Language

[BrianTubbs]

This has probably been asked before, but....

When writing historical fiction, is it acceptable to use "modern English" for dialogue? (I being an American will of course write my novels in English. It would be a disaster to attempt otherwise. May STILL be a disaster. :) )

I realize that the author shouldn't use anecdotes, metaphors, etc. that would be unfamiliar to characters living in the day being portrayed. But outside of that, is it fine to use modern English?

I have read some historical novels, obviously, and this approach SEEMS to be what the authors do.

[Evaine]

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.

[pdr]

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.

[Evaine]

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.

[Medievalist]

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.

[arrowqueen]

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.

[Medievalist]

Dialogue like this should be avoided.

Books like that should be avoided.

[pdr]

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.

[beezle]

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.

[veinglory]

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.

[rtilryarms]

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

[Willowmound]

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

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.

[davidthompson]

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.

[rekirts]

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

[rtilryarms]

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.

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.

[pdr]

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.

[Medievalist]

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.

[henriette]

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!

[davidthompson]

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.

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.

[davidthompson]

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.

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."

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!

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.

[pdr]

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.

[davidthompson]

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.

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.

[Evaine]

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.

[henriette]

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.

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!

[pdr]

Yes, David, clear lucid English. We agree!

[BardSkye]

Does anyone here know if the term "bailiff" was used for the slave in overall charge of all the rest in a Roman noble household, around 4BC?

I've come across the designation for country estates, but can't find any referral to city households. Or should I just refer to him as the "slave-master"?

[san_remo_ave]

Does anyone here know if the term "bailiff" was used for the slave in overall charge of all the rest in a Roman noble household, around 4BC?

I've come across the designation for country estates, but can't find any referral to city households. Or should I just refer to him as the "slave-master"?

Does this help?


"Ordinarii seem to have been those slaves who had the superintendence of certain parts of the housekeeping. They were always chosen from those who had the confidence of their master, and they generally had certain slaves under them. To this class the actores, procuratores and dispensatores belong, who occur in the familia rustica as well as the familia urbana, but in the former are almost the same as the villici. They were stewards or bailiffs (Colum. i.7, 8 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Columella/de_Re_Rustica/1*.html#7.7); Plin. Ep. ii.19; Cic. ad Att. xi.1 (http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/att11.shtml#1); Suet. Galb. 12 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Galba*.html#12.3), Vesp. 22 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Vespasian*.html#22)). To the same class also belong the slaves who had the charge of the different stores, and who correspond to our housekeepers and butlers: they are called cellarii, promi, condi, procuratores peni, &c. [Cella (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Cella.html).] "

And the link:http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Servus.html

[BardSkye]

A very interesting link, thank you. Fascinating how much of that language has survived into today's society, isn't it?

[army_grunt13]

In writing my Roman historical novels, I use "proper" English as much as possible, while trying to avoid slang from any era. I admit that I do sometimes come across slightly "British" with some of the lingo I use, though this is often I think more acceptable than modern American English.

The question I have is about the use of profanity. My Dad was asking me about the use of profanity in a few places in my book, namely the use of the famous "F" word. His question was, did they have a similar word in Latin back then? I don't speak Latin, so I can't say for sure, but I'm certain they had some form of extreme profanity that would have the same effect. With that in mind, I did manage to cut my use of the "F-Bomb" from several dozen times, to roughly five. When I did use it, I felt that it was in context, and therefore appropriate, ie an extreme expletive was required and nothing else fit.

[Medievalist]

Martial and Suetonius both use profanity, if you want the genuine article. And the graffiti of Pompei is umm, useful.

I just resorted to Google; you can get an idea of the kinds of cussing used form Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_profanity).

[BardSkye]

And now I have another question I can't find an answer to. Been browsing the web, gone to Wikipedia, gone to the link above...

Did the Romans have another term for "comet" or "nova"? I know our words for them come from the Greek and it looks as though they might be among those that have survived mostly unchanged. The Chinese sometimes called them "guest stars."

