![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feedback’s been coming in for ‘Alpha and Omega’ – mostly positive and lovely - but someone wrote last night with that hoary old point that, in an historical AU you shouldn’t use modern slang:
‘What I found was Blair's "man" and Jim's "Chief" jarring because those slang words are so modern and so tied into the Blair and Jim of modern times’
Which, not meaning in any way to have a go at the feedbacker-person; she’d been good enough to praise every other aspect of the tale and I love her for it (o: - but this is an argument I’ve heard often, and completely disagree with, and I wondered what others thought?
It seems to me that, unless you’re willing to make the speech 100% accurate - which in this case, would mean writing the entire piece in 2nd century BC Latin and Greek – you have the choice to adapt their speech to an approximation of what you think they would have been saying in that time and in that language (which, since we’ve none of us ever heard a person from the 2nd C BC speaking, is, as far as I can see, about as inauthentic as you could be), or write Jim and Blair in exactly the same way as you would, if the piece was set in the Pacific NW in the late 20th century, minus the obvious cultural references, of course, but leaving the modern English intact.
My position is, that ancient Geminius and Blair would have sounded as natural and normal to each other as modern-day Jim and Blair do in TS. They might not be saying the actual words ‘chief’ and ‘man!’, but the equivalent slang words and pet names would have had the same meaning, the same connotations, the same ‘feel’ in their own tongue and time, and since the story’s written in modern English, and not ancient Greek, I see no reason to translate slang and pet names anymore than we’re translating ‘the’, ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘honey’ - or any of the other 38, 647 words in the story (with the exception of things like the names of the rooms in the villa, for which modern translations don’t really fit, modern homes not having the same layout, or rooms with the same specific purposes).
Cultural references are different; you shouldn’t have Romans eating tomatoes, or using modern drugs, or using phrases that refer specifically to modern events or customs. But the language could and should stay modern, imo, because ancient peoples weren’t ancient in their own time. Their times were modern times when they were living them. Their language was a modern language then, so it should sound modern and natural to us, too. Otherwise, I feel you run the risk of writing ‘ancientese’, and making the story sound like a Hollywood Biblical epic.
‘What I found was Blair's "man" and Jim's "Chief" jarring because those slang words are so modern and so tied into the Blair and Jim of modern times’
Which, not meaning in any way to have a go at the feedbacker-person; she’d been good enough to praise every other aspect of the tale and I love her for it (o: - but this is an argument I’ve heard often, and completely disagree with, and I wondered what others thought?
It seems to me that, unless you’re willing to make the speech 100% accurate - which in this case, would mean writing the entire piece in 2nd century BC Latin and Greek – you have the choice to adapt their speech to an approximation of what you think they would have been saying in that time and in that language (which, since we’ve none of us ever heard a person from the 2nd C BC speaking, is, as far as I can see, about as inauthentic as you could be), or write Jim and Blair in exactly the same way as you would, if the piece was set in the Pacific NW in the late 20th century, minus the obvious cultural references, of course, but leaving the modern English intact.
My position is, that ancient Geminius and Blair would have sounded as natural and normal to each other as modern-day Jim and Blair do in TS. They might not be saying the actual words ‘chief’ and ‘man!’, but the equivalent slang words and pet names would have had the same meaning, the same connotations, the same ‘feel’ in their own tongue and time, and since the story’s written in modern English, and not ancient Greek, I see no reason to translate slang and pet names anymore than we’re translating ‘the’, ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘honey’ - or any of the other 38, 647 words in the story (with the exception of things like the names of the rooms in the villa, for which modern translations don’t really fit, modern homes not having the same layout, or rooms with the same specific purposes).
Cultural references are different; you shouldn’t have Romans eating tomatoes, or using modern drugs, or using phrases that refer specifically to modern events or customs. But the language could and should stay modern, imo, because ancient peoples weren’t ancient in their own time. Their times were modern times when they were living them. Their language was a modern language then, so it should sound modern and natural to us, too. Otherwise, I feel you run the risk of writing ‘ancientese’, and making the story sound like a Hollywood Biblical epic.
Too cool for subject
As you say, you write what you know and you know how they would talk today.
What is next on the story front? ::Subtle hint there. *G* ::
Too cool for subject
I'm just starting work on something new, but it's a Moonridge story (that's Moonridge 2006, btw) so there'll be nothing going out for a while.
Too cool for subject
And now on to the meta. I would tend to agree with you about using contemporary, 'natural' voices in a period piece, with the sole caveat that obvious anachronisms should be omitted. In some period fics, you occasionally find terms which are very obviously coined in another century entirely, with their etymological roots overtly in the modern age, which therefore do not fit. They are untransferable in the context - such as referring to technology that does not yet exist etc. I think the examples that your reviewer gave kind of work - and you've given a good justification for their use. I'm not sure I would have used them myself, but I don't think they are terribly out of place given the naturalness of the speech of the characters that results.
