# Opinion on Limiting Vocabulary?



## ziodice (Sep 6, 2014)

I like to limit use of my vocabulary when I write strictly for the reason that...well, no offense intended to anyone that doesn't share this view, but people are simply stupid. It seems almost rude to force your readers to constantly look up the definition of words and phrases that are rarely ever used anymore. Thoughts?


----------



## Terry D (Sep 6, 2014)

Never assume you are smarter than your readers. You will be wrong, and your hubris will be apparent in your writing.


----------



## Blade (Sep 6, 2014)

There are words that are obscure and always have been and will be and there are words that have just fallen out of common usage and are dated. Sending a reader to the dictionary for no particular reason is obstructive (IMHO) and I think you should stick to vocabulary that a reasonably well read person will be familiar with.

I would also agree with Terry D' post above. Assuming that readers are stupid fails from both sides.:cry:


----------



## Sam (Sep 6, 2014)

"There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you". 

Treating your readers as though they are stupid is more rude than forcing someone to pick up a dictionary. Besides, your premise is flawed. Most people I know, except those who are avid readers, don't look at a dictionary when they come on a word they can't understand. Nearly all of them skip over it and read the rest of the sentence to make sense of what has been written. Generally, only hard-core readers and writers have any interest in perusing dictionaries.

So I wouldn't sweat it.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 6, 2014)

I agree with the previous posters. Anyone who needs to find a dictionary to look up a lot of words probably wouldn't be reading your book in the first place. So as Sam said, Don't sweat it.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 6, 2014)

> people are simply stupid. It seems almost rude to force your readers to constantly look up the definition of words and phrases that are rarely ever used anymore.



If a writer puts unintelligible words into their story and a reader stumbles over them, the writer is the stupid one. And the fact that that people don't commonly use or have forgotten certain words doesn't make them stupid; it's just one of the many things that happens with a language. I'm sure you don't use the word fustilarian with frequency, but that doesn't make you stupid.

Think more highly of your readers, or they won't think any more highly of you.


----------



## ziodice (Sep 6, 2014)

I suppose that's all true. When it comes to assuming I'm more intelligent than my readers, it's simply because...well, most of the readers I've met of the audience I gun for _are_ blithering idiots. I write for the ones who aren't but I'd prefer the ones who are are still able to read it. Gives them an opportunity to improve. I may simply be unlucky in my experiences, but I don't believe that's the case.


----------



## Plasticweld (Sep 6, 2014)

A good writer is a good communicator.  I am story teller not really a writer, but I have found that you can introduce words and technology in a fashion so that anyone can piece together the meaning.  You should always see yourself as someone who is capable of educating, we tell stories to teach values and principles based on the outcome of the story.  You should be no less of a teacher by limiting your vocabulary. 


I think all of us have had to suffer the idiot, who gets a big kick out of using words that are obscure just to see the puzzled look on our face.  There are also those who enlarge our vocabulary by sharing... the good thing is we get to decide as writers how we want to do it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 6, 2014)

ziodice said:


> I suppose that's all true. When it comes to assuming I'm more intelligent than my readers, it's simply because...well, most of the readers I've met of the audience I gun for _are_ blithering idiots. I write for the ones who aren't but I'd prefer the ones who are are still able to read it. Gives them an opportunity to improve. I may simply be unlucky in my experiences, but I don't believe that's the case.



My first thought was, if your audience is compromised of mostly "blithering idiots", why on earth would you want to write for them? To help them improve? Really? Read through your comment as if it were coming from someone else. You see how vain it sounds? How condescending? Seriously, you need to either change your attitude or change your audience. People do notice - ie, they aren't as stupid as you might think.


----------



## ziodice (Sep 6, 2014)

I apologize if I sound pretentious - I often do. It's difficult for me to word what I'm trying to say without being patronizing as all hell at the moment.


----------



## MysticalMind (Sep 6, 2014)

Usually it will be terms related to specific field that the reader will need to look up. If that's the case then a glossary would help. I don't think most readers mind going to a dictionary. I actually love learning about new words, but that's just me.

