|

Mind your language! A Guest Post by KJ Charles

One of the joys, or not, of writing historical romance is the language choices it requires. Obviously, if you’re writing an Anglo-Saxon romance, you’re going to have to go for modern English. I mean, you don’t have to…

ne bið he no þæs nearwe under niðloc…
þæs bitre gebunden under bealuclommum,
þæt he þy yð ne mæge ellen habban.

No, let’s stick with modern English, simply avoiding the more glaring offences of slang, technical terms and other obvious date markers. (Such as Shakespeare referring to ‘popish tricks’ in Titus Andronicus, a play set in pre-Christian Rome. Honestly, what a loser.)

It gets trickier when we come closer to now. On the one hand, you want to give a period flavour to your words; on the other, if you really try to write in, say, Georgian-style English you’ll leave readers blinking and bewildered. I recently bought a novel set in 1780 that was praised (by, I assume, the author’s mum) for its period language. I chucked it aside at p.15 because it was utterly incomprehensible, and that’s coming from a word nerd who’s just written a Regency-set trilogy

Historical readers love a bit of Heyeresque slang, but that can be easily overdone. I am a massive fan, but the great Georgette was capable of dialogue which…

Chuff it! I told you at the time that I wasn’t going to let you break my shins! … You must have been having the devil of a time in the bumble-broth I brewed. Thank you, bantling!

Much of it becomes clear from the context, of course, but take this passage from The Unknown Ajax when a young man has been (supposedly) playing cards and drinking with his cousins:

“From the looks of it, he’ll be casting up his accounts before he’s much older. Better get him to bed.”

For years I had a vague idea that ‘cast up his accounts’ meant to settle his card losses. Actually, the next bit of dialogue should have made all clear: 

He will in all probability cast ‘em up as soon as he gets to his feet.”

Even this much grounding doesn’t necessarily make forgotten slang accessible: I had no idea it meant ‘throw up’ for ages. (In my defence, I started reading Heyer before I started drinking.)

Slang pro tip: Jonathon Green, the slang lexicographer, has made extraordinary Timelines of Slang available on the internet. You can find the first use of all kinds of wonderful words and phrases here, although you can also spend hours giggling hysterically at modern synonyms for masturbation, so caution is required.  

Of course, it’s not just slang that authors have to consider. Absolutely accurate language is impossible, but that doesn’t mean writers should be blasé about anachronistic wording. I have read Regency romances that use ‘impact’ as a verb (“Your cruelty impacted me greatly, my lord!”), and even seen a Battle of Waterloo ‘okay’, although I didn’t see it for long due to chucking the book across the room with force. 

Those are obviously terrible, but how are you to know which apparently routine words to check? Did you know that while ‘burglar’ dates from the 16th century, the verb ‘to burgle’ is a back-formation dating from the 1880s? No, nor did I. Thank God for copy editors. 

And of course some words have changed meaning and there’s not much you can do about that. In A Seditious Affair, set 1819-20, calling someone a ‘democrat’ has something like the force of ‘communist’ or ‘Trot’ or even ‘domestic terrorist’ now. I know that, but it still feels weird to have ‘democratic scum’ on the page as a term of abuse.

In the end, of course, it’s all an approximation. I’m not writing Regency English; I’m just trying not to jolt the reader out of the illusion that that’s what I’m doing. And of course any effort at accuracy has to be balanced by the need of the modern reader, who just isn’t going to know if a gaying instrument is the same thing as a Sir John, and if it is, what you might do with it. (It is, and you should dance the blanket hornpipe. Obviously.)

Hmm. There’s a lot to be said for Anglo-Saxon words, isn’t there?


KJ Charles is a writer and freelance editor. She lives in London with her husband, two kids, an out-of-control garden and an increasingly murderous cat. Her latest, A Seditious Affair, received an A+ from AAR

guest

13 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sonya Heaney
Sonya Heaney
Guest
12/21/2015 9:33 am

“”Absolutely accurate language is impossible””

Even today. The number of times I’ve been overseas and heard someone from my country explaining ‘that’s how Australians say it’…
Uh… no. Maybe THEY say it that way, but not all of us do!