It kind of reminds me of something I noticed on the news media a while back. It used to be the case when someone from some foreign land was interviewed, a voice over would translate the speech. Nearly always, the voice used did not sound at all natural. No inflection, clearly reading in a monotone from a script, RP in accent, etc. Then, I began to notice that people - actors I presume, because of the more meaningful delivery - with regional accents began to be used as the voiceovers. Someone, say, with a strong Lancashire working-class accent to translate the words of someone from a similar background in, say, Russia. It suddenly made those people real people, rather than cardboard cut-outs that were hard to identify with. I see the use of modern language in period fics as serving the same purpose, essentially. It makes the characters accessible, and brings them to life in a way we can better understand and identify with. All IMHO of course :-)
So. Long winded way of saying I see your point :-D
Too cool for subject
Well first off, thank you, honey, for the blush-inducing (but hugely gratifying) praise for the story! I can’t tell you how excited I am that you liked it that much. As for the snippet – holy frijoles, I’m not at all sure how capable I am of writing a snippet of any description; A&O is the shortest story I’ve ever been able to produce so far ::G:: I will give it a go, though, just for you. (o:
“I am not sure which bits you did and which bits Ali did, because as a collaboration it is seamless; plus the breadth of knowledge of that period you both have is obvious. Tremendous stuff, and something I plan to re-read a lot - especially those oh-so-tummy-hurty angsty bits... ::happy sigh::.”
I’m sure Ali won’t mind me telling you I wrote it all. Ali helped whip the plot into line – from what had been a long cherished, but essentially abandoned bunny of mine - and helped out greatly with the day to day detail, but the writing is all mine. I’m happy you enjoyed it, as I always do with yours. ::Basks in shameless, mutual ego massage::
As to your other points, since we’re basically agreeing with each other, there’s no need to go into detail ::G:: - But I liked your example, of using ‘real’ accents to voice translations. That’s a perfect illustration of what I was trying to say. If you’re dealing with two historical characters, living in their own time, talking together - they wouldn’t have sounded ‘historical’ to each other; they’d’ve sounded just like you and me, Mab and Snycock, Jim and Blair – natural and normal, just like any two people talking to each other in their own place and time, so, I think that’s how we should write them.
Attempting to make their day-to-day language sound ‘ancient’ just makes them sound strange and actually takes them *out* of context, to my mind. I accept it’s all a matter of personal taste, but this is how I see it, and will continue to write it (not that I’m planning any more historical fic at the moment, aside from your snippet (o:)
Too cool for subject
The only reason I could see for a writer "trying" to approximate speech of that time would be if he/she was unable to get the atmosphere and feel of that time across in another way. Clearly that's not the case with "Alpha & Omega". I could see the villa, smell the ocean, taste the olives, feel the breeze and the sun, hear the carriages and noise from the slaves in the fields. You did a superb job on the research and have the writing skills to boot to put it all into the right words.
This "feeling" this feedbacker describes probably stems from having read other historical fic where the voices were from the time the fic took place in. If it was fanfic, too, I dare say the writer probably didn't think about what he/she was doing as much as you were, else he/she'd likely arrived at the same conclusion instead of laboring over making her characters "sound" right (and probably failing). If it was original fic, well, the same argument can be made of course, but if the writer wants to use an approximation of the language of that time, the results are less disastrous. ;-)
That said, I wanna add: "Alpha & Omega" is a great piece. Absolutely nothing wrong with it and I love it. Like Bev I look forward to reading it again at some point, when I find a quiet evening at home and can do it in one go :-)
Too cool for subject
That said, I wanna add: "Alpha & Omega" is a great piece. Absolutely nothing wrong with it and I love it. Like Bev I look forward to reading it again at some point, when I find a quiet evening at home and can do it in one go :-)”
Well first off, thanks for the gorgeous comment which, as you know, I feel no shame in lapping-up like a cat with a bowl of cream. (o:
As for your thoughts on the language; you’ve hit my nail squarely on its head. It depends to a certain extent what it is you’re trying to achieve, I guess. Shakespeare wasn’t writing contemporary speech, he was writing a stylized form of 16C English for effect. If what you’re trying for is a poetical, ‘this is not of our time’ effect, then fine. If what you’re after is two characters, in and of their time talking to each other as two Romans, two Egyptions – whatever, then I really think contemporary English is most appropriate.
Too cool for subject
Too cool for subject
Too cool for subject
Too cool for subject
I guess my point is that historical people didn’t speak ‘ancient’. In their day, their language was contemporary. I don’t personally think adapting speech for an historical character makes sense, unless you’re placing that character into a modern setting, when his/her language would sound different and strange.
If all you have is a bunch of people in their own time, talking together, they would sound the same to each other, as we do to each other. If you have them ‘talking funny’, they cease to be contemporary to their time and become ‘Historical Persons’, which isn’t at all what I *assume* writers want to achieve with their characters.
Thanks for the kind comments on the story, btw; I’m thrilled a writer I admire so much liked it. ::blush. simper:: (o:
Too cool for subject
However, I can think of fic - Mab's "Cards on the Table" springs to mind - where it does seem important that the language be closer to authentic for that time period and not so modern. In that story, I think modern language would have thrown me. Maybe because I've seen movies and read books set in that time period, and I have a reasonable expectation of what people should sound like? In most of the movies I've seen set in ancient Greece/Rome, the characters seem to be speaking with a slightly Anglicized universal accent, like news reporters. So maybe that's why modern language doesn't seem that jarring to me in "Alpha and Omega" but might be in another historical AU...
Too cool for subject
But isn’t that the very ‘perceived notion’ about the way people spoke that is so false? I think there’s a convention in TV and film, that ancient peoples have to speak in a slightly formalized way (possibly based on a nod to Shakespeare?), that can’t possibly be authentic, but does, I think, influence many people’s expectations of how 2 characters in an historical setting, should speak.