Linguistic anachronisms.

[Prunesquallor]

Here is something I wonder about when writing:

Anachronisms are bothersome, but they are easy to spot. A writer won’t take pains to set up a medieval type fantasy novel and inadvertently slip a car into a scene.

But there is something similar that can slip in, related to language use. A character in such a world saying “ipso facto” or “etcetera” or “deja vu” are examples of what I mean. There simply isn’t the historical background (in the fictional world I am imagining) for a character to be using such language.

I am not some sort of English language purist but those things can grate on me when I encounter them in a novel, in the same way that seeing a repeating rifle in a movie supposedly set in the 1700's would.

The problem, obviously, is that languages are not static, and our language is constructed from bits and pieces of others. So I wonder how to draw the line. “Melange”, “scenario”, and “gestalt” would be out for me even though they are used in everyday English. “Champagne” and “burgundy” would be close calls. They have “anachronistic” origins but their ordinary meaning (at least here in the US) is to refer to a type of drink rather than a type of drink that comes from a certain place (that doesn’t happen to exist in the world I have created).

Is there anything to be said other than “whatever works for you” ?

 

[SubZero61992]

I don't really understand your point but in a way I do.

I think making up languages and giving the characters surprise on it fun.
They don't know what their saying about them or anytihng.
Imagine having two people talk to you like a dog in different languages.
Wonder you be confused and at the same time scared?

I don't like fantasy stories with swords and stuff involving a car or time travel, or in your case, a machine gun though I think old fashioned rifle are good.

If this complies with your post then here ya go.

 

[Expendable]

What Prunesquallor is talking about is speaking appropriate for the period and background. And its a two-edged sword. On one hand, it adds to the character of the book but the problem is getting the reader to understand it. Too much and the reader's going to give up and go read something else.

You and I understand deja vu and its something the reader understands. But if its wrong for the character of the book, then the writer's got to work around it somehow without trying to invent a whole new language.

Rowan knelt in front of the armored door. Staring intently inside the keyhole, his hand dipped into his jerkin to produce his roll of lockpicks. From long practice, he had the roll untied and draped expertly over his knee, sparing it a glance only when he mulled his choice of tools. But when he reached for the diamond-shaped pick he paused, staring blankly at the handle.

"What is it?" Therin demanded softly, leaning over his shoulder.
"Hmm? Oh, nothing," Rowan muttered as he pulled the lockpick out. "For a moment I had the strangest feeling I'd been here before..."

 

[michaelS0620]

I think what is really being asked are phrases which are OUT of place for particular time.

Such as a knight as big as truck. Or talking about dragons which "dive bomb". It makes sense as a metaphor, but jars a bit as you are using a modern term in a medieval like context.

Tolkein did this in Fellowship when he talks about the Dragon firework, rushing through like a "freight train".

 

[Rocket Sheep]

That's it exactly. Modern references in historical tales stick out like sore thumbs to people who have thought about it but most readers just put it down to writerly expression.

I hate the whole champagne, bordeau, thing as well. Australia has to market its wine as 'sparkling'. I'm sure the wine houses of the champagne region would gang up on Mordor Champagne just as they have done to Australia... and the logistics of importing stuff from France to Mordor... hmmmm.

Of course, the fact that fantasy races speak English, follow patriarchal systems, have Royalty or governing councils or are concerned with human modesties sometimes, could also fit into this argument if we tried. But these things are accepted as normal by the majority of readers... (the rest of us just hang out for the fantasies that break these ideals) ... but this indicates that there is a fine line to this chronological/regional/linguistic/behavioural argument.

 

[michaelS0620]

True, but most fantasy stories revolve around people. (Or beings who behave very closely to people, with some peculiarities).

Because of this, most things will be the same. They will have some form of government, some familial structure, some sort of bond from parent to child, some rituals which develop out of eating.

As to champagne to Mordor? I wonder if the Nazgul made deliveries?

 

[Prunesquallor]

"the logistics of importing stuff from France to Mordor... "

if the story could make sense of it, great!

what I wonder about is how we draw the line. The concern is to avoid having the author intrude into the story the knight hit him repeatedly - his fists were like jackhammers and maintaining the appropriate voice for the narrator, how to stay true to the world you have created.

