Bleeding Fiction

I think I've had this discussion before, if not with you, then with a common aquaintance. I think we eventually settled on the concept that every story is told through the eye's lens and language of the storyteller, and is therefore subject to all the subtleties of that voice. The etymologies of the language in use are irrelevant so long as they transmit the desired meaning. To omit the word "Dickensian" from a scene of soot-stained orphans pickpocketing a local merchant (even if the merchant happens to be a Globulon Seperatist from the planet Florx) is self-limiting and ultimately damaging to the point you're trying to get across.

There is something to be said for setting the right tone for your narrative voice. Space Opera might not be the best place to introduce Victorian speech patterns unless that's what you're going for. But hesitating to use the RIGHT word just because the denizens of that universe wouldn't know what it means only hurts you in the end. Those denizens aren't actually reading the book, are they?

Finally, a discussion that isn't about Jason's hairy arms. First, let's clarify that we're talking about idomatic expressions. The idiom may be expressed in a foreign language, but it is still an idiomatic expression. My simple answer to your question is "maybe" for narrator, "no" for character dialogue.

Even if you're writing in English, you should be using an English that reflects the cultural context. For instance, Mark Twain wouldn't have Huck Finn say "Machiavellian." Doctor Faustus wouldn't use too many farm animal expressions (though Dr. Phil would). Wouldn't it be ridiculous for instance if you said "I'll be there in a heart beat" if your characters don't have hearts. It's one of those things that would probably annoy the reader and make them stop and wonder, f'ing up their suspension of disbelief, ripping them from the world of your novel to our own world, etc. Just the fact that you capitalize "Machiavellian" tells you that it's not a word that can be used with plain meaning without cultural emcumbrances. For instance, a character could say "catholic" to mean universal but not "Catholic" as a religious idiom. Basically, don't piss readers off if you don't have to.

Narrators may be an exception since a narrator can be our contemporary relating a story from a different time and place, so the reader is more accepting that he has a modern point of view. Basically, I agree with Erik's second paragraph though I think that character dialogue needs to be held to a stricter standard.

Let's see... While the denizens of my fictional world may not be reading the book I write, Erik, depending on the narrative structure they may well be involved in it. Vitaly makes the point of the heart beat and it's a good analogy. Dialogue is a good example, and so too is first-person narration. But likewise a very deep reading of a third person narration (i.e. the sort that's very strictly from a single character's limited point of view).

But likewise, the reverse is also true: if you're stepping back and narrating from an omniscient perspective, not closely tied with a single character, idiomatic words (thanks for that, Vitaly) bring less weight to bear on the characters and so you're freer to use them.

I think, though, that you may see the reverse trend with idiomatic words that aren't English but instead come from the culture you're writing about. Like "Jedi" from Star Wars. I think these words, as they're tied to the characters rather than the author or reader, would and should see more use in dialogue and first-person and limited-perspectice narration and less use in omniscient, withdrawn narration. In essence, these are words that I think only see play when they come from a character (when they're a displayed part of that character's idiom). Thoughts?

I think it goes without saying that Prince Aloysious Oligarchy III should not be spouting off about "his biyotches in da house, y'all," but there you're talking about speech patterns in general and not the specifics of idiomatic expressions. When writing fiction your universe should be cohesive in both narrative tone and dialogue, but these are two very different things. In your original post, you spoke about describing an event as a "coup d'tat" in a universe without the French. The point I was trying to get across is that an omniscient narrator or descriptive voice can probably get away with that, but the non-French general himself probably couldn't.

You can look at lots works that involve whole new languages and expressions unique to that universe. Clockwork Orange comes to mind. But that is an ambitious experiment that can seriously backfire. You mention Star Wars as having idomatic words, but it really doesn't have many. Jedi is a very specific named thing, nobody says "I'm going to go all Jedi on your ass." You do see colloquial terms (recently) like "Bantha Poodoo" or "fast as a Gundark" but for the most part that universe uses the traditional stilted high-fantasy English - long expositional sentences, fewer contractions, lots of British accents. Recently, the dialogue has become very contemporary.

My point of points, then: you are worrying yourself into a corner over the validity of certain words and expressions. If it gets the right meaning across, use it, if it sticks out like a sore thumb (

I wouldn't say I'm worrying myself into a corner. it's not like I'm losing sleep over this; it was really just something I was curious about.

However, I'm not sure that narrative tone and dialogue are as different as you'd make them out to be, Erik. Obviously they can be, but in a great number of works they're not. I bring up, again, the extreme example of a story told in the first person, where the narration itself functions as a sort of dialogue. This is similarly true with limited perspective narration. I contend that there is very little distinction (at least in terms of seeing the world through the character's perspective and therefore in terms of usage of English idioms) between dialogue and this form of narration. Both are, after all, solely from the perspective of a single character. In that respect, I maintain that English idioms are as inappropriate as they would be in dialogue.

(Most good fiction published today - not necessarily most of the classics - will mix between all of the different states, "zooming" in and out as the scene demands. Start with a character's perspective, say, to draw you emotionally into the scene, then draw back in the second paragraph to set the physicality of the scene itself, then back to the character to continue with the emotion.)

The idioms of Star Wars (such as they are) were a late night example and, perhaps, a poorly chosen one. Those in A Clockwork Orange are a better example, but limited in usage for our purposes (if memory serves) by the first person perspective of the book. The idea I'm working at here is that idioms that are unique to a particular fiction will serve to draw the reader in and help establish the reality of that fiction. This is obviously more necessary in written fiction than in film, where the images bring much of the reality across. However, a distant narrator, omniscient and not tied to the view or thoughts of any particular character, represents only the author or (from a certain perspective) the reader. Thus, that narrator using specific idiomatic words - words which don't exist outside of the fiction - can be awkward. Internal idioms ("Jedi," "droogs") should only be used by a limited narrator or in dialogue. They are, in that sense, the opposite of English idioms. Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

In my very humble opinion a referenceout of context can break even if its just a bit the mood of a story

imagine a narrator telling a story set in the middle ages as he makes reference to a speeding jet being compared to the flight of a dragon

wheter you want it or not you have broken the feel of the dragon by comparing it to a modern thing

but then again thats just me :)

Jason ill mail you asap work has kept me very very busy