

I kept tripping over such things in To Say Nothing of the Dog by Connie Willis.

For instance: using "cunning" to decribe "cute" things would have been fine for an American lady of the period, but not for an English one. For a while I thought I must have missed some indication that she she was a visitor from the US.

Too bad because it was great fun - and could have been so much less disruptive of my suspension of disbelief.