I see the issue as being more with English as a language. I have been wondering if there are too many words in an English dictionary. Other languages (e.g. Other European ones) are much more efficient and use far fewer words. I think it was a few years ago that the Oxford English Dictionary gained its one millionth word. I vaguely remember an article in the news but I'm too lazy to go and look for it right now.


----------



## dragonslayer (Sep 6, 2014)

Do you have an IQ exceeding 150... if not the possibility of you being more intelligent than your readers unless you're writing for young kids / young pre-teen adults is unlikely. 

By dumbing down your book, you're going to end up with a boring piece that no one is going to read. 

If you're using words like polybrachygyny... you got a problem. 


But a sign of a good writer is to use the English language to make something understandable. If you think someone is going to have a hard time, look up a Thesaurus [there's dozens online] instead of dumbing down your work.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 6, 2014)

Yeah,  I will leave out a word that seems too hard. It doesn't happen often, and I worry I don't do that enough. Shrugs.


----------



## ak2190 (Sep 7, 2014)

The only vocabulary I do not appreciate is medical jargon thrown around needlessly.


----------



## WriterJohnB (Sep 7, 2014)

ziodice said:


> I like to limit use of my vocabulary when I write strictly for the reason that...well, no offense intended to anyone that doesn't share this view, but people are simply stupid. It seems almost rude to force your readers to constantly look up the definition of words and phrases that are rarely ever used anymore. Thoughts?



I took the time to read some of your other posts and your blog. As you grow older, you might find out that your opinion of yourself and other people will change.


----------



## ziodice (Sep 7, 2014)

WriterJohnB said:


> I took the time to read some of your other posts and your blog. As you grow older, you might find out that your opinion of yourself and other people will change.



It's hard to decipher whether that was offensive, the opposite, or just helpful advice.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 7, 2014)

I'm thinking that was helpful advice. By the way read your blog. I thought your FAQ was hilarious.:lol:


----------



## Kevin (Sep 7, 2014)

I have to agree (w/ WJB)... why just last week at the sandwich shop I ordered a pros-'Q'-toe. People that I might consider dumber than me, laughed, and I deserved it (it's pronounced 'pro-shoe-toe'). There's always something to learn, like humility, sometimes by rote.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 7, 2014)

Ah, you're a young writer!

Yeah, you'll get out of the 'I'm smarter than other people' stage at some point. 

On another note, you're sig has a quote from John Green, one of my favourite authors. IMO, he's such a successful writer because he represents the teenage condition like no other author has; he considers and respects both the strengths and weaknesses of his readership. But the one thing he definitely does not do is view his readers as stupid.


----------



## aj47 (Sep 7, 2014)

I write like my characters talk.  This means that I occasionally use "vocabulary" words.  I don't avoid them, but neither do I make it a point to say, "hmm, I'm going to put in a vocabulary word here."


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Sep 7, 2014)

I appreciate your view, but I'm completely the other way.

I will write the word that is most appropriate, because it holds the greatest meaning. Writing is, as much as art, an opportunity to experience. If the purpose for this story telling is merely to transfer a series of events, then yes - limit vocabulary. However, if you intend to immerse a reader, draw the mountain (so to speak), then the correct word is always appropriate.

Schadenfreude doesn't have an equivalent word in English, but is one of the most powerful words I know.

Business operates on efficiency, brevity abounds in essays (to the benefit of those reading), writing fiction, however, is an art, and should be treated thus.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 7, 2014)

Okay. Don't we all agree that if you put in a word some readers might not know, you have to either give the meaning by context, not care if they understand it, or have a small failure as a writer? I use _patina i_n dialog. I don't even know how to pronounce it, but I don't care if my readers understand it, the whole point is that the guy using the word is a museum expert.

In the same paragraph, I use _sacrilegious_, which I know how to pronounce (but not spell). Does everyone really know what that word means? I didn't even think about it until now, it seemed like an easy word to me. I don't think I can fix it, but I'm supposed to be worrying about this problem, right?


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 7, 2014)

I'm actually one of those that checks the dictionary if I don't recognize a word so it never really bothers me. 

