Then you need to widen you circle of friends, poppet. I know what that is, but it's not a word I would assume everyone knows. I make this fail all the time. I included the verb brachiate in a story I wrote because, hello, who doesn't know the word for how most primates move through the canopy? The answer is: most people don't know that word.
I don't think it's a matter of showing off or being clever. Tolstoy wrote in Russian and French. Was he showing off? Maybe. But it was also part of the period. Many of the Russians were Francophiles, they spoke in Russian and in French, so why not write in Russian and French? I feel that it's a matter of capturing the essence of the community and culture. I deliberately choose a translation of War and Peace that kept the French, then footnoted it (with the literal translation, because colloquial translations drive me crazy). When I read, if something is meant to be in a foreign language, then I want it written in that language. It's just like movies; you don't give dialogue in English, then have the character add a tag saying, "He said in French." Instead you have them speaking French and add subtitles, which are essentially the same as a footnote. Having a foreign language in a book actually appeals to me in the same way foreign films do. Will it turn some readers off? Yes. A lot of people don't like foreign films either. Not every book is going to appeal to everyone. Many books won't even appeal to most. That doesn't mean the book is not worth writing. One of my favorite authors defines Gaelic words in text once, then feels free to use that word whenever and wherever after that. Some writers/translations use footnotes as I mentioned above. Some writers don't do anything and your left to figure it out on your own. Many writers will only ever use one language through out their books. When asking about including translations/foreign words in a text it might be better it those who have never engaged in the activity or who don't like reading such works refrain from commenting. I wouldn't tell someone how to write a Christian Fiction storybook because I'm not Christian and don't write children's literature. Nor would I hire an electrician to replace a toilet.
So you'd prefer if, in a discussion forum, there was no discussion? Beginning to see why you have so many threads about not liking the feedback you get.
It's not showing off. It's historical immersion. If I didn't want to expose people to what it was like in those days, I wouldn't write about ancient times.
No, I don't like it when someone tells me that my characters should be Christian and exhibit more Christian characteristics when they are pagan Celts and worship Celtic deities, and it's 600 BCE. It's irritating when I'm told they should not be hunting with spears, when during that period they hunted with spears. It's maddening when I'm told female characters cannot hold leadership positions or be treated like equals when we know that the Celtic women held leadership positions, were chieftains, and even druids. We know this because it confused the heck out of the Romans and they wrote about it. It would also drive me crazy it the electrician kept telling the plummer how to do his job. I think too many people want to change stories to fit THEIR ideals. When giving a critique you don't try to force someone to write a completely different story. If you have a section that reads, "She had just been visited by Dagda and had not known until after he was gone. He said he was named after his virtues: Dago-, good; da, gift! How could she have been so daft?" You don't tell the writer, 'There is only one God and his name is NOT Dagda! You need to re-write this from a more Christian perspective.' I get the feeling that it's the same with foreign words and translations. I sure many on here want me to remove the Proto-Celtic from that passage. I'm not going to.
Welcome to my world. Some people tried to "convince" me Arthur was in fact 16th century as he's usually portrayed and not 5-6th as he (if he existed) was.
I would prefer a little feedback from a few people who have encountered similar challenges than a lot of feedback from people with an agenda.
But it's not all about you. The OP asked "Do you think this is a bad idea?" and people answered. That's how a discussion forum, or a critique group, works.
I am capable of reviewing/critiquing my plumbers work to the extent that I can say, "I would prefer it if the toilet flushed and didn't leak." However, if the plumber is encountering an unfamiliar problem and needs advice on how to stop the leak, neither I nor the electrician should be the one to give it; that advice should come from other plumbers who have encountered the same or similar problems. But hey--it's the internet age! Someone who has no experience or education is clearly able to give highly valuable feedback on every topic. High school dropouts can feel free to tell a cardiologist how to do their job, critique macroeconomic policy, and tell NASA scientist they've got their jet fuel optimization equations wrong. Obviously a ton of shit is more valuable a 4 carat diamond that only weighs 0.8 grams! Someone who has no experience working with footnotes, foreign languages, or translations and hates seeing any of those things in a novel obviously makes a perfect candidate to answer the OP's question. Whereas those who do work with such things are clearly incompetent and just plain wrong, because well . . . other people just don't like it that way. In today's world quantity of feedback has become more important than quality of feedback and that is disheartening.
We're all literate. We all read novels. Our opinions are valuable because we're a wide overview of readers with different preferences. If you're looking for an echo chamber of people who already agree with your opinion, buy yourself some puppets and learn ventriloquism. But if you want to know how a wide overview of readers will respond to a given issue--ask a forum.
When the OP is writing a novel for readers to read then... yes. Those are, exactly, perfect candidates.
Well this has been derailed. Would it be rude of me to ask you to take this to PM's? It's not really the issue at hand. I've got my answers now. I'll see, if/when I get a publisher, what they think since it seems to be 50-50 so far. Thank you all for your answers! Sorry the topic got so derailed.
Foreign words in books feel especially strange to me when the main dialogue is already translated from one language, but the author doesn't bother translating from the second language. So for a book like this, where the Celtic is translated, why wouldn't all the dialogue be translated? I guess the effect could be to introduce the idea that there are some words the characters understand, and some words they don't understand. But in this case, it seems like the footnoted word is one that the characters would understand. So what's the rationale? The author translates some of the words the characters use because they come from one language, but doesn't translate other words the characters use because they come from a different language? I'm not really seeing the point.
I think it really depends on who you are going to be targeting the piece at: 1) If you want it to reach a wide range of readers, possibly not, it might be off-putting seeing lots of footnotes and it could scare them away. Then again, are they really the type who would enjoy the piece? 2) If you are directing it at a niche group who would appreciate the authenticity, keep it! I like the idea, it keeps something to the book, and gives a depth to your research and therefore the characterisation. Furthermore, when I read historical texts I don't mind checking words, I feel like I'm learning as I go. So, as long as you have the footnotes on the same page I would keep them.
If people are scared by footnotes they're plebs. Like the people on thid forum who don't read books with anything negative in them.
Um, no, it's not true. There's a reason that 99.9% of novels don't have footnotes in them. But, by all means, ignore readers and do what makes you feel smart. Publishers love that.
99% of everything is shit. Therefore 99% of books without novels are shit, 99% of books with them are shit and 99% of the readers of both are complete idiots.
I probably shouldn't say anything at all here, given that the thread has been completely derailed, but I've enjoyed reading it nonetheless. So thanks to everyone involved. I'm still laughing at this last one from @Tenderiser. I think I heard a drum beat and a cymbal crash when I read the footnote. Ba-dum-chaaa! As for the OP's question, I think your original concept was sound. But that's is most definitely just an opinion.
