Lisa Richardson | What the Editor Saw

I'd venture to guess that every avid reader, and most average readers have come
across an error or six in the books you've read over the years. Some errors you
probably forgave for the sake of the narrative, but others may have been the
kind of howlers that ruined the whole story for you.

For the author the whole process of being edited can be disconcerting. My most recent novel, THE PEACOCK THRONE, is a Regency adventure story with spies, and treasure, and high intrigue. It is just releasing from Lion Fiction a new-to-me publisher based in England. The editing process was even more rigorous than I am used to. Here are some of the things the editors questioned: Chocolate. Specifically, did they have chocolate candies in England at the time, or simply drinking chocolate? Answer: Contrary to conventional wisdom among regency fans, chocolate candies were available. In Savoring the Past: The French Kitchen and Table from 1300 to 1789, culinary historian Barbara Ketcham Wheaton cites a 1750 cookbook that specialized in desserts: "There are also some chocolate candies: the still familiar diablotins -- flat disks of bitter chocolate, thickly sprinkled with nonpareils, chocolate "olives" (which we call chocolate truffles), and a conserve of chocolate, which turns out to be very like fudge." Dressing gowns. The editor thought only men had dressing gowns, in the form of Banyans at this time, could I check. Thank the Lord for the internet! Answer: Women did have dressing gowns at this time. 'The dressing gown constituted a curious split between men and women. Men were dazzling and women were drab.' ('Fashioning the Bourgeoisie' by Philippe Perrot, 1981). English breakfast. Did the full English breakfast actually exist as such at this time? Did you know there is an English Breakfast Society? Me neither. But these brilliant folks saved my bacon. Answer: It dates back to the early 1800s, and originally was only really available to the gentry due to cost. Did they call them morning rooms or sitting rooms in Government House (Raj Bhavan) in Calcutta, (now Kolkata) India in 1802? Argh! Never did find an answer on that, even after managing to find a map of the facility. I finally just scrapped that phrase as a descriptor and moved the scene to another kind of room entirely. Don’t even get me started on the words I had to scrap because they weren’t around in 1802. Cagey-had to scrap it. Knapsack-kept it. Lummox-scrapped. Pallet-kept. On and on it went. The perfect word to describe something and elevate the rhythm of the narrative tossed out on its ear because it was too young. Frankly, I think they could file discrimination charges.

Keep in mind. None of these details have any bearing on the plot whatsoever. Not
any. At all. Except of course that it does if sloppy research means that readers
are disappointed in the story because of it. Then the whole plot becomes pointless.

Getting all the questions can be deflating, even frustrating, but the point is
always to make the work stronger. Those fresh eyes are key to weeding out things
that are going to trip up readers and we disregard editorial suggestions at our
peril. I'm thankful for editors who keep me on my toes!