The Aether Guild of Writers on Steampunk Empire

This is the best place I've found to post for my type of writing

Here http:Aether Guild of Writers

I think I'll repost things from here to there

Writers' Circles a repost from the Aether Guild of Writers

Comment by Geoffrey Johns 1 minute ago

Delete Comment

Not strictly speaking Steampunk, so forgive me. Today I awoke full of the joys of what may, if we're lucky, eventually become spring in London (no smirking you Australians). Last night was the Richmond Writers' Circle. Everyone shone and my piece was brilliantly read for me by the lovely Feola, which meant that no one had to suffer my speech impediment. She made it sound so much better than I do. My point being that I strongly advise anyone who can to join a writer's circle, The two I have attended, now in Richmond and earlier in Rozelle, Sydney have been supportive and offered great feedback. James Murray earlier posted 'At least others have heard your work, mine is hiding on the hard drive :)'. Well, I'll bet there is a writers' circle not too far from you, You should give it a try. 

PS Or start one yourself. You'll get to meet some  great people

Getting the language right

I got to thinking about The Countess of Vintage's (From the Aether Guild of Writers on Steampunk Empire) comment about vocabulary. At first, I wasn't sure if she was talking about vocabulary in the usual sense or in the broader sense of 'memes'. Anyway, thinking at the moment of words, and bearing in mind that everything I suggest is only what I think works for my writing and need not necessarily for anyone else's, here are some thoughts.

First, people in the era in which I write - the Edwardian – talked much the same as we do. There are as many (or as few) differences as there are in British regional speech today. I try not to let words get in the way of the story. From time to time I might use a word (say 'golly' or 'gosh' that raises an eyebrow when I read at the Richmond Writers' Circle. For these though, even when I am right (both words could have been used in 1904), I have to consider making a change because, if the RWC are distracted from the story by a word, then everyone else might be too. It is possible perhaps to use a strange word with a footnote explaining it. George MacDonald Fraser does this quite often, especially with foreign words such as Indian words used frequently by British soldiers. In G MacD F's case, this is more justifiable, as he purports, in the story, to be the editor rather than author. (To digress a bit, nearly half the American reviewers of the book thought it was a genuine autobiography.)  So I try to only use unusual words where the reader can easily guess their meaning or if the meaning is known but the word rarely used. For example, my grandmother, born in that era, would use 'hark' more often than ‘listen’. Another example, again G MacD F, is his use of the term 'the earlies' to refer to the period around 1830. This is a rare term but, in context, easy to make sense of without breaking rhythm.  At one stage, I was thinking of using, for fun, some of the slang used by the upper reaches of British society in the late Victorian era. This was more or less a childhood invented language of the Wyndham sisters that spread, as they married into various families. It would have required footnotes on every page so I ditched the idea.  A more difficult case is that of words such as 'intrigue'.  This was raised at a recent presentation by Lynn Shepherd, D.E.Meredith and Essie Fox. They are published authors of Victorian thriller / crime novels.  Apparently, Intrigue in the sense of conspire was used in 1904 but not in the sense of 'create interest in'. I should never have known this and assume that there must be many other examples where I shall put my foot in it.  These three intelligent and articulate women were pretty clear that such mistakes are to be avoided. In similar way, one of them noted that if an author gets the hansom cab fare for a journey wrong, some reader somewhere will know this and write to them. I am not quite sure how much consternation this should cause me.  I think I would spend all my limited time researching rather than writing. I should be interested in what others think. Returning to writing authentic speech for the fin de siècle, I think it is more in tone than language itself. There is a touch more formality than we use today. This can be taken too far though.  As examples of the era where first party narrators chat to the reader in lively tones, much as we would now, consider: Allan Quatermain in the first few pages of King Solomon’s Mines, J in Three Men in a Boat or Rassendyll in The Prisoner of Zenda. From memory, there are no words used in these that are not common today.