Sacrilegious I believe is similar to Blasphemous or to put it in more layman's terms contradictory to a religious tradition. So some people know.:smile:


----------



## Ari (Sep 7, 2014)

Opinion on limiting vocabulary:

I don't. Ever. 
Sure, some people in the world are stupid, but why write stories for them? Stupid people have hundreds of stories written for them. Probably thousands! They do not need my stories too.

And from a reader's point of view, how delighted I am when I find an author who doesn't assume that just because I am young I am stupid! Nothing compares! 

If you're as clever as you seem to think you are, why are you writing stories for the stupid ones? Let someone else do that. Put your so-glorious talents to better use.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 7, 2014)

JMO, but I think most words the author knows and uses relatively regularly are alright to use in their writing. It's when writers start rushing to the thesaurus to find "fancy" words to use instead that the real problems arise. Assume your readers will have approximately the same knowledge base as yourself and just write.


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Sep 7, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> JMO, but I think most words the author knows and uses relatively regularly are alright to use in their writing. It's when writers start rushing to the thesaurus to find "fancy" words to use instead that the real problems arise. Assume your readers will have approximately the same knowledge base as yourself and just write.




Such a great view, it escaped me and I'm glad you've noted it here.


----------



## TKent (Sep 7, 2014)

What a great thread. I have a limited vocabulary for sure, but it has never stopped me from reading books that I enjoyed that had 'big words'   When I read print books, it was rare that I needed to look something up since context usually worked just fine to get the general idea across.  Now with Kindle, I actually do click on lots of words because it is so fast and easy, that it doesn't slow me down at all.  So I'd say use the words that make the most sense for what you are writing.

Kevin, I have been an avid reader from a young age and it is amazing how many words I knew just from reading (and not from hearing them in spoken conversation). I've screwed up SO many over the years but boy are those the ones I remember.  The ones that come to mind are: hors d'vours (can't spell this one either), valance (it rhymes with balance), and carafe (it rhymes with Giraffe). 



> hy just last week at the sandwich shop I ordered a pros-'Q'-toe. People that I might consider dumber than me, laughed, and I deserved it (it's pronounced 'pro-shoe-toe').


----------



## Pluralized (Sep 7, 2014)

I love words, but when I try to step outside my comfort zone and use big words on purpose, it shows. So, when I write I typically try to stay to words I'm confident with and have known for a long time. New words break in from time to time, but I don't try to pull them off in prose until I've used them conversationally for a time. 

One of my favorite things is when I don't know a word, but an author does a good job providing supportive context so it's immediately clear what the word means. That's how I learn new words.


----------



## Morkonan (Sep 7, 2014)

ziodice said:


> ... Thoughts?



Use the right word.

Why deny your Reader the "right word" by hamfisting your way through a bad interpretation of what you would have rather written, but didn't? Besides that, I learned a great number of "new words" through reading fiction. Why deny your Reader that?

As has been said above, readers are not stupid. Well, you should never assume that they are, at any rate. In fact, if you're assume they are smarter than they really are, you'll be giving them a compliment! How could that ever be a bad thing for a writer to do for someone that is helping them keep their light bill paid?


----------



## talmaflower (Sep 10, 2014)

I don't think you should limit your vocabulary because you think your readers are stupid.  I think you should use your natural style.

I suppose if you use too many 'fancy' words you could come across as pretentious - but it also depends on the piece of writing and what it calls for.  Suppose you're writing a first-person novel; you might even _want _your narrator to be a little bit pretentious!  (Or the kind of person who uses 'fancy' words for other reasons, such as the way they were taught, their age, cultural background etc.)

My view (ummmm, this is my first post, and I'm not even a writer really, so I'm a bit lairy of putting forward my opinions right away! :-S) is that a story should still work in its basic form if the vocabulary is 'dumbed down'.  I suppose the key question is whether the vocabulary you're using adds something to the story - conjures up the atmosphere or helps to convey a character - or forms part of a poetic description such as if you want two words beginning with 'M' to describe something because it sounds fantastic when spoken out loud, for instance, or because the long word you want to use is a metaphor for something else linking in with a key theme from your piece or... you know what I mean!  

