# Five and ten cent store



## Olly Buckle (Aug 26, 2020)

I came across this idea in some old files, it wasn't very coherently arranged so I don't think I have used it before.

It's from Mark Twain, he said something along the lines of "Never use a ten cent word when a five cent one will do" several times in various ways; "Why write Metropolis when I get the same money for writing City?"

So here's the challenge, give us an untouchable humdinger of a ten cent word and a good unique five cent word to match it. It's not so easy, there are shades and shades of meaning.

Or you could simply post a five or ten cent word and ask if anyone can provide its counterpart.

There is also a bit of me that says is this right anyway? I have a friend who reads Dickens reveling in the language. I guess it is like any other general concept, useful generally, but don't feel bound by it.

The store is open.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 26, 2020)

I have heard similar stuff attributed to Orwell. Something like 'any word that causes you to reach for a dictionary should be avoided'. 

I think it depends. Like most rules, it's good advice..._generally. _There's absolutely nothing more obnoxious than writers who use elaborate language simply to sound clever. It's utterly transparent and can push a story from simple 'bad writing' to 'offensively bad writing'. Needless to say, I can think of zero books that are improved in any way by unnecessarily complex language in place of simplicity.

But, there is a bit of a counter. A writer with a firm grasp of elaborate language (they are comfortable with their words, their meanings, and the voice used to move them) should not be afraid to use such words anymore than a writer with a more limited vocabulary, or who is writing a story which requires such, should be afraid to keep it simple. There are no good or bad words, only the right ones.

Anyway, yeah I can think of a few...

'Location' - 'Place'
'Vision' - 'Eye'
'Animosity' - 'Hate'

I think the priority in fiction is not so much picking simpler or shorter words but picking ones that are more personal, avoiding jargon, avoiding scientific terms (unless appropriate) and using more immediate, emotionally fueled language.


----------



## Amnesiac (Aug 26, 2020)

Agreed. I remember, as an 11-year old boy, desperately trying to make it through an Asimov novel. I finally just tossed it aside. Later, I recall trying to read another such novel by a different author. Again, it was way too much effort. I read Shakespeare with no problem. I've read my way through most of the classics without any issue. I read (and write) for pleasure and entertainment. If I wanted to _work_, I'd go to my 40+ hour/week job.


----------



## indianroads (Aug 26, 2020)

It's the five & dime.


----------



## EternalGreen (Aug 26, 2020)

The best writing uses the best words for the situation. Where those word lie an an arbitrary hierarchy of elaborateness is of no consequence. None.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 26, 2020)

> 'Location' - 'Place'
> 'Vision' - 'Eye'
> 'Animosity' - 'Hate'



This is what I am getting at, it really isn't all that easy.

The first one is pretty good , but I am not at all sure that vision and eye are the same in any context I can put them, and hate seems much stronger than animosity, that could be based on dislike or disapproval.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 26, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> This is what I am getting at, it really isn't all that easy.
> 
> The first one is pretty good , but I am not at all sure that vision and eye are the same in any context I can put them, and hate seems much stronger than animosity, that could be based on dislike or disapproval.



Vision/eye...what I'm getting at there is to move the abstract to the concrete and emotional. Eye is a term that has a simple, fixed meaning, vision is not. When people talk about somebody 'having a vision as to how something works' why not say they 'have an eye for how something works'? Different contexts may not directly translate, admittedly, but I like the idea of referencing anatomy rather than terms related to anatomy. "He had poor vision" isn't as good as "he had bad eyes".


----------



## EternalGreen (Aug 26, 2020)

Well, animosity refers to mutual feelings of hate. It is usually more material than hatred, which is a feeling.

So-called "simple" words which everyone loves are often vague.

I am sad. Am I bereaved, guilty, bitter?

Let's see what Shakespeare has to say about the word "sad": 


_In sooth, I know not why I am so sad:__It wearies me; you say it wearies you;__But how I caught it, found it, or came by it,__[SIZE=-2]        5[/SIZE]__What stuff ’tis made of, whereof it is born,__I am to learn;_
_And such a want-wit sadness makes of me,__That I have much ado to know myself._ 
 


Gorgeous, isn't it? Let this be a refutation of anyone who thinks that simple words are always more precise.

