Dialogue speech patterns

[Diviner]

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.

[Rob B]

I just reread something in SIMPLE AND DIRECT, by Jacques Barzun, on this very topic. I don't want to bore you with my opinion, but what he said had good purpose, and you might want to take a look at this.

On the direct topic of what you refer to as archaisms and speech patterns and their relationship to dialogue inflection, all writers have to be careful not to get caught like Fitzgerald did, where all of his chivalrous knights sounded like a band of rednecks. Here was a genius who couldn't pull off period writing effectively.

Just a point. The first time I read Shakespeare I spent three months and looked up over 3000 words. And this was in addition to a glossary that was included with the text. I did this as a student and because I wanted to understand the material as best I could. But do most people want to go to the extreme of deciphering or having to analyze text when reading for pleasure?

[Puma]

Hi Diviner - I went back and looked at your most recent post in share your work (and I forgot to take a look at what I said about it). Looking at it tonight, I think my major complaint would be too much use of "be", expecially in places where for the period it might have been stated a bit more complexly as in "t'woud be". You have a fair amount of what I would call more modern dialogue with a sprinkling of period flavor - that may be part of the problem, that in places it reads too modern. I also don't think your character Og Ogilvie is helping you (and may be a bit of the gadzookery statement). Can you make one of the two names different so they aren't so similar? I sort of get the feeling re-looking at your post that you may be straddling the fence too much and need to either be more modern or more archaic. I agree that people read for entertainment, but I also read to learn which includes learning bits of foreign phrases or non-contemporary English. Honestly, if I were in your shoes I'd probably go more Archaic rather than more contemporary (but I would take a hard look at all the instances of "be".) Good luck. Puma

[pdr]

This is all so complicated because as writers we love to play around and use what we've researched. And it's hard not to have fun with language in your time period.

Publishers who specialise in historical novels are quite clear that they don't want gadzookery. HNS members and reviewers come down strongly in favour of non-dialect English. Best selling authors of historicals do not fill their chapters with dialect and period speech.

It's not Modern English you want to write in your historical novel. It's plain simple English. No idioms.

And you use only the words that were available at the time. The Oxford Dictionary really is the best for telling you when words were first found in the written form if you are writing about non-American history.

The historical flavour comes through in your writing because you can use some of those words and expressions used at the time.

Diviner's "currish, crook-pated clackdish" and "mewling, idle-headed foot-licker" actually have their place. As do the religious references and oaths, and other specifics which belong to your period. Just don't use more than two at a time and in exactly the right place.

What's so awful about all those ye and be and 'tis sprinkled throughout is the fact that they aren't genuine, Diviner. Where did you actually research these words as being part of the lower class speech?

Show social status through word choice, ungrammatical structures, and small vocabulary. Think what their lives were like, what they ate and did and you will have an idea of the words they used.

I agree with Puma that your vocab generally is modern, not plain English, and that makes the ye, be, 'tis bits really jar.

Don't forget that Shakespeare's peasant characters, like Dogberry and the Watch, were meant to be comic and he wrote their speech as such for specific actors. The rest of his characters could hardly be called peasants!

'Arrh, ye be right, Master. 'Tis the wrong road we be going down.' is just plain funny to listen to or read throughout a novel.


However 'Tis the full moon this night.' from a poacher, smuggler or sailor would be acceptable especially if the full moon was important for the plot.

How many YA historical novels have you read, Diviner? There are so many, old now,but still on the library shelves, published by the Oxford University Press, which are shining examples of good writing. They would be worth reading to see how authors managed dialogue.

[san_remo_ave]

It's like seasonings. Used carefully, enhances the flavor.

[Kentuk]

I went to Virginia and took a look and agree with Puma. Thought much of your period dialouge well done and your protag a little too well spoken (modern). You might have your gazooky moments but wouldn't generalize your dialouge with that tag. Thought it was a rather good opening scene.

[Diviner]

[quote=Puma;1240144

I also don't think your character Og Ogilvie is helping you (and may be a bit of the gadzookery statement). Can you make one of the two names different so they aren't so similar? [/quote]

About Og: It's a nickname, like Mack MacDonald. Isn't that clear? Is there some other problem with Og? Thanks for looking.

[Diviner]

This is all so complicated because as writers we love to play around and use what we've researched. And it's hard not to have fun with language in your time period.

Publishers who specialise in historical novels are quite clear that they don't want gadzookery. HNS members and reviewers come down strongly in favour of non-dialect English. Best selling authors of historicals do not fill their chapters with dialect and period speech.

It's not Modern English you want to write in your historical novel. It's plain simple English. No idioms.

