Writing Historical narratives

[Voboy]

How do people figure out the everyday language of a particular era? I'm reading a story set in the 1890's Arizona, and the language and narrative style are clearly not current. It reads very easily, though. Is the author making it up? "He's funnin' you." Has he read a lot of other authors' possibly made up stories from that era? Has he read a bunch of dime novels from that era?

Note: If you've seen this post, even if you have nothing to say about it, could you reply "Saw it?" I'm trying to get a feel for how much audience one may lose by posting to an old thread.

Much of this can be researched, in the ways you've suggested.

The rest can be extrapolated. It's worthwhile for us to remember that most of those who were alive at the time of our historical pieces are unlikely to be around any longer to nitpick our inconsistencies, unfortunately. As long as our dialogue sounds "right" and avoids anachronism, I think it's fine.

My more distant pieces (Roman, middle ages, etc) I tend to write in a very modern dialect, reasoning that if my characters are speaking Latin or Anglo-Saxon or Norman, they're speaking in a way that sounds comfortably colloquial to each other, so that's how I write it. When language barriers arise, I simulate that. It's not that tough.

 

[sijopunk]

I normally write in first person, and it's always flowed very very naturally for me.

Historical pieces generally sound MUCH better in the third person, to me. That's a major change I make when I write them; I feel it lends a more distant tone.

I spent October through February trying to use a more distant third person writing (for the Jasmine Tea story from the original post), and I kept hating it. Four drafts scrapped so far.

This week I'm trying something totally different, which is to use my natural first-person writing as sort of a "Gonzo Journalism." So a highly unreliable narrator going through a chaotic moment in Joseon history, inspired by Raoul Duke's "coverage" of the Mint 400.

 

[Voboy]

I spent October through February trying to use a more distant third person writing (for the Jasmine Tea story from the original post), and I kept hating it. Four drafts scrapped so far.

This week I'm trying something totally different, which is to use my natural first-person writing as sort of a "Gonzo Journalism." So a highly unreliable narrator going through a chaotic moment in Joseon history, inspired by Raoul Duke's "coverage" of the Mint 400.

Wonderful! I'm glad it's coming together for you. That sounds like a good way to tackle it.

 

[Rob_Royale]

Thoughts on the thee, thy, thine, thou thing? I'm using them in my current story and I'm wondering if it won't get tiresome.

 

[redgarters]

Depends on how far back in time you're going - Roman or medieval is very difficult

I suggest going with the same approach as Lindsey Davis. Just let your characters speak plain English and blend in the correct latin terms for things.

 

[Voboy]

Thoughts on the thee, thy, thine, thou thing? I'm using them in my current story and I'm wondering if it won't get tiresome.

I can maybe think of times I'd use them, but VERY sparingly. I'd use them only for their intended purpose: talking to one's spouse or child, because I'm a pedant; I think that'd confuse many modern readers, though, who don't realize that's the familiar form, not the formal form.

Like any other dialect, it's easy to overuse stuff and get the reader lost.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I think that'd confuse many modern readers, though, who don't realize that's the familiar form, not the formal form.

I did not realize that. Thanks.

 

[anthrodisiac]

How do people figure out the everyday language of a particular era? I'm reading a story set in the 1890's Arizona, and the language and narrative style are clearly not current. It reads very easily, though. Is the author making it up? "He's funnin' you." Has he read a lot of other authors' possibly made up stories from that era? Has he read a bunch of dime novels from that era?

Note: If you've seen this post, even if you have nothing to say about it, could you reply "Saw it?" I'm trying to get a feel for how much audience one may lose by posting to an old thread.

There's an approach for this: Write to give the impression of the period, not necessarily for the verisimilitude. This holds the further back in time you go, because the language starts to get increasingly distant from what a modern reader will understand. @redgarters is right on the money with that advice.

You don't necessarily need to fully and faithfully recreate an era, you just need to give the reader the sense that they're in the era. It took me a bit of time to get my head around, but this sort of thing holds true more broadly, so let me see if I can't find the example I gave someone...

Nope, couldn't find it.

