Using artistic licence in writing

[Brian G Turner]

So, despite my otherwise normal dedication to trying to strive to all things "real" via historical research, I find myself hitting a question of artistic licence.

Before the age of gunpowder, the word "Fire!" meant there was probably a fire. You did not "fire" a weapon, because there was no gunpowder weapon to produce a flash of fire upon use.

So when using a bow, you did not release to "fire!" but instead to "loose!" or "shoot!".

I'm presuming similar applies to siege weapons, even though various types of catapults were designed to fire pots of burning oil or pitch (and of course there's the infamous "Greek Fire" of the ancient to Byzantine period).

And yet ... and yet, I can't get it out of my head that shouting "Fire!" may have a more dramatic effect in conjunction with a company of bowmen, or a line of trebuchets, about to "loose".

Perhaps if the arrows are tipped with burning pitch, perhaps if the trebuchets are firing flaming projectiles ....

I don't know - I find myself actually thinking more on the effect on a reader at the expense of adherence to historical realism - and whether I should seriously consider applying artistic licence.

I'll probably go with the historical (I've come this far with it - heck, I'm literally signing up with a major reenactment group), and I'm not asking for advice - more raising the discussion that sometimes it may actually be more pertinent to think on what impacts the reader more - and whether anyone here ever struggles with subverting issues of what they may regard as realism for impact?

 

[thaddeus6th]

Bows don't play a major role in my WIP, but there is a scene or two where they're used. I think I'd only used "fire" once in that context so the change was pretty minor.

It is an interesting question, though. Another is the role of a Constable. In medieval land this was a very senior position in a kingdom, but if I had one in my book after this then it would sound faintly ridiculous to me (and perhaps readers too).

The major advantage of fantasy (and sci-fi) is the ability to make up what you like and discard what you don't. Not unlike the laws of piracy, historical accuracy should perhaps be considered more like guidelines.

 

[The Judge]

To me, artistic licence is when you create a situation which didn't happen in an otherwise historical reality eg Elizabeth meeting Mary, Queen of Scots, or the Reconquista taking place over about 30 years instead of nearly 300. I can forgive that for the dramatic power it can bring to a book or film. (Though I'd like a disclaimer at the end, as Bernard Cornwell does in his Sharpe books when he alters what actually happened.)

I don't see the point of fudging things for something minor which doesn't affect the shape or feel of the overall book, though, if everything else is going to be as accurate as possible.

With regard to the actual problem here, I think "Loose!" sounds odd to us because it isn't in common parlance, but if you've had the archers loose at non-urgent times, and got the reader into the feel of the era, it will work. Admittedly it's a little less imposing because of the shape and sibilance of the word itself, and "Shoot!" sounds like someone wanting to swear but unable to say "Sh*t!"!! "Fire!" appears more natural to our ears, since that's what we always hear, but I don't know that it would actually be any more dramatic than "Now!" which is historically plausible.

Basically, in a choice between realism and not, I'd go for realism unless it's important -- but I try and make sure I take the reader with me.

 

[Brian G Turner]

"Loose!" sounds odd to us because it isn't in common parlance ... "Shoot!" sounds like someone wanting to swear ... "Fire!" appears more natural to our ears, since that's what we always hear

Exactly - something to juggle with.

I *do* like the suggestion of warming up the reader to a term, so it doesn't jolt them from the drama of a situation, though.

 

[Juliana]

Loose sounds a lot more dramatic if you preface it with omething like 'ready, aim...'

 

[HareBrain]

With regard to the actual problem here, I think "Loose!" sounds odd to us because it isn't in common parlance

Becoming more so, though. Half the internet seems intent on making it a synonym for mislay.

Using "fire!" would have more of a dramatic effect for me -- I'd hurl the book across the room.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

As long as it is in context and the meaning is clear i see no issue with using loose or shoot.

 

[AMB]

Becoming more so, though. Half the internet seems intent on making it a synonym for mislay.

Is that what they are doing? I thought they were setting all manner of things free to roam about the internet. Yours makes more sense, considering how many of these things are inanimate, intangible or on the odd occasion ephemeral.


Brian, if you warm the readers up, perhaps say "loose arrows" or something at first, so that when it comes to the actiony bits and they just cry "loose" the suggestion of what is being loosed is is there, carrying the phrase in the mind.

 

[prizzley]

Firing (guns) started earlier than you might think. The OED online is useful for "aging" words and phrases.

I agree with the vote for "fire!" It has more impact. Although I think when I had this problem, the shout was 'now!' plus an arm signal.

 

[ratsy]

How about...ready...aim..release!

 

[Biskit]

Firing (guns) started earlier than you might think. The OED online is useful for "aging" words and phrases.

I agree with the vote for "fire!" It has more impact. Although I think when I had this problem, the shout was 'now!' plus an arm signal.

I used to do English Civil War battle reenactments, and occasional helped out with the artillery. The order there, taken from the 17th century, was "Give fire", which has presumably been shortened to the modern "Fire".

I never played with the muskets, but I seem to recall that they used the same order. Basically, dip the glowing end of your slowmatch into the powder in the pan or touch-hole and, for the musketeers, try not to set fire to the poor ****** in front of you.

 

[The Judge]

Firing (guns) started earlier than you might think. The OED online is useful for "aging" words and phrases.

16th century, according to the etymology site I use [my bolding]:

fire (v.) c.1200, furen, figurative, "arouse, excite;" literal sense of "set fire to" is from late 14c., from fire (n.). The Old English verb fyrian "to supply with fire" apparently did not survive into Middle English.

The sense of "sack, dismiss" is first recorded 1885 in American English (earlier "throw (someone) out" of some place, 1871), probably from a play on the two meanings of discharge: "to dismiss from a position," and "to fire a gun," fire in the second sense being from "set fire to gunpowder," attested from 1520s. Of bricks, pottery, etc., from 1660s.

I'm surprised the pottery use is so late.

 

[Toby Frost]

Personally, I much prefer entertainment over "historical" accuracy. For one thing, you can't accurately duplicate the speech of, say, the medieval times without losing a lot of the flow of conversation owing to strangeness. Therefore all dialogue in fantasy really has to be a compromise. If "Fire!" is more exciting than "Loose!", I'd choose "Fire!" every time, although if "Shoot!" was an option I'd go for that in preference to either.

Now I think about it, to me the important thing is to avoid obvious modernisms and/or Americanisms. Once you cut out all the slang, old chap, making the dialogue much like that of a British novel from somewhere between 1890 and 1950 (a long time!) seems to be a good way to go. Of course, there are certain concepts that don't work, such as teenagers, public schools of the Hogwarts variety and so on. If you do introduce them, then I think you've got to provide good reasons as to why and how they exist.

 

[HareBrain]

Personally, I much prefer entertainment over "historical" accuracy. For one thing, you can't accurately duplicate the speech of, say, the medieval times without losing a lot of the flow of conversation owing to strangeness. Therefore all dialogue in fantasy really has to be a compromise. If "Fire!" is more exciting than "Loose!", I'd choose "Fire!" every time, although if "Shoot!" was an option I'd go for that in preference to either.

But it isn't just a case of modernising the language to make it flow better. The comand "fire!" relating to missiles comes from -- not very amazingly -- the use of fire. For archers to use it pre-gunpowder would be like a horseman "stamping on the pedal" to get his steed to go faster, or (if one were not avoiding Americanisms) "giving it some gas".

Edit: obviously there has to be a line somewhere. It might not be possible to avoid all words or phrases that derive from ideas or technology that post-date the period in which the story is set, but I think using ones that obviously post-date the setting is risky.

 

[Juliana]

I can easily picture someone shouting "Archers.... LOOSE!" (voice crescendo, etc)

If the rest of the work is historically accurate, I really think you need to work with the proper terms. If the reader is sufficiently caught up in the story, surely it will sound exciting, even without fire?

 

[chrispenycate]

There - and I thought "Fire!" was a contraction of "Fire in the hole!", which actually predates artillery – well, cannons and the like, I suppose an onager is field artillery – and was used with petards and sappers mining charges.

And, if you were going for an arrow storm, would you "Draw…aim…loose?", or just "Draw…loose!"?

Surely, if it were pitch balls or flaming arrows, the "Fire" command would come when you applied the blazing torch to it, or dipped it it into the firepot, ie. when you actually set fire to it, not when you sent it on it's merry way ("let the grey gulls fly", though why "guls when they were generally goose-fletched, I don't know).

 

[Coragem]

The another day I had a chat with a friend. I had bought him The Lions of Al-Rassan for his birthday. He read it straight after Shogun by James Clavell.

Basically, The Lions of Al-Rassan fell a little flat for him because Shogun goes to such great pains to be accurate, pulling together so much Japanese culture and language. In comparison, in Lions everyone speaks sort of "Canadian".

I see his point. If you're aiming at a discerning/adult readership I would think twice before cutting any corners. See it as a challenge – find ways to be as or more dramatic without compromising on realism.

Coragem.

 

[Bowler1]

I'm with HB and many others, the use of "fire" for arrows would have me throwing the book away, or, with most poor books, disappearing under my bed half read. Setting up the reader with an action word, as in arrow training/practise (I hope that's clear) earlier in the book would be fine and you could use what ever word you like. But I do associate fire with guns. Anyway, what's wrong with loose?

Yes Shogun, I've read it three times, every five years or so. A great book, it even breaks the writing rules on head hopping - rule breaking with style, so I loved it.

 

[Beef]

I don't know what the issue is, 'loose' sounds better than 'fire' regardless of historical accuracy.

 

[Boneman]

But unless you're actually setting the book in Medieval England, I'd go with 'fire!' and say that in your world, that's how they learnt it...

Do you know the story about the Island monkeys? Although the debunkers went to great lengths to try and prove it didn't happen, it's become folklore apocryphal now, which has got to be worth something and often quoted by people who claim to have been ripped off of ideas by other writers (did on every scriptwriting course I ever did, anyway!). Goes like this: on one particular Island some monkeys used to wash the potatoes (although I heard it as coconuts!) in the sea, but not others. When a transformation figure was reached, apparently ALL the monkeys started doing it. And not only, that but monkeys on other islands started doing it - a kind of universal consciousness...

It may be wrong, but it's pretty universally accepted (except by the truly discerning cogniscenti) that you can yell "Fire!" when archers have drawn back and we'll all expect a flight of arrows to wing their way on their mortal path. Okay, that isn't what happened back in days of yore, but honestly, the story's the thing isn't it? Some readers will say "They never said that in the old days, I must write and correct this man" and you'll have done them a great personal service by empowering them with your words - they will feel wonderful about correcting you, (even though planet Erthmea, where your story is set, never had a 15th century...) and their lives will be a little brighter for days after. That's pretty good for a book, innit?

You could stir up some great publicity by getting Ye Olde English Historical Societies to attack you for not being 'accurate' and they'd completely miss the mark - but more people will buy it to see what the fuss is about!