# Mentor's memoir; Deliberating circumlocution.



## Olly Buckle (Aug 18, 2017)

Mark Twain said, “I never write metropolis for seven cents because I can get the same price for city. I never write policeman because I can get the same money for cop.” there is something to be said for being paid by the word. He made another comment about not using a ten cent word when a five cent one would do. The best humour always has elements of truth buried in it, sometimes so shallowly limbs are left sticking out. 

Using long words and general circumlocution can hide the meaning rather than making things clearer, consider this little gem;

“Insufficient information is available to date to facilitate a comprehensive instruction regarding arrangements for travel at this moment, but, upon receipt of this information, we shall effect communication with yourself at our earliest convenience.”

A civil servant actually wrote that, rather than, “We don’t know yet, but we’ll let you know as soon as we do”.  He probably thought it had precision and style. It has; unnecessary precision; it’s full of stuff we do not need to know. 

It is not a style I would use normally either, though I could for a particular character if I wished, or to put that another way, 
‘The verbose extremes of this manner of presentation do not naturally appeal to me and I would avoid using them on a day to day basis, although, if I were to be consumed by the desire to emulate it as a style in order to portray a particular individual I am fully confident its floridity would fall within the compass of my capabilities.’
You are probably not that extreme, very few of us are, but it is worth asking yourself,
“Is what I write what I am thinking, or is it a series of received phrases that approximate my thoughts?” 

When you are satisfied that the words are your own, and they actually say what you want said in the order you want it said, it is time to have another read through. It took me two extra reads to catch ‘We don’t know at the moment’ which had crept through; ‘yet’, one single-cent word.

There is a difference between ‘padding’ and ‘fleshing out’, the latter adds meaning, the former adds words. There will be times when it will add ‘Voice’ or ‘Character’, or when you do it to make a point as I did,  nothing is wrong all the time in writing, what makes the difference is being aware of what you are doing, and doing it for a reason.


----------



## PiP (Aug 19, 2017)

> Using long words and general circumlocution can hide the meaning rather than making things clearer, consider this little gem;
> 
> “Insufficient information is available to date to facilitate a comprehensive instruction regarding arrangements for travel at this moment, but, upon receipt of this information, we shall effect communication with yourself at our earliest convenience.”



This is an excellent point, Olly. I was once manager of a large sales office. The company was bought out by GE. Before long we no longer wrote memos or conversed in every day language but in corporate jargon.

As for fiction, I am not so keen reading books where the author's style is verbose. I actually find it rather annoying.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 20, 2017)

I might have commented at length on this but can't think of a shorter alternative to the word "vernacular". How ironic. Even more ironic is that "alternative" is even longer than "vernacular", so I've aggravated the problem now just by mentioning it. I'm doomed! Of course there's a difference between long words and commonly used ones ... no, hang on, I mean that often there _isn't_ any difference, don't I? What I actually meant is that what surely matters is how commonly a word is used rather than its length. 

I guess I shouldn't mention obfuscation either, even though it's a word that I personally commonly use. I see a problem in that long words used intelligently reduce the word count, which many (but not I) consider to be all-important for some reason. If my word count is restricted by external influences then I will utilise (using that particular elongated word precisely, you'll notice) long words to maximise the content and it will serve the external influences right for insisting on ludicrous (a more polite word than "daft", to use that previously mentioned "V" word, or rather not to, not explicitly anyway) restrictions.

On the subject of long words and truth within humour, someone once said to me, "Rob, you prevaricate," and I replied, "No I don't. What does it mean?" Discussing the logical philosophy behind that would seriously derail the thread though, so it's easier just to regard it as a joke about using long words.

So, to put it succinctly, rather than just briefly, I think your comments relate to uncommonly used words rather than long ones.

Interestingly, at least to me but maybe not you by now, this post evidently being longer than I anticipated initially, the example of the civil servant that you mention needs careful examination. For example, many serious situations have arisen because someone claimed not to know something although sufficient information actually was available at the time. Hence "We don't know yet," is a weaselling statement that could actually mean, "We haven't even tried to find out yet," and would most likely be assumed to mean that by a sceptic, but "Insufficient information is available," implies much more than that, that attempts to find out have failed. Whether it is better to write "not enough" instead of "insufficient" depends on whether civil servants are paid by the word.

