"Then their bodies were in motion once again. Jab. Block. Backpedal. Momentum carried them against the wall."
It's the author's use of the word "backpedal" that I want to discuss with you good folks. I have done a fair amount of critting here at Hatrack and at other sites over the past few years and if I've learned one thing it's this: an author should avoid abruptly pulling the reader out of his world and into the present. The word "backpedal" did this to me.
Any thoughts on using terms out of context with the period (actual or perceived) that the author weaves his tale in?
Does anyone else here find their self unintentionally critting published works they read as a way to improve their own writing? I have a hard time just reading for reading's sake anymore, ho hum.
You see, my biggest beef here is, that because of what I've learned of the craft I would never leave such phraseology as this in the final draft I submit to a publisher for fear of rejection, yet this guy does it and gets published. I'm happy for him, I really am. I would never have explored his world if he hadn't, and so I'm grateful. But...
Should I be so concerned with these technicalities in my own writing, or what?
Thoughts?
Does anyone else here find their self unintentionally critting published works they read as a way to improve their own writing?
Sort of. Sometimes an author's work is so good I get sucked in and stop noticing the writing. I love it when that happens. I find it's easy to notice the small things like grammar or typesetting errors or obvious contrivances; noticing big things like plot holes usually takes more reflection than I'm prepared to give on recreational reading, I guess.
Should I be so concerned with these technicalities in my own writing, or what?
The obvious answer is it depends on what audience you're writing for. Personally, I try to write the sort of story I'd be excited to read, so if something 'bugs me' I try and avoid it.
Thoughts?
For me, the benefit of formal critiquing has been to quantify what it is that 'bugs me' so I know what to avoid. The next step, for me, is spending many more hours writing so that I can avoid those things without thinking about them. Because only then will I feel I'm writing a natural, flowing narrative.
It's like saying you couldn't also use the word "macabre" in the story, because the Maccabees that inspired the term came after.
So, in my mind, objecting to its use is objecting to the presence of the English language in a story about ancient Egypt.
If language and thought are intertwined, then you must either suspend disbelief and accept that ancient Egyptians think in English terms, with all of the anachronisms that come as language adapts to history and technological and social evolution, or you have to learn to read hieroglyphs and find writers that work in them.
In my own work, nearly all of which is set in the distant future, I try to keep that in mind, though I have to write in English because (1), it's the only language I know well enough to write in, and (2) it'd be hard for the reader if I made up my own future version of English. I try to avoid current slang, but some creeps in no matter what I keep an eye out for.
While I was sick last week, I watched part of "The Producers," the movie of the musical of the movie. In the "Heil Myself" musical number, the guy playing Hitler sings "got a call," and makes the "call" gesture from American Sign Language. Since the thing is apparently (but not specifically) a period piece, sometime after World War II but apparently before the time of the original movie, and since I think that gesture "caught on" no earlier than the mid-1980s, and was not in use in that time frame, it was disconcerting to see.
On bicycles...since bicycles "caught on" in the late 1800s, and were not present in the time of the Persian Empire, I would agree with you that it is something that would jerk a reader out of the world of the story and back to reality. If I noticed it at all...
When reading older books one must really be ready for words like that or they can really shock you.
Perfectly innocent at th time, of course, but nowadays, probably not what you want to consider including unless you're writing Holmes/Watson slashfic (which I'm sure some people do).
Other words whose meanings have glided include "nice" (which IIRC originally meant "precise", as in "a nice distinction") or "certain" wich can still be used today to mean "particular instance" rather than "guaranteed" but a lot of people don't seem to use it that way (I have one story deliberately titled "A Certain Future" because of that possible double meaning - is the future fixed, or is it one particular future out of a range of possibilities?) but I don't think most people get the reference.
Then there's "fire!" being used as a command to archers - that one always gets me. But obvious anachronisms to one person aren't necessarily obvious to another (I had no ideaof the macabre/maccabee connection mentioned above).
However, back to the original example: yeah, "backpedal" would throw me out of a historical mindset, no doubt about it. But there is no universal standard of approach; I'm sure many readers didn't notice or think about it. As with any issue about your writing (and with any critique suggestion), you have to make a judgement call.
