"Modern language"

glutton · May 27, 2007

Do you have a problem with seeing modern terms in a fantasy setting, and if so to what extent? What words are noticeably jarring to you - for example, would you have a problem with contractions like "mom" or "sis", or be thrown by words like "jerk" or "wimp", or would it take full-fledged, "Yo son, gimme a dolla or I'll cut you" level slang for you to care?

Personally, I don't have a problem with modern language unless it is to the point of "what's good, son? wassup, dawg?" type speech in an archaic setting. My thought is that characters in a fantasy setting aren't likely to be speaking English in the first place, so why wouldn't their language have terms with meanings equivalent to some "modern" ones? And if the meaning of those "modern" words is closest to the ones they use, why not use them in your "translation"?

As well, I think that the kind of formalized speech which is usually accepted without a second thought from fantasy characters is sometimes, if anything, more inappropriate than a more "modern" sounding speech pattern. By this I mean characters who are supposed to be uneducated common folk or rough hardened warriors speaking as though they were gentry trying to applease the king at court, when a more informal tone might convey their personalities or outlooks more readily to a modern reader.

This is especially true with regard to simple contractions; I cringe whenever someone tells me a character shouldn't use a word like "mom" or "sis" in a fantasy, when what I'm thinking is that the use of the word "mother" or "sister" all the time, might well give a reader the wrong (too formal) impression of the character/relationship.

Death Wizard · May 27, 2007

In his gradual interview on his website, Stephen Donaldson talks a lot about "earning" his language/tone. In other words, the author creates a language/tone this is consistent from page 1 through the end. In this way the author earns the reader's trust. If from page 1 you use modern language in a consistent manner, I don't see any problem with that at all. In many ways it's a pleasure to read. After all, we can't write like Tolkien unless we've studied like Tolkien.

Anthony Ravenscroft · May 27, 2007

As I was once working on a Theatre minor, it's impossible for me to read any fiction that insists on using faux Middle Ageisms. I start to throw things when I see 17th-century mud-covered peasants speaking in the fourth-rate "court" language of misremembered "King James" babble.

As for modern/future, Rudy Rucker does a pretty fair job of making the cant believable. Not perfect, but it comes across as "we're in a different era here" without being overly disruptive. Bruce Bethke's early efforts were as well pretty fair, especially turning UNIX/Linux code into slang.

If you infodump a bunch of neologisms on the reader, you may be killing the read. But if you have a novel in which to teach-in-context, then by the last chapter you could be using made-up words more than half the time & your readers would be right there with you.

yappo · May 27, 2007

I don't care about modern language, but I cringe when I'm faced with contemporary expressions of the kind that are clearly impossible for the character to use.

Take this fictive message in a preindustrial, low magic setting:

Liaminan, we're running out of time. I need you here now!

Akard read the short call for help and turned to the messenger. "When?"

"Pidgeon, a few minutes ago."

So, as a reader I demand that the author shows me a comparatively modern clock in common use before running the above stunt on me.

Anne Lyle · May 27, 2007

yappo said:
So, as a reader I demand that the author shows me a comparatively modern clock in common use before running the above stunt on me.

The concept of minutes predates modern clocks by a considerable margin. From etymology.com:

minute (n.)

1377, "sixtieth part of an hour," from O.Fr. minut, from M.L. minuta "minute, short note," from L. minuta, fem. of minutus "small, minute" (see minute (adj.)). In M.L., pars minuta prima "first small part" was used by mathematician Ptolemy for one-sixtieth of a circle, later of an hour (next in order was secunda minuta, which became second (n.)).

Just because earlier people couldn't measure it accurately doesn't mean they didn't know what it was. Note that although the word "minute" is not recorded in English until the 14th century, most academic works were still being written in Latin at this time in any case, so it could have been in use in the spoken language even earlier.

Oddsocks · May 27, 2007

Modern language itself doesn't bother me - As you said, I figure it's unlikely they're speaking English, and even if they are, they're in whatever-world-they're-in, not actually in medieval England (if they are in medieval England, that's another matter).

However, I do agree that if I see something that just wouldn't have formed in that world, it draws me out of the book. For example, processes discovered by science that occur at a microscopic level don't sound right when used metaphorically in a fantasy setting with medieval level science.

The other thing that draws me out a bit would be things that can be placed in this world - like your example 'mom', which to me screams "America!" However, even that is forgivable, because again, this is another world, and it's perfectly reasonable that that could have developed there (it's not barred by technology as in the first example). However, casual use of a range of modern phrases characteristic to a given speach group may be a little unbelievable.

Gillhoughly · May 27, 2007

I find one way of tuning up my language eye is to read works from the actual period. If your fantasy is in a Medieval setting find something written at that time to get a feel for the language. Find lots of somethings!

Yes, some stuff may suffer in translation, but it's still better than nothing at all. I get tired of faux Shakespeare written by people who only ever read the Cliff Notes version of Hamlet.

