What about archaic-style language?

[Incanus]

I’ve been re-reading Lord of the Rings recently. I was struck by a certain passage, in the chapter ‘The Ring Goes South’. The Fellowship is gathered together and about to depart Rivendell, and Elrond has a few last words to impart, saying that the other members of the company need not go with the Ringbearer the whole way. As he finishes, a little exchange between he and Gimli ensues:


“…and you cannot foresee what each may meet upon the road.”
“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,” said Gimli.
“Maybe,” said Elrond, “but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.”
“Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,” said Gimli.
“Or break it,” said Elrond. “Look not too far ahead! …”


As in so many other parts of the book, the archaic language and syntax lends this an air of weight and dignity not to be found in any other novel from the previous century (or, at least, not many—I know of none). I’d like to try rewording this using modern language, but retaining all the sentiments:


“…you can’t have any idea what might happen on this journey.”
“I would feel like a jerk if I went my own way when things got tough,” said Gary.
“Maybe,” said Edward, “but you shouldn’t make promises when you don’t know what you may be up against.”
“But a promise like that could shore up my resolve,” said Gary.
“Or break it,” said Edward. “Don’t try to predict what may come…”


This could be attempted in various ways, but I like the original much, much better. It is unfortunate that LotR is the only place to encounter such language in a (relatively) modern novel. It is one of the main reasons I go back to re-reading this book with some regularity. Any other author writing this way would be roundly rejected the instant it was read. But how wise is that?

It is true most people don’t have the proper experience, or a good enough ear for language, to pull something like this off. But is that a good enough reason to so thoroughly discourage the practice? I’m not so sure.

 

[pmmg]

I'd bet a good majority of editors would rewrite all of that into plainer language if it hit their desks today.

I personally try to write with a richness of language like that and am routinely told to write it plainer. I resist. I hope it pays off and in the test of time I will show I made the better choice. Who can tell otherwise. I dont really style myself after Tolkien, but I do like an archaic aspect to my style.

 

[ThinkerX]

Grammarly hates it when I use archaic words. 'Gaol' instead of 'Jail' especially annoys it.

 

[JBCrowson]

I much prefer that more ornate style. Try reading 'The Wanderers Tale' and 'Fire in the North'. As I recall them, Bilsborough used an older style for those two books. As to Grammarly not liking things, I take disapproval from AI tools as a badge of honour.
Of course publishers are interested in what sells, which is not always the same as what is well written.

 

[Mad Swede]

Writing in an ornate style in any language is fine, and some modern literary works are written like that. But to pull it off you need a very good knowledge of that language, especially grammar and writing styles, otherwise it tends not to work very well. There's a reason many editors want re-writes of ornate styles, and that's because the aspiring authors don't have quite the literary ability they think they have.

My editors advice? Keep your first drafts simple in style and put your effort into the essentials like characterisation, dialogue and story arcs. You can always add stylistic ornementation later.

 

[SamazonE]

It is about perspective. There is naivety about most nonsensical wording. I have seen a few that can be emulated only because of circumstance. Language is something to learn. There is no telling what you can judge about a sentence.

I remember having a conversation about Yoda. It seemed he was Chinese, but the argument was he seemed Egyptian. I cannot relate. There is the recent show of him as a baby, but that is not my style. The answer I got was troubling.

Another thing to look at is accent and dialect. The hero sounded different than the soldier, different from the villager, but people keep coming up with the same result. It had something to do with predictability, and is learned logically, like it is formulaic.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I have characters who speak more formal, while others are more colloquial, some use zero contractions, some use a bunch, but I won't go as far as "thee" and "thou" any more than I would use "dude" or "stylin'" or other modern lingo, because it speak distinctly to a certain period and region of Earth. AndI don't use the word earth, though I blame my editor for that, and it's awkward at time, LOL. It's a weird dance.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Weightier and far superior, and the funny thing is, some folks like to claim Tolkien was a terrible writer.

I’ve been re-reading Lord of the Rings recently. I was struck by a certain passage, in the chapter ‘The Ring Goes South’. The Fellowship is gathered together and about to depart Rivendell, and Elrond has a few last words to impart, saying that the other members of the company need not go with the Ringbearer the whole way. As he finishes, a little exchange between he and Gimli ensues:


“…and you cannot foresee what each may meet upon the road.”
“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,” said Gimli.
“Maybe,” said Elrond, “but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.”
“Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,” said Gimli.
“Or break it,” said Elrond. “Look not too far ahead! …”


As in so many other parts of the book, the archaic language and syntax lends this an air of weight and dignity not to be found in any other novel from the previous century (or, at least, not many—I know of none). I’d like to try rewording this using modern language, but retaining all the sentiments:


“…you can’t have any idea what might happen on this journey.”
“I would feel like a jerk if I went my own way when things got tough,” said Gary.
“Maybe,” said Edward, “but you shouldn’t make promises when you don’t know what you may be up against.”
“But a promise like that could shore up my resolve,” said Gary.
“Or break it,” said Edward. “Don’t try to predict what may come…”


This could be attempted in various ways, but I like the original much, much better. It is unfortunate that LotR is the only place to encounter such language in a (relatively) modern novel. It is one of the main reasons I go back to re-reading this book with some regularity. Any other author writing this way would be roundly rejected the instant it was read. But how wise is that?

It is true most people don’t have the proper experience, or a good enough ear for language, to pull something like this off. But is that a good enough reason to so thoroughly discourage the practice? I’m not so sure.

 

[Incanus]

Interesting. I haven't used Grammarly, but I know the spell-checker in MS Word is obviously less authoritative than the Oxford English Dictionary I use. Also, I have a better ear for language than Word does.

One neat thing about the passage from LotR above, is that there aren't any archaic words in it. It's all pretty basic language. 'Nightfall' is a bit of an uncommon compound word, but it's easy enough to understand. The most exotic words are the character names. The archaic sound comes from the syntax/grammar use.

I'll have to take a look at 'Bilsborough'--I've never heard of him/her. I would welcome any suggestions for books that employ archaic styles, especially relatively newer ones.

 

[skip.knox]

I'm steeped in archaisms just now. I recently finished Guy Mannering by Walter Scott, and am embarked on Honoré Balzac next. One of the first things one must learn at the outset is patience. There's absolutely no reason for action or advancing plots or any of that sort of thing. I'm here for the reading. Guy Mannering doesn't just start slow, it meanders repeatedly. But he also ties everything together, and there's some quick action in later chapters. But the insistence on rapid movement seems wrong-headed to me. It's like saying I want to listen to music but then listening at 1.5x speed. Why the hurry?

As for archaic language, Scott was a workout. Not just language from early 19thc, but rural Scottish dialects. I've never seen so many apostrophes!