You should use one-penny words if your narrative needs ambiguity.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 26, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> So-called "simple" words which everyone loves are often vague.
> 
> I am sad. Am I bereaved, guilty, bitter?



I think you have a decent point but plenty of complex words are vague, too. I think it's a different kind of vagueness.

When you use a word like 'sad' it is certainly unspecific, that's fair, but I don't think it lacks meaning compared to 'bereaved'. The vagueness problem remains with bereaved, it's just a more...uh...specific form of vague? I don't know what a 'bereaved' person actually feels anymore than I know what a 'sad' person feels and isn't that the point? All we seem to be doing by complicating these words is splitting the hair.

This is why I think the real problem is not to do with language being simple/complex but rather language being abstract/concrete. I think its generally best to avoid abstractions, talking about 'love' or 'anger'. It's a show/tell argument, basically.


----------



## EternalGreen (Aug 26, 2020)

I would definitely try to avoid using a word like "animosity" in a scene. It's a word for _telling_. 

It's synoptic, not artistic.

I would just try to have the characters in question show their animosity, of course.


----------



## EternalGreen (Aug 26, 2020)

Saying "*I am bereaved*" is more efficient than saying "*I am sad, because I lost someone I care about*". They mean exactly the same thing.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 27, 2020)

Death is still pretty taboo, 'I lost someone' is a euphemism, 'I lost  him in the crowd' does not normally mean he died. Also 'bereaved' does tend to be reserved for third parties, I don't think I have ever heard anyone apply it to themselves.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 27, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Death is still pretty taboo, 'I lost someone' is a euphemism, 'I lost  him in the crowd' does not normally mean he died. Also 'bereaved' does tend to be reserved for third parties, I don't think I have ever heard anyone apply it to themselves.



Yeah, I really hate most of those expressions, Olly. I don't know why exactly, I mean I understand why people use them. I guess I just think adults should be grown up enough to discuss death without fear of distressing themselves or other people, you know?

 One of the things I really like about visiting Latin American countries is they have a much more natural, less neurotic approach to that stuff and the outcome seems to be healthier: Grandma isn't 'in a better place', she's _fucking dead.

_Another ten cent word I hate is 'partner' used to describe somebody you're in a relationship with. That's some newfangled, sterile language. They're not your 'partner', you aren't in business together, they're your husband or your wife or whatever you want to call them. Even 'lover' is better and you hardly ever use it, presumably because people find it titillating.


----------



## Joker (Aug 27, 2020)

Synchronized.


----------



## TheManx (Aug 27, 2020)

Plethora seems to be one of those words people use when they’re trying to sound smart  – instead of a lot or many. I think it really means _too_ many – but that’s not how it’s used these days.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 27, 2020)

TheManx said:


> Plethora seems to be one of those words people use when they’re trying to sound smart  – instead of a lot or many. I think it really means _too_ many – but that’s not how it’s used these days.



Funny, I was just about to post that "Plethora" is one of my favourite words.  That one and "Prolific".   

And, yeah, guilty of trying to sound smart! 

Somehow, a lot just never sounds sufficient.


----------



## EternalGreen (Aug 27, 2020)

I like the term "partner" to describe non-straight relationships. It implies something much more serious than "lover", an attachment _far beyond infatuation_.


----------



## EternalGreen (Aug 27, 2020)

"Vision" can refer to a particular idea you have. An "eye" is the general ability to create a vision.

Someone with a poor particular _vision_ can still have a good _eye_ in general - and vice versa.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 27, 2020)

Good topic, Olly. Word choice is one of our most basic, yet challenging, jobs as writers. It's not just about finding a word with the correct meaning, but also the word which best fits the tone, style, and pace of the sentence it is used in. It also depends on the voice of the narrator, or, if being used in dialogue, the character. Anyone who has spent much time on these boards has seen threads about vocabulary, oft phrased something like, "How important is a large vocabulary to being a writer?" New writers often think 'sounding' like a writer is important and will use "ten cent" words to try and sound how they think they should. It is the same affliction which manifests itself in overly detailed dialogue tags ("Damn it!" Martin spat vehemently) and weak verbs propped up by never-ending 'ly' adverbs (Martin walked across the room sneakily.)