I guess a reasonable test could be: if you replaced the 'fancy' word with a simpler one which means the same thing, does it still serve its purpose just as well or does the writing lose something because of it?  

I've got a tendency to be overblown and pretentious, so when I write _anything _I try really hard to whittle it down and never use an obscure word if a normal one will do.  But if I was writing fiction for publication, I might want to have a few more passages of 'purple prose' where I went to town and got all flowery.  I'd try to strike a balance though and not go over the top for its own sake.

It also depends on everything else that's going on in the piece.  You might be working on a novel set in two different locations, for instance - and in one location you use a different writing style from the other, to emphasise the differences.  It would be interesting, for example, to write the Buckingham Palace scenes from the viewpoint of the English-as-a-second-language cleaner, and the digging-holes-in-the-road-in-Middlesbrough scenes from the viewpoint of a minor Royal.  ;-)


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 10, 2014)

talmaflower said:


> I don't think you should limit your vocabulary because you think your readers are stupid.  I think you should use your natural style.
> 
> I suppose if you use too many 'fancy' words you could come across as pretentious - but it also depends on the piece of writing and what it calls for.  Suppose you're writing a first-person novel; you might even _want _your narrator to be a little bit pretentious!  (Or the kind of person who uses 'fancy' words for other reasons, such as the way they were taught, their age, cultural background etc.)
> 
> ...



First..welcome to the site. 

Second...for not being a writer, that was a pretty insightful post. It looks to me like you are more of a writer than you may think. *thumbsup*


----------



## talmaflower (Sep 11, 2014)

Thank you!  

I used to write when I was at college, but haven't for years.  I've got out of the habit of creative writing, and am trying to get back into it - hence ending up here!  ;-)


----------



## shinyford (Sep 11, 2014)

ziodice said:


> I like to limit use of my vocabulary when I write strictly for the reason that...well, no offense intended to anyone that doesn't share this view, but people are simply stupid. It seems almost rude to force your readers to constantly look up the definition of words and phrases that are rarely ever used anymore. Thoughts?


On the one hand, I tend to agree with the majority view here, which is never assume you're cleverer than your readers. Don't simplify to patronise.

On the other hand, though... simplification, of vocab as much as anything, can be useful. Cathartic. I tend to use simple rules when I edit: I remove commas, cos I know I use far too many. I replace as many of the synonyms for 'said' that I've used with the actual word 'said' - at least to the point where it starts to feel over repetitive. Stuff like that. Not because it'll be easier for my poor readers to understand, but simply because it'll be 'better' writing. (The definition of 'better' here will need another thread, probably.)

Similarly, I try to cut words. The Literary Manoeuvres challenge on this forum is brilliant, because I am forced by the rules to cut my stories - usually coming in at c. 1000 words - down to 650. And that discipline means I lose a lot of chaff. Importantly, I cut chaff that until the cutting I didn't realise was chaff. And the stories are far, far better for it.


----------



## Seedy M. (Sep 11, 2014)

Use the word the character would use. A lawyer doesn't talk like a construction worker, a doctor doesn't talk like a biker and an English teacher doesn't talk like a farmer. If not using a word breaks character, use it.
Face it. A fisherman is not going to say, "I daresay one may not infuse such rhetoric into common conversational situations!" anymore than a Phd. is going to say,"Ain't that the f**king damned skinny!"


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 11, 2014)

talmaflower said:


> Thank you!
> 
> I used to write when I was at college, but haven't for years.  I've got out of the habit of creative writing, and am trying to get back into it - hence ending up here!  ;-)



This is definitely the place to be.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 11, 2014)

Seedy M. said:


> Face it. A fisherman is not going to say, "I daresay one may not infuse such rhetoric into common conversational situations!" anymore than a Phd. is going to say,"Ain't that the f**king damned skinny!"




Actually, that would entirely depend on the author and the character set up. In a good story, you very well might have a fisherman that speaks in those terms.


----------



## PiP (Sep 11, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> In a good story, you very well might have a fisherman that speaks in those terms.
> 
> 
> 
> > "I daresay one may not infuse such rhetoric into common conversational situations!"





It's not so much being a _good_ story but more part of the story and the reader's perception of the 'language a fisherman would use. The fisherman I've met here have been pretty basic in their use of language, and rather raucous with their coarse humour and behaviour.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 11, 2014)

PiP said:


> It's not so much being a _good_ story but more part of the story and the reader's perception of the 'language a fisherman would use. The fisherman I've met here have been pretty basic in their use of language, and rather raucous with their coarse humour and behaviour.



Then it would be the writer's job to explain/set up why it is that the fisherman speaks in such a way. 

One of our jobs, as writers, is to not only suspend a readers disbelief, but also to "tweak" their perceptions to suit our own purposes. If we know the perception of a fisherman is going to be the rough skinned, gravelly voiced, foul mouthed, gray haired fella, but we want him to be fairly young, blue eyed, blond with a silky voice and upper level education, then it's up to us to write that character in a way that will allow the reader to set aside their original perception and accept our fella.


----------



## Seedy M. (Sep 11, 2014)

If a fisherman is educated to where he speaks like an educated person, is young and smooth of tongue, he wouldn't be a fisherman. He'd be a banker or lawyer. I've been a commercial fisherman, but in the USA. I have yet to meet one there or in Central or South America or Australia who spoke in a "high language" form. The "suspend disbelief" bit would be if you have such a character.
Make the voice fit the person is all I'm saying. If you want a lumberjack who talks like Lord Bigsly, that's the choice you make. I can guarantee your readers are not going to relate to such a character.
I know bikers who are lawyers and business executives. When they are around bikers they talk like bikers. When I'm around bikers I speak like a biker. They will accept me that way. If the lawyer talks like a lawyer, he won't find any acceptance.
I have started reading any number of books where the speech forms of characters simply didn't fit. I don't remember ever finishing one that was written in such a way. I have to believe in the character.
I have read entire books where a character deliberately spoke in a different manner than his "station" would suggest, but it was explained or hinted from early that he was running a con or something. He didn't speak that way around his friends, only when he was trying to con someone out of money or something.
I say to make the words fit the character. If you have a character who would speak like that, why is included that he would speak in such a form. Unexplained early on leaves you with an unbelievable character.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 11, 2014)

> Make the voice fit the person is all I'm saying. If you want a lumberjack who talks like Lord Bigsly, that's the choice you make. I can guarantee your readers are not going to relate to such a character.



You're forgetting that contrast is a powerful tool. And that lumberjack sounds like a great tool for comedy, within which perception of reality and normality is suspended. In fact, as long as the reader feels like they're in another version of our world, or a different world entirely, giving people abnormal voices is quite a useful technique. 

Imagine a story where a character meets a shy god. The oxymoronic situation is ripe for powerful storytelling.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 11, 2014)

My father was a railroad foreman. He also skipped two grades in school and graduated early. His speech was as educated as any college professor's, and I think I heard him swear a mere handful of times in my life. The speech should indeed fit the character - but the character shouldn't be made to fit some stereotype.


----------



## Seedy M. (Sep 11, 2014)

You use a stereotypical character where one is called for. Comedy is an entirely different thing. I use that kind of gimmick in some comedy. You're not trying to create a convincing character there. It is meant to be from a different angle, one that brings a smile or a giggle. The place where you use the device in creating a character would be where the speaker was the town drunk, fallen from high station, but retaining his educated ways. I have met such people.
To have one or two in a story, only mentioned peripherally, works. They cannot be a major character or the entire work seems contrived.
I write from experience in many ways. I go places and mingle with or even work with different kinds of people. I was a longshoreman for awhile in college. I managed an auto salvage yard. I ran a concession stand. I was a high steel worker, I was a commercial fisherman. I worked with CEO's and with a retired RAF airman who actually was the queen's private pilot for a time. I ran a pool hall. I am a mechanic. My education is in botany and genetics, so I know how that group speak. I was a writer and arranger and sometimes performer in hard rock in the late sixties and early seventies. I invent things. I owned a rock bar and a gay bar for a short time.
When I read a scene where a person in any given group speaks or acts completely out of character I know the author is going to get further and further away from reality. They are writing about something they do not know.
It can be used, if you are careful, in detective stories, in particular, to leave clues or false clues. A detective worth his time will immediately note inconsistencies, which can lead to concentration on a given suspect. Even Agathie Christie used that device.
It's a question one must answer for oneself in a given circumstance.
Again: use the character the work calls for in that particular situation. Don't constrict your writing to some kind of phony formula. You work will suffer.
Note that the most adamant critics of a thing are far too often those who know least about it.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Sep 11, 2014)

ziodice said:


