As I'm working on my rough draft and starting to shape the plot and the themes, I started researching for my world building and I found the meaning of the word "Outlaw." Now, most people confuse "outlaw" with "fugitive" and they simply aren't the same. Outlaws are people who are "outside the law" which means that they do not enjoy the protection of the law. It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is actively searching for them, but it does mean that if someone should happen to kill them, that individual would not be found guilty of murder. If someone would happen to rob them, then they have no recourse. I also faced this problem with my last novel when I used the term "prince." Most people thought the term "prince" meant that an individual was the son or daughter of an reigning king and that's simply not true. So, my question is, how do you "reclaim" terms that are misunderstood by the general audiences? Do you just make up new terms, or do you spend time explaining it? Do you utilize context clues? And how successful have you been in those techniques?
Can you clarify why the broader or uncommon denotation of those words matter to your story? I don't know why the accepted definition of the words wouldn't be the ones to expect a reader to interpret.
Why? Because that's simply what they are. I can't change the word "prince" to "noble" or "count" or "duke" or whatever because those don't properly describe the characters' position in society. And plus, it wouldn't solve the problem. Because people would still look at that and say, "I dOn'T UNderSTanD whY a dUKe wOULd hAvE An aRMy." Because they had armies. Same with the word "outlaw." There is no other word, aside from the real meaning of the word outlaw, that would better describe the particular position the main character holds in society. There's not another word in common language, because this concept of outlaw simply does not exist in our society! We don't have a system where anyone exists "outside the law" in that way. So the original meaning has fallen out of use, but it is a perfect description of the situation my MC finds himself in.
I don't see it as much of a problem. Explain it once where it matters and then trust to the reader to remember that this is the definition he has to go from while reading your story. You're not in the business of correcting their assumptions. However, you need to take them into account as to adjust them within the confines of your story. Maybe your readers will remember later when they've finished with your story, but maybe they won't .
I don't know where you are writing from, or about, but it can't be the United States. In the U.S. the laws prohibiting murder don't have an exception that says it is illegal to kill someone -- unless that person is a criminal. Likewise, the laws against robbery don't have an exception that makes it okay to rob criminals. Want proof? A couple or three years ago, a pharmacist shot and wounded a young man who tried to rob his store with a gun. Leaving the wounded robber on the floor, the pharmacist then rushed outside in pursuit of a second robber, but that person escaped. The pharmacist thereupon came back into the store, switched to a second gun, and proceeded to finish off the wounded robber. According to you, the pharmacist would not be prosecuted. What actually happened is that he was convicted of murder and is in prison. As to your story -- what time period is it set in? At least in the United States we stopped using the term "outlaw" sometime around the end of the 19th century. Most Americans today have encountered the term only in the context of cowboy movies and the Robin Hood legend. Today, and for at least most of the 20th century, the terms used to refer to those you call "outlaws" would be "criminal," "gangster," "mobster," "crook," "felon," and perhaps a few others.
I agree with @Lifeline . In a novel I might come across various words I don't know their meaning at all, either I somewhat know. If the word used is a plot driver for the story and I'm so troubled by it I search for its meaning by myself and move on. Usually though, even without googling a word you get its definition merely by context inside the story. You don't have to footnote every single thing. I mean prince, duke, marquis are pretty common. If there is a story behind why someone is a prince or why they became a marquis it can be a part of the main story anyways. Self explanatory. Even outlaw is pretty common. Whenever I hear this word I tend to think of the wild west or something of the kind. Makes a sci-fi opera more of a spaghetti opera. To sum it up, if your story is interesting the reader won't find it troublesome to search by him/herself some word definitions. It won't put them off even when they have to rethink about what a word's specific meaning is. Not so confusing from my pov.
No other word? Criminal, felon, lawbreaker, perpetrator, crook, gangster, mobster, scofflaw, malefactor, offender, ... Do you own a thesaurus? That said, it "outlaw" is the word that fits the situation and the context best, then use "outlaw."
Let's suppose I was writing a dystopian novel where non-citizens aren't given the protection of the law. I would just explain that and be done with it. Then use the term "non-citizen" throughout.
None of those words fit the situation that kallisto describes. They all describe someone who has broken the law, not someone who is not afforded the protection of the law.
Assuming that the 'people' in the thread title are your readers, I wonder why you would insist on using non-standard definitions of certain words, which could only confuse the people you're trying to communicate with. To me, a 'prince' is either a son of a king or queen, or a hell of a nice guy. If you're going to use the word to refer to a three-legged cat, you should probably tell me that going in.
Or the son of a crown prince (cf Prince Harry) or the ruler of a principality (cf Prince Albert of Monaco) or the son of a duke or royal prince (cf Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie).
Yes, of course, but some sort of second-generation royalty. My point, however poorly I made it, was that the OP didn't actually tell us how he/she is using the word.
Unless your book takes place in some time where the specific definition of 'outlaw' was widely used and you need for it to be historically accurate, I'd make up some word like @Naomasa298 said. Maybe in your story the word 'pariah' is an official designation by the government for such people.
The Unites States isn't the only place in the world. Just sayin' Do you own an Atlas? Google Maps? Wikipedia? A history book? A nursery rhyme book? Watch Robin Hood? Maybe even Men in Tights?
