posted
A necessary evil of writing scifi or fantasy is, to some extent, be your own lexicographer, re-tasking or creating words where necessary to define things in your story that just don't line up neatly with present day reality.
I try hard to be conservative when I do this, doing it as little as possible and keeping the words as close to the ballpark of present-day usage as possible and keeping new words as normal as possible. Even so, I still cringe without exception when I read my own made-up or redefined words. Even on the rare instances when I'm otherwise pleased with a passage, one instance of those words ruins my sense of it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the any words I've made up or re-tasked for the purposes of a story; I just can't stand seeing them in the story for some reason. Anyone else have this problem? More usefully, does anyone have a method they use to ensure that make made-up or re-tasked words do as little damage as possible?
posted
Your postification made me scratch my gulliver. I semifathom your newspeak horrowshow, but don't fully glimmer your tellings. Maywhat you could example us a lexicojarring that was doubleplus ungood?
Posts: 53 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my god, Oliver, I think you broke my brain with that... (edit) though I agree, it was funny as hell. (end edit)
As for what you're talking about, J, with words that you've retasked or that don't exist at all in English, may I suggest that it's possibly your inner editor that's twigging on that, knowing that technically the word isn't right? I could entirely understand how even knowing that it was correct as you intended the word to be use, the inner editor could get loud and cranky on seeing it.
I can't say I've had that problem much, but I don't do much for making up words or retasking them, so it wouldn't generally come up.
posted
I like evolving meanings and spellings, though I cringe at outright errors.
Aside from that, like Humpty Dumpty in "Alice," when I use a word, it means precisely what I want it to mean, no more and no less.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Along similar lines, I use a number of Yiddish words in my writing. The key in inserting any words likely to be unfamiliar to a reader (be they of a foreign language or completely fabricated), I believe, is to use them in a context that makes their meaning self-evident. Kapish? Or does this sound meshugge to you?
Respectfully, Dr. Bob
Posts: 1475 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Robert. Although there are a number of Yiddish words that have inveigled their way into vernacular of English speakers (some Yiddish words are just too delicious). Examples? chutzpah, noodge, schmootz, shlep, shnoz, bupkis, drek, glitch, golem, kibitz, kvetch, nudnik, shmear, spiel, etc. even bagel and lox and a whole lot of words that are not so nice.
Respectfully, Dr. Bob
Posts: 1475 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they're as much a part of English as, say, macho or cojones (which, I gather, Hemingway brought to our attention in The Sun Also Rises), or boondocks (Tagalog), kowtow (Chinese), pajamas (Hindi), kindergarten (German), sputnik (Russian), geyser (Icelandic), or spaghetti (Italian). I may have some of the original languages wrong, but they're all part of English now. English's great strength is its ability to suck up these words like a vacuum cleaner and incorporate them.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A high-order writing principle, decorum, actually, "requires" that one's words and subject matter fit each other, and be suited to the circumstances, the audience, and the writer.
On the same par of writing principles, that, evermost in the forefront, every iota, every glyph, every feature facilitate reading ease so that the all-important reading spell is not disrupted.
Some "teaching" readers to interpret newly invented words, their intents and meanings, is not undue nor especially artless, though challenging. How many? When in a narrative are they timely? How to provide sufficient context so they're easy to read and interpret and understand? Depends on the audience, the opportune moment, the subject matter, the circumstances, the writer, the words.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: Some "teaching" readers to interpret newly invented words, their intents and meanings, is not undue nor especially artless, though challenging. How many? When in a narrative are they timely? How to provide sufficient context so they're easy to read and interpret and understand? Depends on the audience, the opportune moment, the subject matter, the circumstances, the writer, the words.
This is exactly what I'm talking about--or, more to the point, exactly what I'm struggling to do in a way that I'm happy with.
Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i actually didn't get into reading scifi until my late 20s mainly because whenever i picked up a science fiction book, i felt out of my depth. i didn't understand the words being used, both real life scientific words as well as words the author has made up, or as you put it, re-tasked, for the story.
it took me a while to realize the beauty in it because ultimately, in good science fiction at least, the author is teaching you a new langauge. by the time i finish good scifi, i've basically mastered the vocabulary, and what at first stumped me is now clear.
i don't see this writing technique as doing damage so much as making the reader work more to enjoy the story.
i also don't see this so much the case in fantasy writing, which, language-wise, is so much easier to grasp.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Still gives me a kick to hear these words from those who I wouldn't expect to hear it, can't pronounce it, and at best have a vague understanding of its meaning.