I'm also not at all fond of modernisms creeping into fantasy and historical settings. It smacks of lazy writing to me.

Recently I edited something set in the early 1800's and throughout a character was called "Ms." rather than "Miss." Blue pencil time!

Maybe the writer had Spellcheck probs, but sheesh--a little research please. There are plenty of editors who are not history majors and might not catch all the gaffs.

Some years back a favorite historical mystery writer lost me forever as a fan with this exchange:

Edwardian character 1: Do you think it is possible?

Edwardian character 2: It scans.

It scans???? How the bleep did that one get through?

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!

Toothpaste · May 27, 2007

Well I don't know the context, but actually "It scans" is a viable phrase in reference to poetry or iambic pentameter.

Gillhoughly · May 27, 2007

Toothpaste said:
Well I don't know the context, but actually "It scans" is a viable phrase in reference to poetry or iambic pentameter.

What I recall of the scene is King Edward VII asked his Danish wife if she thought it possible that X might have accomplished Y. Her reply was, "It scans." Not a poem in sight.

I threw the book across the room and went back to my treasured Conan Doyle little suspecting I would use this as a cautionary tale in writing workshops. In an effort to be nice I try to leave out the name of the writer. Maybe he was in a hurry and so was his editor.

Bleah.

I could also mention the one about a former VP of the Mystery Writers of America who put a safety on a specific kind of revolver--which has none. I suppose he was better at politics than research. *sigh*

I stopped reading his stuff as well when the next book in the series turned out to be a 400 page political rant. Boooring.

For my book buying money, give me interesting characters and tell a good story. Like the man said, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union."

Chasing the Horizon · May 27, 2007

If its true fantasy, taking place on another world, then I don't see how any slang usage can be considered wrong. Obviously they're not really speaking English, so its simply a matter of writing whatever conveys the characters personality and translating as best we can.

I am careful to avoid any impossible references, such as a reference to an Earthly religion which doesn't exist on my world. I also can't use expressions like 'oh my god!' because the majority of religions on my world are multi-deistic, so I have to either use the name of a specific god, or say something like 'by all the gods'. What's funny is that I trained myself so well to only use multi-deistic expressions, I started using them myself in everyday conversation. I can't use the word 'earth' as a synonym for 'ground'. I can't use expressions involving Earth animals which don't exist on my world. I can't use any expression or slang relating to technology that doesn't yet exist (like comparing a magical far-sight wall to a TV, when TVs don't exist). But beyond that, I pretty much use whatever slang words are appropriate, so long as they don't specifically relate to something that doesn't exist on my world. I try to avoid making words up unless there is truly just no word in English that would be appropriate, since this can confuse readers pretty quickly.

blacbird · May 27, 2007

"Language" is rarely a problem. Incongruities often are. You can't, for example (as one manuscript I encountered did), reference the "Bermuda Triangle" in a story set prior to 1964, which was when the term was invented, in the famous book of that title by Charles Berlitz. This problem can be subtle and tricky, and may require research, as it did for me recently when I realized that I might have used the word "fossil" in a context in which it wouldn't have been historically current (I did some research, and found that I was okay, but only by a short margin).

caw

Michael Dracon · May 28, 2007

I don't mind a few words here and there that aren't quite right if it is a Fantasy setting (as opposed to a real world medieval setting). But I do like to see some consistency in what is available in that time period. Like said above, if they don't have any method of precise timekeeping, then 'wait a minute' should be 'wait a moment'.

If a writer takes good care of these small details it really helps a lot in fleshing out the setting.

Ordinary_Guy · May 28, 2007

Interesting heads-up...

Re: "scans"

Gillhoughly said:
Bleah.

That's the funny thing about language: it evolves. Even if you managed to get a PhD in literature and create dialogue thats 100% authentic, the characters would inevitably use a word that has since changed in meaning. As soon as the reader hit said word, they'd be dumped from the narrative flow.

They'd lose it.

Poof! Suspension of disbelief – gone!

They'd–
...screw it, you get what I'm saying.

If you use some sort of "period" language, even if it's good, it's not going to be pure if only to keep the reader in it. In that respect, if you think it's worth it (and can pull it off), go for it.

Personally, I'm of the mind that I want readers to connect to my characters. That means speaking the common, modern and minimally-dialected language of today. I'll leave it up to setting and plot to transport the reader to "some other place."

SilverVistani · May 29, 2007

I find this kind of amusing, because I did have one writing teacher complain to me once about this very thing. She's the only person that I've really had problems with saying that before, though.

And actually, I've got a WIP that I've had to be really careful about... because the story starts out seeming like a more or less standard mideval-ish fantasy story. But later one, through the main character's teaching/explaining things to the girl traveling with him, it becomes apparent that that most definitely is not the case.

Dave.C.Robinson · May 29, 2007

Language can be very tricky in fantasy.

I try to avoid obvious incongruities and keep to a consistent voice. I have one character in a fantasy novel who always avoided contractions; it had to do with the rigidity of her character.

