Historical Fictionistas discussion

I love this article.
http://www.marquise.de/en/themes/kors...

Especially this quote from it, "Most legends of course are about impossibly small waists. The "oldest" and most extreme one is the one that asserts that Katerina de' Medici, Queen of France in the late 16th century, required her ladies-in-waiting to have 13 inch waists. Someone who doesn't use inches in everyday life will first try to convert that into centimetres and then start to wonder which inch they should use since there were so many different units of that name. Someone must have written about it in Katerina's time – which inch did they use? Did the author (19th century, I think) that spread this legend know or even think about the fact that there were different inches about? Did they convert them to modern inches, and if yes: To which one? And did they have proper information about how long a contemporary inch was? That's a lot of questions already."

As a writer I can´t tell you how many times I´ve been stuck on details like this and trying to find the right information.

I had to change a scene in my current project because my character watched the minutes tick by under the glass on a clock. This was in 1599, there was no minute hand yet and he would not have been able to see the minutes tick by. Minute hands came in 1656 and didn´t become common place until around 1710.
There was a way to tell partial hours by looking at the tiny increments that the one hand moved, but it was not the same.

Yes, they can drive us nuts, but when you find one that's great, it's a WOW!

Irene wrote: "Yes, they can drive us nuts, but when you find one that's great, it's a WOW!"

Yup, a WOW it is :)

Helen wrote: "I love this article.
http://www.marquise.de/en/themes/kors...

Especially this quote from it, "Most legends of course are about impossibly small waists. The "oldest" and most extreme..."

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Your clock story reinforces just how difficult and scary writing historical fiction is. The writ ER needs to research the minutiae of everyday life, not just the plot and characters.

"Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Your clock story reinforces just how difficult and scary writing historical fiction is. The writ ER needs to research the minutiae of everyday life, not just the plot and characters. "

Indeed, just spoke on the phone with someone in Sweden to find out about the distance between the coast and nearby islands, and how long it would take to go from the coast in a rowboat.

I also found out by looking more closely at the map that there is a
a huge fortress there that I didn´t even know about. It was new and heavily used during my time period. It would have been a big mistake not to mention this fact.

Well in one book the author talks about "blue-and-white Swedish flag". It's even set during WWII so it wouldn't have required much research. But it's a small error compared to the rest of the "facts" in the book.

I am still trying to figure out how anyone can write a novel set in WWII and not care about who is fighting against whom. (And I guess it's more worrying that no one really even notices.)

Tytti wrote: "Well in one book the author talks about "blue-and-white Swedish flag". It's even set during WWII so it wouldn't have required much research. But it's a small error compared to the rest of the "fact..."

As a Swede, all I can say is yikes.

There is some "Swedish" in the book, too, I guess sometimes with ä's and ö's, sometimes not. But don't worry, the author (Russian American) knows even less about Finland. Apparently we had relatively friendly relations with the USSR in 1942-43 (though Russians had to worry about NKVD here, too), there were American doctors in Finland, and it was the Germans who bombed our (and Swedish) ships...

Tytti,
That's just sad.

Tytti wrote: "There is some "Swedish" in the book, too, I guess sometimes with ä's and ö's, sometimes not. But don't worry, the author (Russian American) knows even less about Finland. Apparently we had relative..."

Wow ... that sounds like a hf author who hasn´t even tried. I´ve put away books that make such fundamental mistakes (hello that one famous author of that one hf book *everybody* reads that makes Dutch people speak German).

As for the "little" details: I personally always notice when something's off about the way a written document or book is described. Nowadays libraries, archives and museums have digitalized so much that there's no excuse to describe an old book, a medieval charter, an 18th century letter, etc. in a way that it would never look. You're only a few clicks away from having the real deal on your screen, ready for your creative description.

I do commend authors who go that extra mile to research all the little details. It makes books that much better. Plus, you (author and reader) can understand people's world and mindset much better when you get the little (and bigger) details right.

That book has almost 40,000 ratings and 4.37 as an average rating, and there has been talk about a movie, though now it has been changed to a tv series. It has two sequels, too.

Sanne wrote: "I´ve put away books that make such fundamental mistakes (hello that one famous author of that one hf book *everybody* reads that makes Dutch people speak German)."

