Read on Twitter
*rubs eyes* Okay, people. I really don& #39;t know how to break this to folks, but language doesn& #39;t evolve in a vacuum. There are NO words in the English language which do not have historical context, because that& #39;s how language works.
Now if you& #39;re writing historical fiction, it may be important to remember when words came into usage, because you& #39;re tying language to Earth based time periods. But second world fantasy? Well that depends. Do they speak English in your second world fantasy?
Because if they don& #39;t, then ENGLISH is anachronistic. Yup, that& #39;s right. The entire language. It& #39;s ALL tied to historical Earth events. And obviously no one expects anyone to write or read entire works written in a conlang. Mostly. (looking at you, Klingon)
Obviously different people are going to have different approaches to how to deal with this. Do you eliminate all words that have obvious historical/social/cultural origins? Do you eliminate words that are & #39;too modern& #39; (esp. when that& #39;s an apples to oranges comparison)?
Because the unfortunate truth is there are a lot of useful English words which are perceived as modern (even if that& #39;s not the case). I once got called out for using a word that was deemed & #39;too modern& #39; when it originated in, um, the 16th century. (Hug. The word was hug.)
This is a complicated issue. Most folks don& #39;t blink at using words like masochist or draconian, but these are words with VERY specific historical roots (and both derived from specific historical figures).
So for me, I don& #39;t worry about it. Because I& #39;m operating from the assumption that none of the books in a Chorus of Dragons were originally written in English. They were *translated* into English. So what do I strive for? Clarity.
It& #39;s wonderfully liberating. I don& #39;t really care if teenager wasn& #39;t a word in English usage until the modern day - because it& #39;s the word that is the most accurate translation, it& #39;s the word I& #39;m going to use. & I do that unless I feel another word, or an invented word, fits better
Does this mean I& #39;m going to use words that some readers find too jarring? Yes, absolutely. This thread was in fact sparked by exactly one such complaint. But here& #39;s the thing: what people find jarring is hugely subjective.
And often wrong! What people think they know about modern language is often shockingly wrong. In all the time I& #39;ve been writing, I& #39;ve heard the same complaint only a handful of times. People keep pointing out different words as too modern, based on their own sensibilities.
So, as always, I write for what I& #39;m comfortable reading myself. It& #39;s all you can do in the end. I try to avoid stuff that& #39;s tooo clearly grounded in history, but sometimes the best word to describe a sadist is sadist (for example).
Well goodness. I admit I didn& #39;t expect a mini-rant I wrote at 1:30 in the morning to take off like this. I suppose I should probably link my books? The Ruin of Kings & the Name of All Things are out now. Find them here: https://us.macmillan.com/series/achorusofdragons">https://us.macmillan.com/series/ac...
