My two submissions so far in a writing practice group have resulted in some minor culture shock for me.
The critiques I have gotten have mentioned discomfort with my tendency to write in what they see as an archaic cadence, not just in terms of word choice (e.g.. wicket, porteress, wonted) but what they characterized as assumptions about the reader. I sat up and took notice! Not only do I write like that all the time, sometimes even in my daily life, but I immerse myself in reading mostly historical novels set in the Middle Ages.
I wonder if I have programmed myself to think and write "forsoothly", as one reenactment group calls it. The bect question is, does it matter? Would readers unfamiliar with and possibly uncomfortable with such prose read my books anyway? Is there a plus to writing this way, making it part of setting the scene?
I am calling on other historical novelists to register your opinions on any or all of the following questions:
1. Does an archaic tone to a novel's narrative or dialogue help or hurt it?
2. What is too much when it comes to archaic usage?
3. Someone I know finds you can be too modern as well, using expressions like "I'm just not into him." What do you think?
4. Since any novel that takes place before the Tudor era in England and in any other place where English was not the language is essentially a translation, does it really matter what words an author chooses?
5. I am well known for pointing out that just because a particular word was not recorded does not mean it was not in use in the time about which one is writing, my example being "pitcher". But other writers point to words like "masochism" and "sadism" that came from the names of specific people who were not born yet definitely is outside the reasonable. My question here is why the author can't just write "self destructive" and "deliberately cruel"? Your opinion?
Please click on Comments below to chime in on the topic.
My thanks, gentle reader! (See?)
TOMORROW- Come back and play with some forsoothly translations.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Writing Forsoothly... When Is It Too Much?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I try to at least give a flavour of the way language was used at the time. Which is subjective, of course, but then all writing is. If there is written source material from your period, then I reckon it's as important to give the reader an experience of the rythmn and cadence of the language (and therefore the thoughts) of the time as it is to get the clothes and other physical details right.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean dropping 'zounds and gadzooks' into the prose every so often, but, for me, if you read enough of the source material you can identify the particular character of the era. 18th Century is frivalous but elegant and sometimes startlingly callous. Anglo-Saxon is melancholic and flowing, but harsh. I think it's very important to be able to catch that mood and reflect it in your own prose.
Maggie:
ReplyDeleteIf you're okay with it, you could use "medieval Jewish expressions"(if that's the right way of putting it), like "day one" for Sunday, as long as you put it in a glossary or an explanation. Of course, some readers won't read such an explanation, so maybe you're right to be anachronistic.
Anne G