Handling Dialog In Historical Settings

I would treat this like phonetic dialects--I try to write words not sounds. But there is a challenge here because English has changed so much in that time. Although it's hard to tell without examples, I'd put in just a few time-appropriate phrases without going overboard, but I'd be very diligent in avoiding any modern jargon, slang, or phrases that would make it seem like the character is doing the time-travel thing. I'm sure you've found examples of time-appropriate speech patterns and word uses. The general rule of thumb is to not make the reader work to get your meaning across. That doesn't mean you should avoid intellectually challenging a reader, but if they need an interpreter to understand your dialogue, or even if they have to pause to do their own interpretation, that's less a challenge and more a chore.

Use normal English, but avoid anachronistic modern language. Your 15th-century characters shouldn't be saying, "Oh my god, that's awesome." I exaggerate, of course, but you get the idea. (They shouldn't be using contractions, for one thing.)

Be really careful using words that had different meanings long ago: awful, terrific, marvelous, wonderful. Using such words in their historical context can confuse readers unaccustomed to those definitions, so give them some context. "Such an occurrence was wonderful to the villagers, and they discussed it for weeks." "Wonderful" is used with its archaic meaning (out of the ordinary) rather than its modern meaning (superlative), and in the context of the sentence, that should be obvious.

You can put in some Latin--it fits--but provide a translation. That's tricky without being infodumpy. Probably best to keep the Latin to a minimum.

I personally feel a lot of historical novels being published at present* use anachronistic language. It sounds like 21st-century people dressed up in costumes talking. Not my cup of tea, but apparently many other people like it. Some authors who do/did a good job making their novels sound authentic to their periods are Patrick O'Brian, Naomi Novik, and Georgette Heyer.

*there's another word with a changed definition: "presently"

I write it so my intended audience can understand it.

I have one historical manuscript where the POV characters speak Gaelic, French and Latin. If the POV character understands the language, then it's in English (the language of the book) with some thought or tag that says that it's in whatever language. I will change the cadence of that bit if there's a noted difference between it and English (such as with Gaelic). If the POV character doesn't understand the language, then they wouldn't understand the words spoken anyway so it's a notation of "Robert babbled on in French, which irked Sean to no end since Robert knew he didn't speak it" as a rough, top-of-the-head example.

The main point is to tell the story in a way that doesn't confuse the reader. The secondary point is not to obligate the writer (me) to learn an entire language just to write a single book.

Since this is the 15th century and the language is completely different from today, you should probably use standard 20th century english with no slang in the book. I don't think too many people would feel comfortable trying to read a whole book full of shakespearean like writing.

For my novel set in Egypt 3500 years ago, I used modern but "professional" language. Nothing anachronistic -- no "that's cool," or anything like that. However, I did use contractions often (it's instead of it is, for example) so that the dialogue would flow in a modern reader's mind.

Mags said:

Use normal English, but avoid anachronistic modern language. Your 15th-century characters shouldn't be saying, "Oh my god, that's awesome." I exaggerate, of course, but you get the idea. (They shouldn't be using contractions, for one thing.)

Be really careful using words that had different meanings long ago: awful, terrific, marvelous, wonderful. Using such words in their historical context can confuse readers unaccustomed to those definitions, so give them some context. "Such an occurrence was wonderful to the villagers, and they discussed it for weeks." "Wonderful" is used with its archaic meaning (out of the ordinary) rather than its modern meaning (superlative), and in the context of the sentence, that should be obvious.

You can put in some Latin--it fits--but provide a translation. That's tricky without being infodumpy. Probably best to keep the Latin to a minimum.

I personally feel a lot of historical novels being published at present* use anachronistic language. It sounds like 21st-century people dressed up in costumes talking. Not my cup of tea, but apparently many other people like it. Some authors who do/did a good job making their novels sound authentic to their periods are Patrick O'Brian, Naomi Novik, and Georgette Heyer.

*there's another word with a changed definition: "presently"

Click to expand...

People in the 15th century used contractions so I see no reason not to use them.