And you use only the words that were available at the time. The Oxford Dictionary really is the best for telling you when words were first found in the written form if you are writing about non-American history.

The historical flavour comes through in your writing because you can use some of those words and expressions used at the time.

Diviner's "currish, crook-pated clackdish" and "mewling, idle-headed foot-licker" actually have their place. As do the religious references and oaths, and other specifics which belong to your period. Just don't use more than two at a time and in exactly the right place.

What's so awful about all those ye and be and 'tis sprinkled throughout is the fact that they aren't genuine, Diviner. Where did you actually research these words as being part of the lower class speech?

Show social status through word choice, ungrammatical structures, and small vocabulary. Think what their lives were like, what they ate and did and you will have an idea of the words they used.

I agree with Puma that your vocab generally is modern, not plain English, and that makes the ye, be, 'tis bits really jar.

Don't forget that Shakespeare's peasant characters, like Dogberry and the Watch, were meant to be comic and he wrote their speech as such for specific actors. The rest of his characters could hardly be called peasants!

'Arrh, ye be right, Master. 'Tis the wrong road we be going down.' is just plain funny to listen to or read throughout a novel.


However 'Tis the full moon this night.' from a poacher, smuggler or sailor would be acceptable especially if the full moon was important for the plot.

How many YA historical novels have you read, Diviner? There are so many, old now,but still on the library shelves, published by the Oxford University Press, which are shining examples of good writing. They would be worth reading to see how authors managed dialogue.

Wow! I feel reprimanded.

I confess, I have a most unscholarly approach to the language here. If publishers don't want any sort of dialect, my books have little chance of being published as they stand. And, no, I didn't sit with the OED in hand. I don't own it (way too expensive), but I do consult it from time to time at the library. I created sort of a light-hearted pastiche, which may be a mistake. I definitely have to think about this. (But as I said, some people like it.)

I've read tons of YA historicals over the years, and I admit none of them resemble mine. My history is as accurate as I can make it, but the language, well no, not at all carefully researched. I kept it quaint but stayed well away (too far?) from authenticity.

Thanks for the input.

[Puma]

Hi Diviner - Og Ogilvie - yes, it was obvious what you were doing, but it may be too much. Mac is a well accepted nickname for someone named McDonald but Og is just a little ... For example, how many other instances of a nickname derived from a surname can you come up with? I don't think it's a really common practice. And, in the Mac McDonald example, his given name would be something else so he would say My name is James McDonald but people call me Mac. Puma

[pdr]

I am sorry, Diviner, but I've said all that before and you said you liked your dialogue, your readers did and you were sticking with it.

The singular form of you at your time period was thee, thou and thine.
Captain to sailor, master to servant would address him or her as 'Thou foolish nave.'
Family and lovers would use this form too. 'Shall I compare thee to a
summer's day?'
But again it's hard on modern ears if used more than once a chapter!

The OED is online at a very reasonable cost. There is a free etymological dictionary online which is at http://www.etymonline.com/ It isn't always 100% accurate in detail, but is generally pretty useful as you write.

a light-hearted pastiche, which may be a mistake.
Well, it is so Hollywood sounding right now. And in the Commonwealth there have been so many films and radio and TV dramas sending up history with just this sort of Hollywood pastiche for dialogue that most readers will think it is a send up. Think of all those Monty Python sketches with John Cleese and the early BlackAdder series.

We can't go back in time, we can't hear the speech but to keep the reader suspending their disbelief and enjoying our creation we have to give them something they can swallow.

[Diviner]

"The singular form of you at your time period was thee, thou and thine.
Captain to sailor, master to servant would address him or her as 'Thou foolish nave.'
Family and lovers would use this form too. 'Shall I compare thee to a
summer's day?'
But again it's hard on modern ears if used more than once a chapter!"

Of course I know this, and I specifically chose "ye" and "yer" as a compromise, hoping it would be read as "yuh," a rather inarticulate vocalization. The "be's" are a sort of generalization, related to Ebonics (shudder at the word) or the language of those who can't read and learn a language from others who can't read.

I had no idea my language was hokey and Hollywoodish, and I am not poking fun at my characters. One of my most important themes is that democracy in America arose from the strengths and virtues of the common man, that privilege, when not earned, is destructive, not to mention oppressive. My men are not clowns but ordinary men voicing ideas treasonous in their day. It may be inauthentic (and off the topic), but you can understand why it is important to me to get the language right for the reader, if not for the time.

[Diviner]

I just reread something in SIMPLE AND DIRECT, by Jacques Barzun, on this very topic. I don't want to bore you with my opinion, but what he said had good purpose, and you might want to take a look at this.