I believe simpler is better... except when it's not. Another quote from Mr. Twain that I find useful is:


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 27, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> I like the term "partner" to describe non-straight relationships. It implies something much more serious than "lover", an attachment _far beyond infatuation_.



Why do non-straight relationships need their own noun, though? It sounds deliberately ambiguous, which while perhaps makes its usage understandable, nevertheless is depressing.

I think 'lover' is pretty serious, it contains 'love' after all? Is love not an attachment _far beyond infatuation_?


----------



## EternalGreen (Aug 27, 2020)

"Partner" (or "romantic partner") seems more stout, more serious than "lover" (even if it means the same thing). It feels more inclined towards shared problem-solving. It says, "Yes, we are in love with each other and have been for some time. Now we have a solid life together." Someone you were with for only one night could be a "lover".


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 28, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Why do non-straight relationships need their own noun, though? It sounds deliberately ambiguous, which while perhaps makes its usage understandable, nevertheless is depressing.
> 
> I think 'lover' is pretty serious, it contains 'love' after all? Is love not an attachment _far beyond infatuation_?



I refer to her as my partner when I am dealing with the outside world, because that is what she is. She's got my back and I look out for her, we are also long term lovers, but that is our personal business.


----------



## Tiamat (Aug 28, 2020)

To continue the off-topic conversation regarding partner, I struggle with all relationship words because I can't think of an English one that fits my situation. We live together, we bought a house together, we do all the things married couples do, but we're not married. I often go with "fiancé" even though we will probably never do the marriage thing. (We're both atheists and we won't get any tax benefits, so really what's the point?) The problem with "fiancé" here is people immediately want to see the (nonexistent) ring, or want to know when or where or how big or what colors blah blah blah. I have no answers for these things besides, "Not tomorrow." Boyfriend sounds too casual. Lover sounds too superficial. Partner would actually work, except I would feel like I was appropriating a word from the LGBTQ community even though same sex marriage is legal most places now. And life partner is too melodramatic for me. I got nothing. I often call him "my dude" as well because meh.

To the OP though, a friend of mine once wrote a short story called "Verisimilitude." Nowadays, you might call that "truthiness."


----------



## indianroads (Aug 28, 2020)

> Another ten cent word I hate is 'partner' used to describe somebody you're in a relationship with. That's some newfangled, sterile language. They're not your 'partner', you aren't in business together, they're your husband or your wife or whatever you want to call them. Even 'lover' is better and you hardly ever use it, presumably because people find it titillating.



I refer to my wife as my partner all the time. We’ve been married 40 years, and I feel that term describes our relationship.


----------



## Joker (Aug 30, 2020)

You know, I was thinking about this while trying to come up with formal names for some of my countries.

Technically, _every _government is a "state", because that's literally the definition of a government. But _calling _your country a state instead of a republic or federation or whatnot has some authoritarian overtones. The Spanish State under Franco. The Eritrean State right now.  Creepy.

Not that there aren't oppressive republics and "republics" out there, but there are enough relatively benign ones for it to inherently have a dictatorial connotation.


----------



## TheManx (Aug 30, 2020)

I like "better half." Most definitely applies in my case.


----------



## bazz cargo (Sep 4, 2020)

Yo, youse jokin me dude.
My characters and narrators drive the language. Some posh types even quote Latin. An the rougher lot would cut yer gizzard for spit an a tanner. 
Never offer a paradox that requires a blind eye. 





Olly Buckle said:


> I came across this idea in some old files, it wasn't very coherently arranged so I don't think I have used it before.
> 
> It's from Mark Twain, he said something along the lines of "Never use a ten cent word when a five cent one will do" several times in various ways; "Why write Metropolis when I get the same money for writing City?"
> 
> ...


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 20, 2020)

A beta-reader suggested that I replace the word "trying" with "attempting" in one of my MS today.

I'm definitely not going to do that.


