Beware modern slang in historical writing

Pardon me while I resurrect this thread (again - sorry), but I just saw this ...

I am stunned. (!) At least this author got one thing right: there were one or two castles in the Lowlands in the 12th century (Castle Sween and Stirling Castle).

As for the rest, I hope this person learned how to do basic research.

And this leads me on to a recommendation: Medieval Underpants and Other Blunders by Susanne Alleyn. One of my favourite books. I read it at least once a year or so. It has lots of good reminders for keeping your historical fiction free of bloopers, like (real cases):

1. ... chipmunks chattering happily in the London of William the Conqueror
2. ... medieval Irish peasants enjoying a dish of potatoes
3. ... a bunch of oh-so-evil French revolutionary sans culottes dragging a mini-guillotine into an aristocrat's drawing room and beheading her there and then
4. ... "Allow me to introduce myself," said the Duchess. "I'm Caroline."

And many others. Susanne brings them up as an example of what not to do, and then shows the reader how things should be done. Highly recommended.

 

Very nice thread and many funny posts in here.

When I started to write I wanted to write historical fiction and that urge sometimes hits me again. But the since I want to have writing and not historical and linguistical research as a hobby I've decided to move on to another genre for my writing.

Still I love to read historical fiction and I greatly admire writers who can pull it off without falling int one of the many pitfalls detailed in this thread.

 

A great read for 18th and 19th century English slang (published 1860):

A DICTIONARY OF SLANG, CANT, AND VULGAR WORDS

 

You have to try and internalise the speech patterns of the era. Read fiction based in the time you want to write, preferably written in that time, not contemporary fiction. I'll be doing this after I finish my current WIPs - my next one will be a Conan Doyle Holmes pastiche, so I'll be using words like "Hindoo", "Musselman", "lascar" etc. And Holmes will ejaculate a lot.

One of my current ones is set in 1974 Japan, so I tried to do this there too, although the fact that it's written in English both constrains and gives me some freedom in the dialogue.

 

I am personally torn on this. Because I write fantasy that is set in historical times. Think Ancient Rome, but with magic? So, less historical wording is needed. But I don't think much on the dialogue aside from swear words. Because the only one that doesn't seem to have Christian ties is damn and I'm over here in an alternate universe setting with a whole different religion.

For me, I appreciate some accuracy, but I don't bother to learn what type of napkins they used. Because the little details would drive me CRAZY. I would never WRITE anything if I researched it all down to the type of clay used for pots.

I also got thrown by Twain who wrote in plain English, aside from the dialogue in Prince and the Pauper. I tossed that book fast. Because I didn't want to decode it just to enjoy the story. So, I give myself some slack, because it's a Historical Fantasy Alternate Universe. It's not going to be 1:1, but more than anything, I want to capture the feelings and values of the society. Not to mention, I want the words to be plain English as I want my reader to understand the society and character turmoil.

I can't imagine having to explain why Vitellius was rumored to be a sexual invert (which MIGHT given the context be either an asexual or sexually submissive? As far as I have read, invert would mean either? Thanks for not clarifying, Suetonius.) Or other details that are really confusing to explain? So, I try to keep things simple.

As for sci-fi, which I am writing now, it's really hard. Because some standard words like laser gun or blaster might be Star Wars or Star Trek property. But there is no copyright on The Speed of Light. Warp Speed, yes. But ugh. It's so hard to untangle the Sci-fi word mess. My rule is, if NASA uses the term for science, it's fair game.

When I don't know what one might call something in a different world, I name it something close to what one might call it here. Like alligator = Teeth Lizard. Or Sun = Star. Or Monkeys = Tree Chatterers. Because I want the reader to be immersed, but not scratching their head going, 'what the hell is this thing?'. But I still want the reader to feel carried away to another world that is relatable, but different from their own.

 

I thought earlier today that I could write a book about vulgar words, swear-words, vulgar gestures (like the "middle finger up" etc.), and crude names for villages, cities and towns in Britain ... because I have a title that would sell a million copies.

I would call it Rude Britannia.

And yes, I know there's already a "Rude Britannia" TV show, which google says "explores British traditions of satire, bawdy and lewd humour" ... but so what? The TV show focuses on satire and humour; my book will focus on how these words, gestures and names changed over the years. For instance, a fat man walks by a group of thieves in the 1700s. "Look at that puff guts! What a lickorous glutton! We'll give him a rib roasting" etc., etc.

This sounds familiar. I think my first full novel was something of that nature, as I was experimenting.

After that, I tried to stick with appropriate history and mythology for whatever time I was writing in -- e.g. a novel set in ancient Rome might have mythological creatures that the Romans would believe in, etc.