[san_remo_ave]

And now I have another question I can't find an answer to. Been browsing the web, gone to Wikipedia, gone to the link above...

Did the Romans have another term for "comet" or "nova"? I know our words for them come from the Greek and it looks as though they might be among those that have survived mostly unchanged. The Chinese sometimes called them "guest stars."

Hi BardSkye,

I think this article might help you --it's a NASA publication for Latin terms relating to Aurorae, Comets, Meteors and Novae. Might be a bit more than you were looking for, but better more than not enough.

Comet = cometa

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JHA....11...10D

[BardSkye]

:Hail: Exactly what I was looking for, thank you. Thank all the gods and goddesses including Jenna for this site! And for the generous people on it!

[san_remo_ave]

You're quite welcome. Glad to be of help.

[Diviner]

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?'




In my work about the early 17th century, I distinguish between the classes by using a fake version of semi-Elizabethan diction:

The soldier raised his musket. ( I know it is an arquebuss, but I am trying to keep it simple.) "This be a match for them any day. 'Sides, Cap'n don't think anyone be there, not the Caribs nor the Spanish."

One-eye Dick tapped John on the shoulder. "Ye've got the duty, lad. Cap'n wants ye to clean the cistern. Best change into yer oldest clothes."

Most my readers have liked this, but I get the feeling people here aren't too keen on the fake archaic diction.
I was hoping for this thread to cast some light on this but am more confused than not. I read a lot of Dekker, the King James Bible, and Shakespear for the period, but my writing doesn't get that archaic. Mostly I write in clear English but I do throw in "Zounds" and "Zblood" as oaths, which my God-fearing characters use under stress. No gadzooks, but one or two "pribbling clotpoles" and the like. One writer said that the greatness of Shakespear ws at least partially due to the richness of the language at that period, and it seems a shame not to at least hint at it.

An Englishman told me my story sounds very authentic, but others would prefer it to have nothing archaic, fake or not.

[BardSkye]

I think it's often a matter of taste. The example you've given would be fine to me, as a reader. And I just love the "pribbling clotpoles"!

There are some writers who just overdo it and drown the reader in archaic terms that mean nothing to them and stilted, stereotyped phrasing. Your example is believable speech. Whether or not the phrasing is historically accurate, I don't know, but if I were reading the book I wouldn't really care. It's understandable. (Same thing pdr said, different words.)

[army_grunt13]

I completely understand where Diviner's coming from, and some readers like that. For me, it makes the reading slow-going and ponderous, but that's just how I am. I actually don't ever fault a writer for doing that to add atmosphere. After all, if one had a pirate of the Carribean saying "Tallyho, old chap! The Captain would like you to be a good fellow and mop the privies," the reader wouldn't buy it.

Since most of my writing is about Rome, I don't have to create accents or lingo, though I do make every effort to avoid any and all modern slang. Example: I almost caught myself using the word "dude" the other day. As much as I may use it when I talk, it certainly would take away from the atmosphere that I'm trying to keep the reader in.

[BardSkye]

And I found myself with an ancient Roman slave saying, "Learn to live with it, girlie."

It sounds wrong somehow. :e2tongue:

[pdr]

it's the publishers who tend to say NO loudly to manuscripts where dialogue is over loaded with archaic words, particularly if the words peppered through it are not from the right time frame. And yes, many readers of historicals like plain simple English so they can get on with the story without stopping to puzzle out every other word.

If you are using 17thC dialogue please be authentic, not just in the words you use, but how you use them. A reviewer of historical novels can spot the fact that pseudo archaic words have been imposed in a modern expression, so can a publisher.

One way of using some of those lovely old words and phrases is in the correct place. For example all those evocative names they called each other where we might say: 'You fool.'
Or when you write descriptions of people, places, and things where an authentic word - an adjective probably - might be used in the description.