----------



## Newman (Sep 20, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> I came across this idea in some old files, it wasn't very coherently arranged so I don't think I have used it before.
> 
> It's from Mark Twain, he said something along the lines of "Never use a ten cent word when a five cent one will do" several times in various ways; "Why write Metropolis when I get the same money for writing City?"
> 
> ...



Mark Twain is talking about clarity, IMO.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 20, 2020)

Newman said:


> Mark Twain is talking about clarity, IMO.



That may be so, though I don't really see that 'City' is clearer than 'Metropolis'. My *aim* was to get people *to think of and about* the *words they have*. Most of my games have some sort of educational aim, in addition to the fun of playing them; it comes of being brought up by teachers  

aim - objective

to think of and about - consider

words they have - vocabulary

If you see what I mean? It is good to consider the possibilities, isn't it?


----------



## indianroads (Sep 20, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> That may be so, though I don't really see that 'City' is clearer than 'Metropolis'. My *aim* was to get people *to think of and about* the *words they have*. Most of my games have some sort of educational aim, in addition to the fun of playing them; it comes of being brought up by teachers
> 
> aim - objective
> 
> ...



If you write in close 3rd or 1st person, IMO it's a good idea to write both internal and external dialogue the way that person would think and speak. Regarding description though, I think you have a good point.


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 21, 2020)

Fancy words are like zip files.


----------



## Terra (Sep 21, 2020)

Writing with ten-cent words is not my style and may never be.  I write the first draft using 'my' language or voice.  Second draft, I may change some of the simple words to more elaborate ones, but I'd still consider them to be closer to the seven-cent mark.  I have a friend whose everyday language uses ten-cent words all the time - I'm always asking him to simplify what he's saying to me.  Needless to say, his writing reflects this and he's fine with it.

flamboyant - flashy

prerogative - privilege


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 22, 2020)

Just came across one in a post here where someone described a group of people as "Patently onatistic" - obvious wankers.


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 22, 2020)

"It is imperative that you auto-onanisize."


----------



## Joker (Sep 23, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Just came across one in a post here where someone described a group of people as "Patently onatistic" - obvious wankers.



This is why I despise books that are for the "intelligent" only.

Writing a book doesn't require that much intelligence. Theoretical physicists can't write novels worth a damn. It requires creativity.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 23, 2020)

Terra said:


> Writing with ten-cent words is not my style and may never be.  I write the first draft using 'my' language or voice.  Second draft, I may change some of the simple words to more elaborate ones, but I'd still consider them to be closer to the seven-cent mark.  I have a friend whose everyday language uses ten-cent words all the time - I'm always asking him to simplify what he's saying to me.  Needless to say, his writing reflects this and he's fine with it.
> 
> flamboyant - flashy
> 
> prerogative - privilege



I am a bit of a ten-center, both in my writing and in everyday speech. I just like it. It is somewhat a product of my upbringing too, and social group, and seems to "fit" with much about me, f.b.o.w. But I value a well-deployed two-cent word too. Power in brevity, and all that.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 23, 2020)

Joker said:


> This is why I despise books that are for the "intelligent" only.
> 
> Writing a book doesn't require that much intelligence. Theoretical physicists can't write novels worth a damn. It requires creativity.



Do you know many theoretical physicists who have tried to write a novel?  8)


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 23, 2020)

It requires intelligence and emotion, which is why I like it


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 23, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Do you know many theoretical physicists who have tried to write a novel?  8)



Here's a non-exhaustive list of authors who were scientists. Dunno about theoretical physicists, but there aren't many of them to begin with. May as well be "conjoined twins can't write novels worth a damn" for all the sense such blunt, and frankly ignorant, generalizations make. 

Good writers can be theoretical physicists as likely as they can be trashmen. Because what you do for a living isn't the sum of who you are. Stephen King worked in a laundry. Does that make laundry attendants good writers? Of course not.

Carl Sagan was an award winning writer who wrote a pretty good novel titled _Contact. _Does he count?

ETA: Aware that wasn't your statement, Taylor. I can't see the user you are quoting.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 23, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> ETA: Aware that wasn't your statement, Taylor. I can't see the user you are quoting.



You can blame Joker...lol!!!


----------



## Phil Istine (Sep 24, 2020)

I think using the word that fits the focal character is best, but try to keep it within the vocabulary of 95% of the likely readership.  For instance, I was writing a scene in one of those old railway carriage compartments.  It was occupied by one of those old British army officer toffs.  A bit later an older couple entered and started eating sandwiches and biscuits.  There wasn't an open, direct argument between them, but there was some discussion about the recently-ended war, during which Mr officer toff was trying to subtly hint about how it was terribly 'awf' to eat sandwiches in first class.  At the point where he gave up I referred to it as a 'cessation of hostilities'.  I could have used 'end of battle' or simply 'he gave up', but 'cessation of hostilities' seemed like an excellent fit due to the status of the focal character.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 24, 2020)

Phil Istine said:


> I think using the word that fits the focal character is best, but try to keep it within the vocabulary of 95% of the likely readership.  For instance, I was writing a scene in one of those old railway carriage compartments.  It was occupied by one of those old British army officer toffs.  A bit later an older couple entered and started eating sandwiches and biscuits.  There wasn't an open, direct argument between them, but there was some discussion about the recently-ended war, during which Mr officer toff was trying to subtly hint about how it was terribly 'awf' to eat sandwiches in first class.  At the point where he gave up I referred to it as a 'cessation of hostilities'.  I could have used 'end of battle' or simply 'he gave up', but 'cessation of hostilities' seemed like an excellent fit due to the status of the focal character.



Good point. I like a good ten-cent word. I had a crit recently on another forum where I had the sentence, regarding some clouds "ballooning in from the ocean." The crit was along the lines of "swap _ballooning _in for _coming_" and, I mean, my issue with that is that a. the common word "coming" is likely to crop up again at some point anyway so this reduces the risk of repetition; b. it carries no visual imagery, and as such reads less actively, that there's less suggestion of the type of movement about it. To me it's less interesting. And in any case my POV character in general perceives things in ten cent terms. But I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong. All I know is quality, established work makes use of imagery and metaphor, whereas typical wattpad content tends to use the generic term, and I know which ones I would like to aim at.


----------



## Phil Istine (Sep 24, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> Good point. I like a good ten-cent word. I had a crit recently on another forum where I had the sentence, regarding some clouds "ballooning in from the ocean." The crit was along the lines of "swap _ballooning _in for _coming_" and, I mean, my issue with that is that a. the common word "coming" is likely to crop up again at some point anyway so this reduces the risk of repetition; b. it carries no visual imagery, and as such reads less actively, that there's less suggestion of the type of movement about it. To me it's less interesting. And in any case my POV character in general perceives things in ten cent terms. But I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong. All I know is quality, established work makes use of imagery and metaphor, whereas typical wattpad content tends to use the generic term, and I know which ones I would like to aim at.



Clouds "ballooning" sounds good to me, especially if it fits with a ten-cent word character in the story and also fits with the imagery you wish to convey.  Billowing is often okay too, but slightly more clichéd.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 24, 2020)

'Ballooning' hardly strikes me as a ten cent word, not even all that extraordinary. I wonder what he would have made of it if you had had the clouds 'Sweeping down across the sky like a Scythian charioteered horde descending on the helpless, quiet, sunny afternoon.'

Descend - come down


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 24, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> 'Ballooning' hardly strikes me as a ten cent word, not even all that extraordinary. I wonder what he would have made of it if you had had the clouds 'Sweeping down across the sky like a Scythian charioteered horde descending on the helpless, quiet, sunny afternoon.'
> 
> Descend - come down



Exactly. But ... but then how can weather be "helpless"? It can't. IT MAKES NO SENSE. Maybe I should write "Moving across the sky like moving cloudy things". No, even that's too wordy. I must write "Clouds moved." Simple, no BS, shows what happened, and absolutely NOTHING MORE.


----------



## Phil Istine (Sep 24, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> 'Ballooning' hardly strikes me as a ten cent word, not even all that extraordinary. I wonder what he would have made of it if you had had the clouds 'Sweeping down across the sky like a Scythian charioteered horde descending on the helpless, quiet, sunny afternoon.'
> 
> Descend - come down



Okay then, about seven and a half cents worth.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 24, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> "Why write Metropolis when I get the same money for writing City?"