"or are concerned with human modesties sometimes"
Exactly. I wonder about this too. It sticks out like a sore thumb to me when an author dresses up traditional western values in fantastical garb. "they prayed to the three gods of Glub for mercy and justice".

On the one hand, readers come to the text with certain expectations, and writers can and should take that into account. On the other hand it smells a bit like an anachronism, and takes away from the "other worldly" feel I expect from fantasy literature.

I don't know if there is much to be said about this, but I thought I would toss it out.

 

[KatG]

I understand what you're saying, though I think the examples of what you're saying are usually more subtle. Most writers won't make the mistake of using jackhammers to describe a knight's blows, as it's too modern and mechanical, but they are likely to use phrases and terms that are common nowadays, like "dead as a doornail," or "dog-tired" which are not necessarily historically accurate. And sometimes those can hit you the other way too. I vividly remember reading a sf story set in the far, far future, when human consciousness could be put into a computer, and the guy on a boat was using his fax modem. Now, it's possible that several thousand years later we'll still be using fax and modem as terms, but it's rather unlikely.

But that is the decision that writers have to make regularly when dealing with alternate and speculative realities. Not only do they have to think about how to describe things without it sounding strange for the prospective time period, but they have to decide if they're going to call a minute a minute, Sunday Sunday, if the Earth is going to be the Earth, and if, more than likely, it's not, do they still use the word earth to refer to dirt? Because theoretically, since most fantasy realms do not take place in Earth's past history but in an imaginary realm, it's possible that the word earth developed out of some language to describe dirt. It's faintly possible that there was a freight train in Middle Earth somewhere that we didn't see, though I admit that since they probably would have made use of the train if they had it, it was undoubtedly a slip that didn't get caught in editing. But I would, in all likelihood, allow that in an imaginary realm that does not have a place called Burgandy, there still might have developed a wine called burgandy.

For a reader who knows the origins of a word or phrase, the inclusion of it may be problematic, but for many others who don't, the disparity won't be noticed. And realistically, an author can't research the entire history of each word they use in a story. Just doing some of that for creating some languages, my reading the origins of words in the dictionary, it's dizzying. Even modern words that were not used in the medieval ages may be made up of or spun off of old words, and many of the English words that were used in medieval, pre-industrial times for things are very different from the words we use now, enough to sound like a completely foreign language. We could all try to write our narrative text so it sounds like Geoffrey Chaucer or William Shakespeare and it might even be neat to try, but I think if all of us did it all the time, our audience would become rather small.

If a character in a fantasy uses "ipso facto," well, yes, it probably wasn't a phrase used in medieval England. But it is based on words from ancient Latin, and given that the fantasy realm in which the story takes place probably didn't even have a Roman Empire or equivalent in its history, is it worth quibbling that they're using a Latin phrase ahead of its non-existent time? Must they make up their own version of Latin and decide when each phrase came into use? Of course, some authors do that sort of thing, but it's usually in service to the story.

The best an author may be able to do is to try and avoid really aggregious anachronisms, of words and of props. But the rest really is up for grabs and can be adapted as the writer sees fit.

 

[ironchef texmex]

Anachronisms drive me nuts in fantasy lit. We should make a quick distinction though. None of the words or phrases that were originally given are actually anacronistic. Gestalt is a recent addition to the language, but assuming the fantasy world is make believe and not a revisionist history then the author is just translating from another language(s) -- common or whatever -- and has free reign to decide what ideas can be verbalized and how.

The stuff about jackhammers and freight trains, which is anachronistic, bugs me much less than the social/cultural stuff. If we're talking about humans as the central feature of the story, then we have to acknowledge that humans and human constructs tend take certain forms. Lose sight of this and you sacrifice realism.

The anachronisns that get me are the ones that take modern, post industrial ideas and attitudes and push them onto a bucolic humanity: medeival-type characters who are worried about their waistlines, highly literate peasants, female fighters in the adventuring party, but opposing forces that are exclusively male.