(Of course, that meant no ancient Babylonian vampires or ancient Egyptian wyverns, etc.) =P

That also sounds familiar. To be honest, nobody except the most exacting would care about something like that. Never mind the bullocks, get on with the story!

 

There's a difference between writing historical fiction and historical fiction. I *do* research down to that level. It depends what you're trying to achieve.

 

Fair enough. It also depends on how much time you have; I'm trying to write the book while also holding down a permanent job and family, so my research time is limited.

Part of the story I'm writing involves two people rowing a boat down some rapids, which I was wondering if it was possible. It turns out that yes, it is - if the boat is sturdy, and the people handling it are skillful mariners (which mine are).

I could've just ignored that part and written it anyway, because it makes a good story. But I didn't want someone writing in to me later and correcting me, either gently ("This is impossible because etc."), or not-so-gently ("You're wrong! HA ha!", a la Nelson Muntz from The Simpsons).

 

You're not the only one in that position.

 

LOL! Well, at least he knew that the Romans called the Rhine "Rhenus".

Sorry to be picky, but didn't the Romans call the Mediterranean "Mare Nostrum", or "Our Sea"?

Just to play Devil's advocate: I guess you could ride from Rome to Alexandria, but you couldn't expect to be welcome anywhere until you reach Armenia (and that is one hell of a ride, all the way through the Balkans, Greece and Turkey). Even then, you'd have to ride south through ancient Israel before even reaching Egypt, and you'd probably be stopped at the border for being an agent of Set ... because clearly, anyone crazy enough to do such a thing must be an agent of Set, the god of chaos!

I won't even mention how saddle-sore you'd be, and how you probably won't even be able to change your horse. So, very true: it'd be much better to take a ship from Ostia, the port closest to Rome ... if you're not insane, of course. (Of course, you couldn't sail in certain months, and you'd have to watch for pirates and summer storms, but that's another matter).

Here's a wonderful resource for travel in the ancient world: Orbis, the Geospatial Model of the Ancient Roman World, hosted by Stanford University. Meticulously researched and well-presented. It can, at least, give people an idea of how long journeys in the ancient world would take, when it could take place, what stops would be on the way etc.

 

I'll look for that book. It sounds fascinating. When I went to see if my library had it, I was out of luck, but I did find Terry Jones' medieval lives by that Monty Python troupe member, who was also a noted historian.

Here's the write-up that the library provided.

The book seems to be a companion piece to a BBC series, so I'll have to see if BritBox has it.

As for underwear, there's a scene in the film Robin and Marion where one of his companions has to hoist himself up a tree to get a better view of things, and his naked backside can be seen, revealing that he lived in a world innocent of both underwear and toilet paper.

 

Well, my work is a completely different Alternate Universe setting. So, it doesn't have to be a perfect 1:1, but I do keep in mind the lore of Roman Mythology and social differences. I tend to stick with the history for the most part, but it does veer off once established. Different people become emperor and events unfold in a different way. It's a huge 'WHAT IF' story, which is usually the basis of all my stories. What if__?

Not to mention, even though the timeline is messed up, certain events still happen. It's like if I wrote, what if Hitler got into art school? Would he still end up in politics and create the Third Reich? Also, would his views on the Jewish people change or become worse? Also, what if he met Mussolini at some point, because he was the subject of an Italian newspaper interview and the two hit it off? What then? Also, what would happen to Japan? Would they side with Russia in the Cold War? Or would it be WWII, but different, because there would be no UN or atomic bomb created? Then, if war broke out between Russia and the US over political ideology, where would Europe fall? Because there is no UN or NATO. Would Hitler end up fighting with Churchill against Russia? Or how would this go? I mean, I like starting at 1 point:

What if Hitler got into Art School?

And following the threads of events where they might naturally flow after the fact. But even though that seems like a fun idea, I won't be writing it. Because I have 1 rule for my historical work: I don't write Hitler.

Tiberius, sure. Caligula, love that guy. Vlad the Impaler and Elizabeth of Bathory would make good friends. But never Hitler. Because I am superstitious.

You would be surprised. So many people are nit-picks now a days and I am honestly not perfect in that regard as well. But it's not napkins for me. It's more about societies. The movie Gladiator made me mad, because the main character's family was crucified by the evil emperor. And I wrote a whole rant to my friend that crucifixion were reserved for the lower classes and given this man's status, his family would have been asked to kill themselves instead. Which wasn't uncommon. Because it's where Roman society differs from modern- suicide wasn't a social taboo. In fact, Nero was mocked for not 'being man enough' to do it, basically. Romans took great pride in dying well from what I have come to understand.

I think the thing is, there is a difference between Historical Fiction and Historical Fantasy/Mystery. Because Historical Fiction is very to the fact. Fantasy and Mystery are unrecognized sub-genres in Historical Fiction. So, that's part of why people who want Historical Fiction get upset when it's Historical Fantasy or mystery. Because it's not differentiated from one another.

I have plenty of time. But I know if I research too much, I will get bogged down and perfectionistic about it. Once I know what I feel is adequate, I start writing. I can always fix things when I edit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! I would hope it was during the greatest span of the empire, or they are in trouble.

 

I know Harry Turtledove pretty much cornered the market on alternate history, but I still really loved his alternate historical spy stories in Agent of Byzantium. Think James Bond vs the Persian Empire, with the turning point being Muhammed having received a message of Christianity rather than Islam, resulting in the Arab peoples joining the Christian side of things.

 

Sounds like you write counterfactuals, also known as "What If?" history. It's a fun parlor game, but many historians are against it, because actual history is complicated enough without "what if?" to make it even more complicated.

I've written similar things, but for me, the challenge is simpler: what if the mythological monsters that people believed in turned out to be real? Like draug/draugr in Norse societies, or sphinxes in ancient Greece and Egypt - things like that.

Yeah ... enough people have written about Hitler and the Third Reich. Let's stay away from that guy. Godwin and all that.

Very true. Roman society differs from modern in many other ways, too (imagine a communal toilet ...), but in many ways, it's also similar. Law and order was more primitive, but in a way also more immediate. (Break the law after dark, and if you don't watch out, a Scythian archer might get you).

Then again, we don't nail criminals to sticks anymore or get tigers to rip their faces off. Yay, progress!

Indeed. Imagine riding through hostile territory all the way from Italy to Armenia, without even the chance to change your horse ...

Even during the greatest span of the empire (roughly Vespasian to Marcus Aurelius), with a chance to rest and change your horse ... if you did that, you'd be considered a nut.

 

I can see where one might think that and yes, technically, I write counterfactual/historical alternate universe material. BUT I still DO the research. Also, it annoys me that the wikipedia article states counterfactual historical work is mostly done by right-wing authors. I am not right-wing.

Also, the way you phrased the rest of this seems a bit insulting. WHAT historians are 'against' this type of fiction? To me, this is the most fun one can have with history and secondly, just because I write Alternate Universe stuff doesn't mean I am lesser in the Historical Fiction category. It's like comparing Teen Romance stories to hardcore Erotica. Like, both are good, but you wouldn't say to an erotica writer it's a 'fun parlor game'.

Anyway, I am tapping out on this thread. It's been nice to chat.

 

Of course! Any author writing in a historical period should do the research ... otherwise, you get stuff like that person above (who had his character riding from Rome to Alexandria, etc.)

Wait, wait ... what? Let me see. *googles the article* Ah. It only says this:

"Richard Evans provides a systematic critique of the concept in his book Altered Pasts. In his view most counterfactuals are written by right wing historians engaging in wishful thinking either describing a hoped for present or to discredit left wing ideology." (Emphasis mine).

I'm sorry it annoyed you, and you're right to be annoyed ... but it's only Mr. Evans's opinion. I'm annoyed at him too (I'm also not right-wing), but the wiki-article doesn't say this is fact - just one person's opinion.

All right: first of all, no-one is saying you are lesser in anything. I'm not having a go at you.

There are simply both arguments for and against counterfactuals. Some of these arguments make sense: for instance, counterfactuals are speculative and can misrepresent the past. There is also a risk of "wishful thinking" or bias. They can also over-emphasize the role of individuals (i.e. without X leading the way, country Y wouldn't have done Z, etc.)

I can also see the case for counterfactuals. They serve some important functions: they can define true turning points (e.g. the fog on the East River that helped Washington escape to Manhattan after the Battle of Long Island of 1776). Without that fog, Washington would've been surrounded and forced to surrender. Can you imagine America without Washington?

Then again, counterfactuals can eliminate 'hindsight bias' - for instance, was there a way for Hitler to win WW2 after the Battle of Britain? Most people would say no, not without invading Eastern Europe to get the oil and coal he needed. But what if he decided to invade the Middle East instead? It had plenty of oil, and was much less well-defended. What would the outcome be then? Nothing in history is "fixed" or written in stone.

In my view, 'what ifs' like these are just as important as what did happen. They can be surprising, entertaining, or even frightening - but they must be plausible. Some frivolous counterfactuals, like Hannibal with a H-bomb or Napoleon with stealth bombers (questions actually posed in some American war colleges), have given the genre a bad name. Plausibility is the key word, and I'm glad we all agree on that.

 

Haha, yeah. Thanks and yes, you end up with things like that. I once witnessed a Manga artist claim it took 2 days to get from South Florida to Orlando. It's only 2, maybe 3 hours IRL.