Went something like this:

Phone call between two 90-year-old women, verisimilitude:
*ring ring*
Mildred: "Hello."
Gertie: "Hello, it this Mildred?"
Mildred: "Yes, this is she. To whom am I speaking?"
Gertie: "Good morning, dear, this is Gertie."
Mildred: "Gertie! Gosh, I was just thinking of you."
Gertie: "As I was with you. How are you this lovely morning?"
Mildred: "I'm doing well. The grandkids are coming over for lunch, and I think I have time to start on my rhododendrons once this gosh-dang arthritis clears up."
Gertie: "I know, dear. My Barney's arthritis kicks up something fierce when-"
*Twenty minutes later*
Gertie: "So, I wanted to ask you something about Martha."
Mildred: "Oh, Martha! How is she doing after the hip replacement?"
Gertie: "Well, you'll never believe it, but-"
*Ten minutes later*
Gertie: "Anyway, I was calling to see if you wanted to have brunch with Martha on Tuesday?"
Mildred: "Oh, of course dear! Do you remember last time we-"
*Thirty minutes later*
Mildred: "Well, I will see you on Tuesday, then!"
Gertie: "I'm looking forward to it. Say hi to the kids for me."
Mildred: "Of course, and you say hi to-"
*Five minutes later*
Gertie: "Goodbye, Mildred."
Mildred: "Goodbye, Gertie."



Phone call between two 90-year-old women, readable:
*ring ring*
Mildred: "Hello, this is Mildred."
Gertie: "Hello, Mildred, it's Gertie! How are you this morning?"
Mildred: "Well, thank you. The grandkids are coming over, and I think I have time to start on my rhododendrons."
Gertie: "That's wonderful. Listen, I was calling to see if you wanted to join Martha and me for brunch on Tuesday. IHOP, eleven o'clock?"
Mildred: "Oh, that would be splendid! I can't wait to catch up with the two of you."
Gertie: "Likewise. You have a wonderful day. Say hi to the grandkids for me."
Mildred: "You too, dear."

First one is accurate, but then you get some Tolkeinesque 50 pages of 90-year-old women phone conversation. Second one gives the sense of listening into a conversation between them, but without the accuracy that would otherwise slow the scene or trip up a reader.

It's the same with period pieces, international/multilingual pieces, and fantasy/sci-fi worlds besides our own. You don't want to make the reader trudge through tediously faithful recreations of two Victorian gentlemen giving a lengthy back and forth "Good morrow, sir," "And to you, too, sir. How do you fare?" for a full page. Nor do you want your alien species to have so many made-up words that it's impossible to actually understand what they're saying. But you do want to give the reader enough that they feel like they're in a faithful-enough recreation of the world you've plopped them into.

It's a delicate balance at times, one that applies to quite a lot of writing, actually. This is especially true when it comes to time. The real world takes FOREVER. Fiction is snapshots in time, and if it went at the speed of life, Ulysses would be considered a short story.

Same with conversations: Most conversations meander, amble, trot, chill, then return to the topic at hand, but you rarely see that in fiction. Why? Because it doesn't serve the story or the reader. It's a distraction that does nothing except give extremely faithful recreations of actual life, and unless you're explicitly trying to do that, your dialogue is going to be more straightforward than you'd see in the real world.

So, as long as you have enough ye olde words for your period piece, and you aren't using extremely obvious anachronisms, your focus should be on painting just enough of a picture of the place to make the reader feel it, and not one drop of paint more.

 

[HordHolm]

I suggest going with the same approach as Lindsey Davis. Just let your characters speak plain English and blend in the correct latin terms for things.

I agree with this. I'm currently writing something based on the period after the fall of Rome in the west (but in Scandinavia), and whilst I'm careful to avoid modern anachronisms, I'm also not going to torture readers (and myself) trying to reconstruct patterns of speech from 1,500 years ago. I stilt the language a little, add some older, but still understandable, terms, (characters 'bed' each other, or 'couple', for instance, they don't, however, 'tup') but I use these things with a light touch. If I was feeling 'authentic' I suppose I could try to reconstruct some Germanic/Norse dialect, but it wouldn't benefit anyone if I did.

 

[StillStunned]

Thoughts on the thee, thy, thine, thou thing? I'm using them in my current story and I'm wondering if it won't get tiresome.

Personal philosophy: only if the speaker is from Oop North.

 

[HordHolm]

Personal philosophy: only if the speaker is from Oop North.

Gradely

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Like many here, I have only targeted recent history in all of my stories, but this can span several decades and generations over the course of the tale.

I can share what I find invaluable, and that is to start with a timeline. It allows me to identify milestones in the characters' lives and pinpoint those historical events that I think might contribute to the plot. Even if the chronological series of events within the story don't remain linear, the timeline allows for the consistency that makes things work.