Sylvia
Sylvia
Guest
12/16/2015 2:11 pm

LOL! That is so funny and entertaining :D

Becky Black
Becky Black
Guest
12/15/2015 4:35 pm

There can be traps for the unwary in fantasy settings too. Can your villain snarl “”sodomite”” at your hero in a fantasy setting where there there is no Old Testament and city called Sodom? :D

Karmi
Karmi
Guest
12/14/2015 9:44 pm

Hi! Thanks for a very interesting post. I agree that the language in a historical romance must be accessible, readable. For it to be fun, yes. But really, everything depends on the narrative talent of the writer. Didi here mentions “”phonetically spelling of accents.”” Doesn’t P. Gaffney’s To Have and to Hold have a lot of that from one of the secondary characters, but it’s never jarring? That book is just amazing. What I’m saying is, the reader will immerse herself in the story completely if she feels she’s in good hands, even take a moment every now and then to decipher certain phrases if she has to. I really think an excellent writer can do that– nudge the reader into following her to where she’s taking the story. And the reader comes out so grateful as a result.

Caz
Caz
Guest
12/14/2015 5:36 pm

Thanks for this post :) I read historicals almost exclusively, and am very picky about language and anachronisms (and Americanisms, which drive me nuts!) But you’re so right about the balance that needs to be struck between authenticity and accessibility.

ButtonsMom2003
ButtonsMom2003
Guest
12/14/2015 1:50 pm

I am really enjoying all of your blog posts during your tour. I’ve only recently become acquainted with your books but I love the ones I’ve read so far.

“From the looks of it, he’ll be casting up his accounts before he’s much older. Better get him to bed.” – Well I have to admit that I did understand this bit of slang the first time I read it in a book; although I can’t remember which book it was. LOL

Didi
Didi
Guest
12/14/2015 12:32 pm

All of the above and phonetically spelling of accents which often bring “”huh?”” moments while reading. Sometimes it’s doubly hard, being a non native English speaker like myself. :D

Love this post!

Sonya Heaney
Sonya Heaney
Guest
Reply to  Didi
12/21/2015 8:38 am

“”and phonetically spelling of accents””

HATE that!

Especially as apparently a US accent is “”normal”” for modern romances (it’s so flipping insulting seeing my accent written phonetically because I’m not American!), and in historicals, Scottish characters are written like they’re imbeciles.

Eggletina
Eggletina
Guest
12/14/2015 10:27 am

I agree about striking a balance between capturing the right verisimilitude of the time and making the language accessible for readers, but occasionally I’ll read something where the attitudes or language will throw me out the story. I read a Georgian novel recently where the characters several times uttered the far too contemporary expression “”that’s rich,”” which jarred me out the story every time it was used in the dialogue.

LOL on Heyeresque slang. I think her later books contained more of it than her earlier works. I remember Frederica, in particular, being absolutely overloaded with it.

Jen
Jen
Guest
12/14/2015 10:14 am

I am so enjoying this tour! Each article is entertaining and educational. Too bad history at uni was not like this. :-) I do admire authors who can write an historical piece and get that balance write so that it feels authentic yet is still fun to read.

LeeB.
LeeB.
Guest
12/14/2015 9:46 am

“”…even seen a Battle of Waterloo ‘okay’, although I didn’t see it for long due to chucking the book across the room with force.”” That is so funny! And can so totally agree about your action.

Tif
Tif
Guest
12/14/2015 7:13 am

Delicious stuff! :D

Blackjack1
Blackjack1
Guest
12/14/2015 4:49 am

I enjoyed reading this! I think it’s wonderful to have an author that recognizes the fact that while you are writing historical fiction, your writing is as much about our current moment as it is about the past. Also, I do agree that a balancing act is helpful between an attempt at accurate representations of the past with the reality that “”slang”” is a unique problem likely to alienate modern readers. I teach Shakespeare and recognize very well how challenging early Modern slang is for today’s readers. For romance reading, I know that I tend toward the accuracy side having read too many wallpaper books.