I use Latin for prayers because although try to stick to pretty recognisable phrases. And when things get really bad a couple of my characters do pray--because that's what someone of that time would have done. I think most readers who pick up a historical novel recognise "Deo grátia" or "Áve María, grátia pléna". I didn't run into anyone who had trouble figuring out that the opening line of my prologue (cover your eyes if obscenities bother you) "Putain de merde!" was not a nice thing to say.

Putting them in the original language showed to the reader that they weren't in whatever language was native to the PoV character. (Not true in the case of French, but I decided to ignore that lol)

Edit: The Scots Gaelic the PoV character hears, he doesn't understand so the reader doesn't either. But I do put in at least some of the Gaelic to give a feel for what he is hearing. There is very little of it though because I think it would be annoying pretty quickly.

Mostly, listen to NeuroFizz. It's more important to avoid anachronism than to add 15th C. language. It's horribly irritating to hear people of another era use words that weren't even invented yet. Some readers will know that, and some won't, but even some who don't, may feel a certain incongruity.

I don't think you should imitate the spelling or pronunciation of the era, but you can, now and then, use turns of phrase that you've found in writing from then.

You might want to look up words that Shakespeare invented, and try not to use any.

(This probably doesn't need saying, but don't have your early-15th C. European eat a potato, a tomato, a green pepper, or an ear of corn.)

Just some thoughts.

bonitakale said:

You might want to look up words that Shakespeare invented, and try not to use any.

Click to expand...

Awesome!!! Amazingly smart!

Or TOBACCO! can't smoke none of that wicked weed till after a certain date

Just don't use the word "okay" and I'll be fine. And don't let your knights say "Yo, dude, check this shit out."

(That's fine for your clerics, though. "Yo, dude, check this shit out" was coined by Brother Augustus Fraudatio in 1436 when he found what appeared to be a lawn dart in the monastery's vineyard and went to show it to the abbot. The abbot was not pleased, mostly because it turned out to be a ballista bolt and the monastery was under attack. Brother Augustus was the only survivor). True fact.

Of course, Shakespeare was late 16th century, and you're probably looking more at Chaucer than Shakespeare if you're operating in the 15th. It depends on which half of it.

And, of course, you also have to consider French. I don't know how much Anglo-Norman was still around at this time, though. But iirc Chaucer made fun of it.

I expect...

your thread was moved because this is a question we historical writers have to deal with continually, and you did ask about a 15thC English village.

For historical writers our agents and editors like us to write in good plain English, using something like the online etymology dictionary to check as we write that the words were available in the 15th/17th/19th whatever Century. Then when we edit we check with the Oxford dictionary to be sure!

A sprinkling of easily understandable 'olde' words, and the odd inversion in the sentence pattern, are generally regarded as sufficient to give the reader a taste of the time period.

Gadzookery is to be avoided. Gadzookery is sticking in every obscure word you find and producing a sort of Hollywood type of mock historical. hilarious speech.

bonitakale said:

Mostly, listen to NeuroFizz. It's more important to avoid anachronism than to add 15th C. language. It's horribly irritating to hear people of another era use words that weren't even invented yet. Some readers will know that, and some won't, but even some who don't, may feel a certain incongruity.

Click to expand...

I think this is true, within reason. I struggled with this issue when I wrote my novel. Mine is set in ancient Egypt, and the word pharaoh didn't exist then. The Egyptians called their king neswet-bejet, not pharaoh -- but modern readers associate the word pharaoh with the king of Egypt, so that's what I stuck with. Truthfully, I interchanged the words "pharaoh" and "king" throughout the book. Nor was there a word for queen, as far as any historians can tell, but I used queen in my book as well. It made the text easier to read, to use one familiar word rather than "king's wife" or "great royal wife" again and again.

However, I did use the old Egyptian words for the cities and seasons/months of Egypt, where most writers who set their books in historical Egypt use the Greek words (Thebes, Heliopolis, Epiphi, etc.) To me, these words sound so Greek that it's distracting -- there was no Greek influence in Egypt in 1500 BCE.

Some of you may also recall the thread where I wondered whether I should use the F-bomb in my book. I did decide to keep it. Yes, the word didn't come about in the English language for quite some time after my book is set, but I decided to go with it as there was surely at least one vulgar term for THE DEED. And because I only used it once, during an argument between two opposing characters; to use it repeatedly would have lost the effect. We'll see what an editor thinks, if it gets to that stage.

I think a lot of consideration needs to go into whether we use modern or historical words. Too many correctly used historical words, and you can risk losing the reader.

Use Her Name said:

Awesome!!! Amazingly smart!

Or TOBACCO! can't smoke none of that wicked weed till after a certain date

Click to expand...

Can smoke the dope, though. My characters use a certain medicinal herb called semsemet in ancient Egypt. Oh, research. You're so fun.

Maxinquaye said:

Of course, Shakespeare was late 16th century, and you're probably looking more at Chaucer than Shakespeare if you're operating in the 15th. It depends on which half of it.

And, of course, you also have to consider French. I don't know how much Anglo-Norman was still around at this time, though. But iirc Chaucer made fun of it.

Click to expand...

What you said.

That was Middle English. It was not the same language as we speak, and you would need to translate. It wasn't even really the same language as Shakespeare's. It would be very, very difficult for a modern reader to decipher, so you certainly do not want to try writing like that (even if you could pull it off, which would be almost impossible)!

Write for the reader to understand without anachronisms -- aphorisms and other sayings of the time can enrich the dialogue.

In the novel pictured at left (1353), I dropped in the odd Cornish word, the odd French phrase (that my readers would instantly understand), and the odd medieval phrasing such as "an it be to your liking" instead of "if you like it." Just not every time. And I tried to make sure the so-called peasants spoke differently than the nobility. That was fun, though you can't go too far overboard.

Think of your ancient or foreign-language terms as pepper in the stew of your novel. You don't want to add too sparingly or the flavor will be bland. If you add too much, that's all your readers will taste.

My suggestion: get the ideas right and let the language capture the ideas and their emotions. If it's a familiar idea with the same feeling as today, don't be scared to use familiar language even if the setting used other language. If the idea is unfamiliar and significant, consider using period language for it.

For example, in Victorian times they didn't say 'unemployment'; they said 'overpopulation' -- which means 'people breeding too much' and also 'too many people in this place' for the amount of work available. The word 'unemployment' suggests that people can live wherever they like and have as many children as they want, and that something could or should be done to increase the amount of jobs. The word 'overpopulation' suggests that people can't live wherever they like and breed as much as they want. Depending on the thought of the speaker, I'll use one or the other.

Ruv Draba said:

For example, in Victorian times they didn't say 'unemployment'; they said 'overpopulation' -- which means 'people breeding too much' and also 'too many people in this place' for the amount of work available. The word 'unemployment' suggests that people can live wherever they like and have as many children as they want, and that something could or should be done to increase the amount of jobs. The word 'overpopulation' suggests that people can't live wherever they like and breed as much as they want. Depending on the thought of the speaker, I'll use one or the other.

Click to expand...

I don't know who you've been reading of the Victorians, but the claim that they didn't use the term "unemployment" or that they substituted "overpopulation" for unemployment is just wrong. While the Malthusian theories which you outline were instrumental in the shaping of the 1834 Poor Law Act, which defined thinking about relief for want for the next century or more, that has more to do with how the Victorians thought about the causes of unemployment (and the culpability or otherwise of the unemployed for their condition).

I'd be more likely to believe in someone using "idleness" instead of "unemployment" than in using "overpopulation" (especially since talking about people being "allowed" to have as many children as they want comes perilously close to discussing how family size might be limited, which is anathema to Victorian thinking, except in fairly radical circles or by the preaching of self-restraint) but the term was certainly in wide use.

'Unemployed' dates from 1600, meaning 'At leisure'. Meaning 'Temporarily out of work' dates from 1667.

While the Malthusian theories which you outline were instrumental in the shaping of the 1834 Poor Law Act, which defined thinking about relief for want for the next century or more, that has more to do with how the Victorians thought about the causes of unemployment (and the culpability or otherwise of the unemployed for their condition).

Click to expand...

Please note that I referred to 'unemployment', not 'unemployed'.