Shoes and Ships and Sealing Wax

[erastes]

After Elton have a poll for the best gay books ever, my five? The Charioteer, At Swim Two Boys, As Meat Loves Salt, Swordspoint, Wicked Gentlemen. Perhaps the latter two aren't in the EVAH category, but the best I've read for a while - and ones that stick in my head, which is the point. Belimah sticks with me just as hard as Laurie for example.

I've bitten the bullet and told my editor that she'll have the rewrite done of Transgressions done by Sunday.  This means I need to do 50 pages a day starting today.  I'm hugely impressed with her work, actually - after the bad time I had with the edit of Standish - she's not done an historical before but she's working bloody hard to get her knowledge up to snuff - reading about the time period and - get this - checking just about every word for etymological correctness. (!!!)

Words that she's queried under the cut.



The book is based 1642-1649

Adam’s Apple -1755

cocoon - 1679

trek - 1821

erotic - 1651

vaporized - 1803

paralyzed - 1804

embargo - Spanish—1593 *I’m going to assume given the UK/Spanish relations that this work would have worked it’s way into the vocab by the time of the story)

ambiguous –1528, but since it’s Latin in origin, I’m going to go with them learning it from or through the church

pro bono - 1970

vilification - 1630

sniper - 1832

androgynous - 1651

foreplay - 1929

turgid - 1620

profligacy - 1738

scrotum - 1597—pertaining to animals

vacuum - 1550—you’d have to decide if such a concept would have made it’s way to them by the time of the story

automatic - 1748

claustrophobic - 1889

taciturn - 1734

hub - 1608—again, concept; hub of activity or hub of wheel?

lackadaisical - 1768

vibrato - 1876

ramshackle - 1830

recalcitrant - 1843

penis - 1668

flaccid - 1620

foramen - 1671

gauche - 1751

adroitly - 1652

skeptical - 1639

emigrate - 1776

spooning - 1715

Draconian - 1775

wheals —1808

sadist —1888;

boss —1653

travesty —1673

fatalistic —1678

presumably —1841, so never in speech or thought

Now this is an interesting dilemma because how far does one draw that line in historical fiction? I've seen this argued over and over again on the Historical Novelists Society. One can't actually write the speech in the exact manner that the people of the time really used because it would be 1. pretty impossible, due to dialects and boring the reader so how far does one really go in using anachronistic words?

Granted the term Adam's Apple wasn't around when my Cavalier is kissing his lover's AA - so does one erase it? Is it ok to use it in narrative but not in speech? Such as "The sweat glistened on David's skin, and his Adam's Apple jumped as he nervously contemplated what Tobias had in mind." but not in direct thought/speech? Such as: "The hollow of his throat and that lump is adorable" Hmmm. One must have had SOME kind of word for these concepts even if the word wasn't used. Plus of course, etymology uses the first written record of these terms, so perhaps we can give some ideas the benefit of the doubt.

Stuff like Draconian, mesmerism and sadism though - she's bang on target and I am slapping my hands for even putting these words in, but I find it fascinating, because I'm a word geek, that these words and concept are so much a part of our speech that I can call my Witchfinder a sadist (which he SO is) without even questioning where the word came from even though I know where it did.

'Tis a puzzlement. However - I'm going to try and winnow out as many of these words as I can - I don't think stuff like "presumably" is necessary - but most of them can be replaced.

What do you think? How far would you go?  What about further back? Step back from the 17th century and the language becomes even more obscure.. I'm planning to do an Elizabethan one at one point - and I'm certainly not going to be writing the entire thing in nonnys and nuncles.

In other news, the cover is done and I should have it soon. I'm crossing EVERYTHING for a good one.

Comments

[leatherdykeuk.livejournal.com]

What a fabulous editor. My mind is boggling about how you manage to write historical at all!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I know! Part of me is going "oh, come on!" and the other half is going "wow. you are so working hard for me!!"

:D

[leebenoit.livejournal.com]

I imagine your editor is hugely enjoying the process. She sounds like a gem of a pro. Lucky you!

