Language

Back in the 1970s, when Katherine Kurtz began her Deryni series of fantasy novels, set in an alternate medieval period, she used fairly modern dialogue for the characters.
Ursula le Guin wrote a very scathing article about it, saying that the use of modern dialogue undercut the "sense of wonder" which fantasy novels should be aiming for. Since then she's changed her mind a bit, I think.

I'd rather see clear, understandable dialogue with, maybe, the odd word of the period to add flavour, rather than characters saying "Gadzooks!" all the time. Sharon Penman, being an American who does medieval Wales brilliantly, is a good writer to look at for this.

Langauge?

At the moment, Brian, courtesy of the articles in the Historical Novel Society journals, the fashion in writing historical dialogue is for plain simple English. This is what publishers say they like and what the readers, who write the book reviews for the HNS, write that they like.

You'll have to use plain simple American

There is a difference between simple English and idiomatic English. It does jar if you use modern English or American idioms.

I've just read a novel set in the 16thC. The heroine several times uses 'it does so', 'it does too', 'too bad' and 'so what?' which jolt. I notice the reader reviewer of the same book in the HNS 'Review' also complains about this.

I think using good plain grammatical English, with the correct choice of words is the way to go. It's easy to read the diaries and letters and get a taste of the words used. Then where we would, in our conversation today, say something like: 'Use your brain!' we might write 'Sharpen your wits!' or
'Let your mind do the work.'

Another don't is about using peculiarly American ways of expressing something in historical fiction set outside America. The 'Gotten ' construction springs to mind as an example. Blatant Americanisms do stick out like a sore thumb in many of the historicals written by Americans but set in Europe.

Ursula le Guin wrote a very scathing article about it, saying that the use of modern dialogue undercut the "sense of wonder" which fantasy novels should be aiming for. Since then she's changed her mind a bit, I think.

Evaine, wasn't le Guin talking about the same thing? The use of modern idiom which does pull the reader away from the world a writer is creating? Her own work is a good example of clear simple English without jarring modern idiom or expressions.

Read the best historical writers and see how they do it. The good ones balance word choice with simple English for their dialogue and keep you reading smoothly in the century they're writing about.

Yes, Ursula le Guin was talking about how modern idioms were jarring in a historical or fantasy context, but her preference at the time seemed to be for rather more baroque dialogue with added archaic words.

The le Guin thing is from an essay in Language of the Night, and she's actually saying don't do archaism if you're not got a deft hand, but don't use colloquial modern English either.

Use the proper vocabulary of the time; don't call a dresser a dresser if it's a chiffarobe. Don't use modern expressions.

I recently read a book in which Anne Boleyn called things 'cute'; offered Wolsey 'a cream tea'; called Sir Francis Weston 'Frankie' - and generally got on my nerves.

Dialogue like this should be avoided.

arrowqueen said:

Dialogue like this should be avoided.

Click to expand...

Books like that should be avoided.

Argh! Try these.

Sounds like some of the books I sometimes have to review, Arrowqueen.

I like Matthew Pearl's handling of dialogue in 'The Dante Club' and 'The Poe Shadow.'

For really superb dialogue Michael Pearce's historicals set in early 20thC Egypt (The Mamur Zapt series) are excellent if you like Jerome K Jerome and Oscar Wilde style of dry witty dialogue.

And you can't beat Ellis Peters and Rosemary Sutcliffe for clear simple English in their dialogues.

Well, of course you won't write it in Ye Olde Englishe, you want your modern English reader to understand it. But using contemporary slang will yank them right out of the story. Likewise having medieval knights high-five each other and talking in surfesque.

I think it is a delicate compromise. Language as it was used then would confuse most readers--but as it is used now makes the story seem more like a cheap pantomime rather than mosern history. IMHO the reader understands that things are being somewhat translated for them--but as unobtrusively as possible.

I agree. Modern slang should be avoided at all costs.

However call "things" what they were called back then, with a following descriptive text, but don't go out of your way to find things for the sake of trying to be authentic.

Call a carbonated beverage a "bub" and then decribe how the person sees the bubbles rising from the bottom of the tin. Just an example, I don't really know if bubbly drinks existed back then but you get my meaning.

Mike

rtilryarms said:

, I don't really know if bubbly drinks existed back then

Click to expand...

Back when?

'The Past'? When Napoleon fought the Vikings?

Frothing beer was invented in Germany in the 11th century. I guess that was the first bubbly drink.

I definitely think we need to define what period of "back then" we're talking about, and whether the people are speaking in English or a foreign language. The original question seems moot for English speakers anytime from, I dunno, a couple hundred years ago to the present, when the way people talked is pretty much understandable to modern people with a few hints from the author here and there. Why not just try to write dialogue true to the period in 1840 or 1920 same as you would in a novel set in 1960 or 2006?