On that very subject, by coincidence and maybe interestingly but even I'm beginning to doubt that now, I have recently been reading nineteenth century conveyancing deeds and the word counts on those are astronomically high, so I think their authors must have been paid per word rather than on content. If they could think of two ways of writing something then they'd use both, just to ensure that there could be no doubt about the intended meaning. I think that must be how and why I'm getting into the same habit. So, regarding the aforementioned ...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 20, 2017)

Vernacular, try 'slang', or possibly dialect, depending on the context.

It is actually fun writing like that, after I had said that I felt I could and tried it I found myself trying to think of a plot where I could have a character talking that way, purely for the fun of writing like it. Perhaps there's a section in the writing challenges? I know there is one for bad writing.



> Before long we no longer wrote memos or conversed in every day language but in corporate jargon.


No notes or talking then 
It is amazing how a 'mindset' can influence. I have a friend who plays with Hastings chess club, he tells me they had a match they had to travel to and played a game in their heads on the way, on arrival, instead of their usual reasonable performance they won every game. Could it be that just thinking about the experience meant you were 'conversing' rather than 'talking'.


----------



## escorial (Aug 20, 2017)

I always pick up the thin books on the tables in Waterstones as they are usually 100 odd pages long and not full of overdramatic words or chapters and it's been a good yardstick for me......


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 20, 2017)

escorial said:


> I always pick up the thin books on the tables in Waterstones as they are usually 100 odd pages long and not full of overdramatic words or chapters and it's been a good yardstick for me......



I don't know if you enjoy CS Forester, he wrote a number of other things besides 'Hornblower'. There was a novella called 'Brown on Resolution' and one called 'The Ship', both about the WW2 Navy. I love his clear, simple style.
The Ship he wrote after a day visit to a navy ship, amazing how someone with imagination can use a day's worth of information to create something so good.


----------



## escorial (Aug 20, 2017)

will do man....


----------



## sas (Sep 2, 2017)

Poetry uses an economy of words. When I read the other prose writer groups, I'd like to tell them to only write poetry, for a few months, to get rid of their verbosity. They love words, too much. Prose let's them run amok.


----------



## sas (Sep 2, 2017)

Rob...

Do you talk like this in everyday life?: "Interestingly, at least to me but maybe not you by now, this post evidently being longer than I anticipated initially..."

Were you, tongue in cheek, demonstrating circumlocution?
Love ya, pal, so I do try to read every single word you ever write. Then I have wine. But, sometimes I can't wait that long.  xoxo sas

.


----------



## JustRob (Sep 2, 2017)

sas said:


> Rob...
> 
> Do you talk like this in everyday life?: "Interestingly, at least to me but maybe not you by now, this post evidently being longer than I anticipated initially..."
> 
> ...



What makes my sentences appear to be complicated, rather than complex, is that I include all the asides that one would naturally when speaking so, yes, that is effectively how I _may_ speak sometimes, but often I will moderate my speech to avoid rude remarks, usually made by my angel. I actually write fluently like that and then have to consider whether to chop up my sentences into shorter ones merely for the sake of writing conventions. Anything that I add as an afterthought I often put in parentheses to show that it is not part of the natural flow of the sentence. If I am being playful I will put an entire paragraph in the parentheses before closing them and continuing the original sentence, by which time the reader has forgotten what it was about. I once inserted several such parenthesised paragraphs into a single sentence to make it virtually impossible to read, but that was definitely a joke even though the syntax and meaning were quite correct.

The acid test is to try reading my words out loud. The punctuation should indicate where to pause to breathe in order to keep speaking the long sentences in a meaningful way. I have noticed that some speakers tend to use such a technique when they don't want their long monologues to be interrupted. Not long ago I saw someone, outside of the studio but on a screen, being interviewed on TV and using this technique so fluently that the interviewer eventually just turned away from the screen and talked to someone else, while they could be seen in the background still silently continuing with their neverending speech regardless of the fact that nobody could hear it. The control room didn't even bother to turn their image on the screen off. That was very funny but they just weren't going to stop for anyone.

Now I must in contrast end my monologue as my angel is summoning me to dinner.


