Sfrgttk

One thing that often annoys me in historical fiction or fantasy books is the dissonance between the writing style and the events and historical period described in the book. The writing is usually very modern, it's fast-paced and uses modern idioms and phrases. By contrast, I love reading works from the time periods themselves, as they often have a very interesting style. Just think of the Odyssey and how weird it is in comparison to a modern novel, or the Old Testament or Don Quixote.

When writing my novel, I would love to emulate the style of the period that I am writing about. I would actually like my narrator to be a character within the world, a sort of historian who describes something that has happened in his world. And from time to time, he might add personal opinion etc. So this is even more reason why the book should be written stylistically fitting.

However, I am worried that this will be off-putting to readers, who might actually interpret this old way of writing as "bad style", or find that it borders on parody. I love the Khaavren Romances by Steven Brust, which are basically parodies of Alexandre Dumas' D'Artagnan Romances in a fantasy setting, exactly because the writing style fits the setting so well. But he gets away with it because it's supposed to be funny at times. I want to make a book that's more or less serious and dramatic.

So how can I avoid this uncanny valley and make it clear to readers that this is done on purpose, and how can I get them to like it?

In art, there are essentially 2 ways of creating a new work in an old style.

RETRO – attempts to preserve all aspects of the old style, including the themes and techniques that were appropriate to the time. a "retro-noir" film will be set in Los Angeles in the 1930s. It will incorporate themes that were explored in the original works, like political machines, graft, a "chump" or fallguy as the MC, deceit and betrayal in personal relationships. Essentially it is a new (original) work that could have been made during the era of the old style.

NEO – takes the overall tropes, affectations, and style-cues from the original, but is consciously transposing that style into the modern era with commentary, juxtaposition, heightened or exaggerated representations, and a structure that is inherently more like contemporary media. A "neo-noir" film might play with a trenchcoat detective and a femme fatale, but they are exaggerated becoming more a commentary on how the trope evolved over the decades, rather than a realistic or naturalistic evolution.

Retro recreates the past, Neo re-invents the past. There will be inevitable blurring and crossover between these concepts, but for authorial intent it may be helpful to understand when you are invoking one and not the other.

There's multiple pitfalls to consider here:

The first is the Uncanny Valley concern you mention in the OP - actually being able to write in the style of the time period to a suitable level of accuracy. Depending upon how far back you go it's not going to be far off attempting to write in a foreign language like a native speaker! By no means is this impossible - but it's going to take a significant amount of work.

The second is the question of whether doing so will alienate potential readers - and there's going to be potentially several reasons this might do that:

1. I'd expect preference for an era-appropriate style is likely to be a relatively minority opinion - I confess I don't have stats to back that up but anecdotally I've heard people mention the inaccessibility of the language used in period pieces as a negative, they read the period works in spite of this rather than seeing it as a positive.




2. Lack of authenticity - amongst fans of a particular form (whether it's in writing, art, music etc) there is commonly a distaste for recreations, no matter how well the style of a celebrated period may be imitated they know it's not the "real deal". I don't share that view personally so I admit I don't fully understand quite why it bothers them so much (when I've asked people to explain it I tend to get shrugs or comments of "But it's fake!" or "It's just so cheap!")

As you note regarding Steven Brust's works slight parody or comedy buys the author a great deal of leeway with the audience and more or less negates both of the above but that's not what you are aiming for.

Finally you express concern that the reader might consider it a "bad style" - well that's a distinct possibility. Nostalgia not withstanding there's a reason why styles and artforms evolve over time. The inconveniences of a Ford Model T might be charming in some contexts but I'm not about to swap my daily driver for one!

The framing device of using an in-universe narrator is a good one - and probably your best bet. It's a little gimmicky but will definitely get the notion of intent across and will provide a "justification" for why the style is used that will make sense to the reader.

how can I get them to like it?

You can't - people will like it or they won't. If you're aiming it for people who share your preferences then write it as best as you can for what you would like and you just have to accept that people like you will like it and others, well, won't. But that's okay - no work is going to appeal to everyone, that's not the point.