Just a point. The first time I read Shakespeare I spent three months and looked up over 3000 words. And this was in addition to a glossary that was included with the text. I did this as a student and because I wanted to understand the material as best I could. But do most people want to go to the extreme of deciphering or having to analyze text when reading for pleasure?

I just got the Barzun book. Thanks for the suggestion. It looks most promising. Certainly, it will be a pleasure to read it. The other editors who have written writing books, like Maas, seem to talk about what sells in today's market. That is certainly worth knowing, but Barzun evinces a love for clear language, which appeals to me.

As for Shakespeare, I read all his plays (except Timon of Athens and Titus Andronicus) during summer vacation when I was in high school, just for fun. I was in love with the theater, and the plays fascinated me. I found reading them with my English classes with all that attention to vocabulary deadly dull. In college, when I studied Shakespeare, we paid less attention to vocabulary than to form and song, not to mention the underlying philosopical concepts, which may be one reason I don't want to look up every third word when I write. If my words could sing, I would not even worry about my diction. Alas, I am at present tone deaf in my language.

[pdr]

If my words could sing,...

Practice makes perfect, Diviner, and you have been a real 'old pro' in taking our criticisms without a flounce or huff or wail.

I can see that you want your characters to be indiviual and special.

May I suggest that you look at each one's background and make their speech from that?

Your Og character has been a town boy all his life, yes?
Then his voc will be very different from your country boys.
And each country boy will have a different voc according to which part of the country and what work he did.

Settle a trade on each character. Go and look up the trade specific words which they would use, e.g. a cooper or fletcher or smith would use very different words. The lists are available. My reference books are in storage in NZ, but someone here will know of such lists. Try our resources sticky at the top of the board.

Your characters from the country are much more aware of the weather, the state of the soil, the seasons and needing to lay by food for winter. Their references are to the sun and moon and how much they can get done in the daylight. They might never have used money very much, but bartered and traded.

Your town boys will be more familiar with using money, seeing artificial lights at night, seeing wealthy people and merchants, shops, shopping and begging, scrounging work, living off wealthy people, plays and other such entertainments, fashionable clothes and shoes.

Don't forge that most people in the 17thC never moved far from their home place. I believe for most people it was a five mile radius. Obviously there are exceptions, sailors, soldiers, preachers. but generally speaking poor folk stayed put. Your group of disparate people will find much of interest in each other's differences in speech and home life.

[Evaine]

Actually, the idea that people didn't travel much needs a bit of modification, depending on the period. The higher up the social heirarchy you were, the more you would travel. Eleanor of Aquitaine, who died in 1204, travelled an average of 3,000 miles a year (apart from the years she was imprisoned by her husband, of course). Even ordinary people would go on pilgrimage, even if it was only from London to Canterbury, and ordinary people would travel as the servants of the rich.
The point about accents differing over a small difference is well made, though. In Manchester 100 years ago, it was possible to pinpoint where a person came from to within 4 streets by the slight variations in accent.

[PattiTheWicked]

The thing to remember with the English language is that if you're writing anything that takes place more than about 200 years ago, you'll never be historically accurate, because language has evolved so much. I recently read a review of a book that took place in ancient Rome, and the reviewer commented "I doubt that [character] would have used the word [creative profanity]." Well, no, he wouldn't have, nor would he have used any of the other words in the dialogue, because he'd have been speaking Latin, so it was a moot point.

The best thing you can do is establish the character's background by speech patterns and idioms, as several people have explained above. A young man raised in town, surrounded by clerks and merchants and religious leaders, would certainly have a different vocabulary and speech pattern than one raised in some far-flung village full of pig farmers. But you can establish these characters without excessive use of "ye" and "thou" and such.

[Parkinsonsd]

I'm stuck on this question too. My WIP takes place ca 1670. I figured that it would be best to try and keep the feeling consistent as opposed to slavishly recreate the dialect.

[ClaudiaGray]

My guess is that you have to strike a balance. If you go totally authentic with language, it won't read well to modern readers. On the other hand, if you modernize too much -- I am thinking here specifically of Mistress of Subtleties, set in the Tudor court, which went so far as to rename Bessie Blount "Betsy" and Madge Sinclair "Meg" -- then you totally lose the flavor of the time, which is surely part of what we want in historical fiction.

It helps to look at literary convention, too. There's absolutely no reason that Roman patrician characters should speak like upper-class Englishmen, and yet it's been done that way so often and so long, you'd have to be VERY solid on your interpretation to do something else and have anybody buy it.

