![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bad Language
26/4/06 19:39Okay, am I the only one who is bothered by wrong language? By which I mean words or phrases in a book that knock a reader out of the period or venue because they would not have been of use? I mean, if I am the only one, I'll go away and shut up. But I don't think I am.
I just finished a pretty good (and very successful) historical novel, set in Germany in 1675. The problems I've encountered with language are the more glaring for the fact that the author manages to maintain a decent period voice throughout. Except when she doesn't. And the problems aren't even as debatable as the use of "relationship" (which, in the romantic-involvement sense is, I believe, a fairly new conceit) or "nice" to mean kind or insipidly agreeable, which Jane Austen went on record opposing. The problems are words like sadist and bloomers, both of which took their names from Real People who were not on the scene for a century or better. This writer has clearly gone to a good deal of painstaking effort to get the political and religious milieu, as well as the dress and geography, right. So errors like this read to me like laziness or contempt for the reader. I realize that coming up with a word to mean sadist when sadist does exactly what you want is a chore. Jacqueline Carey managed it in the Kushiel books. And "bloomers" (which were here used as a descriptor for a male undergarment!) could be characterized as breeches or small clothes without too much loss of dignity.
I just finished a pretty good (and very successful) historical novel, set in Germany in 1675. The problems I've encountered with language are the more glaring for the fact that the author manages to maintain a decent period voice throughout. Except when she doesn't. And the problems aren't even as debatable as the use of "relationship" (which, in the romantic-involvement sense is, I believe, a fairly new conceit) or "nice" to mean kind or insipidly agreeable, which Jane Austen went on record opposing. The problems are words like sadist and bloomers, both of which took their names from Real People who were not on the scene for a century or better. This writer has clearly gone to a good deal of painstaking effort to get the political and religious milieu, as well as the dress and geography, right. So errors like this read to me like laziness or contempt for the reader. I realize that coming up with a word to mean sadist when sadist does exactly what you want is a chore. Jacqueline Carey managed it in the Kushiel books. And "bloomers" (which were here used as a descriptor for a male undergarment!) could be characterized as breeches or small clothes without too much loss of dignity.