I would like to open up the question of whether or not there is still a place for archaic voice writing styles in prehistoric fiction or historic fiction in general.

My contention the readership for such writing would be a small subset of people, maybe 1/2 of 1 percent. I have wondered for some time if this group actually exists. I suspect that if these people are really out there theywould gravitate to the historical fiction genre.

But I agree it is not for every one. Your contention is a good one, that the prose of a story should be transparant and should adapt itself to the reader.
 

i think there is definite a place for it, i enjoy it if done decently, and even use it sometimes.

it's typically used in your very thick Fantasy epics, and even then, only certain characters use it... it's sort of a characterization thing more than what you would write an entire book in.

now, the choice of structure that you find paired with those words can still be used for the entire novel if you felt like it, but it can become very tiresome if it doesn't actually fit the current POV...
 

What I am wondering is: does writing with a more formal-type prose affect one's chances of getting published? I don't want to have to change my writing style if this is the case. And IMO, it is because I write formally that I find it difficult to find people to read my stuff. Is formal writing less interesting? Are editors more interested in seeing writing in the contemporary style? That's what I wish to know.
 

Besides which, we're talking fantasy. You can make up the rules, just be consistant. I don't think modern language versus archaic language is the problem; the problem is inconsistancy of style.

So let's say you've come up with a good voice and consistant style. Is there a market? There's certainly precedent.

Steven Brust and Emma Bull have a book (the name of which escapes me) which is written in the style of the Three Musketeers. It's very faithful and at times fairly funny. A lot of the humor comes from observing the conventions of the period to an exagerrated degree. Intentionally. There are one or two sequels to it.

The hot book right now is Jonathan Strange and Mr. Morrell which is written in the style of a regency author like Jane Austen.

I think a story that is well done, where the language serves the story will find a market just as easily as a something written in a modern voice. Which is to say, it'll be hard, but if it's good and if the author is persistant, it'll find a market.
 

There is readership for anything that is well done, but the truth is that this "archaic style" of which you speak is rarely done well. Most of the time it's not a true study of linguistics so much as a few sort of old-fashioned words thrown in here and there for effect. But the effect is rarely, if ever, what the author intends because even someone who has not studied linguistics can often spot inconsistencies, even if they can't put their finger on what exactly is wrong.

So, if you want to write in an archane style, either based in reality or centered around a made-up past as much fantasy does, then you can, but you have to do some SERIOUS homework. Basically, I'd recommend a PhD in linguistics or the equivolent in amount of work done.

Of course, modern slang wouldn't have a place in thier speech. I wouldn't except them to say, 'Yo! What's up?' as a greeting unless theres a very good explanation...
 

Following is something I wrote in an archaic style, but it is only intended to start off a story:

quote:

---

this served its purpose, so i am removing it

---

Now, would you actually read more than a few lines of that? Did you even read all of it? Or, did you just skip down the page, as I suspect most readers would.

My contention is that if your 'archaic' voice does not serve to move the story forward in one way or another, then it is a 'conceit' (in the ancient sense of the word) and nothing more.

[This message has been edited by mikemunsil (edited March 13, 2005).]
 

I like stories that have the FLAVOR or archaic speech (this applies for dialogue as well), but the meat is simple plain American English ( or standard British).

Many authors will use a line of archaic or dialogue and slide into modern english, I find this works well for me.

 

However, I see a difference between an archaic voice and a formal voice. I consider a formal voice to be something above modern American but far below Shakespearean. I like the voices in the story to match the period, culture and class of the speaker. I would not think a king would speak exactly as a peasant. There should be a more formal style to the king’s dialogue than the peasant’s. That does not mean the king has to speak Shakespeare or that the peasant needs to use unintelligible brogue.

It’s all about balance. I think that the language should be transparent while giving a sense of time and place as well as insight into the speaker. If my readers are focusing on the language too much then I have failed in my job as a storyteller, unless my story is about language - which would not be a big seller.

I like JB's idea of hinting at an archaic or formal language and then seamlessly slipping back into "normal" speech. It makes me think of Star Trek and universal translators. If they had subtitled every alien's language instead of just slipping into English, that would have been really annoying.
 

but i really have to contend with you people on this one, there ARE times when it becomes necessary to make full use of differing structure and word choice. modern, contemporary, American English is hardly appropriate for a character who is really really old. we see in the every day that as a person ages, their speech becomes more formal, even more ponderous. you SHOULD go into outright formal, perhaps even archaic style for such a character, especially in dialogue, and then keep it consistent.

the body of prose should be as close to your general audiences everyday language as possible, but dialogue should be left exactly as the character would say it, or, if that would cause the reader to stumble needlessly, close to it. sometimes an occasional stumble is actually desirable, because the character himself stumbled!
 

The same is true in the British Isles- there are dialects and speech usage that an American will not be able to follow. Without instruction in that dialect.

Period speech is more than stage speech, to Americans English older than two hundred years would sound as strange as german or gaelic. Even spoken english in the past 100 years has trasformed so much as to an almost different language.

The english language I spoke in northern Mississippi just twenty years ago is no longer heard today except by very few old country folk. Rather we (Americans) speak an American English defined more by TV and Radio than by dialect.

For example in the summer of 1987 after I returned from a date with a new girlfriend an uncle asked me:

Hey der boy, did dat gi done get oo to glazed? Hee hee I bet she 'id! Doan dirt ee d'bil!

Have any idea what he is saying here? If I was to put that in a novel no one would understand what I was saying. But it is english.

Here's what he said in plain english:

Hey boy! Did your girlfriend let you make out with her? You damned dirty devil!

I say this because technical correctness and perfect historical representation is not the clearest, most direct way to speak to the reader. We are not producing tv with subtitles we are translating on the fly to the reader the character's understanding and POV of the dialogue. Not a recording.

Umberto Eco writes terrific novels where seven or eight languages are presented in English. He doesn't give us ten pages of Italian followed by transalations, but some spice words and then writes in everyday english. James Clavell did the same in Shogun.

The exact same thing applies to dialect and period English.

Times when to present dialect or period language:

When a character first enters the culture or meets an someone they don't understand.

Formal announcements by Governments, etc.

Formal speeches and addresses.

When the person's speech is critical to the scene-not what they mean but what they actually say.

Special or emotional scenes.

Religious expression.

of course there are other times but these were the first off my head.

JB Skaggs

[This message has been edited by JBSkaggs (edited March 12, 2005).]
 

One major structural point I maintain now is the southern style additive nature of negatives as opposed to the yankee style of cancellation. Another point is our common use of linked fragments.

My favorite dialect writer was Faulkner, who never did lose the stilted convoluted formal style you hear in the 'real south', but he spelled the words right. You will recall the semiautobiographical part of his novel where he had his young character in college up north?

[This message has been edited by keldon02 (edited March 13, 2005).]
 

quote:

---

If our stories are above a fifth grade reading level, we seriously reduce the number of readers who will tackle our stories.

---