Welcome to my perfumed garden

So I'm working through the beta for my fic (praise be to the betagoddess) and I don't know what to do about the (cue organ chord, wolf howl) spelling...

It's a TS story; the characters are, as we know, Americans; that means no un-American word usage and phraseology - fine, I get that - but spelling? Do two Americans have to be spelled American?

I've done this both ways in the past, but mostly used my own Brit spelling because it's easier and I don't honestly believe we spell as we speak.  But then, I get fb that tells me 'the spelling really took me out of the story' -

And I'm thinking; 'why'? Because I read American spelling in say, Doctor Who fic and all that makes me think is - the author's American. So long as British characters aren't keeping bodies in the trunk, it doesn't matter that that spare that's in the way is spelled tire and, in all honesty, my first reaction is to tell the Americans to suck it up because by far the largest chunk of the English-speaking world spells British anyway and we don't care so why should everyone else have to change to make life easier for you? - or that's to say, the few who bother to send fb complaining about it. (o:

But then, I'm getting that fb and sometimes, I cave. I used US spelling for Wind Whispering - even though it looked weird and wrong and took forever to change.

So, I'm asking an honest question of you all - does it matter, really? And if it does, why  (I thought about making this a poll, but I shan't because I need more than yes or no answers; I need explanations, dammit. (o) If it really, truly, honest-to-god makes a real difference, I shall use your blasted spelling (*G* - even though it looks... really strange and will take me all day) but if it does, I'd really love to know, and why.

ETA: And messing with this all afternoon means I've done NO work - none at all - on the actual story (which was the whole point, wasn't it?) *g*

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.

Which I don't have the time right now, to participate in, but was fascinated to read (via metafandom): curly shall not touch curly  -  on the need for contrast in relationship pairings.

It definitely factors into my dislike 'Blair as cop' stories (something I've been thinking of lately, due to a mithering plot bunny that is just going to have to WAIT, dammit!). My Blair is not a cop; never was, never will be. The reasons for this are numerous, but one of them is definitely  that, I need that contrast that academic/scientist - former soldier/cop brings. It's only of many factors setting me firmly against Blair joining the Police, but it is a fairly big one.

As wickedwords, author of this interesting piece says, it's like a colour wheel; "The differences between the characters are such that when they are placed together, both appear brighter, making them complementary characters."

Very interesting discussion going on over there - but i needs must work, dammit. )o: