My two submissions so far in a writing practice group have resulted in some minor culture shock for me.
The critiques I have gotten have mentioned discomfort with my tendency to write in what they see as an archaic cadence, not just in terms of word choice (e.g.. wicket, porteress, wonted) but what they characterized as assumptions about the reader. I sat up and took notice! Not only do I write like that all the time, sometimes even in my daily life, but I immerse myself in reading mostly historical novels set in the Middle Ages.
I wonder if I have programmed myself to think and write "forsoothly", as one reenactment group calls it. The bect question is, does it matter? Would readers unfamiliar with and possibly uncomfortable with such prose read my books anyway? Is there a plus to writing this way, making it part of setting the scene?
I am calling on other historical novelists to register your opinions on any or all of the following questions:
1. Does an archaic tone to a novel's narrative or dialogue help or hurt it?
2. What is too much when it comes to archaic usage?
3. Someone I know finds you can be too modern as well, using expressions like "I'm just not into him." What do you think?
4. Since any novel that takes place before the Tudor era in England and in any other place where English was not the language is essentially a translation, does it really matter what words an author chooses?
5. I am well known for pointing out that just because a particular word was not recorded does not mean it was not in use in the time about which one is writing, my example being "pitcher". But other writers point to words like "masochism" and "sadism" that came from the names of specific people who were not born yet definitely is outside the reasonable. My question here is why the author can't just write "self destructive" and "deliberately cruel"? Your opinion?
Please click on Comments below to chime in on the topic.
My thanks, gentle reader! (See?)
TOMORROW- Come back and play with some forsoothly translations.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Writing Forsoothly... When Is It Too Much?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Personally, I don't like archaic language. My reason is this: at the time a language is spoken/written, it is NOT archaic. It is the 'modern' (i.e. current) version of that time. 'Forsooth' was modern once, but isn't now. So I find it more logical to use normal, everyday language in historical novels, not words nobody uses anymore in common parlance. The reader can empathize better, and it's actually easier to write. Now I don't advocate using the latest in modern expressions, as they (esp. when they refer to technical gadgets or, as you say, people who weren't even born) are jarringly incongruous. But people used language for the same purpose we do now - to communicate clearly in the idiom of their time. So I think we need to do the same.
You can create the historical setting/feel with the description of place, people and action just fine.
Carolin Walz
Actually when I really think about it, the biggest disincentive to writing archaically is the spellchecker. That also goes for Anglo Saxon spellings. And Shannon O'Neill's blasted dropped g's. Never again.
Nan
Nan,I spent a long time considering this when writing Lady G. SInce it's all speakers, how would they speak. The speak for the most part in Modern colloquial English.
I think "writing forsoothly" makes a book feel faked and quaint. And puts me off reading the book. The worst offenders are the ones written in Pseudo-Historical speak where you get a vocabulary and syntax that never existed in any period of English. The cadence rarely has anything to to with the known syntax of the era and the thees and thous usually ride roughshod over what was a subtle way of indicating class and status relationships.
I could live with a book that did the actual syntax of a given time period, but it would take a genius to pull it off.
Finally writing forsoothly makes me wonder if the "historical novelist" has done his or her research properly, because you'd think they'd have read something written in the period they are recreating. Down to Chaucer it wouldn't take much effort. After that a good translation would convey the feel of the language
Carolin, Nan, and all:
I too, dislike "writing forsoothly", and I just won't do it. But I also won't write anything that sounds "too modern", either, so what I try to do is give a flavor of the period by using names for things that were used then, and doing things like describing styles of clothing, etc. In general, I've noticed that/b>/ the British, and people for whom English is a second language, tend not to write historical novels "forsoothly", but a lot of American historical writers, and especially some romance writers, write this way, and some readers claim they actually like this. Sharon Kay Penman, otherwise a fine historical novelist,is a big offender in the "writing forsoothly" department. This is one thing that really bugs me about her writing. As I say, I won't write that way myself, because, as Carolin pointed out, speakers of any language, in any given time, sounded "modern" to themselves, and when you're dealing with something like Old English, there's no way you can really reproduce the speech. It's better just to use "modern standard" English, IMO.
Anne G
My two cents' worth says if the language takes the reader out of the story, it is overdone. If readers have to struggle to understand the language, it's not working as it should. My pessimistic (but realistic!) advice to my speech students is, "if people have to put out an effort to hear you, they normally won't." I think the same thing holds true of writing. If the language is so unfamiliar that readers focus on it rather than on the characters and the story, readers will be turned off of the characters and story, not just the language. Of course, I'm not saying we should throw out all historical accuracy. The beauty of language is that there are many ways to express a particular idea. The work of the writer (and it is definitely work) is to find the expression that stays true to the history without forgetting the needs of today's reader.
I try to at least give a flavour of the way language was used at the time. Which is subjective, of course, but then all writing is. If there is written source material from your period, then I reckon it's as important to give the reader an experience of the rythmn and cadence of the language (and therefore the thoughts) of the time as it is to get the clothes and other physical details right.
That doesn't mean dropping 'zounds and gadzooks' into the prose every so often, but, for me, if you read enough of the source material you can identify the particular character of the era. 18th Century is frivalous but elegant and sometimes startlingly callous. Anglo-Saxon is melancholic and flowing, but harsh. I think it's very important to be able to catch that mood and reflect it in your own prose.
I guess I come down in the middle on this. My "Rashi's Daughters" novels are set in 11th-century France, so I made a deliberate attempt to avoid modern American sounding language. No contractions, and careful consideration before using words like 'automatically' and 'unconscious.'
I wanted my readers to have in mind that my characters are speaking French, not Yiddish, so I sprinkled in commonly understood French words. I also wanted to educate them about medieval Jewish life, which necessitated a bit of Hebrew. But I did have a glossary at the back.
Sometimes I chose to be deliberately anachronistic rather than confuse my readers. For example, Jews [then and in Israel today] say 'day one' instead of Sunday, 'day two' instead of Monday, etc. But I knew that usage would drive my readers crazy and add nothing to the story, so I didn't do it.
Maggie Anton
www.rashisdaughters.com
Maggie:
If you're okay with it, you could use "medieval Jewish expressions"(if that's the right way of putting it), like "day one" for Sunday, as long as you put it in a glossary or an explanation. Of course, some readers won't read such an explanation, so maybe you're right to be anachronistic.
Anne G
Post a Comment