----------



## Folcro (Sep 2, 2017)

It's an excellent point he makes, as so many of Twain's points are. I do feel it's worth mentioning though- and I'm not one to shout "it's easy for _you_ to say," but Twain was a writer of comedy and known for his wit, and I think it was William Shatner who said "Brevity is the soul of wit." This is definitely a considerable bit of advice for a writer of situational comedy.

Still, as a fantasy writer, brevity through simple and direct language is generally my approach as well.


----------



## ppsage (Sep 2, 2017)

Well, those two quotes from Twain seem contradictory to me, and I'm pretty sure he would have used ten-cent words, if they actually paid more.


----------



## Folcro (Sep 2, 2017)

I love my ten-cent words, so long as they're used sparingly: sometimes you just need an artillery cannon when a sniper would do.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 2, 2017)

JustRob said:


> . Anything that I add as an afterthought I often put in parentheses to show that it is not part of the natural flow of the sentence. If I am being playful I will put an entire paragraph in the parentheses before closing them and continuing the original sentence, by which time the reader has forgotten what it was about. I once inserted several such parenthesised paragraphs into a single sentence to make it virtually impossible to read, but that was definitely a joke even though the syntax and meaning were quite correct.



This reminds me of a letter from Samuel Pepys to a  captain who had been seen ashore when he should have been with his ship. His first letter had been met with the reply that he held the King's commission and could do what he wished. Pepys' letter asserted this was only so in the service of the King, and he went off into long asides, there was one sentence that, with long asides in parenthesis, continued for one and a half pages of the printed book.

One of the things that struck me was that the captain seemed  quite capable of handling abstracted ideas in complicated forms, and he would have been able to do the maths of navigation and exercise an effective command; yet I had been reading just before that the navy was seen very much as a second best, talented officer material went into the army. Maybe the criteria for 'talented officer material' was very different.


----------



## JustRob (Sep 3, 2017)

There are two sides to this subject, these being the respective vocabularies of the writer and reader. Is it better to dumb down the language or wise up the reader? There is no simple answer to the question, "Are your literate?" any more than there is to "Can you read?" In my response to the OP I used words such as "utilise" and "succinctly" accurately, their respective meanings being "make best use of" and "clearly and briefly". I also like the word "obfuscate" because it is simply the opposite of "enlighten" and yet apparently not so well known. Some authorities might prefer the language to be restricted to a much smaller vocabulary, but personally I don't want to sculpt my work solely using the literary equivalent of Lego bricks. 

It is strange that many of us employ large vocabularies of highly specialised technical words but may shy away from employing equally rich vocabularies when tackling more common subjects. In fact many words that started out in general use are now regarded as specialist terms as a result of the dumbing down process. Writers of dictionary definitions may well be responsible for this phenomenon rather than natural shifts in language. If a dictionary definition states that a word is used only in a specific technical context then of course it is doomed not to be used outside of that context until someone forces the situation. "Plain English" is exactly that, a palate of very few colours. Early computer graphics used very few colours, each numbered, so plain English may equally be regarded as painting by numbers. Computer graphics have now moved on, so we can even enjoy watching films using them. What of our literature though?

Regarding words allegedly used only in technical contexts, I upset one reader by using the word "hyphephilial" in the opening chapter of my novel. Apart from there officially being no such adjective related to the noun "hyphephilia", a little writer's licence on my part, he complained about my inappropriate use of a medical term that describes an erotic fetish. In fact I was using the word in its literal sense, meaning "love of touch". Walk around any clothing store and watch the shoppers running their fingers over the clothes to discover how they feel. That's hyphephilia. It isn't a psychological disorder at all but simply a normal human sensation that we use to gauge our satisfaction with a surface finish. However, someone has decided that it should be restricted to a very limited application and I for one can't think why. While one of my readers might be content to live in such an obfuscated world another, a university tutor in English literature no less, was enlightened enough to check in his shelf-ful of dictionaries and applauded my choice of word. It was the only truly obscure word in the chapter, indeed in the entire novel, so I was hardly making unreasonable demands on the reader by including it. 