[Evaine]

I thought it was a nice touch in the radio adaptations of the Falco stories that the Emperor Vespasian has a Yorkshire accent - because he came from the provinces - but his son Titus Caesar sounds posh, because he grew up in Rome.

[thedrafthorse]

The thing to remember with the English language is that if you're writing anything that takes place more than about 200 years ago, you'll never be historically accurate, because language has evolved so much.

I've heard that, accent-wise, modern American English is much closer in pronunciation to the English of 200-300 years ago than is modern British English. (I don't know if that's actually true, and I don't know how "they" know that, but that's what I've heard...)

[Diviner]

I've heard that, accent-wise, modern American English is much closer in pronunciation to the English of 200-300 years ago than is modern British English. (I don't know if that's actually true, and I don't know how "they" know that, but that's what I've heard...)

I don't know about the accent, but the diction may be related. That was one of the reason I chose "Ebonics," because Gullah, a language spoken on an isolated island is supposed to be Elizabethan.

But everyone is right--we don't really know how they spoke, only how they wrote. I read a bunch of letters to get an idea of less formal language, but even the letters are pretty fusty. The language spoken in the hill country of the South also resonates with some similar locutions.
What's really interesting about those speakers from the South is the vividness of their phrasing. Without the obscure (to us) vocabulary of Shakespeare, Southerners can be wonderfully colorful. I want to flavor my dialogue similarly but keep it easy to read.

[pdr]

collection of diaries and journals written in the 17thC available to read online at diary junction, http://www.pikle.demon.co.uk/diaryjunction/alphabetab.html
http://www.pikle.demon.co.uk/diaryjunction/alphabetab.html
Sorry can't get the url to come up correctly. It should read diaryjunction/alphabettab

They give you a very good idea of the words you can drop into your characters' speech, or a pattern of words to use, or a 'not used' now grammatical form.

Susan Vreeland, historical novelist, gives this advice to would be historical novelist writers:
'Love every step of the way, every moment of discovery. Love your characters, your time period, your scenes. If you don't love a scene, find out what's wrong with it. Love the story enough to ferret out details. Love the revision process whereby your story develops texture, multiple dimensions and deeper thematic reach. Love the work enough to leave no stone unturned, no task glossed over, no act undone in its pursuit and refinement.'

It takes this amount of dedication to produce quality historical fiction.

[Diviner]

collection of diaries and journals written in the 17thC available to read online at diary junction, http://www.pikle.demon.co.uk/diaryjunction/alphabetab.html
http://www.pikle.demon.co.uk/diaryjunction/alphabetab.html
Sorry can't get the url to come up correctly. It should read diaryjunction/alphabettab


[Thanks. Been there before, some of the letters I already read, but I always appreciate links.]

They give you a very good idea of the words you can drop into your characters' speech, or a pattern of words to use, or a 'not used' now grammatical form.

Susan Vreeland, historical novelist, gives this advice to would be historical novelist writers:
'Love every step of the way, every moment of discovery. Love your characters, your time period, your scenes. If you don't love a scene, find out what's wrong with it. Love the story enough to ferret out details. Love the revision process whereby your story develops texture, multiple dimensions and deeper thematic reach. Love the work enough to leave no stone unturned, no task glossed over, no act undone in its pursuit and refinement.'

It takes this amount of dedication to produce quality historical fiction.

And about Vreeland, er, um, right, most of the time. Really.

[ned]

I try to write clear dialog and flavor it with words and phrases from the period, most of which I find in contemporary letters, diaries or journals, even newspapers from the day. Happily, I'm around 1800, so it's not hard to find samples.

I also like to select the odd phrase from Kacirk's "Forgotten Words" or his "The Word Museum." He includes the dates of usage for most entries. It's great fun, and for the most part the words sound like whatever they mean, so taken in context the reader will not have trouble comprehending the dialog.

The most important part of dialog is making sure the reader can access it. David Liss, author of "A Conspiracy of Paper" and a few others wrote:

"I tried to strike a balance between a real eighteenth century prose style and something that woud be fun for contemporary readers."

and

"You can't really go around in public saying, for example, that you don't care a fig for someting, and expect people to treat you like you're not really, really weird."

I agree, it's desirable to keep the flavor of the language, but in the end use contractions and other modern speech parts. The purpose is to avoid the idiom that renders an extinct language laborious to the modern reader.

[Diviner]

Thanks for the input, Ned. You may want to look at www.etymonline.com
I find it useful to check out things, but I am still scratching my head about keeping "ye" in my dialogue. Such things never bother me, but they may have to go if they bother others.

