"Too modern" words
In a story set in a fantasy version of 5th century Persia, I've been told by a beta reader that a boy wouldn't call his father "dad", (would use "father" instead), wouldn't say "no spoilers", etc.
I am somewhat confused by this: a boy in 5th century Persia wouldn't be speaking English, and wouldn't be speaking any language that would be understandable today. Why, then, is "pass me the figs" OK, but "no spoilers" not OK? I'm not talking here of modern concepts, like rockets (as discussed in this question), but of modern turns of phrase, that describe things that existed back then as much as they exist now.
Are such turns of phrase really jarring, considering the setting? What should guide me, in terms of word choice, so as not to create this jarring effect? That is, what makes a phrase "too modern" as opposed to "timeless/transparent"?
2 answers
Spoilers ARE a modern concept. Even as recently as the pre-Industrial revolution; the early 1700's, social life was radically different than what you are accustomed to. I'm not talking about any Puritan notions of sex or nudity, many commoners were quite crude in this respect and had no problem talking about that. But the idea that a story could be "spoiled" by knowing the ending or a "twist" was unheard of. When you talked about stories you told the ending and the twists, people looked forward to them.
I won't say they had childish minds, that is not true, but think of children today endlessly watching the same Disney movie or same episodes of the same cartoons again, and again, and again, until they know every frikkin' line of it. People did that with stories in the dark ages, told them over and over until the audience memorized them word for word.
Yes, the audience is expecting you to translate Persian into English for them, but they are NOT expecting anachronisms. "Dad" might plausibly be a translation of an affectionate slang for father. But "spoiler" is not, there are no movies or books or tales that a typical 5th century Persian is looking forward to seeing or reading or hearing for the first time.
Yes, considering the setting, anachronistic turns of phrases really are jarring.
What makes a phrase jarring is if it is related in reader's minds to social attitudes or social phenomenon that are modern. In the 5th century, there was little distinction between childhood and adulthood, children were expected to work a full day from the age of about three (gather eggs, pulling weeds), there was no industry of constant entertainment or even NEW entertainments, there was no school system or training system, little play, no young teen years or teen slang. Girls were getting married and having sex at 12 (and younger), boys at a similar age. There wasn't even an intense attachment to children by parents; half of them would be dead by disease before reaching puberty.
Research the life of your times. Many readers may not have done as much research as I have, but they are going to spot gross anachronisms like "spoiler alert". What's a "spoiler"? (first known use like this in 1982). What's an "alert"? (first known use as a noun like this in 1803). A "twist" in the sense of "an unexpected plot development" is only known since 1941; well into the age of mass entertainment that might be spoiled.
For a 5th century tale, I'd probably limit myself to words and concepts from the 1500's or earlier.
0 comment threads
Isn't this essentially the same question you already asked? At any rate, my answer is the same: Referencing modern pop culture in science fiction
Pop culture references in real life affirm tribal affiliations. Drop a recognized quote and it triggers an autonomic pleasure/reward response in your "tribe". People who don't recognize the quote do not react and are not your tribe….
When it works the viewer identifies this character a member of his own tribe. Meanwhile, the other much more interesting (stronger, badder) characters stand around befuddled, haha the joke's on them. They are not "tribe".
The "tribe" that is being signaled with anachronistic speech, is the reader. The goal is to make the protagonist instantly more relatable to the reader. Sometimes it is reversed and a humorous villain (or sidekick) is the one who speaks anachronistically, but for the same reason: to make him (or the situation) more relatable.
Other characters can then be placed on a scale of reader sympathy based on how similarly they speak to the protagonist. His friends and immediate family members may be similarly anachronistic (by degrees), meanwhile anonymous townsfolk, disapproving elders, and important historical figures will be speak more formally with some version of Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe.
Expect the anachronistic-speaker to be an equally anachronistic thinker who can bear witness and react to the time period's social injustice, superstitions, abuse of authority, etc.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/37340. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads