Anachronisms

Status
Not open for further replies.

Slyest Fox

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
231
Reaction score
12
Location
Sometimes LA, Mosttimes Chicago.
Though the bulk of my novel takes place in the modern day, maybe a quarter of it is flashbacks taking place at various moments in history over the last two thousand years. In a lot of those instances the characters aren't speaking English, though of course Latin, Greek, and the like are all translated into English for purposes of the story.

My question is this - obviously there's no real way to truly replicate how people would speak back then and even if I could I'm sure it would be uncomprehensible. So I give the dialogue during that time a modern feel. Of course I'm careful about making sure that inventions or historical events or cities that they mention didn't come into existence like a hundred years later and everything, but in terms of figures of speech or phrasing, how hardcore should I be about this? Do I have a bit of liberty in that people get that it's a book written in 2012 and these characters wouldn't actually be speaking a language we understand anyway so if they, say, "Shut up!" rather than "Be silent!" it's not a big deal? Obviously, I don't go too far and include stuff like "Yo" or "Dude" and whatnot.
 

HoneyBadger

terribly loud, emotionally distant
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
351
Location
Fort Wayne, IN
Website
twitter.com
If you're writing historical fiction, yeah, you need to make things as accurate (while still readable) as possible.

If the rest of your book is really off-the-wall wacky, you can get away with more liberal interpretations, but you want to be sure the voice and tone of the whole makes sense.

Overall, though, if *anything* you ask involves wondering if readers will forgive you for being lazy, then the answer is: NO.
 

Slyest Fox

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
231
Reaction score
12
Location
Sometimes LA, Mosttimes Chicago.
It's not really historical fiction though. It's urban fantasy taking place in 2012, there's just sections that take place in the past. So in that sense I'm worried it'll be jarring if all of a sudden the language and phrasing is archaic. For that matter, there's also the issue of sometimes by speaking in the more formal and likely-to-have-been-how-they-put-it-back-then it'll come across wrong and perhaps a little silly and melodramatic. I guess I just feel that by being truer to history in some minor senses I may actually risk pulling readers out of the story, if that makes sense.
 

ArchaWriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
114
Reaction score
3
In my story, I have a character from the 16th century (she is a spirit) who interacts with a modern day man. And I certainly gave her a dinstinct dialect.
In the beginning of my writing, I struggled with what is 'too authentic'. But I have since found a style which is both readible and yet appropriate for her times.
I sincerely feel for you on this one. Good luck.
 

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
488
Location
Commonwealth of Virginia--it's for lovers
Website
www.elizabethhuhn.com
It's not really historical fiction though. It's urban fantasy taking place in 2012, there's just sections that take place in the past. So in that sense I'm worried it'll be jarring if all of a sudden the language and phrasing is archaic. For that matter, there's also the issue of sometimes by speaking in the more formal and likely-to-have-been-how-they-put-it-back-then it'll come across wrong and perhaps a little silly and melodramatic. I guess I just feel that by being truer to history in some minor senses I may actually risk pulling readers out of the story, if that makes sense.

Since it's an urban fantasy, is the past different from our own past? Is it a fantastical past at all? If so, then that of course changes things.

It seems like the historical setting is a backdrop primarily. You want to make sure it's accurate (you know, places were there when you said they were there, etc). And you want to give a "flavor" of the times. You want it to come across as a little different from the modern setting. You will want to show the time difference by using different speech patterns (wording, sentence structure, etc), and details. What would someone at that time see or smell or touch? What would they pick up and fiddle with as they talked?

Since it's not historical fiction, I think you want to lean a little more towards the modern tone/voice so it fits more with the contemporary sections of the book. And I say this as a HF writer.

It's extremely hard to quantify this. You'll know it's right when it's right. You'll only know by writing it and testing it out on betas.

ETA: Accuracy is still key!
 
Last edited:

rainsmom

Feeling like an old timer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
118
Location
Pacific NW
Website
www.melissa-c-alexander.com
I'd err on the side of authentic. Do some research and find an expert in linguistics from that time period. Ask that person how they told people to shut up (and other things). You'll probably get some darn cool colloquial phrases to use.
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
I'm going to break with tradition and argue for authentic-ish.

If we write genuinely realistic speech (from any era), then it would be virtually unreadable to a modern audience. There would be too many ums and ers. Too much repetition. Too many crucial bits of information left out. Too many "filler" words like "you know what I mean", "basically" and "like".

