Using real words from a foreign culture feels like 'Calling a rabbit a "smeerp"'
I'm working on a novel, that's set in pre-Islamic Persia, in the same general way that The Lord of the Rings is set in Britain. (Meaning, it's set in a world all its own, but there's this source of inspiration.)
Here's my conundrum: the land is ruled by the Shah - that's a given, that's expected if the setting is Persian rather than European. But what happens under the Shah? Knights, barons, counts and dukes are all titles associated with the European court. They appear to clash with a setting, as if I'm telling a basically European story, only recoloured Middle-eastern.
So the knights are asvarans (it's actually amazing how much the position of the asvarans in 5th century Persia is reminiscent of 10th century European knights). And after much research, I've got vaspahrs, sardars and ostandars. At which point, I'm looking at the trope Calling a Rabbit a "Smeerp" - I'm just giving different names to something that has a perfectly good English word.
Moreover, I have only recently pointed others to this xkcd:
(source)
I do not believe it is relevant that I found the words I'm using in an encyclopedia rather than made them up; to the reader, they are equally unfamiliar.
How do I balance realism against readability in this particular case? I do not want to break the readers' suspension of disbelief by using words that are too European, but I don't want to weigh on the reader with heaps of foreign-language vocabulary either.
(Note: Bioware's Dragon Age franchise uses 'Teyrn', 'Arl', 'Bahn' instead of 'Duke', 'Earl', 'Baron'. However, in their example the replacement words are not too far from the English words, and thus much easier to remember, avoiding confusion. Also, the names they use are for the most part English enough. Consequently, looking at something like 'Arl Eamon', one doesn't have to wonder which part is title and which part is name. As opposed to 'Vaspahr Narseh', for instance.)
Here's my unprofessional opinion, based on what I would like to read. Short answer: Use the specific word when the spec …
6y ago
When it comes to using fictional terminology for concepts with real-life equivalents, the best usage is for flavour; to …
6y ago
It's ultimately up to you, but you don't want your ancient Persia overridden by knights. You may as well make them wear …
6y ago
I've found that the main key to unfamiliar words -- and this applies to jargon in technical writing as much as it does t …
6y ago
> asvarans, vaspahrs, sardars and ostandars. I struggled with this for a different reason, I didn't want to invoke medi …
6y ago
5 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
I've found that the main key to unfamiliar words -- and this applies to jargon in technical writing as much as it does to foreign or made-up words in fiction -- is density. The example in the XKCD comic is irritating because it can't get through a single sentence without three new words. The situation is very different if three unfamiliar words are introduced over the span of a chapter.
Another key is how naturally you supply the explanation. Instead of "translating" or explaining, provide context -- introduce the asvarans in a setting where their martial role is apparent, show your sardars in leadership roles, show your ostandars ruling, etc. This might be direct (you show those characters doing those things) or indirect (people refer to them in connection with illustrative events or attitudes).
Imagine if the XKCD example were instead handled like this:
The six fra'ars stood solemnly in front of the gate, their gray beards all reaching nearly to their waists. Despite their years they stood strong and alert. $Name, standing in front of the others, held a large sword aloft in one hand, seemingly effortlessly. $POV-character involuntarily took a step back; he knew that the krytosis was normally wielded two-handed because of its weight.
He heard the din of the many farmlings running and playing beyond the gate. He envied them; they had no cares, were not affected by the ill tidings in the land, and had no idea of their eventual fate. He wished he could be young and oblivious again. [...]
This is more jargon-dense than I would write for "real", but I hope it illustrates the point that you can introduce terms without falling into the "pass the dictionary" trap.
0 comment threads
Here's my unprofessional opinion, based on what I would like to read.
Short answer: Use the specific word when the specific matter. Use the common (English) word then the specific doesn't matter.
Long answer:
Refer to the king as "the king", but if anyone calls him by name then use the proper title. Example:
The king rose from his throne and glared on his subject imposingly.
"You may now address the king", declared one of his guards.
"Shah Alborz, it is an honour to have You receive me on this day", begged the merchant on his knees.
The title may as well be part of the name. It doesn't matter to the reader. If you have many people with the same titles it will be quite clear what are titles and what are names.
The same would go for any object. You don't have asvarans drawing their shamshirs. You have knights drawing their swords. But if at some point you describe the sword in more detail you would provide the name of the sword as part of the description. Example:
Asvaran Ardashir drew his weapon and stood in unison with the other knights. His sword, a shamshir with a narrow and radically curved blade, glimmered in the bright sunlight.
