So the other day, as I was writing, I decided that mages in my novel were snidely going to refer to non-mages as 'mundanes' occasionally, usually to be rude. Today I found out that Shadowhunters is a thing, and they call their normal humans Mundanes. Is that going to be a problem for me at some point? Or can I stick with it and move on with my life? I'm not certain how copyrighting works, or how it pertains to terminology in books and series, so I don't know at what point coincidental similarities becomes a problem.
I've not come across Shadowhunters, but I have come across the word mundanes in other series, used in the same way you intone. Just my non-attorney opinion, but since no one is actually coining this term (it's a real word with the meaning already in place), it may not feel original, but I think it's fine to use. Another example in your favor: In the Divergent series, I don't think that Veronica Roth can claim the term Factions as hers. It's too general a term. Not long ago I mentioned that in the TV series The Magicians, I was astonished to hear them refer to non-magicking types as muggles. Now that is a coined word, created by Rowling, that I would personally feel to be a no-no. The word did not exist prior to her penning it.
If its a word your dead set on and it fits what you want to say then say it, theres so many instances of this in novelisation im sure that (with a few exceptions) allowances have to exist. What i tend to do if i find out i have been using a term that i find out is well known is put it into an online thesaurus.....haha i just did Mundane:- banal, commonplace, day-to-day, earthly, everyday, humdrum*, lowly, normal, prosaic, routine, workaday, workday, worldly Not the best examples i know but a good idea....prosaic's?? Not to bad
I wouldn't use the word Mundanes for describing common folk for two reasons... it's been done before, and it isn't particularly clever to begin with. It seems contrived to me, whereas Muggles is original and one might imagine it actually being coined as a term for non-magical people. My vote goes for changing Mundanes to something original, and better.
Maybe you could use a common word, but shorten it for most of the book, like: Mundanes= muds, or Ordinaries=ords, or something like that to make the term more yours.
That's exactly what I would do. Let's face it, it's what we do in real life when we mean to demean others. The term should be derogatory, colorful, even a bit ugly and have some weight behind it.
Well, I can't be sure that in Fantastic Beasts the American wizards mean 'No-Maj' as an insult rather than just a descriptor, but I thought that was the dumbest thing in the world. I see where you're going with it, though, and I'll think about that. EDIT:: I posted this at 4 my time, it's now 8:00 and I've just realized it didn't quote the guy Iain was quoting. -_- my brain is not comprehending the steps required to fix the problem, so just do me a solid and pretend it worked the first time.
In the Society for Creative Anachronism, they've been using the term "mundanes" for the last forty years to distinguish people outside the society from those inside it. By extension, they call everyday clothes "mundanes" to distinguish them from the costumes (or "garb") they wear while participating in SCA activities. (Example: "I just saw Sir Kevin, but he was still in mundanes, so I'd guess he isn't finished setting up yet.") There's no connotation of superiority or inferiority. It's just an indication for the SCAdian that there''s a separation from their everyday lives and their activities within the SCA. So in using this word, I think you're safe.
OT: Reminds me of the time I went to a photoshoot for my local RenFaire. Introduced myself (I'm a girl) to one of our Lords, went back to my car, came back dressed as a dude pirate complete with mustache. He was very confused. Back on topic, I appreciate the perspective.
Telepaths referred to non-telepaths as mundanes in Babylon 5. In the Night Watch series, non-Others are just that. My vote says to find an original term they works within the context of your story's universe.
I don't think you can avoid using terminology that other people already use, unless you're planning to invent an entirely new language . . . which would make it difficult for the rest of us to read the books, right? If you're basing off of a concept that already exists and has a name, then it's unavoidable that someone else, somewhere, is going to have used that word at some point. Don't stress yourself too badly about the need to be completely original and different in ideas, settings, terminology, whatever. There's nothing new under the sun, except for your own personal take on those things. As for the word "mundanes", that's actually a commonly-used term for people outside of a certain group, so there's nothing wrong with using it exactly that way. The Society for Creative Anachronism, for example, typically refers to non-Society people as "mundanes" and their own everyday life as "mundane life" (albeit usually without the snarkiness). It's certainly not going to be plagiarism or anything, any more than making reference to bread is plagiarism simply because lots of other writers have already had characters who were bakers. It's not like you were going to call them muggles, or something.
Sometimes an original word in fiction becomes a generally accepted term in the real world. The classic example is "waldoes" and the arch-coiner in modern times is Heinlein ( "grok" - ugh!); Asimov's laws of robotics have been pretty much universally adopted, and the same can be said of mundanes, since Babylon 5 has so widely popularized it. There is undoubtedly some Star Trek vocabulary floating free, as well. I would have no compunction about using any of those terms - but only in the same way as the original - as a sort of homage. If I made up my own world, I would use terminology specific to that world and its culture, rather than jolt the reader out of the mood I'd so painstakingly created, with an echo from some other writer's world.
Very true. I think it depends largely on how much the terminology in question is associated primarily WITH THAT WORLD. "Grok", however much sci-fi geeks use it in their everyday lives, is not common English, and likely never will be. It will always immediately put the listener (presuming he knows his fiction) in mind of Heinlein. Likewise "warp speed" and Star Trek, which is one of many reasons why other writers don't use it in regards to space travel. Mundane, on the other hand, is an actual English word that has been in common usage, albeit as an adjective rather than a noun, for centuries. That's why so many diverse people and groups have adopted it to refer to specific things they find common and boring. You can certainly invent a word (again, like muggle) that your group would use to refer to people other than themselves, because people certainly do that. But since that word would, in essence, mean "mundane", there's no reason they wouldn't simply use "mundane" itself, as so many people already have. It's really six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other as far as I can see. I would also like to point out that the examples I gave are associated very specifically with their sources precisely because they WERE invented terms. "Grok" isn't an actual word, and while "warp" and "speed" are both real words, they weren't combined as a phrase until Gene Roddenberry, so far as I know.
True enough on all counts. I'd still have some concern regarding the psychological jarring. I's not a huge stretch to assume that readers of sci-fi/fantasy are likely to have encountered your [successful, popular] predecessors when you are writing in their favourite genre.
Oh, I'm sure. People who will literally buy anything with a rocket on it, or with an elf on it, or whatever, are the all-important core of any FSF writer's finances. But that is one reason why I think a word like "mundanes" will NOT be that jarring: because those self-same people are the ones most likely to have encountered it in many different places, including in real life, and are the ones most likely to consider it a common usage word. On the other hand, making up new words is fraught with its own dangers of jarring the reader out of the world. First, because it is NOT a real word and familiar, it will automatically stop the normal skim of the eye and thoughts over the words, requiring the reader to stop and puzzle out how it's pronounced and what it means. If it's too awkward and cumbersome, it is going to have that effect every time it appears and very quickly become like a pebble in the reader's shoe. I've been known to stop reading books in the first chapter simply because the author peppered it with all manner of faked-up words and names that were very irritating and often didn't seem to really need to be there.