Well at least there are some similarities between the languages... I believe in one HF novel the author said all Finns were known to speak German. I understood it from some review, haven't actually read it. But in another book from the same series a Finn borrows his Kalevala to Tsar Nicholas II who apparently can read it. So either Nicholas spoke Finnish or Kalevala was written in Russian or something. Also it was never really explained how the Finn knew Russian. And apparently there were undertakers in Finland in the early 20th century who also used chemicals to preserve the bodies. Not only is that not done here even today but in any article about a sauna it is always mentioned that women gave birth and the deceased were washed there by the relatives, no undertakers needed.

Oh, and when talking about that time he uses the post WWII borders. I am not sure if he also has forgotten the same war because he has the Finn "fighting" for Stalin against the Germans. I guess he is supposed to be a sympathetic character but from the Finnish point of view he would have been considered a traitor when he started serving the Tsar AND even doubly so when he continued to serve Stalin after what he had done to (ethnic) Finns... And it is never really explained why anyone would do that, join the Russian military when everyone else was boycotting everything Russian (or why the Tsar would trust him when some Finns were probably planning his assassination). He even mentioned some towns from where the men have come, and the funny thing is that he also mentions one smaller one, where men did leave to go to a military service, just not in Russia but secretly in Germany during WWI.

Tytti wrote: "Well at least there are some similarities between the languages..."

There's also great similarity between English and Frisian, but no author would get away with depicting Frisian as English... It is a sign of an author not bothered to really get to know the characters or the setting. I mean, not even getting the right dictionary to get some phrases because two languages are "kind of" the same? Lazy. I don't think it's too much to ask of any writer to do some very basic googling to at least avoid being disrespectful or irritatingly oblivious to basic facts.
Not to mention: Dutch people generally don't like being told by foreigners that they're "sort of" German. I can imagine a similar frustration with the examples you give of someone completely misrepresenting Russo-Finnish relations and history. That book you speak of really doesn't seem to be researched at all.

I just meant it might make it a bit more easier to learn if needed. I don't speak Dutch but sometimes I can understand a bit of it based on the little I know German, and also Estonians learned Finnish just by watching the Finnish tv (illegally) during the Soviet era. But thinking that Finns speak German or Russian (or sometimes Swedish) just like that without studying it for years is nuts because the languages are so different. Actually in some American books set before WWII Finns are speaking English (because it is needed because for some reason there were Americans in Finland..?) when in fact German was usually the first language people had studied and might have spoken fluently. It only changed to English maybe in the 1960's.

Oh, and in that other book there was also a Finnish dogtag mentioned which had belonged to a soldier "Tove Hanssen". Well first of all they don't have names, but "Tove" is a (Swedish) woman's name and "Hanssen" is more Norwegian. Neither are typical Finnish names but who cares about small details... And one book had named the main character "Vaino". Well Väinö is a Finnish name, but "vaino" means persecution. Not a very good choice for a name...

There are so many things that can be assumed a certain way because you look at it from your own perspective. It is both culture and time. Meaning that you make assumptions due to your own cultural upbringing without considerations of the culture your writing about. It may have a completely different interpretation of something simple that you never thought about.
I love the Startrek episode where the aliens were shown around the ship and almost had a fit when they went through the dining hall. The humans couldn´t understand what was so bad until they explained that in their culture eating with other people was as taboo as watching people have sex.

And time wise, if you write history you have to take your mind back in time, you can´t assume that your characters would react the same way as they would today.

I just found the idea ludicrous that relatively poor peasants would have taken the bodies to an undertaker even during the winter (I think it was mentioned in the book) so he could preserve them with chemicals when they have been taking care of them themselves for centuries. Here's a hint: the bodies don't need preserving during the winter but sometimes they need melting because they tend to freeze.

Also I have found more novels dealing with the Winter War written by foreign authors than Finns (it's understandable because it would be difficult to write an interesting novel about it and keep it realistic enough). What makes it problematic is that they don't seem to understand the mentality of the people or the situation in general, or for example how a war like that is fought. Even someone like me who doesn't have a military training (most Finnish men have) can sometimes just tell that that's not the way you fight a guerilla war, for example, it would be stupid. Or sometimes they mention something that just wouldn't be allowed in a state of total war. I know of one book that has gotten good reviews and has also been translated to different languages but not to Finnish, probably because Finns couldn't take it seriously. But in other countries they believe it's realistic and that they are learning something.

