Words Before Their Time

I can really be a nitpicker about grammar, stylistic approaches and, quite often, words—especially in historical fiction. I try really hard to use the proper words. I don't mean words to convey a proper meaning, but words that would have been in usage at the time of my historical fiction. I posted about this in the GITP blog last year, but in my recent work with two historical manuscripts, I've found more words used before their time.

In Hammer Come Down , a person talks about the workout with his horse. Workout? The story takes place in 1836. I checked my Merriam-Webster. Workout became general usage around 1894. I don't hold strictly to the M-W time dates, but they list dates pretty close to realistic times. e-mail and cyberspace, for instance, are dated at 1982. If my Hammer story was set in the 1890s I might let it go. I figure the word could have been in use for 2 - 5 years prior to its date in M-W. But 1830 to 1890 is too much of a jump.

I had already dropped sawbucks (circa 1850) for saddle packs or panniers, but I frowned over bedroll. Ach! A word from around 1867. Too far out for my 1836 story.

I imagine I've missed several words that should have been changed, but I've been particularly sensitive and diligent with the Hammer story because it's told in first person. In a third person presentation I might let words in narration slide; but when the only voice is that of my 1836 character, I’ve tried hard to not have him saying words he wouldn’t have known.Am I being too picky? Do other historical fiction writers do this? Do readers care?




Visit the Event Listing to see more about this book.

Release Date 17 October