The farther back you go, the more incomprehensible early English is to a modern reader, and that's where the situation becomes a problem to deal with. And also, of course, it's a problem if the characters are speaking in a foreign language, but that's a problem even in a modern setting.

My characters are often Latin speakers. I have taken my cues from Rosemary Sutcliffe.

Willowmound said:

Back when?

'The Past'? When Napoleon fought the Vikings?

Frothing beer was invented in Germany in the 11th century. I guess that was the first bubbly drink.

Click to expand...

It was an open statement poorly delivered. Back in the era of which the OP was referring, which was not defined, hence my not knowing.

But the point, in my opinion, should not change drastically no matter what period.

Just my opinion and it is not set in stone.

No, I would hope not.

The original question seems moot for English speakers anytime from, I dunno, a couple hundred years ago to the present, when the way people talked is pretty much understandable to modern people with a few hints from the author here and there. Why not just try to write dialogue true to the period in 1840 or 1920 same as you would in a novel set in 1960 or 2006?

We can't write as someone who lived in 1840 or 1920 unless we lived then, because our mind set and personal experiences are so different. Yes, I'd hope that writers would have researched idiom, expressions and phrases current at the time and use them well as they write but dialogue true to the period isn't possible.

The farther back you go, the more incomprehensible early English is to a modern reader, and that's where the situation becomes a problem to deal with. And also, of course, it's a problem if the characters are speaking in a foreign language, but that's a problem even in a modern setting.

The problem is not so much the language as the minds that made it. A good historical writer makes you understand, without long lectures, that your heroine in 1536 is 'hampered' (by modern standards) by long skirts and many petticoats. She has to walk everywhere and her boots and clothes were not waterproof. She gets up with the dawn and goes to bed when it's dark. Her life would revolve around the church and seeing that enough food was put by for winter and spring. Weather would be all important. A horse was an expensive luxury to most people. The state of the crops and vegetable garden was a constant worry. Moonlight became a way of extending her days to visit neighbours, knowing she had light to return by. In the towns her days would be a struggle to earn some money for rent and to buy flour. Information was scarce, mainly rumour and gossip which would be confirmed on Sundays at church. Her world was her village or town. We can't get our minds to work like that. But we can use good simple English to give our readers a feeling and taste of 1536.

For heaven's sake, don't do early English, that is, English as she was spoke before, say, 1700. Sure, use specific vocabulary and expressions, and don't engage in anachronism, but don't use Early Modern English or Middle English or Old English, other than to borrow the vocabulary for concepts or items that were peculiar to the era.

For example, if you're writing something set in tenth century England, you might have a character demand the wergeld for his brother's untimely death at the hands of a drunken fellow.

Go ahead and use the term wergeld, but in the context explain that it it is the price for his death, to be given in recompense to his family or lord.

when reading classics, i noticed that much of the dialogue- aside from colloquialisms and period terms- is absent of contractions.

in my wip, which takes place in 1835, i've taken all the "i didn't", "i wouldn't", "wouldn't you...?" "don't stop!" "i'm..." "we've" "you're" etc. out. so far, it seems to have given the dialogue an 'oldish' feeling without being stuffy.

lots of great ideas here. i love this thread!

pdr said:

Why not just try to write dialogue true to the period in 1840 or 1920 same as you would in a novel set in 1960 or 2006?

We can't write as someone who lived in 1840 or 1920 unless we lived then, because our mind set and personal experiences are so different. Yes, I'd hope that writers would have researched idiom, expressions and phrases current at the time and use them well as they write but dialogue true to the period isn't possible.

Click to expand...

Notice I said "try to." My point is that writers set a goal. Whether they can succeed 100% at that goal is a separate matter. But it's different to think, "I'm going to deliberately make my characters speak in modern but non-idiomatic English," or "I'm going to try to research and duplicate speech from the period as realistically as possible."

Sure, one can discuss all day what's too distractingly modern or how the word "hello" was used in the period, but the point is, if you know which goal you're shooting for, you can try to make the best choice to succeed at that goal.

One thing I didn't bring up is that even in a contemporary novel, most people advise not writing dialogue exactly the way people talk anyway, but instead giving the illusion. All the stumbling around, the "uhs" and "you knows" and false starts and irrelevant chit-chat, get pared out, unless they're important to show character or some other reason.

So when I talk about trying to duplicate the way people talk in any era, I mean that the usual advice about writing "good" dialogue still applies.

henriette said:

when reading classics, i noticed that much of the dialogue- aside from colloquialisms and period terms- is absent of contractions.

in my wip, which takes place in 1835, i've taken all the "i didn't", "i wouldn't", "wouldn't you...?" "don't stop!" "i'm..." "we've" "you're" etc. out. so far, it seems to have given the dialogue an 'oldish' feeling without being stuffy.

