Wonderful news for James and Sarah/Elizabeth fans. The last draft of Down Salem Way is finished. Really! Okay, the book is not finished finished because it needs final edits and other odds and ends, but the light at the end of the tunnel is bright and clear and within reach.

This is where the manuscript gets whittled down so it’s nice and shiny like. I’ve spoken in interviews and on this blog about how writing my novels is a bit like playing Goldilocks. My first drafts are too short, my second drafts are too long, and the third draft is, well, maybe not just right, but it does get there eventually.

Down Salem Way takes place entirely in Salem in 1691-92, rather than jumping back and forth from the present to the past like in the Loving Husband Trilogy. It’s also told entirely from James’ point of view. It’s important to me that James’ journal has the feel of being written in the 17th century. But what does that look like to modern readers?

The English language wasn’t standardized in the 17th century. Some English language historians believe standardization began in earnest in the mid 18th century, crediting Noah Webster’s spelling book in 1783 and his dictionary in 1828 with giving the English language a sense of stability. Before that, punctuation was hit and miss at best. Spelling was whatever it was (which, perhaps, is not so different from today, to the lament of English teachers everywhere). To add to the confusion, some letters of the alphabet were used differently. One source I consulted stated that the letter J as a consonant was still being substituted for I in the 17th century, which means that James could have been written as Iames. I’ll stick with the modern spelling, thank you.

Here’s an example of a love letter written in 1610 (from Folgerpedia), which looks similar to writings from later in the 17th century:

My best beloued cosen I am v^e^ry glad to here from you, that you ar well, and I would haue you thinke that it tis one of the greates[t] comfordes I haue in this world to here of your well farer; I am very sory to here that your father is still in that humer of offering you more wifes; but as for this; shee hathe a greate porshone; wich I thinke if I hade; hee would not so much missl[i]ke of mee as hee dothe; and besides shee is honorabell wich dothe goe fare with most men nowe dayes; but I protest I writ not this out of any mistrust I haue of your loue; for I haue euer found it more then I haue desserued; yett I know not what shall deserue; and thus with my best wishes; for your good fortune; and happy^n^es in all your bussines I rest euer –

your truly louing

frende while I breath

Jane Skipwith

Jane’s letter is actually easier to read than it appears at first glance, but still, I wouldn’t get far with a novel that looked like it was written in code. My Grammarly had a conniption with Jane’s letter. How do you explain to Grammarly that the passage was written in the 17th century?

My task, as I see it, is to give James’ words the rhythm of something written in the 17th century while being readable (and enjoyable) to modern eyes. Down Salem Way is James’ journal. Through reading it, we’re privy to his innermost thoughts, his feelings, his joys, his worries. We witness his ever-growing love for his wife, Elizabeth. We experience his highest highs and his lowest lows. This is James at his most raw. And he is a product of the 17th century, as we are all products of the times in which we live.

As I was writing Down Salem Way, I was keenly aware of the words in James’ journal. Was this a word that existed then? Was this something James would have written in the 17th century? As someone who loves to read historical fiction as much as I love to write historical fiction, I know how nothing pulls you out of a story faster than a misplaced word or phrase. James couldn’t say “Whazzup, dude?” in his journal. I mean, he could, but I would be banned from writing historical fiction forever after.

Etymology Online is a must-have resource for writers of historical fiction. With Etymology Online, you can type any word into the search box and it tells you which year the word came into use and where the word originated. I became obsessed with the etymology of words, and while I won’t say I typed every single word of the manuscript into the website, I did type in a few. Actually, I checked a lot of them. Not all of them. But most of them.

How do you find that balance between being historically authentic and still accessible to modern readers? Reading historical fiction is one way. Some authors do it just right, and others show you what not to do. One novel I found helpful was Daughters of the Witching Hill by Mary Sharratt. The story isn’t set during the Salem Witch Trials, but rather in 1612, in England, when seven women and two men from Pendle Forest were hanged as witches. From the first page, Sharratt creates a tone that feels authentic to the time while making for beautiful, engaging reading. Daughters of the Witching Hill is one of my favorite books I’ve read recently, and I highly recommend it.

Language in historical fiction is a fine line between staying true to the era while being readable to 21st-century readers. It is possible to do. Writing with patience and persistence is key. Willingness to experiment with different styles and structures is a must. Reading wonderful historical novels helps. And Etymology Online definitely doesn’t hurt.