If you don't know the words, or how to pronounce them, don't use them. Me, I grew up in (upstate) New York, and most of the above-mentioned formerly-Yiddish words floated around the area in reasonably-correct pronounciations. (I think I knew the meaning and pronounciation of several before I knew the meaning of "Yiddish.")
I'd go on about certain shortcomings of certain public speakers, but I'm afraid the discussion would turn political.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find this problem comes up more for me with "real" words, especially the word "eldritch" which people seem to irrationally dislike.
I don't really like to create whole new words possibly because of my love for Tolkien that makes me feel inadequate if I don't make it a real word with a thought out position in a whole fictitious language.
I do agree that it seems to be more of an issue with science fiction, especially that set in the future. Although it seems that especially many more recent fantasy authors seem to like coming up with their own sounds-like-another-language-but-is-just-for-this-one-thing type words.
I'd be interested to hear some examples of your made-up or re-tasked words. I've chosen to mostly avoid doing that by using existing words, but without knowing the context I can't really come up with any good "damage control" suggestions.
Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The areas of parts and figures of speech hold some guidance for inventing and using invented words. Invented nouns are generally easier to read and understand than verbs. Readers expect, perhaps demand, some names be exotic, i.e., nicknames, place names, place name nicknames, thing names and nicknames, which are trope types known as metonymy and synecdoche.
Here's a mouthfull of a word, Chicomacomico, meaning place that is swept in Croatan Algonquin, name of a forelorn, windswept mid Atlantic coast promonotory, a synecdoche, by the way.
Synecdoche being an observable characteristic standing for a whole; for example, all hands on deck, hands stands for the working crew. Big Tiny, nickname, synecdoche. Synecdoche is not typically as abstract as metonymy.
Metonymy being an intrinsic attribute standing for a whole; for example, The pen is mightier than the sword. Pen representing persuasive expression, the sword, coercion by force. Abstract referential representations.
Verbs are trickier to invent and provide context for and readers to interpret easily. Verbs readers know, they know what they mean and don't require context in many cases. However, invented verbs do. Heinlein invented "grok" for Stranger in a Strange Land, providing context and subtly teaching readers its meaning. Orwell invented "group-thinking" for Nineteen Eighty-Four, needing less context because the hyphen compounded words are readily interpretable. Group-think became part of language; grok did not, though both grok and group-think have noun connotations as well as verb and modifier ones.
Inventing pronouns is trickier still. Attempts have been made to introduce nongendered pronouns for going on now a century or so. Nothing's stuck yet. I'm partial to 'e for he and she, 's for his and hers, and h' for him and her. There's much resistance, though, to any pronoun invention.
Adjective inventions follow noun inventions. Adverbs, some from the noun column, some from the verb column.
Preposition inventions, I'm not aware of any. Preposition use links to verbs, as in "aware of," making preposition invention doubly problematic.
Article invention, by and large article inventions aren't so much innovative in and of themselves as borrowed from other languages, Latin, Greek, Spanish, French, German, etc., loan words in English usage.
Conjunction invention, getting into airy territories, none that I know of, though, again, borrowed from other languages in English usage.
Interjection invention, about anything goes with appropriate context provided to facilitate reading and understanding ease. "Vai dom" is an interjection Marion Zimmer Bradley invented for the Darkover saga.
Invented phrases becomes possibly more problematic and/or simpler, perhaps depending on syntactical function and parts of speech incorporated. Actually, invented phrases are likely to be lively, reinvented metaphors and idioms, though, at the moment, I don't have an example ready to hand.
The writing principles of providing context and judicious, timely, relevant usage seem to me most applicable for using invented words.
posted
I'm fond of the word "kwijibo." Back in the early days of The Simpsons, when it was still good, Bart played this in a game of Scrabble with Homer, defining it as a "fat, balding, American ape." About twenty years later, I caught a promo with some skateboarders, who refered to some move or other as a "kwijibo."
So these TV shows have some power over the language...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, with respect to the original topic, if something doesn't feel right, don't do it unless you have a reason to disregard your feeling.
Dr. Bob raises an interesting point, which I will take some slight issue with.
