Krdytkyu

I'm working on a novel, that's set in pre-Islamic Persia, in the same general way that The Lord of the Rings is set in Britain. (Meaning, it's set in a world all its own, but there's this source of inspiration.)

Here's my conundrum: the land is ruled by the Shah - that's a given, that's expected if the setting is Persian rather than European. But what happens under the Shah? Knights, barons, counts and dukes are all titles associated with the European court. They appear to clash with a setting, as if I'm telling a basically European story, only recoloured Middle-eastern.

So the knights are asvarans (it's actually amazing how much the position of the asvarans in 5th century Persia is reminiscent of 10th century European knights). And after much research, I've got vaspahrs, sardars and ostandars. At which point, I'm looking at the trope Calling a Rabbit a "Smeerp" - I'm just giving different names to something that has a perfectly good English word.

Moreover, I have only recently pointed others to this xkcd:

(source)

I do not believe it is relevant that I found the words I'm using in an encyclopedia rather than made them up; to the reader, they are equally unfamiliar.

How do I balance realism against readability in this particular case? I do not want to break the readers' suspension of disbelief by using words that are too European, but I don't want to weigh on the reader with heaps of foreign-language vocabulary either.

(Note: Bioware's Dragon Age franchise uses 'Teyrn', 'Arl', 'Bahn' instead of 'Duke', 'Earl', 'Baron'. However, in their example the replacement words are not too far from the English words, and thus much easier to remember, avoiding confusion. Also, the names they use are for the most part English enough. Consequently, looking at something like 'Arl Eamon', one doesn't have to wonder which part is title and which part is name. As opposed to 'Vaspahr Narseh', for instance.)

I've found that the main key to unfamiliar words -- and this applies to jargon in technical writing as much as it does to foreign or made-up words in fiction -- is density. The example in the XKCD comic is irritating because it can't get through a single sentence without three new words. The situation is very different if three unfamiliar words are introduced over the span of a chapter.

Another key is how naturally you supply the explanation. Instead of "translating" or explaining, provide context -- introduce the asvarans in a setting where their martial role is apparent, show your sardars in leadership roles, your ostandars ruling, etc. This might be direct (you show those characters doing those things) or indirect (people refer to them in connection with illustrative events or attitudes).

Imagine if the XKCD example were instead handled like this:

The six fra'ars stood solemnly in front of the gate, their gray beards all reaching nearly to their waists. Despite their years they stood strong and alert. $Name, standing in front of the others, held a large sword aloft in one hand, seemingly effortlessly. $POV-character involuntarily took a step back; he knew that the krytosis was normally wielded two-handed.

He heard the din of a great many farmlings running and playing beyond the gate. He envied them; they had no cares and were not affected by the ill tidings in the land. He wished he could be young and oblivious again. [...]

This is more jargon-dense than I would write for "real", but I hope it illustrates the point that you can introduce terms without falling into the "pass the dictionary" trap.

asvarans, vaspahrs, sardars and ostandars.

I struggled with this for a different reason, I didn't want to invoke medieval Europe titles either, because little else in my story was like that, I didn't want to set up reader expectations of knightly chivalry that would not hold in the story.

My Solution: Go Modern.

I figure you are writing a Persian story in relatively modern English. Obviously the characters are speaking Persian, and as the narrator you are translating that for us into modern English. So why not do the same for all their words?

Asvaran is sorta like a 10th century knight, but what is the modern word that can stand for both? I chose to use words like "captain", "soldier", "general", "swordsman", "advisor", "governor", "Mayor", "Council", "archer", "marksman", etc. I did use "king" and "kingdom", I don't think that is limited to medieval times and everyone still instantly knows what it means.

Basically, I don't think people have a very good grasp of medieval titles anyway (perhaps they do in Britain, here in the USA they don't). I certainly don't know the difference in roles between barons, counts and dukes, that never really came up at the dinner table when I was growing up. So if you intend to sell in an American market, even those titles are familiar but without meaning, you'd have to explain to the reader whatever fine distinctions of duty and obligations they entail, and where they are in the social ranking.

I'd leave the specifics up to your imagination, but I was happy to skip over the medieval terminology, and 'translate' for the reader into English they already know.

It's ultimately up to you, but you don't want your ancient Persia overridden by knights. You may as well make them wear full plate armor instead of describing whatever garment was in use in that age for the sake of simplicity, but at the same time you'de be losing something valuable.

It's true that it will be difficult for the reader to familiarize with a new concept, especially in the first part of the novel. But there are ways to make it work; the extract of Monica Cellio's answer is one of them (assuming it's used consistently all over the novel). It's fine if the reader gets confused about the caste system and the power relationship between Asvanars and Vaspahrs in the first chapter, as long as that confusion fuels his curiosity.

I remember some author (maybe Sanderson or King) giving the following advice: don't assume your audience is stupid (or at least, below average). I'm not saying that you are doing that, at least on a conscious level. As humans, we are very good at finding meaning to unfamiliar words given the context, without needing to be spoon-fed with definitions.

Another point to consider is that you're adding value to your setting through research. You mentioned Asvanars being almost equivalent to knights. Yet, if you put it like that, it becomes less interesting. "Allright, it's knights again". It may be familiar to me, but it may be so to the point of boredom. Instead, being able to discover bit by bit what Asvanars do as I follow your story, learning the differences and similarities with what I already know about what a warrior caste does, will provide me - as reader - with a more fullfilling experience.

To sum up:

• Choose what are the concepts and the word that you don't want to translate in english. While it's worth to call Vaspahrs with their name, maybe calling swords shamshir it's not as important, and surely you don't want to give each scrap of cloth a persian name. It's up to your common sense to decide when to stop.


• Once chosen, use your terms in the right context.


• You may make it easier for the reader to understand them correctly, describing self evident scenes especially in the first chapters, "Rahil drawed his shamshir, its sharp and curved edge glinting coldly in the morning light, angry and menacing like a bared fang."


• While you can give context, try to avoid spoonfeeding, e.g. clearly stating out that "Asvanars are this and they do that". The more you manage to show the concepts in action, rather than pausing the scenes and the characters, the better.

And all this is coming from a guy that struggled to understand the difference between Teyirn and Arls in Dragon Age.
(On a side note, I'm using shamshir as sword, but I haven't researched if it makes sense for the period you're writing about).

When it comes to using fictional terminology for concepts with real-life equivalents, the best usage is for flavour; to establish what kind of culture the setting is. A good way to do it is to make your 'smeerp' word something that is relatively self-explanatory, so you're not doing the xkcd example of stopping to explain each new word.

If a new word is instead set alongside an explanatory context or is simply obvious from its construction. For example, in my universe, medicine is a thing, but it's just barely got to germ theory. As such, doctors perform autopsies on corpses and make observations, but they're hardly described in the precise terms modern doctors would use.

Liver Cirrhosis is Drinker's Liver, Cancer is Tumours, Gangrene is Corruption, an Epidemic is a Plague. These terms are still familiar and self-explanatory, but just that extra edge of foreign/fantastical that establishes that yes, this is a different culture, but you don't need to stop and explain everything.

If you want to tone down the number of foreign sounding words consider using more generic titles for some of the levels. The words Govenor and High Govenor could be used instead of Count and Duke for example, depending on how it fits and they are appointed. Barons could become Magistrates and Knights Champions.

So if you're writing is set in a historical Persia (or a modern or future one where Iran did not happen) you're going to find a lot of parallel titles in nobility to European and Asian Culture. The Mongol Khanate was a major power behind this as at their height, they had the largest land empire in the history of the world and had major influences in most Eurasian cultures including nobility systems. These include cultures that exist in modern day Turkey, Iran, Afganistan, Russia, India (Through the Mughal Empire), Mongolia, China, and were a known power to Korea and Japan (both of whom weren't conquered but not for a lack of trying) possible eastern European Countries, and similar. They also had one of the most advanced communication systems for the time and as a whole were quite mobile. Roman era coinage was found in archeological sites as far away as Japan.

Suffice to say, Honor systems usually had similar ranks in multiple cultures through out Europe and ranks normally conformed to each other (For example, a Maharaja from the Mughal Empire was similar to a High King in English and Celtic spheres, and largely for the same reason (they were a King of multiple Kingdoms but often had a lower ranked King under them managing the day to day of that Kingdom) and a step below an Emperor (who often were Kings of multiple Kingdoms and ruled them all with a more central authority). In the Mongal Khanganate (empire) A Khagan or Khaan was the equivalent title for an Emperor while Khan was a mere King, though Khan of Khans, Grand Khan, or Great Khan are also acceptable equivalents.

Since these regions interacted with each other often, titles were created denote the same level of prestige to impress foreign courts.