# Wordiness: How Much Is Too Much?



## caelum (Sep 25, 2010)

FIIIIIIGAROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoO


----------



## Tesla (Sep 25, 2010)

I like the term 'thesaurus-buster'. I think that's pretty much the distinction- if it reads like the author was typing with one hand and flipping through their thesaurus with the other, it's gone way too far.

However, I like 'big' words. I think a lot of authors write too plainly when there *are* better words that can be used. Readers' vocabularies need to be given enough credit. And there's joy (at least for me) in running across an interesting word, or learning a new one.


----------



## garza (Sep 25, 2010)

The only word that is the right word is the one that falls naturally onto the page. To seek a better word is to find a worse one.


----------



## Richard Smith (Sep 25, 2010)

For me, I like a good easy read that occasionally uses the "big" words.  It is nice however to see a word used that is uncommon, "big", or ostentatious, but has a meaning that perfectly fits what the author is trying to say.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 25, 2010)

This is just another one of those decisions you make when you’re writing and considering how readers are going to perceive things. It seems like kind of a no-brainer that you shouldn’t use a lot of words that will fly over people’s heads or send them running to the dictionary.

But it depends. On the target audience, the story, the voice. Who's story is it? A ten year old boy's or an English lit professor's? Sometimes a more extensive vocabulary is appropriate. Sometimes it isn’t. It’s kind of pointless to generalize.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 25, 2010)

Tesla said:


> if it reads like the author was typing with one hand and flipping through their thesaurus with the other, it's gone way too far.


 


garza said:


> The only word that is the right word is the one that falls naturally onto the page. To seek a better word is to find a worse one.


 
Here’s two of those typically empty and meaningless remarks so loved by the online community. I use the thesaurus all the time, and I defy anyone to pick any passage in my writing that shows I have done so.


----------



## Baron (Sep 25, 2010)

The Backward OX said:


> Here’s two of those typically empty and meaningless remarks so loved by the online community. I use the thesaurus all the time, and I defy anyone to pick any passage in my writing that shows I have done so.


 
You're revealing your own limitation again and trying to make others fit it.  I've read many books where the writer has striven so hard to be original that some of the word choices are outrageous.  It's blatantly obvious that a thesaurus was used.  The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen R. Donaldson are a great example of this.  The story telling is mostly good apart from some of the glaring adjectives used. The end result is that parts of the writing come across as strained.  An analogy is forced rhyme in poetry, words crowbarred in from a rhyming dictionary.  It's cringe-worthy stuff.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 25, 2010)

No, he isn't revealing his limitations. I'd say the opposite. First if all, he's talking about himself -- not recognizing when others use the thesaurus. 

If he can use the thesaurus effectively, more power to him. I've read his writing and I don't see it. It would also stand to reason he would recognize it if others were doing it.


----------



## garza (Sep 25, 2010)

Ox - My comment may be meaningless to you, but it has meant a great deal to me over many, many years. I've made my living using this and a few other, similar, 'meaningless' phrases.


----------



## Baron (Sep 25, 2010)

JosephB said:


> No, he isn't revealing his limitations. I'd say the opposite. First if all, he's talking about himself -- not recognizing when others use the thesaurus.
> 
> If he can use the thesaurus effectively, more power to him. I've read his writing and I don't see it. It would also stand to reason he would recognize it if others were doing it.


 
Ox's post is critical of those who do recognise it.  Perhaps you missed that.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 25, 2010)

I didn't miss anything. He's right. Sorry, but those statements are just vague generalizations. Don't use big words for the sake of it. Duh.


----------



## Baron (Sep 25, 2010)

JosephB said:


> I didn't miss anything. He's right. Sorry, but those statements are just vague generalizations. Don't use big words for the sake of it. Duh.


 
An intelligent statement to show what you mean would be of much more value.


----------



## garza (Sep 25, 2010)

No, Joe. Not a generalization at all, and nothing to do with big words. Having the right word, big or small, familiar or strange, that exactly fits what you want to say, and having that word come without the writer having to search is a skill that requires years to develop. Under certain circumstances it is an essential skill. In the bush you have no access to any reference books. You can't reach for a dictionary, a thesaurus, a usage manual, or an encyclopedia. It's just you and your pocket notebook and a pencil. So either the right word 'drops onto the page' by itself, or you struggle to figure out what you need to say and end with second rate copy that the bureau chief throws back in your face.

There are three activities that sharpen this skill. The first is reading. The second is writing. The third is conversation. If you have sufficient command of the language and knowledge of the situation you are going into, then the right words will drop onto the page by themselves.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 25, 2010)

One of these days I'll learn to keep my mouth shut...