I think people who read for pleasure tend to be uncommonly good with words. Think of all the made-up words we encounter in fantasy and science fiction. Consider the vast trove of neologisms in Lord of the Rings. Is it true that when every word is introduced its meaning is always *perfectly* self-evident? Certainly not. But I think habitual readers are more likely to acquire vocabulary in the same way an infant does, by hearing it used in context and over time having it's meaning shaded in.
I'll go further. We all know readers don't like confusion. But between "confusion" and "everything painstakingly clear" there's a large range. What is maybe less understood by writers is that the readers don't like the process of making everything painstaking clear much better than they like total confusion.
Here's the typical scenario, usually in the opening chapters of a speculative fiction book. There's some term or concept that the author feels the reader needs to understand in order to follow the story. So we get a big fat slice of exposition in which it is laid out in mind-numbing detail. Sometimes the author realizes this is a bad idea, and tries to disguise the exposition. Then we get the infamous "As you know Bob" phenomenon in which exposition is (ineffectively) disguised as dialog.
Why? Because the author is terrified of the reader's aversion to total chaos (which he should fear) and so he avoids creating a temporary state in which the reader doesn't yet fully understand everything (something the author really shouldn't fear).
Some books manage to introduce a whole lexicons of unfamiliar words to readers successfully, without having to inform Bob along the way. I think they exploit the way we naturally learn vocabulary every day, by successive approximation of understanding.
Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: Heinlein invented "grok" for Stranger in a Strange Land, providing context and subtly teaching readers its meaning.
Great example of this being done masterfully (although, since Stranger in a Strange Land is in large part about what is means to "grok" in the ultimate sense, he could maybe afford to spend a little more time developing it than most authors in most cases)
I'll give a concrete example of what I'm having trouble with. In my WIP, the protagonist is part of a group that has deep seated racism against their neighbors to the east. I've tried to develop or re-task a word that the protagonists people would use as a general label for their enemies. "Others" captures what I'm after, but George R.R. Martin has taken that one over the same way J.R.R.T. dominates the word "orcs." "Easterners," "Eastrons," "Infidels" all convey the meaning, but they're jarring--they offend my editorial sensibilities. I'm sure there's something perfect out their, but I just don't grok it.
Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xenos isn't as far as I know proprietarily spoken for, outside of its classic Greek origins, which historically include a spectrum of meanings from enemy stranger to ritual friend, though alien is the most persistent meaning currently.
Derivations of supremacist, fundamentalist, imperialist, etc., have potentials, too.
Looking to the theme of the novel, how it's timely and relevant to present-day audiences, what's it at root about? Say, racism as a social ill perpetrated for the sake of dominance, out of fear and distrust, self-serving agendas, preconceived notions of superior propriety? Whatever term, connecting it to a closely narrowed theme is a best practice.
General related themes; "2. The Individual in Society a. Society and a person's inner nature are always at war. b. Social influences determine a person's final destiny. c. Social influences can only complete inclinations formed by Nature. d. A person's identity is determined by place in society. e. In spite of the pressure to be among people, an individual is essentially alone and frightened."
And/or maybe; "8. Alienation a. An individual is isolated from fellow human beings and foolishly tries to bridge the gaps. b. Through alienation comes self-knowledge. c. Modern culture is defective because it doesn't provide group ties which in primitive cultures makes alienation virtually impossible." "Themes:" http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/patten/theme.html
posted
J, if your question is how to employ this task with as little damage as possible, i think maybe you shouldn't worry about it and wait to see what readers of your fiction feel in their critiques. i have seen the making up, or re-tasking (i like this phrasing, by the way) of words work horribly in sentence construction, and i've seen it work wonderfully.
actually, an example of this is this word, 're-tasking'. it's an altered word, but it works great in the meaning you're trying to get across. it flows naturally, and it took me until now to really wonder whether this is a "real" word or not.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sidebar thought: near as I can tell, most of the "Tolkien" words that have come into usage (in fantasy writing as well as the real world) weren't from his Elvish or other invented languages, but words from ancient English reintroduced by him. (I've seen lengthy discussions on "dour-handed" and "dwimmerlaik," not to forget "orc.")
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Or the movie "Silver Streak" where Richard Pryre (sp) does his best to turn Gene Wilder into a black man .
