Pedantry

[desperance]

Writing fantasy, particularly if it is overtly historical in its origins, gives access to whole new hitherto-undreamed-of realms of pedantry. We can fuss for ever over details of costume, use of weaponry, so on and so forth; but we get to fuss over the language too, particular issues of vocabulary. I've written before about how long I struggled for a legitimate alternative to 'crusade', in a world that was absolutely and obviously based on the Crusades but where the Christianity-substitute religion did not derive its primary symbol from a cross; now I've just hit a problem that's even more basic. I wrote that someone spelled out a problem - and then I checked, and went back, and deleted the phrase. Thing is, this is the Taiwan fantasy I've been talking about forever; these people are effectively Chinese. Their written language is character-based. Which means, of course, that they do not spell things out, even metaphorically. In which Chaz deletes 'spell' from the book's vocabulary, and seeks an alternative. Clarify, perhaps? They're Chinese, they make a lot of soups, they've got to clarify their stocks...

Comments

[danjite.livejournal.com]

Wow. Now I need to re-re-re-read Bridge of Birds

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Always worthwhile, of course - but not everyone is as pedantic as me (and I only pick up the instances I notice; I don't actually read for that degree of inconsistency, I depend on these bolts-from-the-blue revelations, and it could be that I miss ten for every one I spot).

[deadcities-icon.livejournal.com]

How about "sketch out" a problem? "Trace out"?

[desperance.livejournal.com]

Trouble is, of course, as soon as you start thinking this way, you get obsessive about it. Chinese art is based on brush-and-ink, rather than pencil; do they sketch, in the same way that we do? (Almost certainly, yes, but I don't know for sure...) Do they trace? (Oh, surely, they had paper centuries before we do and some of it transparently fine - but again, I don't know...)

So what you do, of course, is deconstruct the line and rebuild it another way, to avoid the issue. Or, in this case, just cut it altogether and let the dialogue stand by itself.

[deadcities-icon.livejournal.com]

I might have been teasing you, Chaz.

Might have been.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

"Laid out a problem"

[mantichore.livejournal.com]

Or characterize! ^_____^

Seriously, you can't go very far that way, because, especially for fantasies ostensibly based in some far-off past or unconnected fantasy realms, there are so many words that shouldn't technically apply. You can't really mesmerize someone, for instance, but can you even use the word mechanically in a non industrial society? I try to avoid the French expression au courant (meaning in the know) when translating fantasy, because it smacks of electrical current, and of too-modern associations.

But my point is that you have to stop somewhere and not go overboard with that sort of thinking, because, when it comes down to it, a major part of our language is modern and anachronistic when used in a low-tech fantasy setting.

As for spelling out, I wonder if explaining which ideogram(s) make up a word wouldn't qualify as spelling too, anyway. I'll ask Barry Hughart his opinion! ^_____^

[desperance.livejournal.com]

I can't disagree with any of this; you're absolutely right, and you do have to stop somewhere, and for me I suspect that line is very shifty. However - I have scrabbled madly hitherto for an alternative for 'mesmerise', because I simply couldn't justify using it; and if I caught myself using 'mechanically' in a pre-industrial context, I would cut it instantly. You do what you can, y'know? Day by day...

And I'd love to know if Barry would approve 'spelling' for Chinese characters. Granted that they are all composed of standard elements in combination, still for me it was a step too far, too Western a concept. But that could just be me, being precious...