Skip to main content

Writing alien English

I've never had the need to write fiction set in the US - but if I ever do, it will be with trepidation, because handling alien English is a lot harder than it looks. I have written non-fiction for a US market, and even there it's easy to get tripped up.

It's not the obvious stuff - colour or color, and writing 'a purse' instead of 'a handbag' - it's the subtle cultural use of words and objects. I have been caught out, for instance, when describing action at a distance, saying it's a bit like a coconut shy. Luckily, my American editor picked out this non-translating term.

One of my favourite crime writers is Elizabeth George. Her Inspector Lynley books are very well written - but I can't help spotting cultural misfits. I'm yet to read one where something hasn't slipped through.

One that happens time and again is that she has people writing on yellow legal pads, unheard of in the UK.

What triggered all this was last night's episode of the US TV show Bones, set in London. This follows a long tradition of US shows coming to visit (anyone remember the Beverley Hillbillies coming to the UK?) and inevitably it was ripe with things to go wrong in the script.

But this is something I find puzzling. When an author gets it wrong, it needs an editor, or a friendly reader of the country it's set in to spot it - and it's easy to miss something if the writing's good and you are powering through. But on TV, an actor has to say the words - and I don't understand why the English actors in the Bones episode didn't point out the flaws.

There was a little bit of the 'prithy, gentle knight' effect - the English DI, for instance, was much too precise in her use of English. But the worst example was a student who twice said that a property developer was intending to build a 'condo' on a Bronze Age site. This word isn't part of the British English vocabulary. So either the actress didn't think, or the director ignored her pointing out that it was totally out of character. Either way, someone made the wrong call.

Comments

  1. The English DI also said gotten! I watched this last night - cringeworthy. I'll be glad when they're back on their home turf :-). Can you get a H reg mini as a hire car? Though it did provide the funniest line of the show I thought - "getting out of here is like being born" (or similar).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense