Well, I think you can put these cues into the text.

I'm not poking, OK? I'm just saying that I am not a contemporary of Edith Wharton (Really! Old, am I, not moldy !), but I still got the entire context of her stuff. If I were inclined to analyze why I got it, I would say it was the longish asides about the meanings of things.

Brutal but loving thing: It is not the audiences' fault.

(Can I say anything else to further ruin my popularity? Probably. Give me a minute.)

Yeah...doesn't have to be all huge and exposition-y. Like on The Wire, they don't really translate corner-speak...the first few times you totally have to understand from the response.(looking at the hierarchy thing from, well, the bottom, as I tend to do.) Now picturing Austen characters wanting "juice" and "mad props." (at least I amuse me, right?)

Well, the problem is that the audience isn't homogenous, you know? Last night two members of my writers group got in an argument over whether or not I should cut a historical reference. One thought it added richness to the scene; the other said it pulled her out of the story. What clarified for one person confused another. You can't win. So I write the kind of book I like to read myself, albeit with one eye on the market and, for lack of a better word, the industry standard for things like how much historical explanation to include. I really don't see how I could do any different.

I get you, Susan. There are references that pull you in, because you have the context, and references that stop you dead, because you don't.

When a piece assumes I have the context, I'm enamored. Like erikaj remarks, though, when the piece slips me the context ahead of time, then slips me the reference, I don't just feel enamored. I feel pretty.

One bit of advice I picked up from David Eddings' talking about his fantasy work was the usefulness of the Clueless Hero, the bumpkin who's been thrown into a strange new world who needs things explained to him. You can go overboard, of course, explaining things, but if you really feel you need to clarify something about history or society, you can have Clueless get out of his depth and need help.

I do my best to slip in the context, but, like almost everything in writing, it's a balancing act. If I include enough explanation for Reader A never to get confused by anything, Reader B will accuse me of stopping the story every few pages for a research dump.

And my writers group is an interesting test ground because none of them read what I write recreationally. And in some ways that makes them good first readers--they're not coming to the text with a big set of assumptions from every other historical romance they've read. But OTOH, I have to keep in mind that at least 90% of my actual target market if and when I sell this book IS regular readers of historical romance. So if the writers group makes a suggestion that feels way off to me, I try not to dismiss it right away, but I'll check with a critique partner or beta reader who's familiar with my genre before making a major change.

How does one generally go about finding a writer's group? I hope to hook up with one when I go back to St. Louis.

I'm totally the bomb with cornerspeak now...for a suburban white girl. You feel me?(I'd better stop. Linguistic earworm.) Who knows? The book tanks, I may have a future in "freelance pharmaceuticals"...nah. Don't like the retirement plan. I feel pretty Best.Description.Evah. Smart is sexy.

That's a good point, Susan. If someone picks up a book or story, they've at least shown an interest in the tropes.

Anne, mine evolved out of a class I took at the local community college. And there are several critique groups within my RWA chapter--that's how I met my critique partner who also writes Regencies. So I'd say look for writing classes or join a writers organization.