We have moved to a new site!
This site will remain open only so you can copy anything you need, such as critques. Do so quickly because the old Forward Motion boards will soon disappear.

Are you ready for the new site? You must create a new login, but the chat login will remain the same as here for now. Click here to join us at the new

Forward Motion for Writers

See you there!

---

I was reading an article on food guides (Canadian) this morning when up popped the following:

rethermalization technologies

It took me twenty seconds or so to understand what that meant. This of course halted my train of thought about the article. As soon as I realised what was being said, I laughed.

But then it occured to me that writers who use too many fancy expressions when they're writing a story tend to halt their readers enjoyment of the story, so I thought I'd come along here to mention my feelings about it.

This doesn't mean I think only very simple language should be used.

Weird Jim

"Good reading is the only test of good writing"
Robertson Davies. A voice from the attic 1960

The wrong word can halt a story for a reader, not just a 'big' word. Unfortunately each reader is different is what they would regard as the wrong word.

For example; I read a story, set in English countryside in the 1920's, where the narrating character described the colours of the market around her, and she focused for a moment on the fruit stall - smooth red apples, dented oranges and yellows of the citrus fruit, bubbles of green grapes, prickles of brown kiwis.

And I'm like 'What? Wait up!'

See, because of a family member being involved in the production of kiwi fruit, I know that kiwi fruit were originally known as chinese gooseberries and the name change didn't occur until the '60's and that kiwi (without the fruit) is an American thing. The British and Australians call them kiwi fruit.

But how many others would know that?

Should only simple language be used?

Nah. Nothing wrong with simple language, I prefer to use simple words. Mostly becuase my own vocabularly isn't grand and highflauntin (arrogant, boastful, conceited, flaunting, grandiose, high and mighty, important, lofty, ostentatious, overbearing, presumptuous, pretentious, puffed up, puffy, self-centered, stuck-up, swanky, uppity, vain) but also because I come from a British background and mostly write to an American market and I keep out words I feel are too much Britsh.

But I also write to suit my characters.

A boy from the wrong side of the streets isn't going to talk, or think, using big words, so when I'm narrating using that boy all the words fit his background. An English professor is going to use big words, so the chapters narrated from his point of view use big words. A car mechanic would use words that revolve around mechanical things, a werewolf uses a different set of words again.

Each story, each character demands thier own vocabularly - big or simple.

And it doesn't mean that the story can't be a powerful story.

I won't say I have your knowledge of kiwi fruit production... but when I read "English countryside, 1920s" and then "kiwi", my instincts made me uneasy. I couldn't have explained just why that wasn't right, but it felt wrong, anachronistic (as in fact it was). Of course, that may come from having read a number of books written in various times and places. It seems to have given me a fairly reliable if far from infallible sense of what is "off".

As for "rethermalization"... whenever I hit a word which shouts 'the author is trying to overawe you with absurd jargon', I move on. About the only time I'd find that word on a page and fail to be put off would be if the character using it was clearly meant to be a pompous ass. In that case, yes, that would be an excellent word to put in their mouth to show how they earned that reputation.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

This is fully agreeable and in deed practical. Every character has its' own attitude, thinking,styles etc., and hence the vocabulary needs to match the same.

A reasonably simple language shall have the reception of both low and high end readers.

However, word is the most important aspect that greatly weighs in deciding the success of a novel.

Thanks for such guiding note.

mpv.muthu

I also suspect that kiwi fruit may not have appeared on th UK scene until air freight started. . Sure, refrigerated mutton, lamb and butter was being shipped by sea by the late thirties (possibly earlier), but for a luxury item like kiwis it may have been too expensive. I suppose there was a bit of greenhouse stuff available to the rich, (some, I've heard, grew their own bananas) but even there whole families had been virtually wiped out during the Great War so that there were few men who knew the trade left to run things. I suspect, before any women here get up in arms, that women had their hands full with more important jobs like bearing and rearing children for the next war.

However, most of today's readers might well pass the mention of kiwi by unless they had the knowledge that you have; but your point is well taken.


Weird Jim

"Good reading is the only test of good writing"
Robertson Davies. A voice from the attic 1960

But there's the other side of it, too. I always try to push my vocabulary a little -- it's necessity in doing any kind of fresh writing. Too many phrases end up sounding like everyone else because the same types of words are being used.

The words aren't anything fancy, but I've had novice writers cry, "Don't use that word! I don't know what it means!" Um, couldn't look up the word in the dictionary?

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

Well, I'm not for using fancy words out of turn, but there are times when they are appropriate. However, if the meaning isn't clear from the context, the author, in my opinion, has failed. It's fine to look it up for a better understanding because you're curious, but you should not have to read anything with a dictionary in hand unless it's a foreign language you're learning.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

It's one thing to say that "algorithm" is probably going to be a word that anyone but a scientist might not get, even from the context. It's another thing to take a relatively common word and demand it's removal because you don't know what they mean, even in context. The individuals in question were rather poorly read (apparent in other parts of critiques) and the words were relatively common -- I'd seen then a number of times in various novels.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

Oh, yes, but also no. Demanding its removal is ridiculous. Requesting a better contextual explanation is perfectly reasonable. And of course the author has the right to ignore, but remember that the majority of critiquers you'll run into are better read than the majority of readers.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

Unless you were in that particular critique group. I was surprised at the number of people who wanted to write fiction and didn't read much of it. We even had one guy who said "I don't have time to read!"

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~

LOL! Those are the people you don't believe.

~~~~~~Signature's Off~~~~~~