And the problem is compounded if we go back in time. Take a look at Chaucer (in the original) to see the sort of language and pronunciation that people were using back then. It would be a brave writer who put dialogue like that into a modern novel.

The trick, I think, is to put enough of a flavour of the times into your writing without trying to make it 100% authentic. It's still got to be readable. But I would strongly advise against using any overtly modern words or mannerisms. That would be like seeing a Roman centurion wearing a wristwatch or that bit in Braveheart where Mel inadvertently shows us his underpants.

So I would aim for neutral language seasoned with authenticity. But, there's one big caveat...

... like all speech it needs to be interesting to read. That means oblique speech pared to the bone. And not necessarily how someone would really say it.
 

A Long December

Registered
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
35
Reaction score
2
Location
Sheffield, UK
If you're writing historical fiction, yeah, you need to make things as accurate (while still readable) as possible.

If the rest of your book is really off-the-wall wacky, you can get away with more liberal interpretations, but you want to be sure the voice and tone of the whole makes sense.

Overall, though, if *anything* you ask involves wondering if readers will forgive you for being lazy, then the answer is: NO.
I'd agree entirely with this.

Slyest Fox you said in response to the above that you were worried about being jarring, but since you're flashing back to a different time, country and language anyway I think the slightly more formal use of language is not going to be the main thing which jars people.

You haven't specified the times or places you're flashing back to, but you would certainly do well to research any material you can get from that time, if possible. Above all it has to feel authentic to the reader.

(Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of the flashback, precisely because it's jarring, so I'd generally avoid them in any case. In my current novel I start with the MCs as children and then move through time as I move through the chapters. I'm not sure how feasible something like that is with your story.)
 

Libbie

Worst song played on ugliest guitar
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
1,094
Location
umber and black Humberland
You're always going to run into readers who take serious issue with language that's too anachronistic. Most readers will swallow a little bit, especially if it's presented in a humorous context, but too much really becomes too much quickly. That general rule of thumb should be multiplied times a hundred if you're writing historical fiction, where readers are notoriously vicious and unforgiving about anachronisms of all kinds.
 

Peter Graham

Arise Rheged!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
115
Reaction score
39
Location
The Glittering West
My question is this - obviously there's no real way to truly replicate how people would speak back then and even if I could I'm sure it would be uncomprehensible.

I suspect you've answered your own question. They probably didn't say "yo! wassup?", but they probably didn't say "be silent", or "Marry come up, sirrah, thou art too much i'th' shade" that often either.

Julian Rathbone riffs on this in The Last English King. The protagonist is a member of King Harold's warband and has something like a "Harold for King OK" tattoed on his arm. What I imagine we are supposed to take from that is that he actually has the 11th century equivalent of that sentiment tattoed on his arm, but quite frankly rendering it into modern idiom makes it far easier to understand. The danger is that done too much, it starts looking flippant and undermines the suspension of disbelief.

Don't forget that you are telling a story. You have to connect with the reader and that is always best done by ensuring the reader actually understands what you are saying. But at the same time, the reader has to trust you to take them on a journey and using a narrative sledgehammer is not the best way to achieve that.

Regards,

Peter
 

eggs

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
129
Reaction score
17
Location
Sydney, Australia
There's historically accurate and then there's Historical Wallpaper, which it sounds like what you're after. If you're going for historically accurate, then you need to get the language right. If you just want some historical wallpaper to decorate your scenes, then accuracy is not important, but 'authentic' feel is.

Using your example, "Shut up!" would be historically inaccurate and jarring. I have no idea what the historically accurate substitution would be, but it would probably be jarring to the modern reader too. "Shut thine mouth!" would also be historically inaccurate, but would supply enough wallpaper for the reader to think, "Okey dokey, we're in yea olde days here. Carry on author, carry on."

Many romance novels use this wallpaper convention, so you could check out a few of them set in your time periods to get a feel of how of how it's done. NB: dedicated readers of historical fiction will hate you for this, most others will have the okey doakey response.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
So in that sense I'm worried it'll be jarring if all of a sudden the language and phrasing is archaic.
It would jar me if you took the book into the past and people didn't talk differently there (it being like a foreign country and all;)). It wouldn't just jar me tbh. Unless it was done really well, I'd snarl at it. Now, that's just me, but it's worth thinking about.

It doesn't have to be all prithee and gadzooks. In fact I really hope it isn't. But I think it needs a flavour. You can do a lot with word choice (from words that are still in use today) and word order.