On a selfish note, how easy it is to feel paralyzed about digging into a historical! Sigh!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Lee. I often want to kick over the traces, create my own world where no-one can say "You can't have tea before x year" and one day I might, but for me, world-building is as daunting to me as historicals are to you. You do it effortlessly it seems! Whereas me, with the real world, it's almost like fanfic, using something that already exists!

[aunty_marion]

Now that's REAL dedication there! I'm not sure I'd ever have thought of questioning things like that, myself - possibly one or two of them, but ... Adam's Apple? scrotum? travesty? wheals? Blimey. What on earth did people use for those things, then, in those days? As you say - they must have had some word for those concepts!

I think the only thing you can do is weed out the worst of them, but leave things in for which there's no easy alternative. Very few people are going to know what the 'right' word should have been, and if challenged your defense would have to be that you've 'translated' things into modern terms so that people will understand - you're paraphrasing what would *really* have been said.

It would probably be hard to write anything except Victorian and Regency, I suspect, using *only* the words that were current at the time. ...Otherwise stories about King Arthur would be written in Olde Englishe (or Olde Latin!) as for the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, and who would be able to understand that?

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

Oh, wow. Your editor is amazing. And, 'presumably' not till 1841, seriously? I would have thought that would have wormed its way into the English language earlier than that...

The way I see it, the line is probably best drawn between accuracy and intelligibility. If you have to include a massive glossary at the end -- and I have nothing against smallish glossaries, as they are very nice for learning words I'd not have found otherwise -- that might be off-putting. And it does look like a number of those words can be replaced more or less intact.

I'm never really sure how I feel about anachronisms -- the really blatant ones make me want to throw books at the wall, but sometimes there's just no good way to get round certain words or constructions.

[calligrafiti.livejournal.com]

What a great editor! But I can see your dilemma on where you draw the line. I'd probably look for alternatives where the words are based on the names of anachronistic historical figures (sadism, etc.), because that's the sort of thing that might draw me out of the story if I were reading it elsewhere. But when you're looking at words like travesty and taciturn, finding alternatives could lead to words and phrases that could also be distracting, in the "Why doesn't she just say travesty here?" way. I guess for me it would come down to which words would affect the readers' ability to enjoy the story. Kudos to your editor for looking into it, but "adroitly" wouldn't take me out of a story set in 1642-1649.

[cleo]

/Interesting dilemma. Are all of these words used in dialogue? It would seem fitting to them out of it if that's te case, but if they are simply part of the exposition, it seems a no brainer to leave them in, as even your most word savvy reader is mostly likely not going to be offended by that.

But my advice is free, so that tells you what it's worth. But if you're interested, i could possibly find some alternatives that have roots in Old English. /geek

[erastes.livejournal.com]

That's what we have to discuss -I think we'll take out the ones in dialogue, take out the obvious ones and then go on a word by word basis for the others.

I don't want to be too antiquated - i already use swive and such like words - I don't really want to have to stick a glossary in - I feel that if the reader can't pick a word up from context then I'm not doing my job right. Thanks, though - how kind of you!

[cleo]

*g* I just meant alternatives, not necessarily antiquated forms. There are a lot of things from OE that we don't expect to be from OE. But I understand what you mean.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Nod nod - as long as I'm not using words like sadist and mesmerise, I think that people aren't going to be jolted out, specially for things like presumably. Presume was a word going back to the 1300's after all.

It's interesting though, and part of the process - and a far cry from edit process I've been through with my other publishers.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Yes, presumably is interesting, considering the root has been around for hundreds of years previously. Etymology doesn't have it listed - and frankly - I can't rely on merriam-webster, which is stupid I know, I have a deep-seated fear of what Americans think is correct English...

And I agree with you, if the word doesn't jolt you out, then it's not a "throw against the wall" word. Hopefully!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I'm working around them - weeding out the worst offenders and then seeing how important others are. If they are around the 1650-1700 mark then I think they'd be valid anyway, as etymology uses the first written instance -for obvious reasons - and a word could be in speech for a lot longer. These days the language is updated a lot faster than back then, and we were a long way from a dictionary at this point, after all.

[norton-gale.livejournal.com]

The more archaic the language is, the harder it is to write understandable dialogue, I think. You don't want to alienate your readers with Middle English, for example, but at the same time you want them to feel like they're reading something authentic. I don't know what the answer is, but perhaps using simple language common to both our era and the earlier one (if suited to the speakers) is best.

