Whanne that April with his shoures sote
The droughte of March hath perced to the rote.
Not sure the modern reader will stick around for a whole novel written that way, but maybe
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
World building and Suspension of Disbelief
- Thread starter valiant12
- Start date
Whanne that April with his shoures sote
The droughte of March hath perced to the rote.
Not sure the modern reader will stick around for a whole novel written that way, but maybe
claramcalister
Scribe
That's where my problem lies. Like, you can't write a book in full on middle English and expect a reader to stick around. We can all reasonably suspend disbelief when it comes to modern use of language. But at the same time, that suspension of disbelief is only to an extent.
If you say something like "can't you feel the electricity between us?" (to use someone else's example from earlier) in a book where Electricity does not exist, is not understood to exist, in a time period and culture where a colloquialism like that wouldn't have been used... It's out of place in a way that's obvious- and it temporarily suspends the reader's own suspension of disbelief as a result.
And in that case, I don't think we should avoid modern language all together. That makes no sense and is completely unnecessary. But I do think we need to be particularly careful of those words and phrases that would be blatantly out of place in that manner/
TheKillerBs
Maester
I have no problem with that phrase. It doesn't seem any more out of place than the rest of the English words in the text. I see it as a translation, and the phrase "can't you feel the electricity between us?" would be a colloquialism in the language of the world that wouldn't translate as well to English. To use a real world example, if you were translating a text from Spanish and it said said "camarón que se duerme se lo lleva la corriente" you might translate it literally as "the shrimp that falls asleep gets swept away by the current", or you might use the much simpler and more elegant English equivalent, "you snooze, you lose".
Except, I'd object to that one, too, Killer. "You snooze, you lose" is such a specific colloquialism, it feels completely out of place. It's not the use of modern English that's the problem, it's the use of modern *slang* that is out of place, because slang is so specific in time and place. And the danger for the novice writer, especially a young one, is being unaware of what is slang and what is not. The line is not at all bright and sharp, but a writer must develop an ear for that sort of thing.
My model on these lines is Patrick O'Brian. He works in phrases that are not merely English, not merely 19thc English, but are specifically Napoleonic era turns. He does this while still using "ordinary" English for most of his sentences. It is no easy feat and reflects uncounted hours of research on his part.
My model on these lines is Patrick O'Brian. He works in phrases that are not merely English, not merely 19thc English, but are specifically Napoleonic era turns. He does this while still using "ordinary" English for most of his sentences. It is no easy feat and reflects uncounted hours of research on his part.
The fantasy world language is likely to have slang. Since the dialogue is being provided in English why wouldn't you provide the fantasy world slang as the modern English equivalent? Assuming the rest of your dialogue is in modern English, which it usually is.
Nimue
Auror
I'm against using slang and modern word coinages in a (serious, adult, non-Earth-based) fantasy work for one reason: reader expectations. It's not about historical accuracy at all, because of course we're not going to sit down and write like Chaucer. It's about the contextual pastiche in the reader's mind, which has been created through other fantasy and historical films and literature. Anything that diverges from this conception will feel jarring, sloppy, wrong, like the writer hasn't bothered--on some level. If you can win the reader over regardless, if it's essential to the tone of your story, fantastic. If it's not, why make the reader work harder to believe in your story?
You can say it's obvious that everything's being translated, technically, but I don't think the average reader has this translation conceit in the back of their mind. What they do have in the back of their mind is the cultural conception of "a fantasy story", which by and large excludes slang and modernisms (again, excepting humor). The setting and story should be able to stand without the reader having to consciously spool through the logic of the language--unless, again, that's something you want to play with.
You can say it's obvious that everything's being translated, technically, but I don't think the average reader has this translation conceit in the back of their mind. What they do have in the back of their mind is the cultural conception of "a fantasy story", which by and large excludes slang and modernisms (again, excepting humor). The setting and story should be able to stand without the reader having to consciously spool through the logic of the language--unless, again, that's something you want to play with.
