Opinions please - is the phrase 'crash and burn' acceptable in a Fantasy story with a mediaeval ambience?
TIA
Opinions please - is the phrase 'crash and burn' acceptable in a Fantasy story with a mediaeval ambience?
TIA
Since prior to medieval times, it would have been burn (or melt) and crash - referring to Icarus flying too close to the sun - I would say 'no'.
Since the expression comes from the 1970s (an airplane or car crashing), I'd say no.
I'm inclined to agree. However, it wouldn't necessarily be implausible for it to develop in a high fantasy setting. Replace airplane with dragon...
Only if you do not mind including setting breaking anachronisms.
There is book I read years ago, and it was so full of them that about 1/3 of the way through the story I just put the book down and never even bothered to finish.
I think the final straw was when in the fantasy magic and late Renaissance style setting the author had created, he specifically had a character flag down a "Hansom Cab". I specific design that was made in the mid-19th century.
At that point I just realized the author was an idiot. I can overlook some things, but on top of all the others he had put in that was just to many.
I think the final straw was when in the fantasy magic and late Renaissance style setting the author had created, he specifically had a character flag down a "Hansom Cab". I specific design that was made in the mid-19th century.
I think you could be a bit more forgiving here.
While in general the earliest references to carriages for hire I can find are from the early 17th century, I don't think it's implausible that a large Renaissance style fantasy city would develop the idea of a carriage for hire.
It's likely that the author did not understand that in this case, cab is short for cabriolet which is itself a specific type of carriage and that a Hansom cab is a specific variation on a cabriolet.
It's plausible that the author, knowing cab in modern parlance as a reference to a car for hire, but not a specific type of car, and having picked up the term Hansom Cab from 19th century English fiction such as the Sherlock Holmes stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle simply thought "hansom cab" to be a generic reference to a carriage for hire.
While in general the earliest references to carriages for hire I can find are from the early 17th century, I don't think it's implausible that a large Renaissance style fantasy city would develop the idea of a carriage for hire.
If they had called it a "carriage", I would not have cared. Just as if in a fantasy world they developed a "train", and somebody then invented a "sleeping car". But to then call it a "Pullman car"? That is where the belief just goes right out the window.
It is not the use of generic terms that bothers me, it is when they use basically the "trademark name" of a specific items that I start to loose it.
And really good authors work around that, often in creative ways. But the lazy ones just do not seem to give a damn. And that book was full of them, a slew every chapter. That for me was just the final straw.
It is not the use of generic terms that bothers me, it is when they use basically the "trademark name" of a specific items that I start to loose it.
And you missed the point. When dealing with terms an author my have seen in now nearly 2 century old fiction, how reasonable is it to expect a modern author to know it's a "trademark name" rather than a generic term?
When dealing with terms an author my have seen in now nearly 2 century old fiction, how reasonable is it to expect a modern author to know it's a "trademark name" rather than a generic term?
I think it's safe to assume (at this point in the discussion) that most readers don't mine the occasional slip up, but readers ALWAYS expect author to do their homework! That's why consistency matters. It doesn't really matter which approach you take to resolving story issues, you've got to be consistent in how you apply it.
The items flagged were specifically those repeated multiple times in each chapter, not the occasional lapse. :( In those cases, it's often best to simply mark those authors under your personal 'DNR' (Do Not Read) list!
how reasonable is it to expect a modern author to know it's a "trademark name" rather than a generic term?
By doing proper research of the period involved when doing a period story. Due to the hundreds of hours I put into researching certain periods and parts of the USA during those period is why I've set a few stories in the same period and area. Having done all that research I re-use it to save doing hundreds of hours work on another period and area.
By doing proper research of the period involved when doing a period story.
But in this case, the relevant period for the story is not the period that the term in question comes from in real life and such research would not catch that the term is a trademark name and not a generic term.
But in this case, the relevant period for the story is not the period that the term in question comes from in real life and such research would not catch that the term is a trademark name and not a generic term.
I disagree, as proper research would've turned up what the name that was commonly used at that time was.
I disagree, as proper research would've turned up what the name that was commonly used at that time was.