Wow. This thread is entirely the embodiment of exactly my frustration of looking for words to describe social constructs that are simply not used anymore or understood in modern times. So, we don't really have a modern word to describe these constructs because we don't need one! I have one guy whose throwing out random words like "Criminal, felon, lawbreaker, perpetrator, crook, gangster, mobster, scofflaw, malefactor, offender, ..." because he thinks they mean the same as outlaw. But those words completely miss the mark. He's assuming the character was a lawbreaker and thus an "outlaw" because that's how we always understood it. Because in the United States, you became an outlaw by breaking the law, so yes, it would be equivalents to the word "felon" for example. However, that is not how the word was always used. The actual social construct I'm describing is when an individual loses protection of the law, which dates back to Roman times as this is what happened to Christ. When Pontius Pilot washed his hands, he was making Christ an outlaw. Meaning he wasn't going to punish Christ anymore than he already had, but he wasn't going to protect him either. Doesn't necessarily mean that individual has done anything wrong as far as harming his or her fellow man. He could have simply offended the wrong person or broken a social taboo. I mean, what did Robin Hood do to become an outlaw? It's an old form of exile where basically society has said, "Well, we don't really exile you, but are going to let people do to you whatever they want and you can't come to us for help." And in the sense of prince and princess, that's where it gets extra confusing because there isn't just one term for it. Everyone is citing the English royal structure, but there is also the structure of the Holy Roman Empire which is the inspiration for how I wrote my book. The Princes in the Holy Roman Empire were basically kings in their own domains and acted as electors to the empire. But since the empire itself was relatively powerless, the Princes held all the power. This was also well understood in Shakespeares time, as he used the term "prince" in his play Romeo and Juliet's first act. There is no other word for this sort of structure, because this kind of structure doesn't exist anymore. Nor should it. The closest we have in modern times was the original Electorial College, so the term "elector" could kind of work, but it doesn't really.
English is a language of common usage. That to say once a word adopts a common meaning that is what the word is defined as. You also have the problem of there being a number of different common meanings, divided by nationality and social class. I believe it is a mistake to believe, how you define a word in your head will be universal. The word Outlaw, as you define it doesn't exist in the UK. To say people are misunderstanding words is a misunderstanding of how language develops. You can't reclaim or reset the meaning of a word. If you use a word, that is being defined difrently from the way you would like it to mean, you will need to have a little intro explaining your word first. Something like. Jim was a bad man. He was so bad he was deemed as no longer worthy of the protection of the law, he was an Outlaw.
Kallisto also didn't mention a time for the setting of the story. The concept of someone who is "not afforded the protection of the law" does not exist today -- at least, not in the United States, and I think not in most of the civilized world. Using the word in that sense would require setting the story in a time frame when the word actually meant that. I am well aware that the United States is not the only place in the world, which is why I specifically mentioned it (the U.S. being the only country with whose laws I have more than a passing familiarity). I am also well aware of the Robin Hood legend, and I have watched innumerable movies and television shows about Robin Hood. Robin Hood was set in the time of King Richard I of England, and Richard I died in 1199. So Robin Hood was set in the 12th century. At that time, perhaps the concept of "outlaw" did carry the meaning you ascribe to it; I am prepared to accept that it did. Today, it does not, at least in most countries.
The ruler of a principality isn't second generation anything. I mean, he could be (just as a king could be the son of a king), but it isn't implied by the title Prince.
The time doesn't matter. He's using the word in the context of someone not being afforded the protection of the law, and looking for another word that means the same, of which none of the words you gave do. He's not looking to change the word into another one because people misunderstand it to mean someone outside the protection of the law.
um... I explained the context in at least two separate posts... I'm not sure how explaining my story would be of any more help than me spelling out my meaning in plain English. Which is why I specifically mentioned the context of my meaning and how I want to use it. I just don't know how to do it in the narrative of a story. It would be nice just to use one word and everyone gets the meaning, but that's not what's happening. Good for you? You ever play one of those really old video games where you get a super duper high score and then it just flips to zero? No reason to bring that up or anything... I know! That's what I'm saying! I know how I'm using it isn't the normal way people use it. I'm aware of that. I'm a minimalist. If I could say everything I'm thinking in just one word, I will only use one word. You should try it. It will change both your life and your relationships.
To go back to your original questions. You don't. Yes, with yes to the secondary. Yes. Unknown. Language evolves, the meanings of words varies according to time and context. In your original post, you mention law and murder and other issues that have specific and general meanings, contextual and, sometimes complicated. If the world has an understanding of Outlaw that differs from yours, you will only bring about confusion by persisting with a genus meaning that very few will recognise. Unless you give your meaning sufficient context. It's your piece. Everyone else here is guessing. If you're looking for historical accuracy, use the words you think best. Explain what needs to be explained and attach a glossary if further definition is required.
Explaining the setting of your story would help a lot. If it takes place in the future or some fictional world then there wouldn't be as much of a need to find a single word still in use today that captures your desired meaning. Since you won't elaborate, I'm assuming historical accuracy doesn't matter and suggest you call these people 'Outsiders' because they live 'outside' the protection of the law. There, done.
It's extremely ironic that so many people on this thread only think they understand the nature of the problem... (and they seem to think the solution is very simple).