For an example, here's (part of) a 16th century prayer:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table (O merciful Lord) trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We be not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son
Here is the modern version:We do not presume to come to your table, merciful Lord,trusting in our own goodness, but in your all-embracing love and mercy. We are not worthy even to gather up the crumbs under your table, but it is your nature always to have mercy. So feed us with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your Son



The old one is perfectly understandable, no? But distinctly different from the modern prayer, yes? Even if you took out the 'thou' and 'thy', it would still feel old. That's what to aim for. IMO
 

Scott Kaelen

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
612
Reaction score
64
Location
United Kingdom
Website
authorscottkaelen.wordpress.com
Ananchorisms
You've received some good answers here, so I won't add to them. What struck me immediately about your post title--which I didn't see anyone else picking you up about--is the spelling. The word is 'anachronisms', not an-anchor-isms. You might already know that, but either way don't take my comment as anything more than a heads-up. :)
 

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
The trick, I think, is to put enough of a flavour of the times into your writing without trying to make it 100% authentic. It's still got to be readable.

This. (Except I'm American so it's flavor but yanno.)

There are things that don't translate. In ancient Egyptian, people sometimes called their lovers sister and brother. That's kind of confusing to just toss in without explanation. :D Or in a poem I think somewhere it says "her forehead is a snare of meryu-wood" which I think refers to her being an enchanting person, but I would advise against saying something like that.

At the same time, if you're going for historical accuracy, I would advise researching the language and finding some structural patterns to follow and some comprehensible idioms to use. Just, you know, nothing so weird that it takes the reader out of the story to wonder what the hell That Thing is supposed to mean.

And also be aware of informal/formal speech differences, if possible, and the general warning against purple prose always applies. :D I don't like reading historicals that have people talking all formal and lofty when the situation doesn't call for it. Personally, I find "shut up" an acceptable translation for "rude imperative to stop talking", if you can't find something more suitable. (Not everyone will feel that way; just my own feeling on it.)
 

Layla Nahar

Seashell Seller
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
7,655
Reaction score
913
Location
Seashore
Just for thought. I recently decided to read a book that interested me. Didn't get to far before the characters were saying things like 'Mayhap' and referring to people as 'the fop' etc. I made it through that book because I was determined to find out where the author was coming from. But I have hestitated, because of that silliness, to try and make it through another book by that person.

my take home message? be *careful* with anachronisms.
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
I recently read Ben Kane's Spartacus, and LOL'ed when the MC said 'we're screwed.'

Screws? In the Roman Republic? :D

I like Rosemary Sutcliff's philosophy:

Victorian writers, and even those of a somewhat later date . . . saw nothing ludicrous in ‘Alas! fair youth, it grieves me to see thee in this plight. Would that I had the power to strike these fetters from thy tender limbs.’ Josephine Tey, whose death I shall never cease to lament, called this ‘Writing forsoothly.’ A slightly different variant is known in the trade as ‘gadzookery.’ Nowadays this is out of fashion; and some writers go to the other extreme and make the people of Classical Greece or Mediaeval England speak modern colloquial English. This is perhaps nearer to the truth of the spirit, since the people in question would have spoken the modern colloquial tongue of their place and time.


But, personally, I find it destroys the atmosphere when a young Norman Knight says to his Squire, ‘Shut up, Dickie, you’re getting too big for your boots.’ Myself, I try for a middle course, avoiding both gadzookery and modern colloquialism; a frankly ‘made-up’ form that has the right sound to it, as Kipling did also. I try to catch the rhythm of a tongue, the tune that it plays on the ear, Welsh or Gaelic as opposed to Anglo-Saxon, the sensible workmanlike language which one feels the Latin of the ordinary Roman citizen would have translated into. It is extraordinary what can be done by the changing or transposing of a single word, or using perfectly usual one in a slightly unusual way: ‘I beg your pardon’ changed into ‘I ask your pardon.’

You might like to check out this thread in the HF forum:

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240853
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
There are things that don't translate. In ancient Egyptian, people sometimes called their lovers sister and brother. That's kind of confusing to just toss in without explanation. :D

The Christians managed to confuse the Romans with something similar. A married couple, who were Christians, calling each other sister or brother, and they took it literally and thought 'uh-oh . . . incest.'
 

DennisB

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
397
Reaction score
22
Location
Frankfort, Indiana
If you're going back 2,000 years, it's doubtful you'll find anything even remotely close to English (didn't Chaucer write in the 1300s? and that's difficult enough to read and understand).