Let's say you are writing a fantasy novel that takes place in a completely separate universe, with no interaction with our world, like The Lord of the Rings. Which of the following would bug you, knowing that they are derived from historical figures/places/events/technology? Why/why not:
assassin
armageddon
backpedal
coliseum
druid
paladin
Edit: let me also ask, how would your opinion differ if they were used in a work of historical fiction, where the figures/places/events/technology the words are derived from would be an anachronism?
[This message has been edited by JSchuler (edited February 10, 2010).]
On one hand, the people of Ancient Egypt did not speak English (and very much predate the language's existence), therefore every word in the English language is as anachronistic and out of place as the word "backpedal." If I'm suspending that much disbelief already, it would probably take something extremely informal and modern slang-esque like "Anen was chillin' with his peeps" before I'd get jarred out of a story.
On the other hand, I've been told that historical fiction readers can be very demanding. They KNOW their eras and they get annoyed with people who write historical fiction without having done the research. Presumably the historical fiction communities have developed some conventions about voice and vocabulary that are acceptable in each period, and anything that deviates from those norms might jar a large section of your potential audience of their suspension of disbelief.
For historical fiction set in, say, 2nd century China, I would have no problem if I came across the words "assassin" or "backpedal," but would if I saw "druid," "paladin," or "Armageddon." My reasoning is that, as far as the words "assassin" and "backpedal" concern, the thing those words signify already existed in 2nd century China, even if the developments that crystallized those things into a single word hadn't occurred yet.
When you get to "druid," I'm looking for someone from a Celtic religious sect, which would be a very odd thing in 2nd century China. "Paladin," as well, because I'm not sure anyone from that culture would describe something in such a way that "paladin" would be a worthy summary. In other words, the image "paladin" evokes would not exist, so the word should not exist.
As for "Armageddon," the end of the word generally has distinct cultural interpretations, and "Armageddon" is a Judeo-Christian interpretation, not a Chinese one. "Coliseum" I might have a problem with, unless you're doing alternate history and describing a building that evokes the Collousium in Rome, in which case the fact that the people in China don't know about what's in Rome doesn't matter, so much as the fact that they have something that fits the meaning of the word, just like in the case of "assassin" and "backpedal" above.
Meanwhile, if we move to fantasy, none of these terms would jerk me out of my willing suspension of disbelief unless the author tells me something about the world that would preclude them (e.g. a world of radical pacifists wouldn't have people who kill political rivals, so you can't say they have assassins).
tchern,
I hear what you're saying about "fire", so if not that word for a command to archers to release their arrows, what word would you suggest? I have no clue, and I could use something other than "fire" for one of my tales.
JSchuler,
While I agree with your point about words like paladin and druid, I don't see a correlation when "assassin" is used in any context in any genre in any part of time. Why? Because with a word like "assassin" a very distinct image of a person lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce on their prey, kill it, then disappear comes to my mind, and this is appropriate whether the character is in a back alley in Arabia, or down in the engine room of a starship. With backpedal, however, the word did jar me out of the author's world because it references a unique circumstance; that is sitting on a bike and pedalling backwards. This was not enough to keep me from reading further.
Kitti,
Word origins and word usage do sometimes meet, but are more often estranged in writing. As they should be.
anderson,
I agree with your statement, fantasy should generally follow rules of historical fiction. However, there is the example of Terry Brooks writing his Shannara books set in a time way beyond our present post nuclear holocaust world. There, I would be okay with a "modern" context of a word since it's peoples inhabit the future of our world, not the past. So, though Brooks was fantasy, it wasn't in the sense of historical fiction that most fantasy is set.
Martin,
The word was "backpedal" not "backpaddle". :-)
quote:
But Edward, cannot your critique of "backpedal" referencing something unique also be applied to the word "assassin," which is referencing the followers of Hasan ibn al-Sabbah? And cannot your defense of "assassin" also be applied to "backpedal," in that backpedal brings to mind a clear vision of someone falling backwards while his feet scramble to keep him upright, which is appropriate in any historical context?
I'd say one big difference is this: a lot of people are going to hear backPEDDLE and immediately think of bicycles whereas chances are most people...even most readers...may well have no idea that the word "assasin" has a specific historical origin/context (I didn't know that, and I consider myself reasonbly knowledgeable about that sort of thing.)
Words like backpedal and assassin that describe a physical action, object or cross-cultural concept seem different to me.