I think that some people write fantasy thinking that since it's a made up world, they don't need to do any research. The truth is that fantasy authors need to be students of history, sociology, and mythology. Otherwise, the fantasy world can be painful to read, and not because it has the word bedlam somewhere in its text.

 

[Prunesquallor]

"I understand what you're saying, though I think the examples of what you're saying are usually more subtle."

I agree, I chose those examples to illustrate the point. The subtle ones are more interesting. The point about days of the week, etc, are the sorts of things I wonder about.


"None of the words or phrases that were originally given are actually anacronistic."

Initially I was going to describe them as "something similar to anachronisms" but after thinking about it, I am not sure there is a difference. Both the freight train and the word 'gestalt' are human artefacts of a particular time and place.

"the author is just translating from another language(s) -- common or whatever -- and has free reign to decide what ideas can be verbalized and how."

That is how I think of it, but I think there are limits.

It seems to me that there are several considerations - maintaining a certain voice for the narrative, balancing the desire to develop an alternative universe with the practical need to play off of the readers preconceptions and shared knoweldge. Any others?

 

[Expendable]

We have several different cultures with their own calendars who celebrate different days as the new year. On any fantasy world, unless its a spoof its a bit much to expect them to have our calendar.

It seems to me that there are several considerations - maintaining a certain voice for the narrative, balancing the desire to develop an alternative universe with the practical need to play off of the readers preconceptions and shared knoweldge.

To make the world real, you have to be willing to educate the reader. Like in K-PAX, prot explains several words the K-PAXIANS use to the psychiatrist. In the Pern books, you learn a few new words too like klah, a mocha-coffee like drink.

 

[Miriamele]

Certainly if a story is set in a pre-industrial age it shouldn't contain references to modern objects such as jackhammers. Nor should a story set on a different world have mention of wine from the fields of Bordeaux.

However, to me it seems that concern over anachronistic phrases such as "deja vu" is a moot point--because if you're talking about language itself, then just about every word and phrase in your average fantasy novel is an anachronism from our modern age. English from the Middle Ages would sound like something from another planet to most readers. Someone refered to Chaucer--and even the English he used was closer to modern English than that of two hundred years earlier. So if you go back to the really old English...it's virtually unrecognizable to us today.

Therefore, I don't think there's a point to worrying if someone would have used a certain phrase in medieval times. The answer is easy: they wouldn't have. The author should just use common sense when deciding if the phrase sounds too out of place or not.

 

[michaelS0620]

I also see how this can happen in distant future stories (although I cannot think of any off the top of my head). For instance, a far future man saying "gnarly duuuude!" would come off as silly and jarring, if there wasn't some kind of explanation that "old" slang terms were in fashion again.

 

[Expendable]

I read this Larry Niven book where when someone swore or cursed, they'd actually say "Bleep!" or "Censor that!".

 

[KatG]

The anachronisms that get me are the ones that take modern, post industrial ideas and attitudes and push them onto a bucolic humanity: medeival-type characters who are worried about their waistlines, highly literate peasants, female fighters in the adventuring party, but opposing forces that are exclusively male.

I think that some people write fantasy thinking that since it's a made up world, they don't need to do any research. The truth is that fantasy authors need to be students of history, sociology, and mythology. Otherwise, the fantasy world can be painful to read, and not because it has the word bedlam somewhere in its text.

Well, I play devil's advocate here again. It's not that I'm against fantasy writers doing research. If for nothing else, it offers loads of material and certainly can help ground the author. But an alternate reality has with it an alternate history, alternate mythology and religions, alternate languages, alternate cultures and alternate social mores, all of which can be a mish-mash of different time periods and cultures of our history or may be totally unrelated to anything historic at all. In effect, nothing within it can be considered anachronistic since nothing in it is actually historical. It may borrow things from various aspects of various cultures' histories, but it is not replicating that history. If it were, you'd have to drop the dragons, elves and magic crystals, since historically, those didn't exist. So I can't support the argument that I can have as many dragons as I like but that if my imaginary culture has any resemblance to 12th century France, I have to stick only to the culture, history and mythology of 12th century France. Especially if I want to stick in some stuff from 16th century China.