I'd argue that Mark wasn't talking about the craft of writing there—he was talking about the _business_ of writing.

His quote sounds suspiciously like: "Why spend the effort thinking of a specific word, when any generic word will earn me the same amount of money?" :-k

We can extend that philosophy even further: "Why put effort into crafting our writing, when we can just do the bare minimum to make a sale?" :grief:

I'm all for simplicity for simplicity's sake, but I think Mark's advice (like any writing advice) can be tossed out the window when the writing calls for it.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 24, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> I'd argue that Mark wasn't talking about the craft of writing there—he was talking about the _business_ of writing.
> 
> His quote sounds suspiciously like: "Why spend the effort thinking of a specific word, when any generic word will earn me the same amount of money?" :-k
> 
> ...



Oh to be so established you get paid by the word. Give Twain his due, he maintained the quality, read the later stuff by Walter Scott and it is terribly wordy, you can almost hear him counting the pennies in the background.



> Okay then, about seven and a half cents worth.


Give you five and a half, Phil; six if you promise not to use it again for at least five paragraphs. Final offer.


Extortionate  -  dear


----------



## Mutimir (Sep 24, 2020)

Eradicate - Destroy


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 24, 2020)

Mark Twain was someone used to getting published.

If I don't pick the perfect words for each situation, there's no chance I'm getting paid _at all_​.


----------



## TheManx (Sep 24, 2020)

Right, but the perfect word might be a five cent word. Conversations like this that are mostly devoid of context can be fun, but it's not something that you can take very seriously. (And I think that's how the OP was looking at it.) 

So like most of these things wind up -- it depends...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 24, 2020)

You never can tell. Sometimes I have thought I had a brilliant idea for a thread, and nothing happened. I had the idea of a series of threads for various poetical forms, some died, some get the occasional post, and the limerick thread ran and ran. I started a thread called Totally pointless posts, one of the first posts said something along the lines of 'Another of Olly's silly ideas' and predicted its imminent demise. It wasn't such a wild guess, I had a history, but that one became one of the biggest ever in terms of views.  What works and what you think will work can be extremes at times,

It depends  - It is contingent upon random sequential events of dubious predictability


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 25, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Oh to be so established you get paid by the word. Give Twain his due, he maintained the quality, read the later stuff by Walter Scott and it is terribly wordy, you can almost hear him counting the pennies in the background.



I have the utmost respect for Twain, for sure! I just enjoy playing the devil's advocate.

And I like the imagery of a writer counting pennies for their words. It's both humorous and sad. 

_She stood in the meadow . . .
_
*The writer frowns, peers at his empty wallet, then tries again*

_There she was, standing -- not sitting or otherwise -- in the center of a lush, late spring, early summer meadow, not fully in the center, mind you, but far enough away from the edges so that, if one were to view her from a bird's perspective, or perhaps through the window of an airplane, or perhaps even a blimp, one might think, yes, that young woman is most certainly standing somewhere near the center of that spring/summer meadow, which, did I mention was a lush one? . . ._


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 25, 2020)

Joker said:


> This is why I despise books that are for the "intelligent" only.
> 
> Writing a book doesn't require that much intelligence. Theoretical physicists can't write novels worth a damn. It requires creativity.



Theoretical physicists are probably the most creative people out there. Have you seen the crazy stuff they come up with?


I used to hate it when doctors said 'contralateral' instead of 'the other side'. I try to use it, or similar, whenever writing from a medic's POV.


----------



## Joker (Sep 25, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Theoretical physicists are probably the most creative people out there. Have you seen the crazy stuff they come up with?
> 
> 
> I used to hate it when doctors said 'contralateral' instead of 'the other side'. I try to use it, or similar, whenever writing from a medic's POV.



What I meant was, those skills alone don't make a writer. You have to have a passion for writing first and foremost.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 26, 2020)

incendiary vs provoking

Although I like the ten cent version better.  More raw and visual.


----------



## EternalGreen (Sep 26, 2020)

"Inflammatory" is an even more visceral way to say it.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 27, 2020)

One that always gets me is the word 'momentarily'. It's used frequently in America "the bus will arrive momentarily", and incorrectly as 'momentarily' originally meant _for a moment _not _in a moment. _Mostly, I just think it's a less attractive and unnecessary way to say 'soon'.