Master the language, don't let it master you.

evangoer · May 29, 2007

Well, actually the word "scans" predates Shakespeare, and its meaning of "to analyze" predates Edwards VII by at least a couple of centuries.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scan

This still might have been a bad choice on the part of the writer, in that even though he was being historically accurate, he violated the expectations of his readers.

I bet there's some sort of fancy terminology for this sort of thing -- reverse anachronism? False anachronism?

dclary · May 29, 2007

When I saw that many of the best lines of 300, the movie, were written about the same time as "The Gospel According to John," I decided pretty much any language is good language, as long as it's powerful, dramatic, and tells the story well.

Dave.C.Robinson · May 29, 2007

dclary said:
When I saw that many of the best lines of 300, the movie, were written about the same time as "The Gospel According to John," I decided pretty much any language is good language, as long as it's powerful, dramatic, and tells the story well.

Most of the best lines in that movie date back almost 600 years before "The Gospel According to John," which only goes to show that good language is universal.

If the language is good enough, nothing else matters.

Sage · May 29, 2007

More on "scans"

evangoer said:
Well, actually the word "scans" predates Shakespeare, and its meaning of "to analyze" predates Edwards VII by at least a couple of centuries.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scan

This still might have been a bad choice on the part of the writer, in that even though he was being historically accurate, he violated the expectations of his readers.

Seems to me that the bad choice comes from the way the sentence is phrased (assuming it's being quoted right & the situation is being explained accurately). "It scans"? What is it scanning? Unless it is something that is actually analyzing something else, it sounds like she's scanning it & thinks it does whatever he asked her it did. It sounds more awkward than anything else, like someone who has a decent hold on English but makes interesting choices in they way they put it together. Like a robot or an otherworldly being like a hellgod (okay, that's just 'cuz the only character I could hear saying it in my mind is Illyria from Angel). Clearly a weird choice in phrasing (at least in the context given here), but not an anachronism.

dclary · May 30, 2007

Dave.C.Robinson said:
Most of the best lines in that movie date back almost 600 years before "The Gospel According to John," which only goes to show that good language is universal.

If the language is good enough, nothing else matters.

Which source are you using? Plutarch is about 100 AD or so. Herodotus is older than that. The events were in 480 BC, true, but the dialogue that I know of came afterward. Right?

Eudaemonic · May 30, 2007

I'm writing a preindustrial fantasy at the moment. I want it to be serious, I want readers to believe in the dangers, and I want it to be intelligent. I have begun with formal intelligent speech, even going so far as to occasionally, but not exclusivley, ignore modern contractions such as can't and won't. It will not contain slang, and I don't intend to make up silly names for things.
There lol, I've said it. This is only personal opinion, but I find invented slang in fantasy just as annoying as our modern day slang when it is used in a fantasy setting (not scifi, of course - that's different). The trouble is our slang is tried and tested by entire populations over years; made up slang is created by one person in the context of a book or a film. It's no wonder to me that it does not measure up.

Okay, am done, rant over lol

daemon

JimmyB27 · May 30, 2007

SilverVistani said:
And actually, I've got a WIP that I've had to be really careful about... because the story starts out seeming like a more or less standard mideval-ish fantasy story. But later one, through the main character's teaching/explaining things to the girl traveling with him, it becomes apparent that that most definitely is not the case.

I have a similair problem with my WiP, in that it is loosely based on 17th century Europe, but is in fact set in the distant future, after a catastrophe that all but wiped out civilisation. Thus it is a new civilisation, built upon the ruins of our own, with magic replacing technology.

Saanen · May 30, 2007

Sage said:
Seems to me that the bad choice comes from the way the sentence is phrased (assuming it's being quoted right & the situation is being explained accurately). "It scans"? What is it scanning? Unless it is something that is actually analyzing something else, it sounds like she's scanning it & thinks it does whatever he asked her it did. It sounds more awkward than anything else, like someone who has a decent hold on English but makes interesting choices in they way they put it together. Like a robot or an otherworldly being like a hellgod (okay, that's just 'cuz the only character I could hear saying it in my mind is Illyria from Angel). Clearly a weird choice in phrasing (at least in the context given here), but not an anachronism.

Think of it this way. If I say to you, "Check it out," are you going to assume I'm talking about a library book or a grocery counter, or are you going to understand the current informal use of the term?

On the other hand, once at a wedding reception my stepmother (who is from Up North and uses phrases foreign to my ears) asked me "Is it kosher, do you think?" when we were about to dive into the buffet. She meant she wasn't sure if we should start on the buffet since no one else was eating yet, but I remember wondering when she converted.

"Modern language"

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Scribble, scribble, scribble

Fantastic historian

Grumpy writer and editor

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

Grumpy writer and editor

Blowing in the Wind

Urban Fantasy Geek

Industrial Strength

... with the High Command

(modified)

Unabashed Mercenary

... with the High Command

Our Lady of Parentheticals

Unabashed Mercenary

what? why!

Hoopy frood