Posts: 1320 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll give a concrete example of what I'm having trouble with. In my WIP, the protagonist is part of a group that has deep seated racism against their neighbors to the east. I've tried to develop or re-task a word that the protagonists people would use as a general label for their enemies. "Others" captures what I'm after, but George R.R. Martin has taken that one over the same way J.R.R.T. dominates the word "orcs." "Easterners," "Eastrons," "Infidels" all convey the meaning, but they're jarring--they offend my editorial sensibilities. I'm sure there's something perfect out their, but I just don't grok it.
I kind of like "Eastrons." It's flavorful, but understandable and carries in it at least one, maybe two slight Tolkien references, if one chooses to see such. I would definitely not do Infidels, since that to me has a specific religion-related connotation.
Also, in these situations, I don't find it jarring at all to create a slur of some kind for the enemy group, possibly based on some physical or cultural factor. These can be poorly done and jarring but if any thought is put into it at all it generally works for me...largely because its very true to what happens in "real life." One example that particularly comes to mind...there was a TV show back in the 90s...some of the X-files folks were involved I believe, I can't remember the exact title but it was something about space marines. The enemy aliens, supposedly, resembled chiggers (which I guess are sort of like ticks or something) so that's what they started calling them...and then that often got abbreviated to "chigs." I felt it worked very nicely.
Edit: Also, MattLeo basically took the words out of my fingers. I think most people who read significantly have a strong ability to contextualize that usually makes learning and accepting new language relatively easy.
Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read anything by Scott Westerfield. Barking spiders, his writing is so prettymaking. Future sarcastic.
Posts: 1201 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another author that does some interesting things in this area is China Mieville.
At the risk of going into forbidden territory I find its deliciously ironic and interesting that he calls his magic "thaumaturgy" (which at root means miracle-working or god-magic) though he is an "atheist," and many characters treat it as a science.
Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll give a concrete example of what I'm having trouble with. In my WIP, the protagonist is part of a group that has deep seated racism against their neighbors to the east. I've tried to develop or re-task a word that the protagonists people would use as a general label for their enemies. "Others" captures what I'm after, but George R.R. Martin has taken that one over the same way J.R.R.T. dominates the word "orcs." "Easterners," "Eastrons," "Infidels" all convey the meaning, but they're jarring--they offend my editorial sensibilities. I'm sure there's something perfect out their, but I just don't grok it.
My wife is involved in scouting. She told me a story about a leader who got disgusted with all the foul language his scouts were using. So on one weekend trip the scouts proposed making up nonsense words and using them instead. By the end of the trip he found the nonsense words just as bad, because it wasn't the words that were offensive, it was the attitude they were said with.
So you're starting with a language (English) that obviously has no slurs for the fictional people in your book. No problem. Any characteristic however innocuous can become a slur, all that it takes is attitude. There's nothing objectionable about people who like to eat garlic or cheese, but we can be offensive by calling Italians "garlic eaters" and the French "cheese eater".
Anything that can be associated with a people can become a slur, particularly if it applies to only some but is stretched over a larger group. Wetlands are vital ecological features, as well as being interesting and beautiful in themselves, but calling a working class Irishman "Bog Irish" is an insult, because chances are he has never lived on a bog.
Overgeneralization of a specific characteristic is a powerful way of denigrating someone, because it erases his identity, submerging it in some label that has no reasonable connection to him. Some peoples in Africa like the Masai continue to hunt with spears as a cultural tradition -- and a proud one at that. But calling a dark skinned American a "spear-chucker" is an insult, because it erases ancestors who have been Americans for hundreds of years.
The attitude that makes a label into a slur is a malicious and pig-headed refusal to recognize a person's individuality. One of the best ways to do that is to deliberately get a person's identity wrong. If someone who works with you every day gets your name wrong, he's telling you something. If he chooses the wrong label for your ethnicity, race, or religion that tells you the same thing.
And so the normal imprecision of language provides the bigoted attitude all the tools it needs to construct slurs and insults. That's why it's so easy to insult someone accidentally if he misreads your attitude. That's also why scrupulously politically correct is so awkward: it not only has to be value neutral or positive, it has to draw a precise semantic box around the person referred so that in unquestionably includes him ("Persons of color", "Differently abled", "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgendered").
But precluding offensive speech is still a hopeless task, because it's the attitude that counts.
Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
