Wednesday's Random Slang-o-rama: A pretty penny

If something costs a pretty penny, you can bet that you'll be paying more than just one shiny copper coin.

So, why (and when) did a pretty penny come to mean a large sum of money? A regular Slang-o-rama reader asked me about this phrase, and as I'm always happy to jump in on special requests and see what I can find, let's hop to it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
One...
>
>
>
>
two...
>
>
>
>
>
three....
>
>
>
>
>
Hop!

The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer provides the expected definition—"a considerable sum of money"—and dates it to early 1700s. The Phrase Finder gives us a little more background:

'A pretty penny' used to have the variants 'a fine penny', 'a fair penny' etc, but these have fallen by the wayside. All the forms of the expression came into the language in the 18th century and an early example is from a play by the popular playwright Susanna Centlivre, The Man's Bewitch'd, 1710: "Why here may be a pretty Penny towards, if the Devil don't cross it."

Intriguing, but I was hoping for an explanation as to why a "pretty" penny. Shiny or worn, a penny is worth the same, right? The Online Etymology Dictionary reminded me that, since the late 15th century, pretty has also been used to mean "not a few, considerable." Yes, I could see where that definition might (Dare I say it? Yes, I dare!) make sense(cents) in this context.

However, I think I will give the final word to the Wordwizard site, where this theory was posited:

The origin of this phrase is uncertain but it is often attributed to the special gold pennies, worth 20 silver pennies, that Henry III had coined in 1257. Since they were more valuable than the silver pennies, they became known as pretty pennies. (Picturesque Expressions by Urdang, American Heritage Dictionary, Facts on File Dictionary of Clichés)

So, there you go, inquiring reader. Pretty as in considerable or pretty as in gold? You choose! However, no matter how you look at it, if something costs a pretty penny, it'll probably also cost an arm and a leg. (More about that next week.)

More than one pretty penny in that pile...
Image by makingmilly from Pixabay

*Cents, because I cannot resist the possible pun...

PW covers Leaden Skies

Yes, Leaden Skies sighted again, this time in Publishers Weekly, March 30 issue. Hope you don't mind if I quote the whole thing, right down to the ISBN, because how often does this happen in a lifetime anyway?

Leaden Skies Ann Parker. Poisoned Pen, $24.95 (298p) ISBN 978-1-59058-577-1

The July 1880 visit of former president Ulysses S. Grant to the mining community of Leadville, Colo., sparks Parker's third mystery (after 2006's Iron Ties), a twisty tale of murder and ambition. Saloon co-owner Inez Stannert is preoccupied with divorcing her missing husband, her affair with the local minister and her secret business partnership with the local madam when one of the madam's prostitutes is first attacked and later killed. Eager to protect her investment, Inez begins to look into the case, confronting mine owners with personal agendas; local politicians; zealous journalists; a mapmaker with a past; a determined mother with aspirations for her wastrel son; a prostitute with family obligations and hopes for a better life; and a ruthless city tax collector, appropriately nicknamed the Hatchet. Parker is proficient in showing the crossroads between civilization and the frontier, including emerging new roles for women. A cliffhanger ending sets a promising stage for the next installment. (July)

I feel like I can now breathe again. I've received some early individual reader/reviewer comments (see previous post), and Publishers Weekly has weighed in, all to the good.

I've heard some authors say they never read reviews of their books, and I wonder ... how do they do it? I could no more ignore/not read a review than I could not sleep. Not sneeze. Not eat chocolate. Doesn't mean I take everything as gospel (because I know that each and every reader approaches a book differently), but to ignore or not pay attention to what they say? A major joy of writing (for me) is telling stories, weaving a tale. And the telling requires a listener, a reader. Otherwise, why not just spin stories for myself. So, to not listen to what readers have to say seems odd. In my day job, I always have the audience in mind. Why should fiction be different?

Writers, readers, what do you think?