[pdr]

fig? What d'you mean, oops, Mr Liss isn't it who said it? that it's a weird expresssion? I don't give a feather or a fig. It's a very useful expression and I know quite a few people who use it. Look it up on the web and you'll see it is still used.

[ned]

Thanks for the input, Ned. You may want to look at www.etymonline.com
I find it useful to check out things, but I am still scratching my head about keeping "ye" in my dialogue. Such things never bother me, but they may have to go if they bother others.



Thanks, I'll check that out.

I have a similar conflict. A number of characters in my 1800s novel are Quaker, who have a tradition (even until fairly recently) of the use of "thee" and "ye" in speech. Impossibly for a writer who isn't familiar with the quirks of this speech, they didn't use the words in the traditional way. Apparently some of the words were misused, but only by them. I don't know which words or how they were used. That's all I know, so I don't know how to go about it with any accuracy.

In one case, I decided to forgo the "thee" and "thou" and "ye," and have the character use the words only when he "slips" and reverts to his somewhat puritanical father's speech habits. Otherwise, he's a proper Londoner, modern compared to the fundamentalist Quakers in the west or in smaller towns.

[pdr]

Older Quakers still use thee and thou. But I've not heard Ye used except the Biblical quotations of it. This was in the 1960s and 70s.

[Evaine]

When I grew up in Lancashire in the 1960s, older people still used dialect peppered with 'thee' and 'thou', often shortened to 'tha', but it's pretty much died out now.

[pdr]

Yes, I remember too, but in Yorkshire, as in:

"Tha'll get a reet clout on't lug if tha doesna sneck oop!"

from the farm manager because I asked too many questions.

[Anne Lyle]

I have a similar problem, writing about London c.1590 - I could easily lapse into faux-Elizabethan English (authentic period English is very hard to understand, because so many words have changed meaning*), but I want to avoid gadzookery.

One of the things that annoyed me about a short story I read a few months ago was that characters used 'thee' and 'thou' to address strangers, which AFAIK is just plain wrong. 'You' was the polite form by this time, with 'thee/thou' reserved for addressing an inferior (including a family member of lower 'status'), a lover, or someone you just wanted to insult! I err towards using 'you' as much as possible, especially for Londoners, otherwise it gets overwhelming. If 'thee' survived into the 20th century in the north of England, I reckon I should use it for my provincial characters :)

Mostly my beta-readers catch the worst anachronisms, and I try to look out for any fancy or foreign words and check their etymology. I'm knowingly using 'vendetta' well ahead of its attested usage in English, but Italian ideas were very fashionable in England at that time (and in any case my book is alternate history), so I hope I can get away with it!

* I know - I'm reading Middleton at the moment

[pdr]

'thee' and 'thou' to address strangers,

It is very hard for American writers to understand any Class system. And it shows up badly in the historicals they write set in Britain. There is a complete lack of understanding about the master/servant relationship, the acceptance of place in society and of class in society.

A quick study of Shakespeare's sonnets shows him as the lover using thee and thou. E.g. 'Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?' A study of diaries shows the family use of thee and thou and the use to servants.

Ye was used during the 18thC to servants and inferiors, but only as in 'Thank 'ee' or 'Ye'll all be thrashed, ye slatterns!'

The thee and thou used in Northern England, actually spoken as 'tha', was not the same as those used in the 16thC or 17thC. Nor were they used the same way. You have to think of the dialects as foreign languages and indeed anyone who can speak one today cannot be understood by the average English speaker. The many Yorkshire dialects were unique forms of English as were the Lancashire ones.

The Quaker use of thee and thou, though, is exactly the same as in the 16thC and 17thC

Peter Smalley has mastered the 18thC use of ye nicely in his novels about the British navy. Might be worth a read?

[Anne Lyle]

'thee' and 'thou' to address strangers,

A quick study of Shakespeare's sonnets shows him as the lover using thee and thou. E.g. 'Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?' A study of diaries shows the family use of thee and thou and the use to servants.

Indeed. In the Middleton I'm currently reading ("The Changeling"), there are exchanges between a character and his manservant which perfectly illustrate the usage: the former addresses the latter as 'thou' and the latter his master as 'you'.

The thee and thou used in Northern England, actually spoken as 'tha', was not the same as those used in the 16thC or 17thC. Nor were they used the same way. You have to think of the dialects as foreign languages and indeed anyone who can speak one today cannot be understood by the average English speaker. The many Yorkshire dialects were unique forms of English as were the Lancashire ones.True - I'm from Nottinghamshire myself originally so I can understand more than most, but quite what my American readers will make of dialect pronouns like 'thysen'* waits to be seen ;)

* Northern English dialect for 'thyself'