To come back to the original question about waist measurements, I remember reading that they did not include the laces. So, in addition to the standardization problem—almost everywhere, measurements were not standardized until the mid-19th century, in response to industrialization and train schedules—a 16-inch corset, to give one example, might compress a 24-inch waist to 20 inches. Still debilitating for the corset wearer, but less than a straight 16-inch measurement would be.

The non-standardization of measurements has led to the long-standing myth that Napoleon was short. He was 5ft2 according to the French measurements of the time, which sounds pretty short for a man. But in British measurements that makes him 5ft7 and in Metric that's 170cm, which was about average for men of his class in that era.

Interesting info about Napoleon, Fiona! I’d never heard that!

Of course the British probably didn't mind spreading that (false) information... It's good for the propaganda.

Personally I am not that interested in small details that don't make much difference. Or at least if they make enough sense. I probably wouldn't notice them anyway.

Small details can add greatly to one's understanding of a character in a historical novel.

Helen wrote: "There are so many things that can be assumed a certain way because you look at it from your own perspective. It is both culture and time. Meaning that you make assumptions due to your own cultural upbringing without considerations of the culture your writing about."

And the weird thing is that you may never realise it if you don't try to get deep enough into the culture. The little things are the most treacherous.
For example, I often see stories set in the 1920s where women sit with their men at the bar, because it's a give for us. But in that time, a woman sitting at the bar was very bad and normally avoided. I learned this by mere chance from a fellow historical writer, but then I noticed in the era films that in fact girls don't go near bars.

Helen wrote: "And time wise, if you write history you have to take your mind back in time, you can´t assume that your characters would react the same way as they would today."

This is also very tricky. I've seen more often than I'd like characters acting in a very modern way becuase a more historically accurate reaction wouldn't look good by modern standards.
I think that, rather than modernise an historical character's reaction, a histfic writer should strive to depict a world where that kind of reaction would be acceptable. I'm not saying it's easy, but if we are not willing to try, why do we write historical fiction in the first place?

Well said! Brava!

Indeed, well said! But it is very tricky to be accurate. I wrote a short story set in the ’teens of the nineteenth century in which two cousins of different sexes bathed in the same cove in the sea, only to be told that men and women could not sea-bathe in view of each other till the early twentieth century. But I had a Gillray cartoon that showed them doing so! I guess it was artistic license on his part, but it seemed like good evidence at the time.

Abigail wrote: "only to be told that men and women could not sea-bathe in view of each other till the early twentieth century."

That probably depends on the country...

Sorry to be vague, I was writing about the sea-bathing resorts of southern England.

only to be told that men and women could not sea-bathe in view of each other till the early twentieth century"

And it probably also depends on the social station of the people involved.
For example, in the 1920s (the time period I write) high society girls were expected to be chaperoned everywhere. But the lower the class, the more likely they were to go out alone.

New comments!
Thank you all for responding to this. It is such a good discussion.
Some artistic licence is ok I think especially since we can´t actually travel back in time. But it is important to try as much as we can.
But in a case like Abigail, if it is only two people in a cove, then there is certainly a possibility that it could have happened with these two individuals. Extremely unusual yes, but artistic licence can be used here I think.

Actually I´m researching something right now that you all might be able to help me with.
What is the proper term of address between people of high standing, but not nobility, in the 17th Century?
I´m writing a scene where a musician is escorted through a castle to play his fiddle (wasn´t a violin yet) for the King. The person who is escorting him isn´t nobility but he is someone who has access to the Royal family.
I thought that my lord would work, but lords where elevated to lordship by the King if I understand it right, and I believe Sire´s were too, so sir wouldn´t work either.

Do you have any suggestions?
I´ve e-mailed a couple of historians as well, I´ll let you know what they say when i hear from them.

Thank you!

Have to admit I’m not at all knowledgeable about seventeenth-century forms of address. Have you read much histfic set in the 1600s? I’m thinking maybe some of the works of Dorothy Dunnett might be helpful here. I believe her Lymond series begins in the late 1500s and moves up into the 1600s?

Am not sure whether “milord” was reserved for actual lords (bearing the title) or was used to address anyone in a superior position to oneself.

