Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
Apologies if this topic has been discussed previously, time to visit here always struggles with demands of the bill paying commitments.
My query concerns use of less familiar words in written works.
This is a quandary for which I would appreciate every possible opinion to be expressed.
The English language, as is often noted within threads, constantly develops. Whilst embracing new words, is it acceptable to delete use of old words?
My confusion is prompted by a perceived hesitancy to encourage use of less familiar words. Surely, as writers, we should encourage incorporation of the whole dictionary, rather than adapt scribing to avoid the need for readers searching of definitions. Perhaps my school days are too many decades ago for fair comparison, in those days all pupils were encouraged to note newly discovered words and research their meanings, use and relevant interpretations. The practice resulted in most children, after five years, leaving secondary education with a broad vocabulary.
Today, even newscasters appear to dumb down presentations, to the degree that such as more easy is preferred to easier and much needed replaces necessary. Two, oversimplified, examples of my anxiety. Who decides which word is so complicated that it tests patience of listeners or readers and should not be used?
Should writers submit to pressure for use of only simple expressions?
Surely, for the sake of continuing our language development, responsible practice should include promotion of the many beautiful words born over so many centuries of communication?
Comments
China Mieville doesn't compromise his choice of words. I read several new ones (to me) in his work. Okay, so I had to get the dictionary out, just as we used to at school!
As a nation, we have clearly always welcomed new words for the ability it gives us to express just what we want - so I say, welcome new, and keep the old.
I never 'dumb down' the vocabulary I use in my poems and as long as meaning is implied in the rest of the poem, I don't think one needs to, in fact I think introducing new words to children so that it is fairly obvious what the word means is an art which should be used more often.
Funnily enough I am collaborating with an American at the minute, and a poem I just sent he has queried as he doesn't think children 'over there' will understand my choice of words.
But if an old word fits perfectly then I will use it in contemporary setting.
There is only a problem when others criticise you for doing it, which means the problem lies with them, not you.
Expressions and words don't just describe, entertain or show us, they educate. As Heraclitus once said, everything flows, nothing stands still.
It entirely depends on your market, not just your genre, but the age reading that genre.
Those of the Sci/Fi/Fantasy subgenre Steampunk/DieselPunk do enjoy their "lost" words. Four sylables or more please. Those too young to have such a vocabulary desire to build it rapidly.
Those of the modern Romcom, I would believe more modern words would suit, yet a good Bodice Ripper you'll find you'll need to appropriate words with a modicum sense!
Words are associated with age, times gone by, they can establish your place in society, history, and geographically too. To complex and you limit your readership, incorrect and you confuse them. Like I said, some authors take it upon themselves to educate their readers. Book by book, epic by epic.
I don't think so. Writers should use the very best word or phrase to convey their meaning. If that means that ocassionally a reader comes across an unfamiliar word, I don't consider that a problem. Sometimes though changing to a shorter or more simple word is right - eg if writing for children we might not want to include lots of words they won't already know and most people who've chosen a lighthearted story probably don't want to keep a dictionary by their side in order to follow it.
[quote=SilverLinings] Stephen King is of the persuasion that the word you need is the word you know. [/quote] There's sense in that. If we use lots of words we've had to look up, then the chances are others won't know them either. There's also more chance we'll use the word wrongly.
If you want to use words that the reader won't recognise, then you are writing for the wrong lot. They won't thank you for educating them: they'll go and read something else.
However, if your style leans towards the more erudite or literary, then aim for the sort of readership that will understand you, rather than dumbing down and trying to fit in where your work doesn't naturally belong.
Incidentally - I found Stephen Fry's latest book much easier to read on my Kindle because I could check the unfamiliar words instantly. His vocabulary is astonishing and it was interesting to note that some of the words he used weren't recognised by the Kindle dictionary.
Indeed he does-although he often 'makes up' words to fit his requirement.
I've never been an avid King reader but after reading his 'On Writing' I have tried his fiction too. His is a gift I could do with :)
I try and use the most obvious word, if it's considered 'old-fashioned' then tough. There is enough 'dumbing down' of language on TV without following the trend when writing. To be able to use vocabulary like Stephen Fry does is probably a dream too far but there's no reason at all why we can't all expand our internal dictionary.