First, we are not talking about historical fiction, but a High Fantasy story in a Renaissance style setting.
I did some google searches of my own.
For the real life Renaissance period, I couldn't find any references for a "carriage for hire". The earliest references I could find were 1600.
So no, there is no reason to expect that "proper research would've turned up what the name that was commonly used at that time was" as in real life there likely wasn't one.
So no, there is no reason to expect that "proper research would've turned up what the name that was commonly used at that time was" as in real life there likely wasn't one.
At the bare minimum the research would show that if you wanted to go somewhere in a carriage you obtained the use of one in some manner or you rode a horse or you walked.
if you wanted to go somewhere in a carriage you obtained the use of one in some manner
Which is exactly what the author in question used the term "hansom cab" to refer to, not understanding that it was actually a reference to a specific type of carriage from a more recent time period instead of a generic term for a horse drawn "taxi", which is the context in which you would encounter the term in 19th century English fiction.
And you have yet to point to any research he could have reasonably done to identify a better term.
And you have yet to point to any research he could have reasonably done to identify a better term.
"The hansom cab is a kind of horse-drawn carriage designed and patented in 1834 by Joseph Hansom, an architect from York." google hansom cab - 2 seconds.
""Renaissance" can also refer to the period, c. 1400 - c. 1600. "High Renaissance" generally refers to c. 1480 - c. 1520." Google renaissance era 2 seconds
1834 is later than 1600 - Mrs. Sullivan, 2nd grade
Carts, wagons, horses - first grade reader
1. My first encounter with the term hansom cab is from the Sherlock Holmes stories when I was much younger and from before the internet. If you don't look it up, it comes off in the context of the stories as just a reference to a horse drawn "taxi".
2. Complete miss. Not asking about research that would show the term was misused, but something to proved an acceptable replacement in context.
Fine, you object to the author using the term hansom cab like that. I'm saying it's not enough to bitch and moan that it's wrong because it's from a later period. How does the author come up with an acceptable term for the given context?
If there is no where he can go to positively find an acceptable replacement term then you aren't really objecting to the term "hansom cab", but to the introduction of the idea of a horse drawn "taxi" in a fantasy version of a Renaissance setting. At that point, I have to say, it is you whose wrong and not the author.
And you have yet to point to any research he could have reasonably done to identify a better term.
As I previously stated, he could've used the generic terms from that period. A basic research on the Hansom Cab would've ruled that out, while basic research on carriages or wagons would tell them what was invented when and thus likely to be in use.
As I previously stated, he could've used the generic terms from that period. A basic research on the Hansom Cab would've ruled that out, while basic research on carriages or wagons would tell them what was invented when and thus likely to be in use.
Not looking for a term for a different type of carriage that would fit the period, but a term for the idea of a horse drawn "taxi".
The author being complained about was likely NOT using hansom cab to refer to the specific carriage type but to refer to the generic idea of a horse drawn "taxi" (carriage for hire).
Not looking for a term for a different type of carriage that would fit the periso, but a term for the idea of a horse drawn "taxi".
A simple wikipedia search on horse drawn vehicles I did a moment ago turned up a Hackney Carriage which was a generic term used for hired vehicles in London with the first official licence issued in 1654. Since then it has been passed on to a range of London hire vehicles. For the term and licence to be in use it had to have been popular and fairly common prior to that date. Another is the Fiacre.
The term coach had been in use since the 15th century and were available for hire back then. So were small 2 person carts called dog carts.
A simple wikipedia search on horse drawn vehicles I did a moment ago turned up a Hackney Carriage which was a generic term used for hired vehicles in London with the first official licence issued in 1654.
That's what it is today. However, it likely started out has a term for just any horse drawn carriage or a category of horse drawn carriages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackney_carriage
'Hackney' is derived from the village name Hackney (now part of London). Hackney supplied horses from its surrounding meadows.[4] The word was once thought to be an anglicized derivative of French haquenée — a horse of medium size recommended for lady riders.[5]
The place-name, through its fame for its horses and horse-drawn carriages, is also the root of the Spanish word jaca, a term used for a small breed of horse[6] and the Sardinian achetta horse. The first documented hackney coach—the name later extended to the newer and smaller carriages—operated in London in 1621.