> I like to limit use of my vocabulary when I write strictly for the reason that...well, no offense intended to anyone that doesn't share this view, but people are simply stupid. It seems almost rude to force your readers to constantly look up the definition of words and phrases that are rarely ever used anymore. Thoughts?



Stupid people don't read a lot of books. Just use regular words anyway. They work just fine.


----------



## Plasticweld (Sep 11, 2014)

Seedy as a logger I reassemble that remark, while do not speak like Lord Bigsly I do have a good command of the English language.  

On a serious note, are we still at the point as writers where we have to stereotype  all of our characters in to little molds that are accepted by all.  I think  what makes a piece interesting, is that the characters are not cookie cutter versions of what is expected?


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 11, 2014)

Seedy M. said:


> Note that the most adamant critics of a thing are far too often those who know least about it.



Not sure what you're referring to there.


----------



## Seedy M. (Sep 11, 2014)

That was a leftover from another forum I had just left. Two people were raving and ranting at each other over some trivial remark in a book about a truck driver (another thing I've done in my 76 years). The character was explaining about something wrong with his transmission. It was slipping when it changed gears. He thought it was the clutch or the torque converter.
If you know anything about transmissions at all, as you necessarily do if you drive a truck for a living, you know a torque converter is in an automatic and a clutch is with a manual shift. This one was claiming the torque converter would automatically take up slack from the clutch.
They both gave very concise reasons why the other was an idiot and quoted things they read in a catalogue or something. If they were in the same town, there would be mayhem. They were adamant that their way was the right way.
Neither of their ways had any relationship to truck transmissions. They didn't know their rears from cow flops. It dawned on me for the thousandth time how these arguments that get out of hand are generally because both sides know nothing of the subject. Anyone who knew even very basic things would avoid getting into such  situations with a grin and just saying, "Right! Got to run!"
I listed a few of the things I've become involved in over the decades merely to point out that I've been there. I'm not like most of the writers I've met who have never been anywhere or done anything. They get their ideas from TV or reading someone else's book. Even with that, I can be just as wrong as the next guy.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 11, 2014)

Plasticweld said:


> Seedy as a logger I reassemble that remark, while do not speak like Lord Bigsly I do have a good command of the English language.
> 
> On a serious note, are we still at the point as writers where we have to stereotype  all of our characters in to little molds that are accepted by all.  I think  what makes a piece interesting, is that the characters are not cookie cutter versions of what is expected?



To run with this, one of the fun (and challenging) parts of writing for me is trying to make a character speak inside the role or stereotype. I love it when I get a line that sounds just like a teacher or archbishop. Or even loggerman (who, by the way, speaks simply and straight to the point).


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 11, 2014)

Seedy M. said:


> That was a leftover from another forum I had just left.
> 
> ... I listed a few of the things I've become involved in over the decades merely to point out that I've been there. I'm not like most of the writers I've met who have never been anywhere or done anything. They get their ideas from TV or reading someone else's book. Even with that, I can be just as wrong as the next guy.



Okay. Guess I didn't see the relevance - still not sure I do. But, while actually doing things is good, not having done them doesn't mean one can't write knowledgeably about them. After all, most SciFi writers haven't been to Mars.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 11, 2014)

Seedy M. said:


> If a fisherman is educated to where he speaks like an educated person, is young and smooth of tongue, he wouldn't be a fisherman. He'd be a banker or lawyer. I've been a commercial fisherman, but in the USA. I have yet to meet one there or in Central or South America or Australia who spoke in a "high language" form. The "suspend disbelief" bit would be if you have such a character.
> Make the voice fit the person is all I'm saying. If you want a lumberjack who talks like Lord Bigsly, that's the choice you make. I can guarantee your readers are not going to relate to such a character.
> I know bikers who are lawyers and business executives. When they are around bikers they talk like bikers. When I'm around bikers I speak like a biker. They will accept me that way. If the lawyer talks like a lawyer, he won't find any acceptance.
> I have started reading any number of books where the speech forms of characters simply didn't fit. I don't remember ever finishing one that was written in such a way. I have to believe in the character.
> ...