Abigail wrote: "Have to admit I’m not at all knowledgeable about seventeenth-century forms of address. Have you read much histfic set in the 1600s? I’m thinking maybe some of the works of Dorothy Dunnett might be ..."

Thank you,
I will take a look at those.

I was googling milord yesterday and it seems that it was used to address noblemen in etyomology searches.
But in this link it seems like maybe I could, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milord.
I´m not sure what to do either.

Helen wrote: "I love this article.
http://www.marquise.de/en/themes/kors...

Especially this quote from it, "Most legends of course are about impossibly small waists. The "oldest" and most extreme..."

Helen wrote: "I love this article.
http://www.marquise.de/en/themes/kors...

Especially this quote from it, "Most legends of course are about impossibly small waists. The "oldest" and most extreme..."

That's the the fun and challenge of writing historical fiction. Once you get the details right and feel as though you're actually living in that time, it's exhilarating, isn't it?

Helen wrote: "I love this article.
http://www.marquise.de/en/themes/kors...
Especially this quote from it, "Most legends of course are about impossibly small waists. ..."

Delightful and informative article. I especially appreciated the legends paragraph. But it is a warning to historical novelists that many contemporary measurements [inches and minutes for example], didn't exist in olden days. In my medieval and Babylonia novels, I had to watch [pardon my pun] my writing to be sure to use "wait a moment" rather than "wait a minute."

Maggie Anton

Helen wrote: "Abigail wrote: "Have to admit I’m not at all knowledgeable about seventeenth-century forms of address. Have you read much histfic set in the 1600s? I’m thinking maybe some of the works of Dorothy D..."

You might also check into Forever Amber by Kathleen Windsor. It takes place in the mid-1600s.

Hello everyone. I hope it is okay to ask my question here, because I like this thread. If not, just let me know and I will move it :).

I have written historical fiction set in 1915 America. I did my best to be accurate in dialogue and vocabulary. I get bothered if I am reading a book that is supposed to take place hundreds of years ago, but the characters use colloquialisms like, "hello" and "okay, let's go". I realized that my own book read awkwardly in some parts because of the formalities and slightly older English. I edited through it to remove each instance of "shall" and I modernized the language as much as I felt comfortable before publishing.

So here is my conflict. I want to be a good writer. The history is important to me. But many reviews on my book point out that the formal dialogue is what takes away points and enjoyment. Should I change it to sound modern? Should I leave it be? What do you do with the language in your historical fiction, and are your readers happy with it? I know I can never make everyone happy, but what readers think is very important to me. Thank you.

You’ve put your finger on a very tricky point, Marie. I’ve been struggling with this, too. I get the impression that the majority of writers do modernize to a great degree because that’s what a certain set of vocal readers expect—they want the costumes, if you will, but not the real people wearing them. A lot of authors also use plots and plot devices that would never have been used in the era they are writing about (for instance, most writers of historical romance).

The reviewers you mention may be right that the path to success is hybridization. As a writer, I’ve had to look at that directly and ask myself what matters to me: a big audience or writing what I feel called to write. What is it that motivates me to pick up a pen? Getting read widely or pursuing an artistic ideal? Either choice is valid, but you have to commit to a path.

For me, what makes me write is an impulse to re-create some of the experiences I have had reading books from a different century—books by Jane Austen, Robert Louis Stevenson, and others. Stevenson is a particularly telling example because he was a relatively early practitioner of histfic: he wrote mostly about eras earlier than his own. And he did not adulterate his vocabulary or dialogue, as far as I can see. In his day, he found a wide readership, but I’m not sure how many modern young people or even adults would take pleasure from his work, with all its baffling slang. For myself, I guess I’ve come to terms with having a smaller (more discriminating?) audience while trying to produce books that I would want to read.

But everyone has to strike their own balance between historical verisimilitude and popularity. Certainly, scrubbing “okay” from your characters’ vocabulary is something everyone can agree on; but how far to go toward a hypothetical “accuracy” is a personal choice. I realize I’m not being helpful! But I do sympathize with your challenge.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Abigail. It helps a lot to hear another perspective.

Marie wrote: "Hello everyone. I hope it is okay to ask my question here, because I like this thread. If not, just let me know and I will move it :).

I have written historical fiction set in 1915 America. I did ..."