Being able to pull it off (i.e. winning over the reader) is essential. I don't think modern language has to be essential to the story before you can use it, however. It just has to be consistent with the story world. I'm not in agreement, either, that readers of fantasy necessarily expect more formal or archaic language. Fantasy is wide-ranging genre. Readers expect it when it is consistent with the story, but I think they're open to other options when those other options are consistent with the story. And even if the perception of reader expectations is accurate, the idea that one must avoid things that don't coincide with reader expectations is an argument to follow established tropes, don't subvert, etc., and I don't really like that as a general rule, either. '
I think the problem with the admonitions here is they are way to broad. There are certain, narrow types of fantasy where you're going to jar the reader by using modern language. There is a lot more fantasy where I think the reader will be just fine with it, assuming (as always) you have a skilled writer who doesn't bungle it.
Nimue
Auror
I think we essentially agree with each other. But I gave the response I did for new writers asking this broad and vague question. "Can I get away with slang? Would it bother people?" My answer to that is yes, it probably will. If you don't have to, why do it?
If the answer to that is "I think using slang in this book will strengthen the character voice and be accurate to the surrounding world," then that's fantastic and forget that generalized advice.
The question is: why are you using slang and anachronisms? If it's hard for you to kick the habit of using "cool" or "okay", maybe work a little harder on that, and pick out your worst offenders for some find and replace. If you know that this language in some way betters your story, even if it's only in a small way, then stick to it. Sounds like you're in that camp, Steerpike.
It's hard to give advice for everyone here, which is why I generally avoid these kinds of threads. I just wanted to briefly sum up the standard position. Writers are always free to challenge accepted wisdom at their leisure.
For the same reason I would not, for example, describe peasant houses as painted with shingled roofs. Or have nobles ride in carriages (my stories being firmly medieval). Or have someone eating tomatoes. Some things are too clearly anachronistic.
I say this fully realizing that such things will not take *all* readers out of the story. But I must satisfy myself first, and can only report what is jarring to me.
Yes, because those things do not make sense within the context of your story (firmly medieval). That's different from saying one cannot have those things in fantasy stories. What works best for one story shouldn't be a prescription for the genre.
TheCrystallineEntity
Istar
^Even though there's tomatoes in The Lord of the Rings [well, in the movies]?
[I'm just being silly.]
[I'm just being silly.]
TheKillerBs
Maester
Specific? Maybe I'm missing some context here, because I've seen it used all over the anglosphere and not just these past few years.
^Even though there's tomatoes in The Lord of the Rings [well, in the movies]?
[I'm just being silly.]
Which is fine
Smart characters doing obviously stoopid things because plot demands it.
Writer establishes rule in world. Writer breaks rule without due set up or reason.
To me this is all about the type of story being told and the expectations the writer sets up in the story.
Take for example the move A Knight's Tale. Hard rock soundtrack, etc., yeah, anachronisms and a few modern words/phrasings don't bother me at all in that, because expectations were set up in the trailer. In fact those things add to the movie.
In addition, it's about the author knowing their story and their world and having a clear idea what one can and can not do in it.
If I'm telling a whimsical story like say the Princess Bride, I can get away with more anachronism and modern language and phrasing than if I was trying to tell a gritty realistic tale about what it was like to march with Napoleon's army at Waterloo.
There's a certain amount of those things one can get away with depending on type of story.
TheCrystallineEntity
Istar
That happens far too often these days. Or has it always been that way? *looks at the Greek myths* Hmm...
As a general rule, in my less-lighthearted stories, the characters are quite formal depending on how old they are, and never use contractions. In my silly stories, the characters speak much more casually, but still never use contractions.