Again, I'm not a writer. My answer is based on my personal and unprofessional opinion.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40685. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
When it comes to using fictional terminology for concepts with real-life equivalents, the best usage is for flavour; to establish what kind of culture the setting is. A good way to do it is to make your 'smeerp' word something that is relatively self-explanatory, so you're not doing the xkcd example of stopping to explain each new word.
If a new word is instead set alongside an explanatory context or is simply obvious from its construction. For example, in my universe, medicine is a thing, but it's just barely got to germ theory. As such, doctors perform autopsies on corpses and make observations, but they're hardly described in the precise terms modern doctors would use.
Liver Cirrhosis is Drinker's Liver, Cancer is Tumours, Gangrene is Corruption, an Epidemic is a Plague. These terms are still familiar and self-explanatory, but just that extra edge of foreign/fantastical that establishes that yes, this is a different culture, but you don't need to stop and explain everything.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40642. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
It's ultimately up to you, but you don't want your ancient Persia overridden by knights. You may as well make them wear full plate armor instead of describing whatever garment was in use in that age for the sake of simplicity, but at the same time you'de be losing something valuable.
It's true that it will be difficult for the reader to familiarize with a new concept, especially in the first part of the novel. But there are ways to make it work; the extract of Monica Cellio's answer is one of them (assuming it's used consistently all over the novel). It's fine if the reader gets confused about the caste system and the power relationship between Asvanars and Vaspahrs in the first chapter, as long as that confusion fuels his curiosity.
I remember some author (maybe Sanderson or King) giving the following advice: don't assume your audience is stupid (or at least, below average). I'm not saying that you are doing that, at least on a conscious level. As humans, we are very good at finding meaning to unfamiliar words given the context, without needing to be spoon-fed with definitions.
Another point to consider is that you're adding value to your setting through research. You mentioned Asvanars being almost equivalent to knights. Yet, if you put it like that, it becomes less interesting. "Allright, it's knights again". It may be familiar to me, but it may be so to the point of boredom. Instead, being able to discover bit by bit what Asvanars do as I follow your story, learning the differences and similarities with what I already know about what a warrior caste does, will provide me - as reader - with a more fullfilling experience.
To sum up:
- Choose what are the concepts and the word that you don't want to translate in english. While it's worth to call Vaspahrs with their name, maybe calling swords shamshir it's not as important, and surely you don't want to give each scrap of cloth a persian name. It's up to your common sense to decide when to stop.
- Once chosen, use your terms in the right context.
- You may make it easier for the reader to understand them correctly, describing self evident scenes especially in the first chapters, "Rahil drawed his shamshir, its sharp and curved edge glinting coldly in the morning light, angry and menacing like a bared fang."
- While you can give context, try to avoid spoonfeeding, e.g. clearly stating out that "Asvanars are this and they do that". The more you manage to show the concepts in action, rather than pausing the scenes and the characters, the better.
And all this is coming from a guy that struggled to understand the difference between Teyirn and Arls in Dragon Age. (On a side note, I'm using shamshir as sword, but I haven't researched if it makes sense for the period you're writing about).
0 comment threads
asvarans, vaspahrs, sardars and ostandars.
I struggled with this for a different reason, I didn't want to invoke medieval Europe titles either, because little else in my story was like that, I didn't want to set up reader expectations of knightly chivalry that would not hold in the story.
My Solution: Go Modern.
I figure you are writing a Persian story in relatively modern English. Obviously the characters are speaking Persian, and as the narrator you are translating that for us into modern English. So why not do the same for all their words?
Asvaran is sorta like a 10th century knight, but what is the modern word that can stand for both? I chose to use words like "captain", "soldier", "general", "swordsman", "advisor", "governor", "Mayor", "Council", "archer", "marksman", etc. I did use "king" and "kingdom", I don't think that is limited to medieval times and everyone still instantly knows what it means.
Basically, I don't think people have a very good grasp of medieval titles anyway (perhaps they do in Britain, here in the USA they don't). I certainly don't know the difference in roles between barons, counts and dukes, that never really came up at the dinner table when I was growing up. So if you intend to sell in an American market, even those titles are familiar but without meaning, you'd have to explain to the reader whatever fine distinctions of duty and obligations they entail, and where they are in the social ranking.
I'd leave the specifics up to your imagination, but I was happy to skip over the medieval terminology, and 'translate' for the reader into English they already know.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads