Defining historical terms

PastMidnight · Feb 26, 2006

I'm curious as to what everyone's feelings are when it comes to using and defining historical terms in fiction. I'm writing historical fiction and do use terms that the average person might not be familiar with, although someone who reads a lot of historical fiction might know. Most are terms referring to articles of clothing and objects that are no longer in use today. When I attended a writer's group, there was one man who always pointed out the words that he was unfamiliar with and suggested that I define them within the narrative. Sometimes this is easy to do and works, but most of the time I find it awkward, obvious, and not necessary.

When I encounter a term that I don't understand while reading fiction, I usually try to figure out what it means through the context (very generally...is it an article of clothing? Something to eat? I don't need an exact definition). If I can't figure it out, I keep reading to see if it is even important that I really know what that word means. If it keeps popping up and seems important to the story, then I do pull out the dictionary. But it doesn't bother me at all when the author does not define the word in the text. I appreciate the author using period-appropriate terms, as I think it gives the novel a good flavor and it shows me that the author has done their research. There is more impact for me to read that the character put on a "mantlet" than for a character to always put on a non-specific "coat".

I don't think that I use an excess of historical terms and I think I always make it clear from the context what they generally refer to, without working a definition into the text.

What are your feelings on this as readers and as writers?

Phouka · Feb 26, 2006

As a reader, I am the opposite of your writer's group gentleman -- I hate an insertion in the narrative that explains what a specific word means. When it's used, it nearly always comes across as heavy handed or awkward (I've read some doozies that read like dictionary definitions: first he put on his mantlet, a bla-bla bla French cape popular in bla-bla). I can usually figure out in general what things are and that's ok, if I really need detail, I"ll go look it up.

If it's done subtly to assist me in figuring out what the word is, it doesn't interrupt the narrative. If in one sentence, the character puts on his 'mantlet' and then in another the lovely red fabric of the short coat he wore is described (or whatever it is about the mantlet that might help me identify that this is a coat, and a short one, or...) that's great. Clothing decriptions seem to be a bugaboo, since every single part of a costume may have some interesting name (well, interesting to a clothier, perhaps) and peppering a description with all the different bits and pieces is a bit much for the unitiatied.

I expect historic fiction to be full of terms I don't quite know -- the correct terminology, as long as it is not overdone and every third word is unfamiliar, is very important to my enjoyment as a reader.

Niesta · Feb 26, 2006

Another vote for not defining the terms. Make the type of item clear from context, and let 'em look it up if they want to know more. I love new words, and love a book that makes me run to the dictionary at least once (it's so rare anymore!).

But if your editor or agent advises you differently, listen to them of course.

pdr · Feb 26, 2006

Words!

It seems from what readers of historical fiction say that they prefer the correct terms used in a context they can understand by reading on.

So many readers of historical fiction now belong to re-enactment groups, or study history through university classes so they have a fair smattering of historical words. Recent quality TV series have also shown people historical clothes and household things in context.

Check out the Historical Novel Society for what the readers say: www.historicalnovelsociety.org Join their discussion thread or get the newsletter.

Personally I prefer a skilful weaving of the meaning of an obsolete word into the text

veinglory · Feb 26, 2006

Written correctly, context is enough. If X is out front of the mansion being drawn by two horses I'm not in danger of thinking it's a turnip.

slobbit · Feb 28, 2006

I've got a twist on that issue--a term that historically was a legitimate term of respect that is now one of the worst insults one can bestow. Of the people who would recognize the term, most would be familiar with it as a slur. So in the short I'm working on now I made sure the character's feelings were clear--high respect & dutiful love--and the other character roughly translates the term when she modestly protests. It works because I stayed within the nature of both characters, and I introduced the term in a scene where she did have the chance to respond. If I threw it and the definition in the scene where I first thought he'd use it, it would have been heavy-handed.

citymouse · Feb 28, 2006

Accuracy is not only important but necessary if a writer wants to be taken seriously. Recently I was asked to beta read an historical novel about Pope Victor III (May 1087- September 1087). Throughout the novel the author made several references to the Vatican. Well, there was no Vatican in 1087. The author also described congregations filling pews in certain European cathedrals. Once again he got it wrong. Medieval cathedrals didn’t have pews. People stood for hours during Mass and the lengthy sermons common at the time. Those who could afford their own portable chairs brought them. In the winter congregants made fires on the marble floors. No porta-potties either! Ugh!

