This is a return to some reactions to my work in SYW. It was suggested that my dialogue was a bit gadzookery. (Great word.) I need more guidance, because I am caught between including small bits of exotic language, like nuts in brownies, and trying to keep the pace swift and the speech understandable.
I reread a lot of Shakespeare as well as Marlow and Philip Dekker before I started writing, but early on decided to simplify. On this site, the consensus seems to be, to leave out most of the archaisms. It may be laziness, but I find using them for the lower class speakers is an easy way to differentiate speech patterns. If I change what I have done, I have a lot of work ahead of me. And I really enjoy my infrequent expletives--Zounds!, Zblood, etc. More than that, I love the occasional "currish, crook-pated clackdish" and "mewling, idle-headed foot-licker." If I clear out the "ye's" and the "'tis's" I fear these will stand out like giants among pygmies.
I have been reading this aloud to my writing group, and their reaction is split down the middle. Some love the language in the dialogue and others, without the elegance of "gadzookery" want the archaisms to disappear.
I am within a week or so of finishing, so this dichotomy looms as an important issue. I would appreciate any and all insights into this.
I reread a lot of Shakespeare as well as Marlow and Philip Dekker before I started writing, but early on decided to simplify. On this site, the consensus seems to be, to leave out most of the archaisms. It may be laziness, but I find using them for the lower class speakers is an easy way to differentiate speech patterns. If I change what I have done, I have a lot of work ahead of me. And I really enjoy my infrequent expletives--Zounds!, Zblood, etc. More than that, I love the occasional "currish, crook-pated clackdish" and "mewling, idle-headed foot-licker." If I clear out the "ye's" and the "'tis's" I fear these will stand out like giants among pygmies.
I have been reading this aloud to my writing group, and their reaction is split down the middle. Some love the language in the dialogue and others, without the elegance of "gadzookery" want the archaisms to disappear.
I am within a week or so of finishing, so this dichotomy looms as an important issue. I would appreciate any and all insights into this.