I don't see why those objecting to 'hansome cab" would find hackney any more acceptable.
The term coach had been in use since the 15th century and were available for hire back then.
But there were also privately owned coaches. Again, a Coach is a type of horse drawn passenger vehicle, not the idea of vehicle for hire taxi style.
Oh, and taxi is even more recent than hansom cab.
I don't see why those objecting to 'hansome cab" would find hackney any more acceptable.
Depends on how it is used.
The word "hack" has since become a generic term for any hired conveyance, even motor vehicles. Generally used today to refer to a taxi, it had long become separated from the original specific carriage, and came to encompass almost any kind of vehicle for hire.
In some places even had omnibus systems where the driver and vehicle could be referred to as a "hack", as they served many people at once, but had no set routes and would take people to and from wherever they needed to go, like a group taxi.
And interestingly, the name "Hackney" does not even come from the carriage, it comes from the village where many carriage horses were bred.
The original "Hackney Cab" was just a simple refinement on an older design known as a "Growler", it took the common name from the fact that most London carriage horses and carriages were made in the village of Hackney.
So call them Growlers, but that is problematical as they got that name from the sound they made on London's cobblestone streets. Or just stick to "Carriage".
The Growler became the more refined Hackney, which in turn became the even more refined Hansom (a cut down 2 wheel version of the 4 wheel growler).
Or even the word "Cabriolet", a light 2 wheel carriage, with a soft folding top. It is a generic term for all such vehicles, and the source of our word "Cab".
The word "hack" has since become a generic term for any hired conveyance, even motor vehicles.
Yes, but the object to hansom cab was not just that it was a particular type of carriage, but that it was too recent for the Renaissance context.
If you look at a lot of period mid 19th century English fiction (as in it was written mid 19th century by English authors) centered around London, they seem to use hansom cab as a generic for horse drawn taxi, similar to the way hackney was in an earlier era.
Everything else you mention seems vulnerable to the exact same objection as was originally made to hansom cab. If you go back far enough they don't originate as generic terms for the idea of horse drawn taxi and they are too recent.
I don't see why those objecting to 'hansome cab" would find hackney any more acceptable.
Because they were in use as hire transport under that term at that time.
Because they were in use as hire transport under that term at that time.
At what time? The reference period is Renaissance which ended in 1600. The first hackneys used as taxi like hire transport did not appear until the 1620s.
The term coach had been in use since the 15th century and were available for hire back
Oh, were they available for hire with a supplied driver short term like a modern taxi, or were they available for hire more like a rental car, you pay by the day and drive it yourself?
And you missed the point. When dealing with terms an author my have seen in now nearly 2 century old fiction, how reasonable is it to expect a modern author to know it's a "trademark name" rather than a generic term?
When there is a simple common word that can be used instead? It's lazy and shows a lack of attention to detail.
Yes, "Dumpster" is such a word, it is trademarked but also highly common in regular use. In fact, it is so common it is really hard to find another word to use for that concept of a large semi-fixed trash receptacle. Kleenex is also, but "tissue" is not, and a good writer should know that. Not to use "Pullman", use "sleeper car". Do not use "Colt Pistol" if the setting never had a Sam Colt. Carriage, not "Hansom".
Being a good writer (ESPECIALLY if you are creating a world to tell your story in) means you go out of your way to avoid breaking that 4th wall that ruins the immersion in the story. It would be like creating a world where Bill Gates was never more than a college drop-out poker player, and computers went a completely different way. Yet in 50 years the operating systems were called "Windows".
In most early GUI systems of 40+ years ago, we called them "Folders", "Windows" is largely a term we all adopted from Microsoft. But in a world without MS, we would like still call them "Folders", or some derivative of that.
Even into the mid-1990s, it was as likely to hear somebody say "Open the Document folder" as you would hear them say "Open the Document window". Using the language properly is a big reason why we are authors, and not doing so is just something I find hard to comprehend.
