How the Queen’s English Has Evolved over 200 Years

This is the building where the Treaty of Ghent was signed. We were shocked to learn it wasn’t on the official tour!

This month, two lucky visitors to Austen Authors will each win a copy of Pulse and Prejudice; and although these prizes do not have much monetary value, a price cannot be placed on the heartfelt devotion expended on this project of some twenty-four months. Not that I would ever refuse an excuse to go to Britain! Indeed, I even elected to travel to The Netherlands and Belgium to write the second draft with the idea that I would incorporate the Battle of Waterloo and the Treaty of Ghent in the sequel. (Alas, the site of Waterloo is a nondescript field – reminiscent of my visit to Valley Forge, which resulted in dozens of photographs of grass with the occasional cannon thrown in for good measure.)

I could expend an entire blogpost on the research I undertook on the Regency era, using primary sources – from periodicals to weather reports – and secondary sources, as well as vampire lore and literature, to ensure historical accuracy (I discuss much of this in a recent Authors After Dark Spotlight Interview), and how I came to possess a 200 year-old edition of Sothey’s The Life of Nelson just because I thought it might be a book Mr. Darcy would read (OK, yes, I can be a bit obsessive). Today, however, I address the changes in literary conventions since the publication of Pride and Prejudice.

In approaching Pulse and Prejudice as an authentic (albeit paranormal) adaptation of Jane Austen’s classic rather than a variation or modernization, I committed myself to remaining true to her language and writing style. Cognizant of the changes in language and literary conventions over the last two centuries, and diligent in my efforts to avoid any historical or linguistic anachronisms, I did not use a single word in Pulse and Prejudice that was not in use in 1813, which meant the loss of many good words! I had used the word “befuddled” until I found out it wasn’t in use until the 1830s.  (I suppose no one was confused before then.) And don’t get me started on “credenza”! Fortunately, one of the editors assigned to the project, Julie Reilly, is not only a fellow Austenite but also British. She understood my commitment to Regency language and double-checked not only for anachronisms but also Americanisms. For example, what we call “French doors” are called “French windows” in England even today; and across the pond, they use “draught” for “draft,” and not just at the pub.

Unlike today’s authors, Miss Austen did not have Strunk and White or The Chicago Manual of Style on hand and instead maintained the punctuation usage of the 18th and early 19th centuries. This would account for the 1500+ semicolons found in Pride and Prejudice, most typically in lieu of periods, as well as her liberal use of commas. Even that famous first line – It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. – would not have any commas if written today. When first submitting my own manuscript to the publisher, I had to present my argument for keeping as many semicolons as possible (a misunderstood and under-used punctuation mark, in my opinion).

Modified rules of punctuation only scratch the surface of changes in writing standards in the last two hundred years. As any aspiring author knows, today a writer must “show” rather than “tell,” meaning that full descriptions must be used in place of adverbs and adjectives. Stephen King sums up the current attitude: “The road to hell is paved with adverbs.” Yet Miss Austen utilizes adverbs “liberally.” In his book On Writing, King modifies his position somewhat: Continue reading →