In both cases, I occasionally check the etymology of a certain word to see if it might match up to the culture and language of whatever world my current story takes place in. Then again, not a lot of people do that kind of thing...*aside glance at Prf. Tolkien*
claramcalister
Scribe
I find the assertion that being creative with language (i/e creatively finding ways to express what you want your characters to say, in a way that is consistent with their setting) and not relying on modernisms when they don't make sense within context is "using archaic or formal language"..... A bit ridiculous, personally.
It doesn't always go back to "yeah but we're reading a translation so you should reasonably expect people to understand the modern slang is appropriate". It goes back to the world you have created, and how realistically things fit within it. And if you've got electricity in medieval England, as a reader I'm going to expect a damned good explanation that makes sense with their level of technology. The same goes for language; how realistic are those phrases within that specific context?
If you've set up a world that's decidedly medieval in concept right down to the very last detail? Referencing Electricity or using modern slang is going to boot your reader out of your world 9 times out of 10. The same goes, I think, for pretty much any other genre of fantasy; using modern slang in a Sci-Fi story set 200 years from now is going to date it and boot the readers out just as often.
Unless it's relevant to the context and the world you've built or is otherwise necessary or logical within it, it's better to avoid it unless absolutely necessary... Plus, honestly what is the harm in getting a little creative with your language and finding different ways to say the same thing while still retaining its meaning?
^ Pretty much my entire point ^
The exception is (and always has been) unless it makes sense. In other words: I would accept (and pretty much expect) Starlord from Guardians of the Gallaxy to whip out 70's slang before I would expect Luke Skywalker to. And it would certainly be out of place enough in Star Wars that I'd probably stop reading the moment he did. (I've never read any of the novels, so -shrugs-)
Contractions are probably my only exception just because if you want to make something sound stilted and incredibly formal take out contractions. Sometimes it completely changes the tonality of dialogue. Plus, reading text without contractions is just.... Freaking weird to me.
Last edited:
It is good, then, that no one has made that assertion. I've stated from the beginning that anything you do has to make sense within the context of the fantasy world (see, inter alia, posts #2, 9, 13, 18, and 19 in this thread). Of course one has to maintain in-world consistency. The idea that using modernisms indicates lesser creativity (or greater, for that matter), laziness, or <insert ad hominem characterization> is not supportable, however.
- Thread starter
- #38
valiant12
Sage
You know what is worse.
This combined with elite soldiers dying like flies and teen farm boys/teens from our world being better in everything that people who trained for years.
Corwynn
Troubadour
One of the things that bothered me about the late Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books is that the characters never use contractions in their dialogue, no-one, not ever. This could be justified for certain types of characters, but all of them, always? It feels unnatural and artificial.
To give credit where credit is due, at least Jordan didn't try too hard to make his characters sound old-fashioned. In my opinion, trying too hard to make your characters sound "period appropriate" can be just as bad as not trying hard enough. I once watched part of an episode of a TV show set in the Victorian Era (I forget the name of it), and I decided to avoid it because it was obvious to me that the writers were stuffing the characters' dialogue in order to make them sound as "Victorian" as possible with no regard to how that affected the flow of speech.
Words and phrases are actually a good means of world-building without resorting to infodumps, and it's a shame more authors don't use it this way. Tarring everyone with the same linguistic brush not only feels unnatural, but one is also robbing the setting and individual characters of depth and complexity that could show through their use of words.
To give credit where credit is due, at least Jordan didn't try too hard to make his characters sound old-fashioned. In my opinion, trying too hard to make your characters sound "period appropriate" can be just as bad as not trying hard enough. I once watched part of an episode of a TV show set in the Victorian Era (I forget the name of it), and I decided to avoid it because it was obvious to me that the writers were stuffing the characters' dialogue in order to make them sound as "Victorian" as possible with no regard to how that affected the flow of speech.
Words and phrases are actually a good means of world-building without resorting to infodumps, and it's a shame more authors don't use it this way. Tarring everyone with the same linguistic brush not only feels unnatural, but one is also robbing the setting and individual characters of depth and complexity that could show through their use of words.