We all call the big tracked vehicles with cannons the military uses "Tanks", because of the British. Harry Turtledove in one of his alternate history books had the weapon largely developed by the Americans, who in the same logic called then "Barrels". Same thing, but where as the British called large water containers in the era "tanks", we called then "barrels".
When there is a simple common word that can be used instead? It's lazy and shows a lack of attention to detail.
And yet no one arguing that hansom cab is wrong as a generic term for horse drawn taxi in a Renaissance style High Fantasy has offered such a simple common word that can be used in the case and context at issue.
And yet no one arguing that hansom cab is wrong as a generic term for horse drawn taxi in a Renaissance style High Fantasy has offered such a simple common word that can be used in the case and context at issue.
But unless you live in say a city that has such for the tourist trade, I think "Carriage" is far more common than "Hansom". I bet less than 20% of the people even know what a "Hansom" is, myself I would just say "2 wheel carriage" even if I was talking about an actual Hansom for that very reason.
After all, when we see the classic Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty in her carriage, we do not think "Oh look, a Growler!" Or "Hackney", a more specific variant of the Growler (which is a more specific but still generic variant of "Carriage"). We think of Cinderella and her Prince riding off in a Carriage. Period.
And I do not even remember the book in question, but I want to say it was by (maybe?) Eric Flint (Philosophical Strangler maybe?), and was full of such boners. All through the first third it was like he was throwing in reference after reference that in real life was referring to a specific thing, but using them all as generic words. That by the time I got to "Hansom", I finally just threw up my hands and put the book down.
Go back to a world where the real world and created setting split after WWII. Yet you have "Windows", "CPU", "MP3", "Internet", "Walkman", "CD player", and "Mustang" all make appearances. It is just not believable, and breaks the immersion. Even if the same devices were developed, why on earth would they all have the same names as we use?
The same CONCEPT will probably be developed, but it would use different words (my Tank and Barrel statement earlier). This is why real masters of this play with that, and love creating other words to describe the same concept. They know that it would develop different.
And I do not even remember the book in question, but I want to say it was by (maybe?) Eric Flint (Philosophical Strangler maybe?), and was full of such boners. All through the first third it was like he was throwing in reference after reference that in real life was referring to a specific thing, but using them all as generic words.
Well, that is a different objection all together.
However, I think your argument that carriage would work better in the specific context for the specific purpose of meaning a "horse drawn taxi" is a bit hypocritical. All the objections you specifically raised to hansom cab would apply to carriage.
And now you claim modern readers wouldn't know what a hansom is at all, which is probably true, but why doesn't that make it more suitable for being repurposed the way the author did rather than less?
However, I think your argument that carriage would work better in the specific context for the specific purpose of meaning a "horse drawn taxi" is a bit hypocritical. All the objections you specifically raised to hansom cab would apply to carriage.
No, because a Hansom cab is normally something completely different.
It is like the difference between a Colt 1911 and a S&W .38 Police Special. Yes, both are guns and shoot bullets, but the differences are much larger than just that. Or confusing a Springfield M1903 with an M16, even though both are rifles.
Hansom was a carriage maker, not all "Hansom" carriages were used as cabs. They were also popular with doctors, which is why in the US 2 wheel carriages and cabriolets were often called "Doctor Gigs".
Your argument would be like saying all Limousines were "Caddilacs", no matter who made them.
In most early GUI systems of 40+ years ago, we called them "Folders", "Windows" is largely a term we all adopted from Microsoft. But in a world without MS, we would like still call them "Folders", or some derivative of that.
The X Windowing System, where I get my windows from, is older than Microsoft Windows. Bill Gates did not invent windows.
The X Windowing System, where I get my windows from, is older than Microsoft Windows. Bill Gates did not invent windows.
X11 or X Window was started in 1985 roughly the same time as Windows 1.0 from Microsoft.
Lisa from Apple is the first GUI system to use the term 'Window' and 'Folder'. Windows and X11 called folders 'Directories'.
The Alto from Xerox that inspired the Lisa and later the Mac didn't use 'window' they used panes and directories also.
Lisa from Apple is the first GUI system to use the term 'Window' and 'Folder'. Windows and X11 called folders 'Directories'.