[quote=Jan]My confusion is prompted by a perceived hesitancy to encourage use of less familiar words.[/quote]
I don't mind having to occasionally open a dictionary to investigate an unfamiliar word - it pleases me to expand upon my vocabulary - but when uncommon or difficult words are liberally spread throughout the body of work it can make the going tougher than is enjoyable. Just as an aside, it seems funny to me that we all agree with that sentiment yet Talkbackers have occasionally been 'questioned' over the use of the odd, unfamiliar word included in their entry.
[quote=Jan]even newscasters appear to dumb down presentations, to the degree that such as more easy is preferred to easier and much needed replaces necessary. [/quote]
There is no need for dumbing down to this extent and it's ridiculous to bother. I don't know who they think they're catering to. Or, for those pedants in the audience, perhaps I should say I don't know to whom they are catering. ;) Hehehe But back to the point in question, it doesn't take a genius to work out that 'easier' is easier than 'more easy' so surely writing two words in place of the more accurate one defeats the purpose of simplification?
The general view seems that we all agree use of words should be appropriate to context of the constructed prose.
By implication, it appears correct to use one word in preference to a phrase. That is, presumably, considered equal to the adage of one picture painting a thousand words, except of course words are created for the joy of their use. One word; of that magnitude would, understandably, lead to confusion of its intended interpretation.
How can editors, judges and critics be persuaded from their perception of needing a group of words to sufficiently describe circumstance or situation when one less used or unfamiliar word would negate such unwieldy phrasing? Practice of the, one word for several, philosphy would assist resolution of that recurring dilemma when writing to a set word count. It would also dispel so much of the gabbled 'news' reports by allowing time for correct pronunciation in the short time allocated to each description.
Then again, one might deem me an old retard too obsessed with rhythm of prose in deference to staccato verbiage which only 'sounds' concise.
The second issue is the use of one unusual word where a single, more common word would carry the same meaning. Done too frequently, to an audience that is not familiar with the words used, this makes reading your piece difficult, and makes you look pretentious. It is worth noting that when someone has to look up a word, the word then merely acts as a place marker for whatever word or phrase the dictionary comes up with. It is unlikely that your reader, who probably will not come across that word again, will actually remember the meaning of the word for long.
The third issue is that language is primarily about communication. The purpose of a news bulletin or newspaper article is to get information across to its listeners or readers, and the use of unusual words, however appropriate they might be, is a hindrance in doing this. Incidentally, I can't see that 'much needed' is 'dumbing down' - it does not mean the same as 'necessary', carrying implications of a need not being met. It is, of course, a bit of a cliche, but that is a different issue again. Of course, when you move away from the strict need for understandable communication into the realms of literature, then some ambiguity of language is acceptable.
(quoting Mr Cumberbatch recently for example "Laterz")
Some of the things I am reading with my seven year old is littered with the influence of the internet chat room on our world today.
The real art of an author is using the right word when writing.
So on that note, TTFN, HTH! Don't forget to keep with the PMA.
I agree that there's no point in using an unfamiliar word where it will interrupt the flow of your beautifully written prose, particularly if it is an otiose word, but if it has a use, then I say use it. And I do think there are ways of making its meaning clear by the way it is used and surrounded by other words. And I think more writers should do this - vocabulary is falling. Why? Well, I'm convinced that one of the reasons is because the lowest common denominator is being catered for, even in books which must be being read by people who have the ability to grasp the difference in a shade of meaning. And if you find ways to use a word like 'otiose' again in the course of your book, then it may well become a word that the reader remembers.
Otiose is a word I learned like this. It means (of a word in a particular context) superfluous, redundant, unoccupied, functionless, futile...
Funny, I always thought 'otiose' meant 'fat' - I should have looked it up before :-(
Personally if I dumbed myself down anymore I would be...
(lacks the verbiosity to finish the sentence)
(lacks the verbiosity to finish the sentence[/quote]
...dumb, Lou?
Personally if I dumbed myself down any more I would have two big ears and a trunk.
There we go!
Does it irritate anyone else to hear broadcasters say: 'The amount of people who . . .', rather than the correct: 'the number of people who . . .' I know that in this serious world it's nit-picking and being too pedantic, but ...
You are not alone.
The news has evolved: used to be done in dinner jackets, and only Received Pronunciation, but that was in the days when they thought they had to educate their listeners.
There are some great journalists out there, and they can get their news across without being patronising or simplistic. But considering the educational level demanded by the BBC for would-be candidates to join their ranks, you know they have to be trying hard to speak so badly!
And that was on the radio :).
Interesting thread.
Hehehe :D Love it.
So do I. Of course, now I'm writing this I can't remember any, but I shall make a note of the best and put them on here for a laugh.