Of course, to do either, I'd have to do some research, and the argument is often made that to build a credible world, you must therefore study whatever is similar to what you are creating. However, that isn't necessarily true, especially if you're creating stuff that did not historically exist.

Take for instance, the complaint about female fighters in the quest party and none on the opposing team. In ancient times, the Celts and various other tribes did have female fighters, whereas their enemy, the Roman Empire, at that time did not. In Western Europe, in the medieval period, women might lead the protection of a castle from seige if the men weren't home, but were not fighters. So credibly, there can be no women fighters if I'm using the trappings of medieval Western Europe. Except that I can, because this is my imaginary realm where it's culturally acceptable and the men don't get all the fun. I don't have to necessarily research medieval Western Europe to discover why there weren't female fighters to create female fighters in an imaginary place.

Peasants in the Middle Ages usually weren't literate, but they did often win their freedom, immigrate to the towns and cities and become tradesmen, merchants and artisans who at least became moderately literate. And by the 1600's, there were schools operated by churches or villages open to children for a rudimentary education, a situation not unsimilar to what they had in the ancient Greek and Roman Empires as well. So it's not at all strange to me that a peasant might have got himself some education somewhere or, in an imaginary culture, for them to place a higher premium on literacy and school the peasant children in some way. For one thing, the imaginary medieval society probably didn't suffer from the Black Plague, which caused a great deal of the poverty, superstition and technological setbacks of the Middle Ages.

Consider the phrase: "there have to be limits." Who sets these limits? The Eternal Committee of Fantasy Universe Limit-Setters? If one reader thinks an element doesn't work and sticks out like a sore thumb, but another reader likes that element, which reader do I have to go along with? It's one thing if a character refers to an electric device and there is no electricity in the imaginary world -- that's the author violating his own story logic. It's another if they decide that knights worry about their waistlines so that they can fit into their armor breastplates. That's the author deciding on a cultural more of his creation.

 

[ironchef texmex]

But an alternate reality has with it an alternate history, alternate mythology and religions, alternate languages, alternate cultures and alternate social mores, all of which can be a mish-mash of different time periods and cultures of our history or may be totally unrelated to anything historic at all.

Boy, it would be great if it did too. Unfortunately, without heaps of research it usually doesn't have any of those things and just reads like a literary equivalent of that Robin Hood movie with Kevin Costner.

In effect, nothing within it can be considered anachronistic since nothing in it is actually historical.

It would be more accurate to say that it has the POTENTIAL not to be anacronistic. You asked who sets the limits that Prune mentioned earlier and the answer is obvious: the author does. Yes, if there is a logical reason in the book why the knights have to fit the armor and not the other way around, then it would be logical to assume that they would be concerned about their weight. And yes, if the story involves a Amazon women joining forces against an all-male foe then that could be internally consistent as well.

The reality is that the gender gap I was referring to is the result of the modern push toward equality of the sexes (thus the friendly female fighters) in combination with the fact that enough of the old ethics remain that it still seems... uh... less than heroic for the men in the party to have to start hacking their way through a phalanx of brunettes (thus the all-male bad guys). That's an anachronism -- the inclusion of the modern beliefs that is, the female good guys but no bad guys is more of a paradox.

People are people and unless the author picks a new species to write about he or she needs to be aware of the way in which people conduct themselves. Learning history is the core to understanding sociology in action. For instance, that people living near subsistence levels tend to find a little pudge as a sign of well being.

Now you'll have to excuse me. It's not that I don't have more to say on the subject but my own female fighter is about to do some hacking of her own if I don't help feed babies.

 

[KatG]

So you're talking about technical anachronistic errors and poor world design, not historical anachronisms. Got it, my error.

My response to technical and linguistic anachronisms tends to vary, depending on the story, what type it is, what sort of anachronism, etc. Right now, I'm reading two works of classic sf, Larry Niven's "Ringworld" and Ray Bradbury's "The Martian Chronicles." Both works have no interest in technical, linguistic or historical accuracy, even for the time period in which they were written, but they are really interesting and fun nonetheless.

 

[xayaxos]

Certainly if a story is set in a pre-industrial age it shouldn't contain references to modern objects such as jackhammers. Nor should a story set on a different world have mention of wine from the fields of Bordeaux.

