(Admittedly that exclamation point is a bit of a stretch even for the
most linguisitically kinky of souls, but effort of excitement must be made by
one of us. This morning, the burden is mine. You’re welcome.)
If you recall, I’ve had a bit of a struggle with the melding of
technically accurate late Colonial/Revolutionary War-era manners of speech with
what today’s reading audience wants out of their historic romance. (Speaking of
burdens, my perfectionist/OCD-tendencies are huge, honking weights when it
comes to these “technical” decisions. Just saying.)
Anyhow, most of that drama has passed as I’ve found a nice, comfy
median in which to tuck myself. (Alas, there was no “Eureka!” moment I can
share with you. It just sort of happened one day.)
However, the question of contractions remains. The colonials didn’t use
them. Beyond the “twixt” and “tis” and like, they weren’t lazy enough to use “can’t”
and “don’t.” Fine and dandy for them, not so peachy for modern day audiences.
While I’m aware many authors do stick stringently to this No
Contractions clause, I do not. If a contraction makes a piece of dialogue
stronger, crisper, more effectual in driving up emotion, I use it. At those
moments, I don’t want the reader tripping over words. I want all their
attention on the action, the romance, the angst of the story.
Is this selfish of me?
Is this right or wrong?
Am I once again making mountains out of mole hills?
Who knows? I’ll keep you updated if enlightenment suddenly strikes.
Until tomorrow…
Chloe
No comments:
Post a Comment