Narrator in historical fiction

SquareSails

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
195
Reaction score
13
Location
Pennsylvania
Website
www.juliedoherty.com
Is the narrator in historical fiction restricted to period vocabulary only?

For example, the term "jockeyed" probably wasn't in use before the 17th C., so the narrator of a novel set in prior centuries should not use it, right?

Or am I way off on this?
 

Flicka

Dull Old Person
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
147
Location
Far North
Website
www.theragsoftime.com
Depends on who the narrator is. But unless it's meant to be a modern voice, you should try not to break the illusion of the past you're trying to create.
 

dangerousbill

Retired Illuminatus
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
4,810
Reaction score
413
Location
The sovereign state of Baja Arizona
Is the narrator in historical fiction restricted to period vocabulary only?

For example, the term "jockeyed" probably wasn't in use before the 17th C., so the narrator of a novel set in prior centuries should not use it, right?

Or am I way off on this?

I'd definitely avoid anachronisms like 'jockeyed', but it's surprising what words go way back past Shakespeare, although often with different meanings.

The best first person writing of this kind uses the dialect, but it's generally 'dialect lite' so your reader is not dragged down trying to decipher real 17th C language and idioms.

My wip is set in the late 1960s and it's a lot of trouble recalling contemporary expressions and flushing out later coinages. I'm constant looking up expressions in etymological and slang dictionaries, and the dates of fads and commercial activity, even though I was an adult at the time.
 
Last edited:

Libbie

Worst song played on ugliest guitar
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
1,094
Location
umber and black Humberland
I've written some historical fiction, so I think I can comment with reasonable intelligence on this.

One of the tricks with writing historical fiction is to smoothly balance the comfort and pleasure of modern readers with accurate representation of the time you're portraying. It can be very difficult to find the right compromise between contemporary language that will make a book flow smoothly and appealing to the immersion in a historical setting, which is why fans of the genre read it.

Ultimately, you have to do what feels acceptable to you and don't worry about it too much until you're in an editing phase with a professional editor, who can give you better input on your particular piece. I've read historical fiction where the ultra-modern language was just too much to swallow and it made the entire book seem silly and trite, and I've read historical fiction that tastefully used some modern conventions but still went plenty heavy on the historical detail, and it felt flawless. Go with your personal comfort zone for now, but be willing to revise it as needed further down the line.

Personally, I would avoid using unique, stand-out words that have very modern connotations such as "jockying," unless you can verify that they have etymological roots in your time period. More subtle modern uses such as contractions in speech are much easier to get away with and may help the flow of your work. You can pretty easily figure out the etymology of most words using Google...and it's fun to do! :)
 

Flicka

Dull Old Person
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
147
Location
Far North
Website
www.theragsoftime.com
One of the tricks with writing historical fiction is to smoothly balance the comfort and pleasure of modern readers with accurate representation of the time you're portraying. It can be very difficult to find the right compromise between contemporary language that will make a book flow smoothly and appealing to the immersion in a historical setting, which is why fans of the genre read it.

/.../

Personally, I would avoid using unique, stand-out words that have very modern connotations such as "jockying,"

This is what I was trying to say too. The important thing isn't that you use period words (or period grammar or style) but that the language you use help create the feeling of the era you're writing in. Obvious modernisms tend to jerk the reader out of the illusion of the past you're trying to create so I would avoid those.
 

SquareSails

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
195
Reaction score
13
Location
Pennsylvania
Website
www.juliedoherty.com
Thank you!

Thanks, everybody.


looking up expressions in etymological and slang dictionaries

Me, too. And then I get lost investigating something like when toilet paper was invented.

Go with your personal comfort zone for now, but be willing to revise it as needed further down the line.

More subtle modern uses such as contractions in speech are much easier to get away with and may help the flow of your work. You can pretty easily figure out the etymology of most words using Google...and it's fun to do! :)

Ah, right. I think I'm okay then, because that's what I've done so far. I was pretty sure I knew the answer, but it always helps to have confirmation. Erm, particularly when you're 86,000 words in. :e2brows:

Thanks again.
 
Last edited:

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,321
Contractions are not modern usage in English; use them freely except in the most formal of settings. Nor are they in most other Western languages--having your Roman and ancient Greek characters using contractions is just fine for the period.

Don't use metaphors that are obviously drawn from things that were invented after the date of your narrative (not the date of the events, necessarily, if your frame story is that the narrator is relating events that happened long before their birth). The novel in which one Roman charioteer remarked that another was "building up a full head of steam" still lingers in my mind as Doing It Rong.

And don't use today's psychological terminologies when writing in the voice of a pre-modern era person. Eleanor of Aquitaine, for example, does NOT regret that she never "bonded" with her youngest son John.
 

Libbie

Worst song played on ugliest guitar
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
1,094
Location
umber and black Humberland
That's true -- contractions are not modern, but many readers do perceive them to be. I think the informality of contractions makes people think "modern" when it's not necessarily so.

Oh, the "don't use metaphors drawn from the wrong time period" -- so true! I got through two drafts of my novel set in Egypt in 1500 BCE that had a metaphor using steel...OOPS! Fortunately I caught it and changed it to bronze. ;)
 
Last edited:

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
Don't use metaphors that are obviously drawn from things that were invented after the date of your narrative (not the date of the events, necessarily, if your frame story is that the narrator is relating events that happened long before their birth). The novel in which one Roman charioteer remarked that another was "building up a full head of steam" still lingers in my mind as Doing It Rong.

Ack. I was re-reading a scene from a Roman novel I had recently read, and I began to notice all these modernisms.

I don't use contractions in my Roman fiction. Some writers do. It's a question on the writer's style.

Though, it's impossible to keep language completely in the period [especially if you are writing in the Classical world!], just as long it doesn't sound anachronistic.
 

SquareSails

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
195
Reaction score
13
Location
Pennsylvania
Website
www.juliedoherty.com
Thank you to the mods for moving the thread. I looked for the historical forum before I posted and could not find it.

I appreciate all the comments and advice. Much to consider.
 

IceCreamEmpress

Hapless Virago
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
1,321
I don't use contractions in my Roman fiction. Some writers do. It's a question on the writer's style.

I think it's totally awesome for every writer to do whatever works best for them, for their characters, and for their setting.

The thing I object to is people saying that using contractions is anachronistic. It seems pretty clear that people used lots of elisions in everyday speech in ancient Rome, for instance, which is pretty closely analogous to contractions in English. ("Nolo" as opposed to "Ne volo", for example.) And crases in ancient Greek. Representing those as contractions seems like a reasonable approach to translation to me.
 
Last edited:

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
IThe thing I object to is people saying that using contractions is anachronistic. It seems pretty clear that people used lots of elisions in everyday speech in ancient Rome, for instance, which is pretty closely analogous to contractions in English. ("Nolo" as opposed to "Ne volo", for example.) And crases in ancient Greek. Representing those as contractions seems like a reasonable approach to translation to me.

I agree whole-heartedly. It's not as though Romans where speaking RP English. ;)