Hello, Trying to get a general feeling for this topic. I've read a few fantasy novels and noticed that some authors stayed away from using contractions in dialogues, while others used it mildly. Is there a rule of thumb in when to use contractions? especially in stories that are set in pre-modern era (dragons, castles, swords, battles, etc...)
contractions are generally modernising so if you are going for a medieval feeling its better to say can not rather than can't - it is however a balance in sounding correct vs still being accessible to a modern reader
Ironically, a lot of those contractions (can’t, don’t, and so on) were in use during the medieval period. I avoid them for characters I want to present as speaking more formally and use them for others.
I've always taken contractions in dialogue as making the character sound more casual in their speech. I think it's an interesting dynamic to consider in-story. Maybe your noble class snubs their nose at the common people whose speech they consider less refined, one of the reasons being their use of contractions. And maybe those common people think that the noble class sound like a bunch of uppity snobs with their "can nots" and "do nots" instead of just saying can't or don't. I've always thought that the word don't sounds more like a noise than it does a word. Not that I don't use it. See what I did there? Huh? Yeah? Yeeeeeah, you saw it.
Some certainly. But there are number that didn't exist and others that are no longer used outside of fiction and humour like 'tis. A large number of modern English contractions were introduced in the Early Modern Period during the 16th and 17th centuries, so for Medieval speakers these would not (probably) have been around. List I have in relation to my WIP that's relevant: It’s, first recorded 1555. I’ll, first recorded 1566. I’m, first recorded 1584. I’d, first recorded 1592. Won’t, first recorded 1562. Can’t, first recorded 1597. He’ll/She’ll, first recorded 1579. He’d/She’d, first recorded 1599. Don’t, first recorded 1639, You’re, first recorded 1590 There’s, first recorded 1580. First recorded is not a strict reference point because they probably existed before the first surviving reference we have. But it does give a rough idea of when they came into usage so I wouldn't use these ones very often in a medieval setting, although you can do some because that's justifiable enough. To be clear, like others I would espouse you shouldn't bombard a reader with historicism, especially in a fantasy setting where precise accuracy is not relevant. But less of the recognisable modern contractions is going to be a difference in speech.
Pardon me for being societal here, but you could possibly use contractions with -- never mind, Noir already suggested it. I was going to echo the "lower class" language would possibly have contractions. I hated the book, but The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss, I believe his main character used contractions, and he was not highborn. He could fake it pretty well, though.
My first piece of advice is to not put much stock in what others are doing. Generally that is a distraction. The assumption that author X did a thing, therefore it is perfect is to assume they know something you don't about a particular thing, which is possible, but not likely. Others can fool around with what was common language of any given day, but we are actually writing for a modern audience, so it's not likely we'll be doing any emulation of Chaucer, so taking tidbits of this or that is fine, but doing a real imitation of 1600 AD ain't gonna happen. So, let's talk about voice, and about two versions of it: 1) The overall voice of the work, in the narrative. 2) The voice of any given character, generally in dialogue. I mention this because voice is one of those things that divides the hack from the professional. As well, it relates directly to whether one uses contraction or not or how many. I am reminded of a novel I wrote a couple years back, wherein my main character was the single viewpoint in close limited 3rd. By knowing the form of viewpoint, I can tell myself that her education level, culture, attitude, perspective, awareness, and even language, will radically invade the overall narrative of the work. It will cause certain sentences, phrases and words to be altered, IN THE NARRATIVE. And, of course, it relates directly to her dialogue. Given my main character/viewp0int/narrative-voice influence was a 400 year old vampire who had been raised in a royal court, I did not use many contractions. It would not invade her language and given her tight limited 3rd control over the narrative, it rarely invaded the narrative. Otherwise, I would be relegating my VOICE, both in HER dialogue and in my narration to that of a point blank amateur. In fact, the contrast of others using plenty of contractions, and her desire to fit in by learning to apply one or two is just as important, implying character growth. Imagine yet another example of a 400 year old street urchin being pressed forward in time by a time machine and being the central viewpoint of a work. There contractions would be the least of our issues in dialogue. And, if we are smart enough to allow some of that character to invade the overall voice of the work, being formal with the language would be suicidal to the endeavor.
In my novel in the nineteenth century, I struggled with contractions and I’m sure there is a post somewhere on this forum. Through my learning curve I had two main characters, one a rebel priest that had traveled the world, and a naïve young nun that was fresh of the boat from Normandy. The rebel priest used contraction, and she spoke in a formal tone. After I developed their voices, they both used them, which showed a growth on her part being around a worldly person. At any rate, my beta readers thought it worked well, so I went with it.