I recently read The View from the Mirror quartet by Ian Irvine and was quite surprised and pleased to see how he used Australian words in the narrative [words like dinghy and verandah]. I think that he even went to far as to use the term "ugg boot" which is certainly anachronistic [considering that ugg boots weren't manufactured until around 1933, well past mideval times].

Did it matter? I think not ... the author is telling a story, a story aimed at me, and he used the best [read:succinct] word to describe a concept or object so that I would understand what he meant. If using the word "champagne" is the easiest way to refer to sparkling wine, or deja vu is the quickest way to refer to that particular feeling, then what's wrong with using them?

Besides, English is a language of words borrowed from all other languages ... if you wanted to be technically accurate then people who write fantasy would have to develop and write their story in a completely unique language.

I guess my point is that it all depends on how the author envisions the narrator and the audience as to what words he should use. The only time, I rekkon, that using non-english terms is bad is in the dialogue - throughout the descriptions I think it's fine.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Sorry to drag up an ancient thread as my first post* here but I did a couple of quick searches and this looked to be the most interesting thread on the subject I wanted to raise:

Anachronisms of the future.

I have been looking forward to reading Dan Simmons' Hyperion for ages. (It's a grand Space Opera. Iain M Banks territory & I like The Culture novels). It's been sat around for a while now daunting me by its sheer size, 770 pages. The only other book of Simmons I have read was a collection of Shorter fiction which ran to 400 pages and I consumed the thing in one night. Loved it. Last night I picked up Hyperion and came to a crashing halt within moments.

Prologue​

The Hegemony Consul sat on the balcony of his ebony spaceship and played Rachmaninov's Prelude in C-sharp on an ancient but well maintained Steinway while great green saurian things surged and bellowed in the swamps below.

What? Stop. Look at the blurb.

"Hyperion. it is the 29th century..."

That's what I thought it said..

A few paragraphs later this guy is drinking Scotch, a few pages later, after being told to join a pilgrimage because the fate of Galactic civilisation (as we know it) rest on his shoulders, he flops back into bed with the thought that Wagner is only good for thunderstorms... (author's italics).

OK. Nice image. Decadent, possibly dangerously Spaceship, saurian things, highly cultured possible protagonist?/hero? - but who the hell sits around playing thousand year old music on a thousand year old instrument? I mean, come on! The equivalent in the present day would be for the hero of a Robert Ludlum novel to be discovered on page one singing plainsong while fiddling with an ancient (but well maintained) sackbut. Then, while sipping a well matured mead, thinking Hildegard von Bingen was only good for fog.

It's bollocks. Would you read on after that?

I've put the book down. I may come back to it, I may not. Put off by the anachronisms, and the creakingly awful: "Join this motley band because we know one of them is an Enemy Agent - but we don't know which one..." key in the plot's ignition. Christ! Leslie Charteris used to give The Saint better written kickstarts to stories than that.

The point. Get to the ****ing point JunkMonkey (and stop referring to yourself in the third person. It annoys people).

Does anyone have any favourite (or annoying) this will become an an anachronism moments in SF?

Or is it just me?








*The First Post: a piece of music played by a lone bugler when a soldier is born.

​

 

[Miriamele]

How interesting to see such an old thread again. As I read through the first few posts I was forming in my mind my idea of what I would add to the discussion, only to scroll down a bit farther and see that I already said it, in 2004.

I still agree with myself too.

JunkMonkey, while someone in the 29th century listening to Wagner maybe isn't likely, I'm going to disagree with you that it's bollocks. Go to any music store today and you will find recordings of 1000 year old music (or nearly so)--Gregorian chants etc, and some people do still like to listen to that even though it's from a completely different time.

I myself own a few CDs of authentic medieval music.

Assuming that the sheet music from Wagner and Rachmaninoff survives the next 1000 years, I don't think it's impossible that someone will enjoy those composers that far into the future.

The "ancient but well maintained Steinway" I find to be less viable however. I highly doubt a piano could survive that long. It would be more likely, I think, for the character to be playing on a recreation of a Steinway than on an original.