[mylodon.livejournal.com]

Patrick O'Brian had a cunning way round it. When challenged that he'd used Eau de Cologne before it's first reported use he said something like "It may not have been been recorded until 1810, but that doesn't mean people weren't saying it before then".

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Yes- that's my point of view, too. specially when the times are close enough - say 50 years or so.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Yes-that's it - one of my characters already speaks in thees and thous -and even that is pushing it. I don't want to write a completely authentic piece of work - that would limit my readers to scholars, and they probably wouldin't enjoy the gay sex quite as much!!

[crawling-angel.livejournal.com]

There were no peni before 1668!!!! *shockhorror* How did they manage?

[mylodon.livejournal.com]

Because we can't be absolutely sure unless it's a case where the word is made up by the author, in a written source, of a known date (like the name Wendy).

[mzcalypso.livejournal.com]

'pro bono' would catch my attention - but I'm with P O'B on the Adam's apple. You're writing in 2008 and have to use language your readers will understand - taking the anachronisms out of dialog makes sense, but most of those aren't red-flag words.

[semioticwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm dealing with exactly the same issue in my Victorian piece right now. Goodness, it's enlightening. And it leads to some really interesting places.

I agree, you can only go so far back. Take the turn of the last millennium, for example. English wasn't even a language. Should we write in the language of Beowulf? I translated that at university, and I don't recommend trying. And what if your piece takes place in a non-English speaking country?

I think one should make a best effort to avoid words referring to anachronistic concepts, but otherwise those who will quibble will be few and far between.

[semioticwarrior.livejournal.com]

And echo what everyone else is saying. What a devoted, thorough, hard-working editor!

[volterra.livejournal.com]

Am also with P O'B. You're not writing for the 17th century audience, you're writing for a 21st century one. There should be enough archaism that you get the flavor of the period.

I have "The Big Book of Filth" -- 6500 sex slang words and phrases .... and they have a lot of word alternatives to penis and scrotum BUT a lot of them are very silly words indeed.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

*laughs * yes - rod, member, pole, yard, prick and cock are quiteenough for me. I don't want to go down the carnal stump, arse-opener route....

[erastes.livejournal.com]

It is interesting though, isn't it - it's like a whole section of writing that other authors don't even have to deal with!

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

Actually, the OED list the two following definitions:

1. 1. With presumption or taking of things for granted without examination. Obs. rare 1. The date they give for that is 1646.

2. 2. Qualifying a statement as likely but not known for certain: as one may presume or reasonably suppose; in all probability. First use of that, according to them, is 1658.

So...you could theoretically get away with it.

[mongrelheart.livejournal.com]

Wow, your editor is amazingly thorough. And how fascinating to see the "dates of birth" of all these words.

As far as where to draw the line on historically accurate language, definitely a tough call there, to find some balance between being strictly accurate and being understandable to the modern reader.

See, this is one more reason why i'm terrified to write historical fiction ;)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

cool, thanks!

[zamaxfield.livejournal.com]

That is very impressive, must be why you historical writers get the big bucks. (Okay, you DESERVE the big bucks.) I think it's fabulous that someone is checking all that. WOW! Good luck with that.

[cheshyre]

FWIW, Writers' Digest published a book many years back titled English through the ages which lists words chronologically.
The book is organized "In use by {year}" with words categorized within that.
There's a separate alphabetic index in the back.

It's not a full dictionary -- no definitions or anything like that -- but may be useful for this kind of thing in the future.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Thanks hun!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

It's tough, but very rewarding!

:)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Oh wow! Thank you! Amazon.co.uk has a cheap copy! *grabs*

[leebenoit.livejournal.com]

Effortlessly? ::falls out laughing:: I do know what you mean, though. In historicals, the rules imposed by the setting/era are both comforting boundaries and daunting taskmasters. I really do think it's the same with worldbuilding. The difference, I suppose, is that if I want tea in a scene and can't have it because of the structures of a world I built, I have no one to blame but myself. (I've dipped into my first historical, and finally feel I can make the comparison without feeling like an impostor!)