![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Apr. 30th, 2006 11:08 amGlenda Larke and I are still having a cross-blog conversation. Following up from our earlier discussion about world-building, Glenda talks about words that can throw the unwary reader right out of a book. http://glendalarke.blogspot.com/2006/04/getting-language-of-period-and-place.html This was brought up by a reader comment on the original worldbuilding thread (and said reader saw me on a panel at Conjure - the world is so *small* sometimes).
Language isn't basic worldbuilding - it underlies the worlds we build. 'Correct' language is such a big issue. Also such a sticky one. Lots of my writing friends obsess about it and every now and again I get words thrown at me "Would this be used in Medieval settings?" If you're asking about something obvious, like a computer, the answer is straightforward, but for a lot of words there is no 'yes/no' option. The answer depends on so many factors, including on how someone has constructed their world, how much they use what sort of language in that particular piece, and even who their readers are.
The trouble is that if you are using an historical setting, you really *have* to update. *Not* updating is not even an option for Geoffrey Chaucer's blog - modern words sneak in everywhere. There is a simple reason for this: Middle English is *not* Modern English and it is almost impossible to write a publishable novel or communicate some modern concepts in Middle English, and the minute a writer has used Modern English he/she has compromised language. Word choice is a matter of communicating with readers, and using dead languages limits the number of readers who can access your work. Thinking about it from that direction, Modern English is an assumed, not a compromise. And Modern English doesn't just have words that were not known a few hundred years ago, it has new nuances and odd meanings for the words that *were* known.
There is also the issue of what meanings and attributions readers have in their minds for given words. Some readers will be thrown out of your book because however accurate your word choice is, it doesn't fit *their* notion of the time or place.
I get into discussions with readers about my use of words that come from my bank of specialist knowledge. "You're wrong," the least tactful will say. It doesn't matter that I know the technical use of the word 'estoire' in the early twelfth century and was using it quite precisely, I will still get *someone* jumping up and down in ire because it doesn't carry that range of meanings in their mind.
This doesn't just apply to words and to the Middle Ages. It also aplies to concepts. Some readers will just not get that the future or fantasy world you have built doesn't fit their assumptions from having started to read it, and they will argue that this bit belongs to that period that bit belongs to the other. Sometimes this is a problem with the writing, but sometimes it is the reader's personal interpretation.
When I teach word-use to a class, I use a Venn diagram and we sort out what 'shared meanings'*means*. We look for overlap meanings where words can be safely used in a wide variety of contexts, and for places where specific words should be used more judiciously. In the case of Glenda's reading, the question is not whether her world uses sundials, but whether those sundials break time into minutes or into some other time-division. If the sundials use hours and minutes, then the reader being flung out of the word through reading it has more to do with the reader's emotive understanding of sundials than with how those exact sundials were marked. If Glenda had entirely different time configurations on her sundials, then the use of 'minutes' elsewhere is an internal incongruity and a problem.
That's what it comes down to for me. Not Medieval vs Modern, but what fits into the created world and why. (virtual chocolate to anyone who has realised just how embedded in teaching mode I am this week)
Language isn't basic worldbuilding - it underlies the worlds we build. 'Correct' language is such a big issue. Also such a sticky one. Lots of my writing friends obsess about it and every now and again I get words thrown at me "Would this be used in Medieval settings?" If you're asking about something obvious, like a computer, the answer is straightforward, but for a lot of words there is no 'yes/no' option. The answer depends on so many factors, including on how someone has constructed their world, how much they use what sort of language in that particular piece, and even who their readers are.
The trouble is that if you are using an historical setting, you really *have* to update. *Not* updating is not even an option for Geoffrey Chaucer's blog - modern words sneak in everywhere. There is a simple reason for this: Middle English is *not* Modern English and it is almost impossible to write a publishable novel or communicate some modern concepts in Middle English, and the minute a writer has used Modern English he/she has compromised language. Word choice is a matter of communicating with readers, and using dead languages limits the number of readers who can access your work. Thinking about it from that direction, Modern English is an assumed, not a compromise. And Modern English doesn't just have words that were not known a few hundred years ago, it has new nuances and odd meanings for the words that *were* known.
There is also the issue of what meanings and attributions readers have in their minds for given words. Some readers will be thrown out of your book because however accurate your word choice is, it doesn't fit *their* notion of the time or place.
I get into discussions with readers about my use of words that come from my bank of specialist knowledge. "You're wrong," the least tactful will say. It doesn't matter that I know the technical use of the word 'estoire' in the early twelfth century and was using it quite precisely, I will still get *someone* jumping up and down in ire because it doesn't carry that range of meanings in their mind.
This doesn't just apply to words and to the Middle Ages. It also aplies to concepts. Some readers will just not get that the future or fantasy world you have built doesn't fit their assumptions from having started to read it, and they will argue that this bit belongs to that period that bit belongs to the other. Sometimes this is a problem with the writing, but sometimes it is the reader's personal interpretation.
When I teach word-use to a class, I use a Venn diagram and we sort out what 'shared meanings'*means*. We look for overlap meanings where words can be safely used in a wide variety of contexts, and for places where specific words should be used more judiciously. In the case of Glenda's reading, the question is not whether her world uses sundials, but whether those sundials break time into minutes or into some other time-division. If the sundials use hours and minutes, then the reader being flung out of the word through reading it has more to do with the reader's emotive understanding of sundials than with how those exact sundials were marked. If Glenda had entirely different time configurations on her sundials, then the use of 'minutes' elsewhere is an internal incongruity and a problem.
That's what it comes down to for me. Not Medieval vs Modern, but what fits into the created world and why. (virtual chocolate to anyone who has realised just how embedded in teaching mode I am this week)