I disagree. What if this young man had a father who's dying wish was that his college educated son take over the family business, one which has been in the family for generations.  Are you saying that would be an impossible and unrelateable situation? What if part of the story was about the young man's conflicted feelings in wanting to honor his father's wishes? What about the feelings of knowing he doesn't really "fit in" with the locals?


If your choice is refusal to try to relate to the character based on assumed speech patterns, that's your choice, of course. But I think there may be some people who could take at least some of the character's position and find it immediately relatable.


----------



## Miles-Kirk (Sep 12, 2014)

The only time I rush to a thesaurus to use different words is when I am struggling to find a word that aptly describes the current action, scene or setting. But just cannot think of anything but the base word. I.E. Ran, picked up, looked. When what I'm really looking for is: dashed, grabbed and gazed.

I agree you should avoid going TOO fancy, but variation is most welcome. If anything, it serves to expand my vocabulary. I'd rather read words I didn't understand, than something that reads like a children book.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 12, 2014)

I intentionally simplify my words, not because I'm thinking about my reader's intelligence, but because (more often than not) simple prose is strong prose.

Words, in my opinion, should be used to help the story come alive in the reader's mind. If the words you use are too flamboyant, too complex, or too unique, they run the risk of being distractions.


----------



## Seedy M. (Sep 12, 2014)

TSB. As stated, use a stereotypical character where such is called for. Quite obviously, that would be a situation where one is not called for. I also ended with the suggestion to make the words fit your character. As a result, I find myself confused as to your reference.
Or, "Where the hell did that come from?" in the parlance of the people (who speak English) here in Puerto Armuelles.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 12, 2014)

> You use a stereotypical character where one is called for. Comedy is an entirely different thing. I use that kind of gimmick in some comedy. You're not trying to create a convincing character there. It is meant to be from a different angle, one that brings a smile or a giggle.



This is the kind of misinterpretation of comedy that was outdated hundreds of years ago when Shakespeare came onto the scene. And what about Beckett's work in the genre? Try applying your beliefs to _Waiting For Godot_ and you'll be up crap creek without a paddle.



> To have one or two in a story, only mentioned peripherally, works. They cannot be a major character or the entire work seems contrived.



Nonsense. It doesn't matter what 'experience' you have of the real world; fiction is fiction, and you can alter the real world in whatever way you want in order to fulfil whatever purpose you have. The contrived stories are the ones that think you can't do something because it isn't 'reality'. But as any critic worth half his library will tell you, your perception of reality is different from everyone else's, especially from the writer's. Idealised characters and societies are more common than realistic ones, if you pay attention to how 'real' everything you view is. Thus, stories don't create a copy of life; they hold a mirror up to it, and the shape of that mirror, and what it shows, is entirely up to them.

Again, Shakespeare. In his day, poetry was for the higher class, prose for the lower. Yet, he will have a lower-class character spin an incredible song and subsequently present the most noble character speaking without any poetical pattern. He pitted stereotypes in both literature and society against their conventions to challenge them, and I wouldn't call any of his work 'contrived'.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 12, 2014)

Seedy M. said:


> TSB. As stated, use a stereotypical character where such is called for. Quite obviously, that would be a situation where one is not called for. I also ended with the suggestion to make the words fit your character. As a result, I find myself confused as to your reference.
> Or, "Where the hell did that come from?" in the parlance of the people (who speak English) here in Puerto Armuelles.



My reference is to the fact that your post is somewhat contradictory.

In the beginning of it, you mention having not finished a book where the characters words don't "fit" their profession or whatever.

But then, at the end of the post, you say to use the words that fit the character.

Which would it be, then? How would you find out if the words "fit the character" if you don't continue reading because the speech doesn't "fit the character"?


----------

