Play Book Tag discussion

Compare and contrast

Think of books you have read from the same time period or set in the same time period with similar themes. Compare and contrast them. Who did it better?

Think of books from different time periods that occupy the same place. How is the setting and feeling the same and how is it different? Does the setting have the same feel between times and stories?

**Jason, you seem to have a duplicate thread besides this one. Sometimes GR glitches and does that. You can delete the other one**

Another great question!

I have read about the Napoleonic wars/age of sail in 3 very different series: the Aubrey/Maturin books by Patrick O'Brien, the young adult/upper grade Bloody Jack series by L.A. Meyer, and the series with dragons for air force by Naomi Novik. The period is also the setting for most Regency romances. I have also read individual naval adventures from the period such as C.S. Forester (Horatio Hornblower) and Jay Worrall (Charles Edgemont). I think knowing something about the period and culture adds to the enjoyment of the books. They generally have the same feel. Captain Laurence in the Novik books is a very similar character to Jack Aubrey in the O'Brien books. In all 3 of the series, the characters go all over the world - China, the Caribbean, Australia, and most countries of Europe.

As far as different time periods, I will read almost anything set in Paris in any era. Paris is unique because in the main part of the city, it is forbidden to put up modern skyscrapers, so it looks the same as centuries ago, even if the interiors have been redone.

I am tired of "dual timeline" books where the heroine finds a letter/necklace/dress that belonged to her grandmother/neighbor and travels to the place. She finds out there was a secret romance and maybe political work in a Resistance movement. There is always an eligible young man in the present day too.

Robin, I tire of those as well. I also live for it. It’s a love/tired kind of thing. A hidden ring, a stolen painting, hidden letters, a wedding dress, usually with something sewn into it….

Books written during or close to a time period always read differently than ones written later set in that time, and the change becomes bigger the more years pass. I have a great deal of difficulty reading historical fiction written now if there is too much current lingo that wasn't around 20 or 30 years ago or more. But even more so is the annoying tendency to put current thinking into people's minds from back then.

This is influenced by the fact that I've done some study on the history of thought including the philosophies and ideas that underpin different ages. You can't put postmodernist ideas into a modernist's head or earlier and have it read accurately. Even feminists and forward thinkers went about it with a different background.

Going further back, many ancient people had no concept of progress as we think of it which arose in relatively modern centuries.

Then there's the historical research element. Some people do only a very basic research and it shows.

As far as historical language, it seems many writers think if they just substitute "shall" for "will" in any random sentence, it will sound older. I have looked up on line and found this.

The traditional rule of future tense says that shall is used in the first person (I shall eat lunch) and will is used in all other persons (you will eat lunch, she will eat lunch). In practice, most English speakers do not follow this rule and the two words are often considered to be interchangeable when forming the future tense. That being said, will is much more commonly used for this purpose and shall is typically only used to sound more formal or old-fashioned.

'shall' litters legal documents, over the use of 'will'.

I believe the most common use in an 'official' document is in the Ten Commandments: 'Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife.' Or was that actually 'shalt'? Of course, that's a very old English translation of the original Hebrew(?) presumably.

That also obviously far predates the guidelines Joy found. I know that there has been a movement for some time in legal writing seminars and such to eliminate the use of 'shall' in favor of 'will', for style and to make the language used in legal documents less unapproachable for the average reader, but resistance is deep, especially from the large fancy Wall Street law firms.

Getting back to Jason's original question:

"Think of books you have read from the same time period or set in the same time period with similar themes. Compare and contrast them. Who did it better?"

I thought immediately of two outstanding, fiction books which I read back to back about the abolitionist movent before America's Civil War. The books are: The Good Lord Bird by James McBride and The All-True Travels and Adventures of Lidie Newton by Jane Smiley. They both are historical fiction. McBride uses satire and humor to tell his story. Smiley's novel is more classically historical fiction. Both books are original and creatively written. It was my good fortune to read them close together as they complemented each other and gave me a deeper understanding of this period in history. I did end up enjoying Jane Smiley's book more.

For those interested, here are my reviews.

*The All-True Travels and Adventures of Lidie Newton
Review https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

*The Good Lord Bird
Review https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Theresa wrote: "'shall' litters legal documents, over the use of 'will'.

I believe the most common use in an 'official' document is in the Ten Commandments: 'Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife.' Or was tha..."

Yes indeed, it was "thou shatlt"

KJV is archaic modern English, but not as outdated as Shakespeare.

Will and shall were used differently in KJV times than later on and it was more complex than what Robin said. I can't remember the complex rules I learned because it's been some years since then. I probably have notes on this in an old Bible, but I don't usually read that version anymore except as comparison.

This was important for me back in the day because of the number of words which have changed meaning (suffer meant allow, prevent meant precede, et al.)

Robin P wrote: "As far as historical language, it seems many writers think if they just substitute "shall" for "will" in any random sentence, it will sound older. I have looked up on line and found this.

The trad..."

It's more complicated, and it depends on when in history the will/shall was being used.

This has happened to me quite a lot -- I call it synchronicity - but at the moment I can't recall any. Will ahve to look them up as since becoming active here, I started keeping records of some of those in my personal Member tracking thread in each year.