I didn't associate backpedal with bicycles since it is a compound word made up of vintage parts that long predate the bicycle (and in my freewheeling experience backpedaling gets you nowhere). Now I'm stuck with the image of King Tut on a high-wheeler. Yikes.
You can't even backpedal.
There is also something to consider though, sometimes words we associate with certain forms of technology actually predate them, in fact the meaning of the words often sparked the idea for them. I don't really have any examples in my pocket at the moment, sorry.
Heathen kings? It implies religion, and those who do not believe---neither of which were much in evidence anywhere else in the book.
*****
quote:
Besides, have you ever tried to ride a bike on sand????
Wide, low-pressure tires.
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited February 11, 2010).]
Your point about Tolkien is an interesting one. His use of "heathen" has troubled scholars for years, mostly because Tolkien seemed to have gone to great pains to leave any established religion out of his writings (unlike his colleague C.S. Lewis). I do not agree with the scholars who settle on the possibility that the use of "heathen" was a mistake on Tolkien's part. That is that he missed it in a revision. Somehow I don't think Tolkien would be that careless. He was an English scholar, an etymologist, a linguist, and was on the staff of the Oxford English Dictionary. I do understand how the use of that word would bother you if it carries with it a negative meaning. In that sense I agree with Jshuler and posulliv. However, I personally think that Tolkien was using that word in the context of it's Germanic origins (a person inhabiting open country, savage, uncivilized), which is another definition of the word.
However, my original post was really more about careful choice of words than word origin. One example of my point that I've learned elsewhere is that an author should not have his modern 20 something MC walk into a "record store" to buy music. To that character it should be a "music store", if he's walking into it at all and not downloading his MP3s off the internet.
Important to remember, too, that out of context word choices have never been cause for me to put a book down and never finish it. If you got as far as Denethor's downfall, then you did finish the trilogy, right?
I'm sure he used many words that had no meaning back then, but they didn't stick out to you.
I would have issue with the author using the word Microsoft, however.
But phrases like, "backpeddle," "hijacked," "eats me up inside," "above par," "through gritted teeth," "wide open," or "rounded up the cattle."
Sometimes its what someone does that's jarring. I remember a TV cartoon series where these pre-teens hung out in this video arcade (if that was the name for it then) and shot pool. Now I know kids did this sort of thing up through the 1950s, but by the 1970s, my era, it had pretty much died out---the arcades I hung in had pinball and Pong, but not pool tables. I wondered if it had made a comeback, or if it was in error, or if it was just something the writers / artists slung in there.
I use the term "assassin" a lot in my stories, and it doesn't bother me at all because it has come to mean "a murderer who kills for political reasons." By that definition, my current work has quite a few assassins running around.
quote:
One example of my point that I've learned elsewhere is that an author should not have his modern 20 something MC walk into a "record store" to buy music.
I also call a TV remote a "clicker."
Julius Caesar was assassinated...but what Latin word was used to describe it?
While the terms and phrase could be jarring, the discussion would be more interesting and educational, especially for those of us who are not period oriented, if you to tell us the alternative terms to use. Show us how we should address the bothersome terms in our writing. The alternatives might make our writing more interesting too.
"Arena" means "a sandy place" and refers to the center area of the amphitheater.
"Amphitheater" comes from the Greeks, meaning "a theater on both sides," meaning they built seats on both sides of what they wanted to watch. ("Theater," from, ultimately, "thea," a view.)
(This is why I keep my big dictionary here next to the computer.)
[quote]"This won't do at all," said Thorin. "If we don't get blown off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football."
It's okay to have a modern narrator--which is clearly the case in The Hobbit--that is telling the tale in his or her own fashion, and words familiar to his or her audience. It's perfectly viable for the narrator to be a character in a different time or era...it's usually cleaner to let the reader know (either through a frame story, interaction with the reader or intervals like the "interviewer" used in Interview With a Vampire...)
Remember, too: English "football" = American "soccer."
*****
I remember once reading a history of the Middle Ages, I think (I forget just what), and found a number of anachronistic references to baseball: things like "out of left field," "on base," and so on. Metaphors like that kill the book for me. I'm not inclined to go too far here---if you wrote what they actually spoke in, in a modern-day history, I wouldn't understand it---but there are limits.