Thank you, because it really did. I guess I get annoyed at all the edgy history buffs who give us a bad name. Well, I think I also don't like the term Counterfactual, because it feels to me like a bigger word for 'misinformation/crazy conspiracy theory'.)

Thank you again. The way the post was phrased, I was unsure. But I am glad to know you're not having a go at me. Apology accepted.

Oh, I never thought of this. I like that alternate history can get rid of hindsight bias. In my personal opinion, Hitler went to Russia to get back at Stalin and because of ego. I don't know what the Middle East was doing during the war, but maybe Egypt was too difficult for Germany to traverse, so wrote off the whole area?

I agree. They must be plausible. Which is what I really like to do. For me, it's the butterfly effect that is intriguing. In one of my stories, the simple change is: What if Caligula's daughter, Julia lived?

And it gets crazy from there. Because she was taken to Greece, later meets and marries Nero- then tries to take over. It gets fun.

 

Funny you should ask. I once found a book that had prints of some of Hitler's paintings and showed them to a friend of mine who is an internationally recognized artist without revealing the painter's name. My friend gave them a look and said something like "This is the work of an untalented artist. It's technically adequate but lacking in any feeling."

 

I remember reading somewhere that Hitler never painted humans - was never able to capture the human essence.

I also find it interesting that your friend said the painting wasn't art, because it lacked feeling. Something I have mentioned here more than once is Tolstoy's definition of art -

A real work of art destroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the separation between himself and the artist...

If only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings which the author has felt, it is art.

To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling — this is the activity of art.

Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them.

That's from the OP of a thread I started - "How do you define art?"

https://www.writingforums.org/threads/how-do-you-define-art.173223/

 

I recall reading (or seeing in a documentary) that Hitler wasn't capable of painting from life. Probably the wrong term, but what I mean is painting an actual building or scene in front of him whether it contained people or not. When he was a struggling artist in Vienna he would make copies of postcards and photos created by others. If true, I can kind of understand it. I've got very little talent for visual arts (and less for music), but if I was presented with something static, in the fixed frame of a photo or card, I might be able to make a stab at a copy of it given a ruler and a protractor. Doing the whole "holding a thumb up for scale" doesn't work for me.

....aaaaaannnnd I've just compared myself to Hitler. Self Godwin FTW!

 

LOL. I am honestly sorry. But know, you are a way better person.

 

Wait, what? I've never been to Florida, but even I know Orlando isn't that far. *G* Maybe the artist decided to walk?

*checks it on google maps* OK, it's 175 miles. By car, it's just under 3 hours. By foot, it takes 64 hours ... if you're crazy enough.

Hmm. The term "Counterfactual" is common to both history and philosophy; it relates to or expresses something that didn't happen, but could have, would have, or might have happened under different conditions. (Again, plausibility is the key).

It's very different to misinformation and conspiracy theories, because there's no intent to deceive. On the contrary, you're saying up front what actually happened, and how it could've been different.

Just one example is the Conquistadores in South America. They took the silver and gold, but ignored the much more important things -- like chocolate and potatoes. For about 200 years , potatoes were regarded as only fit for pigs. But can you imagine the world with no potatoes? Or no chocolate? *shudder* The horror.

Another major turning point was La Noche Triste, the night when the Aztecs captured and sacrificed many of Hernando Cortes's men. What if they captured him too? He was acting without authorization from the Spanish authorities in Cuba. If he was killed, the leaderless Conquistadores would not have been able to take Mexico ... and perhaps, today's USA would have had a vigorous native nation sitting on its southern border.

Americans and Aztecs as neighbors? It could have happened!

 

My friend* didn't say that the painting wasn't art. He just said it wasn't good art.

Kurt Vonnegut told of an artist he'd met who was asked how to tell good art from bad art. The artist replied something like "It is very simple. All you have to do is look at a million pictures. After that, you can never be mistaken."

*I should identify my friend, so people can decide if he's an artist:
https://www.jeraldsilva.com/about

Jerald was also the one who told me "When I sit down to do a painting, I expect something to happen. Either something in my technique doesn't work any more, or something that didn't work before now works. When the day comes when that doesn't happen, that's the day I quit painting."

So far, he's still painting. My wife was in Sutter General Hospital for almost two weeks, and every day I passed some of the "steamy window" pictures he did for the hospital. I didn't see all twenty of them, but then again, I wasn't looking for them.

 

I figure an evil emperor like Commodus (or at least the movie version; the original was just something of a mad man rather than outright evil) wouldn't treat his hated enemy's family according to the class they belong to. It's a much bigger insult to kill them in ways reserved for common criminals.