As much as I have a bee in my bonnet about historical accuracy, the most important thing in story writing is always that it works for the story, and other criterion are for sorting out the viable options. And especially since OP's talking about fantasy, story design and beta testing are more important than history.
Terry Pratchett used contractions all over the place and I'd sacrifice my third favourite child to be able to write fantasy as good as his.
Each of my historical fiction characters have a unique voice, and the voice will determine whether they should or should not use contractions, profanity, etc. And since they are not speaking English (100AD), I am not bound by when English usage came about. I was really annoyed by one critic who tried to take me task for using the word "crotchety" as it did not come into English usage until 1600. However, the Latin verb perascuere, to become grumpy, annoying or irritable, can easily be translated as that. (I looked it up to prove my point). My Senator always speaks formally, few contractions, rarely swears. The centurion speaks "vulgar Latin" full of elisions and bad grammar, of course contractions and profanity, so I modeled his speech on Rudyard Kipling's voice for the 19th century British soldier. "Beggin' yer pardon, sir, but yer goin' ter git yersel' killed doin' that shit." We actually have no idea what kind of Latin that common people spoke, or what the regional accents were, but we have little idea about them. Very little of that was captured in the literature, except for the playwright Plautus (200BC) and Petronius Arbiter (60AD, the Satyricon). And anyway, I am not writing in Latin, formal or otherwise, as the audience of readers is vanishingly small. Narration I tend to be a bit more formal, as that is my style, so I use contractions a bit, not too much. That is my voice. And my editor cautioned me against using terms, such as whore, that might be offensive in narration. She suggested I substitute prostitute or some formal description. Petronius quotes: “Can't you see that I'm only advising you to beg yourself not to be so dumb?” ... “We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganized. ... “Nothing is falser than people's preconceptions and ready-made opinions; nothing is sillier than their sham morality...”
I feel like this fact's time has come! 'Goodbye' is actually a misspelling of an early English contraction. The formal farewell was 'GOD BE WITH YE', which was frequently shortened to 'GOD BW YE', which was eventually simply written as 'GOODBYE'. So yes, contractions are a thing that happened in medieval and pre-medieval times. Thank you for your time, this fact will never be relevant again. Furthermore, I feel like anybody who says 'there are no contractions in fantasy' needs to pull their head out of their ass. Certain characters will use contractions, because they just can't be arsed to speak 'properly'. Some characters will speak properly, out of an educational or aesthetic choice. Some will use some contractions and not others; just because a character will say 'can't' doesn't mean they'd say 'won't'. Characters and their individual voices can and should vary, and people who insist on specific rules like that across genre lines only matter when they're signing your paycheck.
I tend to go along with Kitty's rule of thumb, too. An Elf? Formal. More likely to say "can not." A scrubby cockney peasant? "can't, m'lord. Yer too clean for me!" An American? "Hot diggety dam', ah can't do that! Why, ahm's a rootin' tootin' gunslinger, so's I am!" ..wait, that last one might not count.
If a contraction was needed for casual low-brow or commoner speech, but a contraction that's currently in modern usage interfered with the truthiness of the voice (presuming your fantasy world is still a bit archaic and we don't want to be toppled into a modern world setting), then I'd go for something faux-dialecty that "sounds" right when spoken out loud and which slips nicely into the general ambience of that character's speech. Can't: Canna, caren't, cenn't, Shouldn't: shouldna, shodn't, Isn't: isn'a, airn't
And that's a key point. We have no way of knowing when a contraction entered common speech. All we know is when it entered the written record, usually in texts that were designed to convey a more formal tone (sermons, poetry, plays, legal documents, and so on). But that's sort of beside the point here. What an author wants to convey is the tone of speech of the character. So while Aragorn may say "We shall go as soon as day breaks," Samwise might say "We'll be needing this before long." This conveys that Aragorn is somehow more lofty in his speech, and therefore in his status, than Sam.
Also, Aragorn was raised by elves and elf-wannabes, and therefore uses their speech patterns. Sam is a 'good ol boy', and therefore uses 'good ol boy' speech patterns. Gandalf used contractions, and I think Arwen used a couple, but I can totally see Elrond swearing off them entirely for the aesthetic, the prissy elf. (this post was ghost-written by gimli)
Many dialects in the UK use e.g. "can you not see...." instead of "can't see" or "I canna/cannot understand" instead of "I can't understand". As long as you are consistent, use whichever form you like if it's fantasy.
