Modern Reference Points In HF?

I'm with you. If I trip over things like that when I'm reading, throws me right out of the place and time the author has, supposedly, worked so hard to get me to... sort of like the scene in 'Somewhere in Time' where Richard saw the penny from his own time and the realization tore him back to the current day. Makes me wonder what else the writer was too lazy to get right.

Another grate - calling places by their current names or saying that 1000 years later the place would be New York or whatever. Puma

I don't mind modern place names if the writer explains in a foreward that they are using them as a convention to make it easier for the reader to visualize locations (i.e., Mary Stewart and the Merlin Trilogy). I agree if there is no warning, it can be very jarring.

I actually prefer modern place names most times because I spend too much time being puzzled by what is where now and wondering about the usage (London, for example, could be called many right things).

Most other times I think modernisms are poor research unless the author explains it.

I can't stand that. It's so lazy. Writing something set in a different time period requires you to be aware of your preconceptions, to stop and think, wait, would they have done it like this just because I do? Fully committing to writing historical work isn't just research, it's also knowing when to research. It's not always easy to catch, sure-- I didn't even think about a character in the 20s taking a pen out of their pocket to write something at first, until finally I was like, wait, is it likely they'd have a ballpoint pen? (though I was lazy and didn't try to find out; I just gave them a pencil ). But you always have to be thinking about your own frame of reference. There isn't anything inherent about a library that means you have to be quiet, it's an expectation-- so was it an expectation in x period? These days people get mad if you talk during a movie, but people talked all the time during silents. We all slip up sometimes, but if you aren't going to make a serious effort to get into the mindset of the times... why are you writing historical?

They had fountain pens in the 1920s.

Some cities in the 9th century were known by as many as three names:

The Franks called a town by its Roman name Caesaraugusta, the Saracen-Berber-Moor Muslims Saraqusta, and the Visigoth Christians Zaragosa.

gothicangel said:

So what do you think authorial laziness, or historical dumbing down?

Click to expand...

I think it could be either or both, or perhaps immaturity. On the other hand, I recognized the errors in your post and I haven't studied the Roman period (but I have a son that is quite fascinated with it).

All I can say is, I will be sure to look for a "Historical Beta" to help me catch any errors like that.

On a related note...my WIP is set in 1849 so pre Civil War. My MC is anti-slavery. But I can get away with that because she had been raised a Quaker and they were very anti-slavery. It almost feels like cheating, LOL!

Puma said:

Another grate - calling places by their current names or saying that 1000 years later the place would be New York or whatever. Puma

Click to expand...

EngineerTiger said:

I don't mind modern place names if the writer explains in a foreward that they are using them as a convention to make it easier for the reader to visualize locations (i.e., Mary Stewart and the Merlin Trilogy). I agree if there is no warning, it can be very jarring.

Click to expand...

mayqueen said:

I actually prefer modern place names most times because I spend too much time being puzzled by what is where now and wondering about the usage (London, for example, could be called many right things).

Most other times I think modernisms are poor research unless the author explains it.

Click to expand...

Maps and/or author's notes, my friends.

The map at the front of the book or the author's note can explain modern-day equivalents.



Too easy?

ETA: Regarding the discussion. I don't mind when books are a little off. I just stop reading them and determine to do better with my own writing.

I'm interested in this stuff about place names. My WIP opens in Saint-Domingue, which is modern Haiti. In an earlier draft, I called it Saint-Domingue and included some elaborate paragraph that would allow a modern reader to place it on a map. In one of my multiple redrafts, I dropped this. All that matters is that he is in the place that we would now call Haiti, so I call it Haiti. I can see why some people here would think that is wrong, but I am inclined to stick with it. It clearly isn't laziness. I know the proper name and have changed it. In part, this was because I felt that Saint-Domingue was rather showing off that I'd done my research, and I think that is generally to be avoided. And it meant either a clumsy bit of 'Did you know, Fred...' dialogue or leaving readers confused. (I am not happy with the suggestion that people should have to read my work with a reference book in their other hand.)

I'm also not sure why I should say 'Saint-Domingue' and not 'Haiti' when I use English throughout, rather than having my characters speak in the French, German and Spanish that they dip into in the course of the story.

Consistency can be a problem. I'm reading something for review at the moment, set during the Roman Empire. Some country names are Romanised but where no easy equivalent is available, he uses the modern country names. This is really bugging me in a way that using modern names throughout would not. Again, his characters are not speaking Latin in his book, so why translate everything else but not place names? It really doesn't worry me.

Would anyone care to respond? I'm still revising, so I'm open to changing it back.

Er...

sorry, Tom, but I'd use the old name right through, have a map and note at the beginning for the reader.

It's just I like things historical to be historical!

I suppose it can also be used to make the modern reader more sympathetic towards the characters. Many ancient ways of thinking and customs may look wrong to modern readers. I can see why some authors would make their Roman soldiers for instance inspired with ideals of fighting for their freedom, instead of just being in the business of killing for money or plunder.

It sometimes takes a brave author to say: yes, my character is a misogynist or a racist because that's how most people in their situation, in that specific era, most likely would be.

As for ancient names, I tend to prefer the name used in the time-frame of the book. Romans should be talking about Londinium rather than London. But I always do like it when the author inserts a comment, map of foot-note that helps readers link old names to modern ones. Took me forever to find out where ancient Phoenicia was located.

Friendly Frog said:

I suppose it can also be used to make the modern reader more sympathetic towards the characters. Many ancient ways of thinking and customs may look wrong to modern readers. I can see why some authors would make their Roman soldiers for instance inspired with ideals of fighting for their freedom, instead of just being in the business of killing for money or plunder.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind, I have not really studied Roman history other than hearing about it from my son who has...but weren't many Roman soldiers forced into the job? They had a certain amount of time they had to serve before they could be free.

To me that is what I would use for reader sympathy, assuming I am right, of course.I think you have to find real reasons that fit the time period you are writing and use that. For example, in the help, the MC is not ok with the status quo (and modern day readers agree with her). But she acted as someone in that time period would, IMO.

Literateparakeet said:

Keep in mind, I have not really studied Roman history other than hearing about it from my son who has...but weren't many Roman soldiers forced into the job? They had a certain amount of time they had to serve before they could be free.

Click to expand...

I'm not a historian either. But the Roman Empire lasted for centuries, so while I'm sure there were periods and areas in Roman Empire where soldiers were forced into the army, I also seem to recall the Romans were the first (or one of the first) to have professional soldiers who enlisted or re-enlisted freely, who never had any other occupation but legionnaire and received wages regularly. Not paying their soldiers had landed more than one ruler into trouble, IIRC.

pdr said:

sorry, Tom, but I'd use the old name right through, have a map and note at the beginning for the reader.

Click to expand...

I've used the names used at the time for the South American countries central to the story. The opening in Haiti is not central to the story and a map would not be appropriate. I could put notes at the end, but people won't (usually) read these until the end. A lot of people dislike footnotes in novels, so I would avoid that.

Any thoughts from anyone else?

Friendly Frog said:

I'm not a historian either. But the Roman Empire lasted for centuries, so while I'm sure there were periods and areas in Roman Empire where soldiers were forced into the army, I also seem to recall the Romans were the first (or one of the first) to have professional soldiers who enlisted or re-enlisted freely, who never had any other occupation but legionnaire and received wages regularly. Not paying their soldiers had landed more than one ruler into trouble, IIRC.

Click to expand...

This is my recollection too. LP is right about serving their full time being advantageous - it was one way to get citizenship. Plus, on retirement, you would be given land and money as a sort of pension provision. It made serving your time well worthwhile.

Generally, I think civilians do often forget that for many soldiers now and, I suspect, in the past, soldiering is a job. Troops sent to Afghanistan, for example, may or may not support their government's war goals, but they go because they are soldiers and it's what soldiers do. Many will have joined up with notions of patriotism or service to their country - but it is, first and foremost, a job. (Recruitment targets in the UK are always more easily met in times of high unemployment.) NB I'm not saying this is a bad thing.

Tom from UK said:

I've used the names used at the time for the South American countries central to the story. The opening in Haiti is not central to the story and a map would not be appropriate. I could put notes at the end, but people won't (usually) read these until the end. A lot of people dislike footnotes in novels, so I would avoid that.

Any thoughts from anyone else?

Click to expand...

I encountered this problem as a reader -- moreover, with the very same place. When I was ten or so, I used to read Sabatini's pirate novels (translated into Russian) where a certain island of Hispaniola was mentioned time and again.

There was no Hispaniola on Soviet maps or in Soviet encyclopaedias. But it could not be anything but the island of Haiti, so I made a guess (which I confirmed as correct much later when I found a two-volume Soviet encyclopaedia of Latin America) that Hispaniola used to be the name of the isle in Russian as well.

Nowadays old names are one click away on the Net. I daresay Saint-Domingue may be kept as the name of the colony -- it the Englishmen used it back then and didn't call it 'French Hispaniola' or something else.

Thanks everyone. I learn something new every day.

Regarding maps, yes, I find them very helpful, but here's the problem I'm encountering: my Kindle. It's harder to flip back and forth to consult the map in a Kindle. I don't think that my technological difficulty necessitates using modern names exactly, but it's something to be aware of. I feel differently about cities and countries that no longer exist, though. I don't know. It's just a personal thing. Modern place names are modern details I don't mind. Other types of errors, I am less sympathetic toward.

Perhaps...

Tom if:

The opening in Haiti is not central to the story and a map would not be appropriate.

How about when you mention Haiti first you use the old name with the modern name in brackets immediately after it?