This is a holdout because ultimately they all descend back to Unix. CPM was a UNIX clone, MS-DOS was a CPM clone. And the first several generations of Windows were just shells that ran on top of DOS. It was not until NT 3 (which was itself a copy of OS/2) that it finally became its own full-blown OS.
The X Windowing System, where I get my windows from, is older than Microsoft Windows. Bill Gates did not invent windows.
I know that, Xerox did.
And it did not adapt the name "X-Windows" until years later. In the early days it was just called "X". And there was VMX Workstation, GEOS, GEM, and a slew of others.
I never stated he invented it, just that most of us use terms his company popularized. Bill stole the concept from the same place Steve Jobs stole his. Xerox.
Xerox did.
Did you ever see "Revenge of the Nerds" (I think that's what it was called. When I googled it I found a stupid teen movie) about the Xerox lab and everything they invented there? It's amazing how many companies came out of it and Xerox got nothing.
Xerox PARC has been in large part responsible for such developments as laser printing, Ethernet, the modern personal computer, graphical user interface (GUI) and desktop paradigm, object-oriented programming, ubiquitous computing, electronic paper, amorphous silicon (a-Si) applications, the mouse and advancing very-large-scale integration (VLSI) for semiconductors.
It's amazing how many companies came out of it and Xerox got nothing.
At least with their original Unix GUI X, as I understand it, their research lab put it out as "hey this is cool", but Xerox wasn't actually interested in developing it as a commercial product.
At least with their original Unix GUI X, as I understand it, their research lab put it out as "hey this is cool", but Xerox wasn't actually interested in developing it as a commercial product.
They did research it as a commercial product, the Alto, then later as the Star. Lines of very successful minicomputers, highly popular in the engineering community, and costing around $100k each.
Back then, computers fell into basically 1 of 3 classifications. Mainframes, where you had a powerful central computer with a lot of "dumb terminals" hooked up to it, costing into the millions of dollars.
Then you had "Minicomputers", essentially stripped down mainframes, mostly dedicated for a specific purpose and costing in the range of $100k each.
Then finally the "Microcomputers". The IMSAI 8080, MITS Altair 8800, Commodore PET, Apple II, and the like. Costing around $2k, none of the "Big Boys" saw this as any threat, this is what garage hobbiests worked with, and nobody took them seriously. And even Xerox knew there was no way they could copy this "cool concept" they had developed.
And they were right, it took over a decade before Apple and MS were able to copy what they had done. And they actually did it 2 different ways. Apple most closely copied Xerox, in combining hardware and software to make the Lisa (then Mac). Microsoft went a completely different way, doing it entirely in code. That is why Windows could work on almost any computer (even the 8086-8088), while the Lisa-Mac required a specific high end platform to run.
It is hard for most who were not around then to understand what a "wild west" the industry was in that era. They all made up the rules as they went along, and the "big boys" largely sat back and laughed. They just knew that those small computers would never be of any importance.
Did you ever see "Revenge of the Nerds" (I think that's what it was called. When I googled it I found a stupid teen movie) about the Xerox lab and everything they invented there? It's amazing how many companies came out of it and Xerox got nothing.
Triumph of the Nerds is what you are thinking of.
And Xerox did get something. You have to realize, that was a very different era. In those days, everybody copied from everybody. And none of the "Bog Boys" (IBM, HP, DEC, Xeroc) thought there was any market in selling computers to "people".
The first Apple was actually designed when Steve Wozniak was an employee at HP, and he had to offer the computer to them first. Nobody at HP saw the point of the small computer for home users, and turned it down. The Palo Alto Research Center at Xerox was more of a "Think Tank", and created a great many innovations in the industry (GUI, Mouse, Object Oriented Programming, Laser Printers, Networking, even modern microprocessors.
But in the mindset of Xerox and others at the time, those were just concepts, and others were welcome to copy them. Hence, the famous quote by Gates after Jobs screamed he "stole the Macintosh". Gates quipped that it was like Jobs had gone into a neighbor's house to steal his TV, and found Gates already walking away with it.