Marie - I struggled with this same issue to the point of agony while working on my first novel. The story takes place in 1900-1910 American West and I tried to be as authentic as possible. During the last rewrite - after working on the thing for many years, I "relaxed" about 2/3 of the dialogue and text that felt "stiff." Sales have been okay - not great but well enough I wasn't embarrassed. When it came time to write my second novel (the story takes place during the 1930s) I let my fingers and imagination fly without regard to "rules" because my agonizing over the first book didn't bring huge success. That second book has won three awards and sold respectfully. Best of all it's garnered some nice name recognition. I've had many invitations to speak at book clubs, service clubs and writing conferences. My advice: Write the story you want to read. If it reads too formally for your tastes, change it. If you like it formal, market and promote to readers who like formal.

Marie wrote: "Thank you so much for your advice! I think I will go through and see what further changes I can make for a smoother read, while maintaining the setting.

I suppose that being a perfectionist and a..."

Karen wrote: "Marie wrote: "Hello everyone. I hope it is okay to ask my question here, because I like this thread. If not, just let me know and I will move it :).

I have written historical fiction set in 1915 A..."

I agree with Karen 100%. I wrote the first draft of my novel 20 years ago. It took place in St. Louis in 1904. I've worked on poetry ever since while letting those original pages settle in a drawer. When my second poetry book won an award, I decided to go back and try to breathe some life into that old novel. The dialogue, which tried to be accurate to the times, was stiff and formal, and I found myself bored with my own work. I scrapped nearly every line of dialogue and changed it. (I also improved the plot and some of the characters.) Suffice to say, it's a much better book now. I have no idea what sales will be, because it's only been available in paperback for two weeks, and the e-book comes out June 15, but it has been receiving good reviews.
I wholeheartedly recommend changing the dialogue. One little suggestion is to have older and richer characters speak more formally than younger, poorer ones. That way, you still get the essence of the formal language, but the story won't bog down. As Abigail pointed out, though, you don't want to be too loose with the dialogue.

Thank you so much for your advice! I think I will go through and see what further changes I can make for a smoother read.

I suppose that being a perfectionist and an author is not always the funnest combination :). It is why I was drawn to this thread. I made sure that not only were flashlights and bobby pins invented, but commonly in use in this particular location at this particular time. I also read over the old laws numerous times to ensure that I got everything about the inheritances just right. The hardest part for me as far as research and accuracy was dollar amounts. The sale of a horse in those days ranged from $70 to $500 in the documents I found. That is a huge range even in today's dollars!

Marie wrote: "Thank you so much for your advice! I think I will go through and see what further changes I can make for a smoother read, while maintaining the setting.

I suppose that being a perfectionist and a..."

That's part of the fun of historical writing — learning how things actually were back then in every day life. Your book sounds interesting. What kind of plot does it have?

One further note on dialogue. I know it’s not your period, but you might try reading a work by Georgette Heyer, undoubtedly a master of the genre. Something like Devil’s Cub, perhaps. In that book she has some French characters, as well as one for whom French was her first language. Heyer doesn’t try to make the dialogue strictly correct; what she does is translate a little French slang and some French word order/sentence structure into English to convey the flavor of a French speaker’s way of speaking English. Heyer does the same in other novels with the regional dialects of lower-class characters: she doesn’t reproduce the dialect exactly, but she salts the dialogue with recognizable aspects of the dialect. Either way, the reader gets the idea without having to plow through something unreadable.

So I would say that if you stick to classic English, scrubbed of modern slang, and throw in a few elements of language appropriate to the period, you should be fine. Patty’s suggestion of having different characters speak in different ways is also great!

I agree completely, Abigail. ". . . salt the dialogue" . . . "throw in a few elements of language appropriate to the period."

Patty wrote: "That's part of the fun of historical writing — learning how things actually were back then in every day life. Your book sounds interesting. What kind of plot does it have? "

Thank you, Patty.

It is a family saga with some mystery set in a mansion in Pennsylvania. The patriarch dies suddenly, leaving his daughter to find out who of her family and servants can be trusted. The servants have secrets and drama of their own.

A lot of the formal dialogue involves the way the servants address their master and mistress, and also takes place among the educated/rich characters. The cook and gardener get to speak more commonly, of course.

I don't know if any of you have seen the TV series "Reign", which is about Mary Queen of Scots. First of all, I LOVE the show! But I find it a bit ludicrous that the characters run around addressing the queen and king by their first names! I was not around in France in the 16th century, but I am pretty sure it was a little more formal than that. However, it is a very entertaining and popular show.