Literature is a celebration of and indulgence in the written word. If readers aren't prepared to fill their brains with vocabulary then in my opinion they should fill their libraries with DVDs. At least those have a full palate of colours nowadays.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 29, 2017)

I don’t agree that literature is a celebration of and indulgence in the written word. I mean, obviously on a basic level it is ‘about da wordz’ but when it comes down to it words are about communication and in literature we are usually trying to communicate an idea or a story. Ergo, literature on its deepest level is about telling a story.

I have no problems with words of short or long length. I do however dislike anything unnecessary. I don’t think plain English has to be plain. Plain in that context means common or ordinary, not ugly or dull. A word like ‘buttercup’ is part of ‘plain English’ and is not especially long or short yet is quite a beautiful sounding word and, more importantly, it describes exactly what it is. Buttercup is a great word because depending on how it is used it is both poetic and mundane. 

Of course a wide vocabulary is important but nowhere near as important in my view as clarity of message. There is aways a happy middle ground obviously. There are a few “more decorative” terms I like and use in place of simpler synonyms. I sometimes like to use the word “remedy” instead of the simpler “cure” or “fix” as I find it has a slightly different taste despite meaning more or less the same. sometimes I like to say “how unfortunate” when really it’s a cheap version of “that sucks” but generally I let the voice and the character dictate these decisions. When the voice is more neutral or it’s in general narrative I prefer simpler terms almost always. 

I think it was Orwell who said “never use a word that forces your reader to look through a dictionary” and I generally use that as my guiding principle. Obviously it depends on who your idea of your reader is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 1, 2017)

While it's certainly true to never use a longer word when a shorter one will do, very often the shorter word is simply insufficient.  English has so many words that are nearly synonymous, yet the minor differences among them can be the difference between the perfect word and one that's just good enough.  For example, "talk" (the noun) is certainly shorter than "debate" or "discussion" or "argument," but it's also lacking certain nuances that each of those three words has.  A good author will pick the word that's best, not necessarily the word that's shortest.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 1, 2017)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> While it's certainly true to never use a longer word when a shorter one will do, very often the shorter word is simply insufficient.  English has so many words that are nearly synonymous, yet the minor differences among them can be the difference between the perfect word and one that's just good enough.  For example, "talk" (the noun) is certainly shorter than "debate" or "discussion" or "argument," but it's also lacking certain nuances that each of those three words has.  A good author will pick the word that's best, not necessarily the word that's shortest.



I think a good rule is to use the shortest word that offers complete coverage for the meaning. Talk (the noun) isn’t quite synonymous with argument because talk without context to clarify covers so many different kinds of verbal exchange. However in a case where the two options really are synonymous - “fight” and “confrontation” come to mind - I always prefer the shorter. Only exceptions would be in dialogue when trying to capture a character who speaks in a register where the longer word would be more fitting - perhaps a lawyer or something like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ppsage (Nov 1, 2017)

Is it only me or is it ironic that people on this forum inevitably say literature when they mean fiction? Which is shorter.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 1, 2017)

ppsage said:


> Is it only me or is it ironic that people on this forum inevitably say literature when they mean fiction? Which is shorter.



Not really. They do not mean the same thing...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 1, 2017)

Literature is all writing with artistic or “literary” worth. So includes creative non-fiction and poetry, for example. Fiction is only a type of literature. Can’t speak to how the two terms are used or misused in a forum, but unless one is referring solely to fiction the term literature would surely be more correct in many cases - and certainly on the subject of word choice. It’s rather like when people say “England” to refer to the entire United Kingdom. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 1, 2017)

ppsage said:


> Is it only me or is it ironic that people on this forum inevitably say literature when they mean fiction? Which is shorter.



Nonfiction can be literature too, right?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 1, 2017)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Nonfiction can be literature too, right?


But if they mean fictional literature then it is not only shorter, but also more precise, though I suppose 'fiction' includes every 'penny dreadful' written.


----------



## VonBradstein (Nov 1, 2017)

Olly Buckle said:


> But if they mean fictional literature then it is not only shorter, but also more precise, though I suppose 'fiction' includes every 'penny dreadful' written.



That’s fair enough, though it’s only like three letters/1 syllable shorter (maybe two syllables, depending on how you say it). I don’t personally feel that particular substitution would really add nor detract much from the wordiness in the same way that, say, unnecessarily modifying a word like “crime” to one “transgression”  would.


----------

