Is it ok to reference something modern to give the reader a better idea of what something looks like if the book is set in the Middle Ages?

If you do this, it will have a very specific effect --it will create distance between the narrator and the setting, which will tend to remind the reader of the artificiality of the writing. You may want to do this, particularly if you are writing postmodernist fiction or meta-fiction, where you want to deliberately call attention to the writer. Another usage is if you want the readers to experience this work primarily as something modern --if you don't want them to be absorbed into the historical setting.

Some writers have used anachronism very effectively --T.H. White's The Once and Future King is probably one of the best examples. The Princess Bride and The Last Unicorn also use the technique (apparently it's a bit easier to pull off in a fantasy narrative, which is intrinsically located in a kind of timeless, mythopoeic realm). Others have gotten away with it accidentally, when the mistake doesn't call attention to itself. If you are writing a conventional narrative, however, where you don't want to call attention to the writing as writing, then you should avoid this, since it will tend to break suspension of disbelief (and come across as an amateur mistake).

I note from your comments that your main character is actually a modern time traveler, alien to the historical setting. This is certainly one way to begin cuing or foreshadowing that fact, but it's a pretty blatant one, so if you really want the reader to be surprised, you'd have to go easy on it. Assuming you are writing from first person or close third-person perspective with this character as the viewpoint character, it will be very difficult to pull of a deception of this magnitude --at least if you play fair with the reader.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Chris Sunami‭

1355 reputation 13 171 261 0

I'd like to add a thing to all the already given answers.

It's definitely not ok if this feature is used only once in the whole story, but if it is consistent instead...

Chapter 3: The majestic sword.

[...] Edward's sword was black and shiny, like a brand new car. [...]

(I, as a reader, would think " ... wow, that's pretty random")

Chapter 4: The woods.

[...] The man was hiding in a dense forest. Edward was able to find him by cutting the bushes with his new sword, as sharp as a swiss army knife. [...]

(I, as a reader, would think " ... he did it again??")

Chapter 5: The castle.

[...] Edward reached the castle. It was immense: as wide as a small town, as tall as a skyscraper. [...]

(I, as a reader, would think " ... maybe this Edward actually knows something from our days")

My point is that, if you have a reason to do this (I read through some comments, is maybe the narrator unknowingly from the future?), then it can be used as a feature of your writing style and as a hint that at least one character is from the future. The style could lead to "oh, that's the writer that uses modern-day references in his medieval stories!", but only if it is a systematic thing.

If it's only for the sake of writing something unconventional, then it does not make sense: the reader has to be repaid by his discovery if that was the intent.

PS: I would make sure that everytime this element is used, it is clear that the character is the subject of the comment. Not necessarily by first-person narration, but just putting it as his thought.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Simone Chelo‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0

Assuming the entire story takes place in this historical setting: no. The story needs to work in absence of the future.

Technically speaking, there is no difference between a true medieval setting, and a fantasy medieval setting. Neither knows what a car is, and therefore you cannot reference a car.

Exception:
If someone from the present has traveled to the past; then you can obviously write their observations from their modern mindset.

There is an interesting thing to note here, which I think relates to your suggestion: Language is exempt from this rule and can be modernized.

The TV show Deadwood is a great example here. It's a very gritty, realistic show with a massive densitiy of expletives in the script (I think it still holds the title of most average "fuck"s per minute across multiple episodes).
Initially, the script was written with time-appropriate expletives. The problem was that time-appropriate expletives were things like "gosh", "darn", ...

This created an issue: while they were being historically accurate, an modern viewer would be amused by what is supposed to be an actual improper swear word.

If you say "Gosh, you're a darn thief!" to an 1850's person, that's the same as saying "God damnit, you're a fucking thief!" to a person today. It's strongly worded.
However, when you say "Gosh, you're a darn thief!" to a person today, it sounds tongue in cheek and completely loses the verbal force that is intended.

The writers decided to modernize the expletives, so that the meaning (in context) was understandable for viewer, even if the words were not factually correct.

For the same reason, we don't write medieval stories in Middle English (or whatever was appropriate at the time). While increasing the factual correctness, it dramatically lowers the readability of the script. One does not always outweigh the other.

There is no one true answer to this question. There is a spectrum of options:

• Most media simply uses modern English, and omits referring to translation difficulties. This usually happens for stories that take place in scope of a single (main) language.
• Some media chooses to retain the different language. Narcos, for example, does not shy away from having the majority of its show in Spanish even though it's targeted at a US audience. It's a matter of making things as realistic as possible (since they also used real footage inbetween the show's scenes).
• Doctor Who predominantly uses modern English, and tries to provide a simple explanation (the main characters are under the effect of a piece of advanced technology that translates the world around them, including written language). This is used to a varying degree, and with varying outcomes: some cultural references are intentionally not understood by a foreign character (to remind the viewer of the translation mind shield), but at other times, idioms and saying do translate correctly. It's hard to keep it consistent.
• There are cases where two different languages are both spoken in English, but in a different accent. In Allo! Allo!, the British speak with a stereotypically posh English accent, and the French speak English with a thick accent. In-universe, they could not understand each other (unless someone was known to be bilingual). There was one bilingual character (Michelle), who actually swapped between English and French accents when she talked to different people.
• The Hunt for Red October has the first scene start in Russian. This carries over to Sean Connery's first few lines, and the viewer feels like they can't follow the story. But during the scene, they suddenly shift to speaking English. Because they are continuing the same conversation, the transition feels very natural. From that point on, they keep speaking English. During later scenes where the Russians and Americans communicate, they cannot understand each other (even though the viewer hears them speaking English).
• Vikings handles this interestingly. It uses modern English as the conversational language, but this refers to different languages, based on the scene's context.
  • If two vikings are talking to each other, the actors speak modern English. If they happen upon an English character, that character will speak Middle English (factually correct).
  • If two English characters are talking to each other, the actors speak modern English. If they happen upon an viking, that viking will speak old Norse (factually correct) and they will not understand each other.
  • Languages can shift during a scene, if some characters leave the scene and new ones enter. The shift happens very similar to The Hunt for Red October, where they exchange a few lines in the foreign language and then shift to modern English.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Flater‭

45 reputation 0 6 9 0

The only way this is permissible (in my view, of course) is if the main character or the narrator is actually a time traveler from the future.

It isn't the setting you need to stay faithful to, it is the mind of the narrator, which is usually of the same mind as the Main Character. If your main character came from 2020, sure, they might think of the sword as being as black and shiny as a new car, and the narrator typically knows everything the main character knows. (In 1st person for sure, also in 3rd person omni or limited).

Other than that, this is likely to be so jarring an editor / publisher will reject the work as too amateurish; they likely will not finish reading the sample. (They get far too many submissions to give anybody the benefit of the doubt; one jarring error and off you go to the reject pile).

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37

No, because you'd want your story to be as realistic and logical to the timeline your story is in. If you re-read that sentence, it would sound very weird because cars and swords were not used in the same time. Doing so will confuse the reader.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Sweet_Cherry‭

30 reputation 6 13 4 0