I like the idea of salting the dialogue. I do not want my book to be tedious reading. Maybe I was hoping to stand out in a sea of historical fiction books that are written in contemporary style. You all have given me much to think about. Thank you.

Marie wrote: "I don't know if any of you have seen the TV series "Reign", which is about Mary Queen of Scots."

I can't watch it because it feels more like it's set in an American high school. And it goes way deeper than just the way they talk.

Marie wrote: "Patty wrote: "That's part of the fun of historical writing — learning how things actually were back then in every day life. Your book sounds interesting. What kind of plot does it have? "

Thank yo..."

I've never seen that show, but your book sounds really interesting. And yes, I think ordinary characters addressing the queen by her first name is taking a casual writing style a little too far!

Marie wrote: "Hello everyone. I hope it is okay to ask my question here, because I like this thread. If not, just let me know and I will move it :).

I have written historical fiction set in 1915 America. I did ..."

Marie wrote: "Hello everyone. I hope it is okay to ask my question here, because I like this thread. If not, just let me know and I will move it :).

I have written historical fiction set in 1915 America. I did ..."

I agree that language, which is out of date, does nothing to enhance the historical feeling of your book, and it just distracts the reader. On the other hand, language, which is too modern, would also distract me. I think you should aim for language that doesn't intrude upon the reader - he/she shouldn't notice the language at all. You could also simply cut a lot of dialogue, which you are uncomfortable with. For example, is it really necessary that your characters say "hello?" Could you simply cut that bit of dialogue all together? I think that the word "hello" always stops the flow of the story. The same goes for "Okay, let's go." Is it really necessary that one of your characters actually says these words? Couldn't you instead simply describe to the reader what happens next - the characters get on their way? These two examples, which you provided, are an indication to me that you tend to say more than is actually necessary. These two lines could easily be cut from any dialogue. If you simply cut whatever dialogue you're not comfortable with, and simply describe what happens next in your story - I think that could solve your problem. Just give it a try, and see if that could work for you. Good luck!

I've danced the line between historically accurate and easily readable dialogue, too. My HF is set in ancient Maya times, and their cadence and sentence structure was quite different than modern English. If I always follow Maya ways of speaking/writing, the dialogue is too stiff and alien, so I use an entrance sentence with Mayan structure here and there to remind readers this is a vastly different culture, but quickly revert to language that flows more pleasingly to our ears. I avoid using contractions, slang and ultra-modern terms. I've read period HF that does use such language devices and it jars me, making the story sound less authentic. So, its a little of each--period ways of speaking and modern sentence flow. Hope this helps.

Hi everyone,
This thread is really interesting to me, and wanted to add something.
As far as research goes, I had problem with some legal points in regards to UK law, pre law reforms of the 19th century. I went round and round, and kept banging my head against a wall. Finally, I emailed the national archives, and had an immediate and thorough response. It made me giddy with joy. There are people out there who want to help.
Secondly the language problem is interesting to me. My novel is set in the 1830/1840's England, and I automatically wrote it in a more formal style, it felt weird to try and write it with a modern feeling.
I think though I went a bit far, and it's too formal. I have written 4 more, and am yet to publish, but they feel a little more relaxed though, yet still formal.
I don't really know how it reads to others, I wanted a book that felt contemporary to Gaskell, I'm starting to think not though.

Alice, you might scroll up to read to message #40. I think that might help you look at your language from a new angle. Good luck.

Absolutely correct facts are not mandatory for fiction, as long as they don't get ridiculous. Remember, even Shakespeare wrote of striking clocks set in a time a thousand years and more before they were invented and I have never heard of anyone giving that the inaccuracy ruined the play.

Now, if Brutus had been standing in front of a window air conditioner, that would be an example of an author not doing his/her research.

Hi, Alice, I’m with you on wanting to make my narrative sound like the period it is set in (fortunately, like you my period is not so long ago as to make this a barrier to educated readers). I find that I “cheat” a bit in the narrative style, using some more modern fiction tricks, while keeping the vocabulary within the period. The language may put off readers (and seems to put off many editors) but for me it’s an integral part of experiencing a past world—and I just love the richness and structure of Georgian language!