Click to expand...

If we're talking about 19th Century American English, here's a cool, quick-and-dirty way to find examples of words used in context in various social classes and situations. At the search engine here:

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_adv.html

restrict the date range to whatever you want, say 1830-1840, and put a a word or phrase in the search box. Leave out the apostrophe, if there is one. Don't know why, but the search engine hates 'em. Try the word both with a space for the apostrophe, and without, and with a space where the words would break.

For example, I did ntproduces three hits and I didnt produces six. Then you can click to see the usage in context. A random click on one of the "I didn'ts" brings up this dialog, from "Clavers's Glimpses of Western Life," North American Review, January 1840:

"Why, I'm sure I only said that we only paid twelve-and-a-half cents at the East; and as to log-houses, I don't know, I can't just recollect, but I didn't say more than others did."

Click to expand...

Another random example, from "Mrs. Butler's Journal," North American Review, July 1835 is supposedly from a journal written as sort of an interior monologue:

Unpacked and sorted things. Opened with a trembling heart my bonnet box, and found my precious Devy squeezed to a crush,--I pulled it out, rebowed, and reblonded, and reflowered it, and now it looks good enough 'pour les thauvages mamthelle Fannie.' Worked at my muslin gown, in short did a deal. A cheating German woman came here this morning with some bewitching canezous and pelerines: I chose two that I wanted, and one very pretty one that I didn't, but as she asked a heathen price for 'em, I took only the former;--dear good little me!

Click to expand...

Another handy resource is Dictionary of Americanisms, by John Russell Bartlett. (NY: Bartlett and Welford, 1848) online at http://www.merrycoz.org/voices/bartlett/AMER02.HTM

There's lots of cool stuff online to help with period dialog, but of course I've only investigated what's out there to help with the period I'm writing in (mid 19th century US), but I'd bet there's lots of good stuff for other eras too.

Er, David?

Plain simple English is what I wrote.

I did not write or mean modern English. The publishers do not mean modern English.
We mean simple English, no gadzookery, no stilted attempts to reproduce 17thC speech with a plethora of 17thC words, and what a writer fondly imagines are 17thC speech patterns.

Good, grammatical, clear, and simple English.

Of course we expect writers to have done their research, and to read as much as they can that was written at the time they write about. But to try and reproduce that for today's reader is going to be a disaster. We have to translate the essence of their words into something today's readers can read without going 'Huh?'

Henriette, just dropping contractions doesn't always work.
In 1835 people used contractions as much as we did. It was not thought 'proper' or 'correct' to print and publish contractions. Indeed today one journal I write for still does not allow contractions!

What you need to do is make sure that your characters don't use contractions in a modern way. It's those speech patterns which make it 1835 and not 1935 or 2005.

The Complete Oxford Dictionary or its smaller versions is invaluable if you write historicals because it dates the words from their first print appearance. Very useful to make sure your word choice is accurate.

Nice resources, David, we need to ask Jen to sticky them up in our Resources thread.

pdr said:

Plain simple English is what I wrote.

I did not write or mean modern English. The publishers do not mean modern English.
We mean simple English, no gadzookery, no stilted attempts to reproduce 17thC speech with a plethora of 17thC words, and what a writer fondly imagines are 17thC speech patterns.

Good, grammatical, clear, and simple English.

Click to expand...

I think we may be in agreement. By "modern but non-idiomatic English" I meant modern as in no stilted gadzookery, but without idioms obviously recognizable as post-period either. In other words, English that is understandable to modern readers but sounds timeless.

It's a challenge and a fine art, but a different task than what we writers with 19th or 20th century American characters face, since "our people" actually did talk in a way comfortable enough for modern ears, if we can just try to duplicate it.

rekirts mentioned Rosemary Sutcliff earlier - I agree that she's well worth looking at. In books like Eagle of the Ninth you can tell instantly whether a Roman or a Celt is speaking by the speech patterns, for instance. She can do it for almost any period, too - The Rider on a White Horse is about Fairfax, who was a general on the Cromwellian side in the English Civil War, and she draws you straight into that period.

pdr said:

Henriette, just dropping contractions doesn't always work.
In 1835 people used contractions as much as we did. It was not thought 'proper' or 'correct' to print and publish contractions. Indeed today one journal I write for still does not allow contractions!

What you need to do is make sure that your characters don't use contractions in a modern way. It's those speech patterns which make it 1835 and not 1935 or 2005.

Click to expand...

agreed, pdr. i consider taking the contractions out as a starting point, and i do use them sparingly when a character is speaking urgently, angrily etc. i'm not against all contractions, per se, but do find taking some of them out gives a better flavour to the dialogue.

gotta say it again- i love this thread!

Agreed!

Yes, David, clear lucid English. We agree!