In a recent best seller about the Knights Templar (not the da Vinci Code) the author says that the Templars were accused by the pope and the French king of worshiping a satanic idol they called Baphomet. This idol, and its description of Satan as having the body of a goat, the head of a man and the horns of a ram, is a fiction concocted by a defrocked German priest in the early 19th century! That fact notwithstanding, the myth is so entwined in the Templar story that TV specials and books continue to affirm the lie.

The bottom line is, if you’re going to put it out as fact, make sure it can stand scrutiny ‘cause sure as shootin’ somebody will catch it.

If you’re writing a novel and you want to use some imagery or event and you can’t substantiate it then make it up but don’t use verifiable references.

Michael

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - President George W. Bush, December 18, 2000

Sassenach · Feb 28, 2006

How widely do you read in the genre? Some writers--Dorothy Dunnett, Diana Gabaldon, Sharon Kay Penman--do it well. I agree that it should always be in the context of the text.

Aconite · Feb 28, 2006

pdr said:
So many readers of historical fiction now belong to re-enactment groups, or study history through university classes so they have a fair smattering of historical words. Recent quality TV series have also shown people historical clothes and household things in context.

And these readers violently hate it when you misuse terms, btw. One book in a popular medieval mystery series had a back-cover blurb that described the protagonist, a young woman educated in a nunnery, as a "novitiate." This drove certain parts of her fan base--especially those in holy orders and medieval studies--nuts.

Aconite · Feb 28, 2006

Sassenach said:
How widely do you read in the genre? Some writers--Dorothy Dunnett, Diana Gabaldon, Sharon Kay Penman--do it well..

And some ::coughcoughPeterTremaynecough:: do it terribly.

pdr · Mar 1, 2006

Well, yes, but...

readers love Peter T's work because he is writing about a period so few people know about and he tells a good story.

Many of his readers really do want to know all the historical details of Irish law. He's a great favourite of the HNS readers.

PastMidnight · Mar 1, 2006

I agree about being accurate when you use historical terms/ideas. I would much rather an author use vague, general terms like "coat", than to use specific terms incorrectly. Well, I'd much rather that the author does his/her research and use specific terms correctly, but you can't force someone to do research.

Maryn · Mar 1, 2006

I cast a vote for a skillful weaving into the narrative of enough definition for me to get the drift. Using veinglory's example, if it's hitched up to a team of six strong horses out front, I'm not going to mistake it for a turnip--but if it's just out front waiting for our heroine, I might.

Likewise, if you've got some kind of specific clothing in mind, feel free to name it (correctly, of course) but make sure you tell me she puts it on her head, ties or pins it in place if that's what it takes, and go on. I'll figure out it's a hat all on my own.

I, too, would rankle at an intrusive definition clearly intended to educate the reader. That's not skillful weaving but a crudely-stitched-on patch that doesn't match the rest of the garment.

Maryn, big on analogies this morning

Aconite · Mar 1, 2006

pdr said:
readers love Peter T's work because he is writing about a period so few people know about and he tells a good story.

Many of his readers really do want to know all the historical details of Irish law. He's a great favourite of the HNS readers.

It's the way he does it that's awful. His books are crammed full of expository lumps and "As you know, Bob"s, instead of incluing of the same information. I like the period he's writing about, but the mechanics of his writing just hurt.

crosseyed reader · Mar 1, 2006

I'm with the consensus. Use your historical terms, but give enough description so the reader understands what you're talking about. You could describe the weight, feel, color, how it keeps Fontleroy warm in the winter snows, etc. that way you stay true to your voice and don't step out of character.

PastMidnight · Mar 1, 2006

I'm glad that there seems to be some agreement here. The suggestion to give the terms more definition in the text just didn't sit well with me, but I didn't know if I was the one who was unusual in my opinion or if he was. I was planning to do it my way anyhow (just relying on description and context to give the reader an idea of what the terms mean), but it's always reassuring to know that, as readers, this would work for you.

pdr · Mar 1, 2006

It's fascinating!

RE the Sister Fidelma series, Aconite, as a writer I hate it too. As a reader with critical faculties switched off I don't notice it.

May I ask why Aconite which is poisonous when you so clearly aren't?

Defining historical terms

PastMidnight

Oponionated

Phouka

Niesta

Canada's sweetheart

pdr

veinglory

volitare nequeo

slobbit

citymouse

fantasy dweller

Sassenach

5 W's & an H

Aconite

Aconite

pdr

PastMidnight

Oponionated

Maryn

Not Any More

Aconite

crosseyed reader

PastMidnight

Oponionated

pdr