Jump to content

Speech in Historical Fiction


Kyra_Lyrical

Recommended Posts

Historical Fiction is quite popular, or at least I've recently noticed it a lot more than I used to.

 

I've also noticed that the way people approach it is quite different and it has made me question it a little.

 

Do you like your historical fiction to have the speech identical to how they would have spoken at that time? Or do you prefer it with a more modern style of English but written in a manner in which you get the idea that it's from an older period?

 

I suppose there are pros and cons to both. Older speech can be tiring to decipher and understand which can be frustrating for a relaxed read, but then for those history lovers it does give a sense of authenticity and can be part of the fun of reading historical fiction.

 

Personally, which do you prefer? Or does it not matter to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you Kyra, I can find it a bit tiresome trying to decipher the old language so it means something to me, but at the same time, I want it to seem old enough to be believable. As Vodkafan has said, it shows the research has been done. Actually, I, find it more of a problem with genuinely historical books rather than historical fiction. It's one of the reasons I gave up trying to read Shakespear - sorry if that makes me seem like a heathen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is why I like middle ground with my historical fiction. I want plenty of the terms they use to be of those times, something that makes it different and I'd like it to be written in a way that I can at least imagine the sort of old style to it. I don't like the proper old English though, not for a novel I want to sit back and relax with at least. I do read Shakespeare sometimes, but I must admit I don't read him to relax!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess a lot depends on how far back in history the period is that you are writing of. If it is so far back that the English would be unrecognisable only an academic or historian could read it then that is a problem.

I guess the biggest problem is accidentally placing a "twonky" (paraphrasing John Varley, from his time travel story Millenium) which is an anachronism, something out of it's time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want is for the language to be authentic enough to give a flavour of the period, whilst still being readable and accessible to modern ears. There's also the same argument for contemporary fiction. Particularly when writing dialogue for teenagers, you don't want it to be too current at the time of writing, and language trends change and especially amongst this age group, vocabulary fades in and out of fashion, so a contemporary books can feel outdated within a matter of just a few months, let along years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the language I read in. In German, it can be a bit more old phrasing, but not so much that it disturbs the flow of the reading. If it's only some outdated words or a different kind of adressing people, okay.

And I wouldn't read a historical fiction using Middle English like Shakespeare. I don't want to learn a complete different grammar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading through The Song of Achilles at the moment and I was interested to find that despite the language feeling more like the language in a children's/young adult novel, it is incredibly engaging. The simplicity is actually rather effective, and I feel Madeline Miller knew it would help people be able to read her book easier. I've read The Iliad and The Odyssey, as well as a variety of Greek plays, and if she kept to the language style in those poems I feel it may have been too hard to write or even read. The story itself appears to be enough to keep the reader interested, and some flavour is given to the period of time to help the reader understand.

 

I suppose what we have to consider is whether the language suits the book and narrative flow. If the text reads as more modern but it suits the book and style then that's absolutely fine. It's understandable as it allows the book to be read by a wide variety of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

 

Actually, I, find it more of a problem with genuinely historical books rather than historical fiction. It's one of the reasons I gave up trying to read Shakespear - sorry if that makes me seem like a heathen!

 

The fact that you find historical fiction easier to read than authentic writing of the time shows that the writers of historical fiction are playing a trick on you. But in a good way. They have the skill of using only modern language to give an impression of authenticity. Some are better at it than others, but the important thing is not so much using authentic language as not using language that is too obviously modern. It's a very delicate balance, but at its best it's something that is done so subtly that you don't even notice it. It means the reader is not distracted by the language and does what the writer wants, which is to give all their attention to the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you find historical fiction easier to read than authentic writing of the time shows that the writers of historical fiction are playing a trick on you. But in a good way. They have the skill of using only modern language to give an impression of authenticity. Some are better at it than others, but the important thing is not so much using authentic language as not using language that is too obviously modern. It's a very delicate balance, but at its best it's something that is done so subtly that you don't even notice it. It means the reader is not distracted by the language and does what the writer wants, which is to give all their attention to the story.

 

Think you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head there ketman. Nothing wrong with a modern writer weaving a spell on the reader in that way. I sit in both camps enjoyment wise, I read classics too and like the mix of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally love it when the language is less "modern" but even I get into trouble when the books in question are written over 250 to 300 years ago. At that point, googeling the words I do not know becomes a choir and ruins the experience for me.

I've yet to read historical fiction that forces me to learn an entire new set of grammar and vocabulary though I've come across several books who used words and phrases who did not exist at the moment the story takes place. I think the weirdest example I've encountered in modern written historical fiction was an early Renaissance gentlemen claiming his son (or was it brother, cant remember) was suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Then again, it was probably not written to be taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

I love the way Hilary Mantel blends and balances the rhythms of the historical
period with modern English, so that the dialogue flows but has a suggestion of
otherness. This impression is based on reading The Giant O’Brian, set in
eighteenth century England. I have yet to read Wolf Hall but I look forward to
it.

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Patrick O'Brian handles this blend very well in his Aubrey/Maturin 'Master and Commander' series, which is set in the Georgian period. After reading one or two of his books I always find my language liberally besprinkled with archaic terms and nautical jargo: "Debauched? Am I indeed? You sir are a blackguard mountebank!"

 

Call me a Luddite, but it makes one yearn for a period when there was some formality and genuine vocabulary in everyday speech, as opposed to 'Yo bro, wassup?'

 

Me too! It does make me yearn for some of those words that are not now in common usage, and some of those Victorian insults like your example are fantastic.

 

Now, I'm off to call my boss a Cad and a Bounder!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing which really jars me in Historical Fiction is the use of swear words which have a very modern feel - I'm pretty sure they had different words than we do now!

 

Hmm. Ken Follett's "Pillars of the Earth" was like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hello,

Will Belford's comments made me laugh, yes, the speech of that age [and the dress] was so much more formal, in fact speech up to at least the First World War was formal...... I blame the phone! On the language in books reflecting the period, yes, of course it should reflect the period, and no modern bits thrown in, but as a lot of people think, perhaps not TOO much?If you like the Falco books [Lyndsey Davis] which are set in Rome of the 1st century AD, then you just go with the flow, as Falco talks and wisecracks like  a LA gumshoe [without the Americanisms.] But hey-ho [or even hey nonny no]. As others say, if the dialogue is done subtly in say, a Georgian novel , fairly correct and with a few Georgain phrases and sayings in there, and the book FLOWS, then it's fine. We can't be too precious about things.I hate to feel that I'm being lectured in a book, or hit over the head with all the research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's okay to make it sound a bit like the historical period, but I would like to still understand what's being said. I have this problem sometimes with books trying to portray accents, I just don't always get what's meant. It'd be okay to write down the full words, but I don't like it when words are being written in a different way or apostrophes are used to abbreviate a word. In these cases I often get confused because of the way my mind works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that I fall in the middle somwhere. I have read a few books that have proper-ish old english in them and once I was past the first five pages or so I had no trouble with them, but I also like the old style of writing but with mordern words. Easier on the eyes and brain when one wants to just read something lite and fun, like the falco books :-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it may be easier for us here in England to understand older styles of writing, then in say USA or elsewhere in world [when written in English I mean!] But we all struggle a bit [ a lot] with say Shakespeare to understand everything. Not only does he play with words [and create new ones, as did Dylan Thomas in 20th century] but puts slyly topical things in there as well, which his audience would get but we don't! If reading something from his era in fiction, I would expect to understand everything or the book wouldn't work, so it's 'hats off' to any author who can do this.It's not only a matter of the authentic feel of the age that the author has to create, but the understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...