A Goodreads user
A Goodreads user asked:

Is any one bothered by the word "lunch"? It undermines the authenticity of the historical setting for me. I believe this word was not in common use in the 16th C . Lunch was called "dinner" or has it been used to avoid confusing non-British readers?

To answer questions about Lamentation, please sign up.
Jen Pattison I think that if any author wrote precisely in the language of the time of the Tudors, it would be largely unintelligible to modern readers so I'm not too bothered about the occasional anachronism. It is interesting how language changes over time and is still doing so today. I wonder if in 50 years' time, everyone will be writing in text language? (Perish the thought!)
Hanne Armstrong Actually I was far less bothered by 'lunch' than by the phrase 'bleed out'. 'Bleed to death' would have been more acceptable to me, as 'bleed out' is a rather contemporary phrase.
Jonivanni It is because C. j. Samson has a wide and international following and being based in the US at the moment it is easier to translate with ease the word lunch. It is also generally easier to understand in England.

Dr J. Delaney
Bibliophile He also uses "sadistic" and "propaganda" which really bother me: de Sade wasn't born for another 200 years, and propaganda in this sense was not used until the 18th century in English. Takes me right out of the story, and that's a shame because the research is so impeccable for these novels.
Daniela I find he overuses the word "sardonic" through the entire Shardlake series. I suppose there aren't too many words to use in stead of "sarcastic", but I still found it irritating.
Adrienne Sansom was criticized for using "lunch" in Dissolution as well. In Lamentation he used it so excessively that I thought he might be trolling his critics. He used the word about 10 times in one conversation. And yes, it took me out of the book too.
Mike Hall Dinner was the main meal on the day whether eaten at mid-day or the evening. This was especially the case in the north of England and the Midlands. Lunch came into common use in the early 19th century.
Sue Whitt lunch (n.)
"mid-day repast, small meal between breakfast and dinner," 1786, a shortened form of luncheon (q.v.) in this sense (1650s), which is of uncertain origin; it appears to be identical with an older word meaning "thick piece, hunk" (1570s)

etymonline.com
Philip Higgins Jen Pattison is right, it's impossible to recreate the language and style of Tudor times, better to get a sense of it while avoiding obvious anachronisms that take you out of the story & setting. I think the author gets this spot on.
CUlater!
Peters100 The author wrote his book in modern English, not the middle English of the period, so it is natural to use many modern English words such as lunch.
If the author wrote the book in authentic Middle English (as used by W. Shakespeare in his plays) few people would understand and enjoy it.
Lori Stevens Thank you for pointing this out Brian. Being a former Renaissance Pleasure Faire actor (in Agoura & Devore, when Faire was still Faire), reading a period novel with anachronisms or non-period references drives me bonkers! For historical actors, who obsess over which kind of button is authentic for costumes, this kind of thing is unforgivable. Authors shouldn't "write down" to their audience. There are better ways to impart the idea of a midday meal than call it lunch, when this is totally wrong! I might try this book series but I think I will get it from the library, at least until I'm sure I can tolerate the anachronisms! Grammercy and fair thee well (thanks and bye-bye).
Image for Lamentation
Rate this book
Clear rating

About Goodreads Q&A

Ask and answer questions about books!

You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.

See Featured Authors Answering Questions

Learn more