And Xerox did get something, it was an industry leader in "Minicomputers" for well over a decade. The "Big Three" in minicomputers at the time was IBM, DEC and Xerox. WIth other companies like HP, TI, CDC, and others rounding out the others. Minicomputers typically cost around $25k (as opposed to $250k+ for a mainframe), and none of those companies saw any use or reason for a small computer costing less than $2k. HP gave away the Apple, Xerox gave away almost all their concepts, even IBM gave away the keys to the success of their PC by letting Microsoft sell their OS to anybody who wanted it (which was not unique, MS made the operating system for almost all the early 8 bit comptuers, from Apple II and Commodore VIC-20 and 64 to Atari, TI and the rest).
Xerox did quite well, it is just like the rest of the industry that they vastly underestimated the true power and scope of what computers in the home would really mean.
"Pullman car"
A car with chambers for prostitutes who give hand jobs could be called a pull man car.
If time travel is involved and the character uttering the phrase came from recent times, then yes.
What language are the characters supposed to be speaking?
As an example, in the latter stories of Crumbly Writer's 'Not Quite Human' series, the characters spoke a variety of languages yet 'used' some very florid English expressions. Some speech was also reported in broken English.
If you take the view that the story has been translated to modern English by a narrator, is it wrong to use modern terminological expressions that the characters wouldn't have known?
AJ
As an example, in the latter stories of Crumbly Writer's 'Not Quite Human' series, the characters spoke a variety of languages yet 'used' some very florid English expressions. Some speech was also reported in broken English.
If you take the view that the story has been translated to modern English by a narrator, is it wrong to use modern terminological expressions that the characters wouldn't have known?
That was an essential piece of the NQH narrative, that their alien nanobots did the translations on the fly in each character's own brain, as the subatomic AI units made connections between different species by triggering the closest memory in each individual's memories. So, rather than being a story breaker (I had plenty of those all my own in the series), it was a central element throughout the story. Thus it fits in with Mushrooms 'creative ways' of avoiding those issues. It took a LONG TIME to develop that alternate story theme, and to not only introduce it early, but to keep it front and center throughout the entire story.
Sometimes, the most superficial and connived parts of the story are often the most difficult to pull off, especially if you rely on science as a basis of the story, rather than the traditional 'magical' effect used in most stories.
What language are the characters supposed to be speaking?
All the sentient species so far speak 'Common'.
Come on now, it's not about "trademarks" - it's about the level of awareness on the part of the author of something called "history".
To ignore it shows that the author is unaware or uncaring - or both.
Let's say I write about Queen Victoria talking on the telephone. I didn't actually know if Queen Victoria had a phone, but the time period is about right (awareness). So I look it up*, and sure enough, she did talk on a phone with Alexander Bell. It's history.
(*I don't have to look this up if I'm writing about Marco Polo, or about Neil Armstrong.
I gots me some education!)
Or I could be unaware that people didn't always have phones, and have her use her cell phone to call the Prime Minister for a chat. Don't think this won't be noticed!
The third alternative is that I just don't care enough about the readers to bother trying to make the story believable. Show no respect, get no respect.
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it, - George Santayana
...and write stories that readers will lose interest in. - Me
lose interest
I skimmed the updates to this thread very quickly and initially interpreted that as 'love incest'.
AJ
I skimmed the updates to this thread very quickly and initially interpreted that as 'love incest'.
Well, there was mention of Queen Victoria in my post, and it is apparent that she did, in fact, have a love of incest. History, once again:
"The famous Queen of England like to match her children with royalty from other European countries and as a result, Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries was pretty much a family business." Science Times
The famous Queen of England like to match her children with royalty from other European countries
That didn't start with Victoria. Prince Albert was her first cousin. His father was Victoria's mother's brother, Victoria's uncle.
It's a fantasy story. Anything and everything is viable dependent upon the setup. For instance; setting comes a long while after an apocalypse. Then there is time travel, alien ships, dragons, elephants, large beast with flaming catapults on them, ad nauseam. Any one of which could justify the existence of the idiom.
That said, I'm not sure it would be worth it. Unless you're a master at story weaving, it will more than likely detract from the story rather than add to it.