Movies have had to translate ancient languages into English numerous times. Especially Biblical epics and Roman gladiator flicks.
 

Lady Ice

Makes useful distinctions
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
4,776
Reaction score
417
This. (Except I'm American so it's flavor but yanno.)

There are things that don't translate. In ancient Egyptian, people sometimes called their lovers sister and brother.

But sometimes their lovers were their actual brothers or sisters, weren't they?
 

Lady Ice

Makes useful distinctions
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
4,776
Reaction score
417
"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there" (the famous first line of The Go-Between).

Don't choose any words that are blatantly modern slang. Do a bit of research on the slang of the historical period you're writing about.
 

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
20,006
Reaction score
5,352
Location
Going shopping with Soccer Mom and Bubastes for fu
When I'm editing a historical, I am a stickler for era-appropriate idioms. I actually check the origins of slang or sayings to make certain that they're appropriate for the narrative. But then, I'm a real stickler for historical accuracy in a historical novel. For example, I edited an author once who was a multi-published historical romance author, and she had witches being executed by the guillotine in 14th century Scotland.

She had no idea that the guillotine wasn't invented until four centuries later. She tried to ARGUE with me that the guillotine was around in 1379, until I sent her the link to Joseph-Ignace Guillotin's wikipedia entry, in which she discovered not only the span of his lifetime, but also that he was the inventor of the aforesaid guillotine.

For me as an editor, therefore, historical wallpaper doesn't really work whether in idiomatic speech or plot elements. And while I don't think you should try to create the modern equivalent of vulgar Latin for your story, I do think that you should be extremely careful about what idioms or slang you use. There's a contemporary historical basis for gladiators to say "We who are about to die salute you" before a duel in the Colosseum. But for them to say "I'm going to kick your ass"--not so much.
 

buz

edits all posts at least four times
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,147
Reaction score
2,040
But sometimes their lovers were their actual brothers or sisters, weren't they?
Yeah. Adding more confusion to the mix. The linguistic issues actually cloud our perceptions of how much incest went on; we're not entirely sure where it's a term of endearment and where it's literal. The royals engaged in it, and it was documented more officially in the Roman period, but there's debate as to how often Egyptians actually married their siblings and how flexible terms like "sister" or "brother" or "mother" (which might refer to an aunt/grandmother/any close older female) were. The point in time historically probably has importance as well (ancient Egyptian history was not an unchanged lump of time; society did in fact alter over those thousands of years :D ).
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
There's a contemporary historical basis for gladiators to say "We who are about to die salute you" before a duel in the Colosseum. But for them to say "I'm going to kick your ass"--not so much.

And if the author calls the Flavian Ampitheatre the Colosseum, they can expect me to kick their ass. :D
 

Rain Gnome

Two Thumbs Up
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
142
Reaction score
23
Location
Standing in the rain
To me, rather than trying to copy the exact words they'd be using, it's about trying to copy the tone of how they speak.

I once went so far in trying to mimic the exact speech of 1700s sailors (how real pirates and seamen would talk, and not arrrg), that when I went back and edited I couldn't even understand what the characters were saying anymore. How would the reader have any chance?

Now I just try and mimic the tone and rhythm of how they talked, using modern words but so that it sounds ancient. And I leave out any words or concepts (such as surreal) that originated after that time period. I wouldn't even use a word like surreal in the narrative outside of the dialogue.
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
From DH Lawrence "John Thomas and Lady Jane"

"Shall yer sit i' th' hut a while?" he asked.

Historically and regionally accurate, but you need to be very very careful that you don't lose your readers with too much speech like this.

Ron Howard was asked about the "Houston we have a problem scene" in Apollo 13. He had the astronauts have a brief argument about what caused the damage to their spacecraft. Yet Howard knew full well that they didn't have an argument. They didn't accuse each other of making a mistake. Their training kept them very calm as they looked for ways to solve the new problem that was in front of them.

He knew this because some of the astronauts were advising him on the accuracy of the film.

So in a film which prided itself on accuracy, why did the director willingly depart from real life for a crucial scene? He explained that he needed the audience to understand the gravity of the situation (if you'll forgive the pun). This was a tense moment. A life or death situation. You would not have sensed that if nobody expressed any emotion at the point.

So he said to the astronauts advising him "yes, I know it isn't entirely accurate, but it's what the audience needs". For me, it's the same with dialogue. The reader needs to think that it is authentic, but it doesn't actually have to be authentic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.