If you want to use class-specific language make sure that you understand it. In the 17thC the lord of the manor could sound just as rustic as his men if he hadn't spent time in London and had it educated out of him at Court and even then he might not bother to alter his speech. Schooling didn't alter language as it did in the 19th and 20th C. People - all ranks of people - spoke with strong regional accents and used regional dialect. It would take several lifetimes for a writer to master the correct forms and phrases for every little area in 17thC England and then there were the Welsh, Irish and Scottish forms!

Unless you are from an area of England where you can still hear dialect and have a good feel for it, and only use it as speech in the correct geographical area when you write, then don't try to do more than flavour your writing with period words used correctly.

You are writing fiction. You need to carry the reader into your created world. If you don't get the language right then the reader wonders about the historical truth of the world you created and is not happy to suspend their disbelief and read your story.

[BardSkye]

I stand corrected.:) My opinions are strictly that of a reader in general, not as an avid reader of historical fiction. I've not yet read a great deal of historical fiction as it's a new interest for me. I doubt I would be able to recognize any inaccuracies.

However, I'm going to make sure I keep this discussion in mind for my own, so I hopefully won't make any glaring errors.

"Learn to live with it, girlie." Oh, yeah, that sounds like 4BC talk. Oy vay!

[Diviner]

If you want to use class-specific language make sure that you understand it. In the 17thC the lord of the manor could sound just as rustic as his men if he hadn't spent time in London and had it educated out of him at Court and even then he might not bother to alter his speech. Schooling didn't alter language as it did in the 19th and 20th C. People - all ranks of people - spoke with strong regional accents and used regional dialect. It would take several lifetimes for a writer to master the correct forms and phrases for every little area in 17thC England and then there were the Welsh, Irish and Scottish forms!. . .

You are writing fiction. You need to carry the reader into your created world. If you don't get the language right then the reader wonders about the historical truth of the world you created and is not happy to suspend their disbelief and read your story.

Are you sure historical fiction needs to be this scholarly? Granted, accuracy is desirable, but flavor is important, too. I have checked the names to make them more or less correspond with certain localities in England. I have created the locutions the way any writer creates dialogue, attempting to give my characters unique voices. I keep dialect only as a suggestion because all those local accents are impenetrable if transcribed, especially to American readers. Whatever localisms abounded four hundred years ago are not my concern, because I am hoping merely to suggest broad differences in class, not to use such specialized language as to require footnotes. I chose my fake archaisms as a way of avoiding all that specialized language. So I guess what I am wondering is whether my selective "ye's" and "happen's" need to be changed.

Can this decision wait until the book reaches a publisher or does it need to be made before submission?

[pdr]

Bardsky you are entitled to have and hold your opinion. You are not corrected, I merely pointed out the view that is current in historical writing circles and liked by the publishers of historical fiction.

Are you sure historical fiction needs to be this scholarly?

Actually that's not a particularly scholarly comment. But readers of historical fiction love history. They often know more than the so called experts! They howl with fury when they think basic research hasn't been done and they know. They'll blacken a writer's name from one side of the globe to the other if they catch hir out in basic research errors and give rotten reviews of the book all over the internet.

Another thing that is guaranteed to seriously anger the historical reader is an American writing about English history and not getting it right. (They will also complain about an English writer doing the same with American history.) I don't know enough about what you are actually writing and how English it is, but please do your research thoroughly.

For example:
One-eye Dick tapped John on the shoulder. "Ye've got the duty, lad. Cap'n wants ye to clean the cistern. Best change into yer oldest clothes."

How much do you know about your soldiers? What was their daily wage? What were their rations and duties.
Was John on punishment duty? Cleaning out the cistern was a punishment. Had been in Roman times, still was in the 2nd WW.

'Best change into yer oldest clothes.' is a modern expression dressed up a little, about a modern habit. Tell me why.

Many of your readers would know.

You only submit the perfected final manuscript to a publisher so sort out now what you are going to do and write it right.

Check out the Resources sticky at the top of this board. Jen kindly put it together. If you go in there and look under the Links for Victorian research in the first post you will see a link called Diary Junction. Go there and follow up the diaries of the 17thC. There are quite a few and well worth a read to see how people wrote and thought and expressed themselves.