Another word I hate is 'altercation'. Besides being clumsy and wordy-sounding, it frequently gets used as a kind of camouflage to water down the actual character of the interaction. Colloquially, an altercation can mean anything from a fairly mild disagreement to blowing somebody's head off with a shotgun and the use of such a word conceals the subtle differences and results in degraded meaning most of the time.


----------



## bdcharles (Sep 27, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Theoretical physicists are probably the most creative people out there. Have you seen the crazy stuff they come up with?
> 
> 
> I used to hate it when doctors said 'contralateral' instead of 'the other side'. I try to use it, or similar, whenever writing from a medic's POV.



I was about six months ago years old when I learned that _idiopathic _is a fancy way of saying "we don't know."


----------



## Terra (Sep 29, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> I am a bit of a ten-center, both in my writing and in everyday speech. I just like it. It is somewhat a product of my upbringing too, and social group, and seems to "fit" with much about me, f.b.o.w. But I value a well-deployed two-cent word too. Power in brevity, and all that.



You nailed it!  Upbringing can have a huge impact on how we speak and write as adults.  I didn't have a big-word childhood, but I do remember reading the dictionary in my spare time ... just didn't have anywhere to use the words is all.  I carry a little black writing book with me for ideas and so on, but also to write down words I hear people use.  The words may not make it into anything I write, but collecting them is fun.

This quote crossed my path since this thread started ...

"One of the really bad things you can do to your writing is to dress up vocabulary looking for long words because you're maybe a little bit ashamed of your short ones.  This is like dressing up a household pet in evening clothes.  The pet is embarrassed and the person who committed this act of pre-meditated cuteness should be even more embarrassed.  Make yourself a solemn promise that you'll never use gratuity when you mean tip ... *Use the first word that comes to your mind* ..."  Stephen King, On Writing

Simple advice which stops me from comparing myself to other writers who naturally use ten-cent words.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 1, 2020)

Terra said:


> This quote crossed my path since this thread started ...
> 
> "One of the really bad things you can do to your writing is to dress up vocabulary looking for long words because you're maybe a little bit ashamed of your short ones.  This is like dressing up a household pet in evening clothes.  The pet is embarrassed and the person who committed this act of pre-meditated cuteness should be even more embarrassed.  Make yourself a solemn promise that you'll never use gratuity when you mean tip ... *Use the first word that comes to your mind* ..."  Stephen King, On Writing



Great advice!!  Thanks for posting Terra.


----------



## EternalGreen (Oct 13, 2020)

"autumnal"


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 15, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> "autumnal"



?? Is it seen as a ten cent word? Three syllables, that has to make it worth something. TBH I can't think of a simple alternative two cent word. I suppose Americans say 'Fall' for Autumn, but I have never heard an adjective made from it.

It could simply be a comment on the season of course; mists mellow fruitfulness and mildew


----------



## ehbowen (Oct 15, 2020)

I am...well, as Heinlein had his main character say in _Double Star, _​"I have a weakness for polysyllables; I like to exhibit my literary erudition."


----------



## matthew1959 (Oct 19, 2020)

Prolegomenal- Introductory

Somehow my wife ended up with a vocabulary builder called Word of the Day that delivers a vocabulary word daily to her inbox.  I see lots of these words.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 20, 2020)

matthew1959 said:


> Prolegomenal- Introductory
> 
> Somehow my wife ended up with a vocabulary builder called Word of the Day that delivers a vocabulary word daily to her inbox.  I see lots of these words.



Gosh, that's a useful addition to anyone's vocabulary; not.


----------



## EternalGreen (Oct 20, 2020)

Ignominious. (publicly shameful)

Not useful for creative writing.


----------



## ehbowen (Oct 20, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> Ignominious. (publicly shameful)
> 
> Not useful for creative writing.



What, you don't believe that a main antagonist can't overreach and be brought to an ignominious end?


----------



## EternalGreen (Oct 20, 2020)

I don't think you'd need the word "ignominious," no.


----------