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 25, 2010)

garza - My apologies. I was thinking more of the writer slaving in his garret than the intrepid reporter in Outer Caractaristan.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 25, 2010)

garza said:


> No, Joe. Not a generalization at all, and nothing to do with big words. Having the right word, big or small, familiar or strange, that exactly fits what you want to say, and having that word come without the writer having to search is a skill that requires years to develop. Under certain circumstances it is an essential skill. In the bush you have no access to any reference books. You can't reach for a dictionary, a thesaurus, a usage manual, or an encyclopedia. It's just you and your pocket notebook and a pencil. So either the right word 'drops onto the page' by itself, or you struggle to figure out what you need to say and end with second rate copy that the bureau chief throws back in your face.
> 
> There are three activities that sharpen this skill. The first is reading. The second is writing. The third is conversation. If you have sufficient command of the language and knowledge of the situation you are going into, then the right words will drop onto the page by themselves.



 It doesn’t take everyone years. There are many, many examples of authors who can do this pretty much out of the gate. Carson McCullers wrote _The Heart is a Lonely Hunter_ when she was only 22.

  Otherwise, what you’re saying is true, of course. Use the “right” words. Isn’t that just part of what makes good writing? And by “big,” I’m referring to words that aren’t readily accessible, using them for the sake of it. 

  Words plucked from the thesaurus very often aren’t quite right – they aren’t all interchangeable. It depends entirely on context. Here’s a cliché for you – the thesaurus is like any tool -- if used properly, it can help you get the job done.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 25, 2010)

Baron said:


> It may appear so to you.  I don't see it that way but we've been here before and I can't be bothered arguing with you.  Let the readers decide whether you're motivated more by your dislike of simple statements or your love of argument.



Make that simplistic statements.


----------



## garza (Sep 25, 2010)

Only 22? So did she just start reading the year before? Assuming she learned to read at the age of five, she had 17 years of reading experience. Now, as she was a person much interested in literature, we can probably assume that she read a great deal, and also assume that she probably started writing at least by her early teens, then she had ten years writing experience behind her. And people of that sort do not live in isolation. She would have been interested in the world around her and would have listened to and talked with many people over the years. I've just googled for Carson McCullers and find that I'm pretty much on track. 

From the time I sold my first story until the time I was comfortable enough with my writing ability to venture out of the university and the sheltered life of a local journalist was nine years, so I was already 23 when I landed in the bush and started selling copy to the wire services. Others have begun their writing careers much earlier and with a much shorter incubation period, but then I've never claimed to be a fast learner. For me those years were needed, and in the 47 years since then I have continued to study to try and improve whatever skills I do have.

It dosen't happen overnight. Now I'm trying to learn to write fiction, and I know that will take the same eight to ten years, if I live that long. But the effort will be worth it if I can start writing a short story and find that the right words drop onto the page by themselves.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 25, 2010)

Years. Could be twenty-two or a lifetime. I didn't mean to suggest she'd been locked in a basement then released to write a best selling, classic novel. Of course, how well people write is the result of many influences --  but it also includes some intangibles, like imagination and intelligence. 

It takes some people longer then others. But it all comes down to the point when people are able to choose the "right words." How they get there isn't that important. The results speak for themselves.


----------



## garza (Sep 25, 2010)

Now there's something we can agree on without question.

I've never had an editor ask me what degrees I have or whether I even graduated from primary school. They don't care. They want to know whether I can write the kind of material they need. If so, good. If not, go away I'm busy.


----------



## caelum (Sep 25, 2010)

Tesla said:


> I like the term 'thesaurus-buster'. I think that's  pretty much the distinction- if it reads like the author was typing with  one hand and flipping through their thesaurus with the other, it's gone  way too far.
> 
> However, I like 'big' words. I think a lot of  authors write too plainly when there *are* better words that can be  used. Readers' vocabularies need to be given enough credit. And there's  joy (at least for me) in running across an interesting word, or learning  a new one.



You like that one?  It just came to me.  Although I googled it afterwards and it has occurred once or twice.  I saw it used to refer to a piece of writing as a whole, though, not individual words like I used it.  I like big words, don't get me wrong.  Just hate when they're used and abused.   There are some really elegant ones out there.



garza said:


> No, Joe. Not a generalization at all, and nothing  to do with big words. Having the right word, big or small, familiar or  strange, that exactly fits what you want to say, and having that word  come without the writer having to search is a skill that requires years  to develop.


I agree that it takes a long time to get good at.   Working on that ear.  I think it just takes lots of experience, lots and lots of doing it, or to use that really boring word that everyone hates, practice.  A year ago I thought I knew how to write.  I can't stand reading what I wrote a year ago.  I think it's one of those things you're always learning, lessons each time you sit down.


----------



## subtlesoda (Sep 26, 2010)

I totally agree with you, Ox. It's pretty hard to tell when a writer has over-used a thesaurus. I believe it's one of those things you need to really look for, it's subtle and blends into the writing as if no change to the style has really been made. After all, I believe that utilizing a thesaurus to investigate alternatives to one or two currently employed words and exploiting the book during the entire duration of your writing are not two wholly dissimilar circumstances, and your previously quoted declarations from other members of this board are too indistinct to substantiate that over-wordiness could make it palpable to a reader that you molested a lexicon.


----------



## Mike (Sep 26, 2010)

Ever go to the philosophy section of the bookstore and pick up a book at random and begin to read? My goodness me. I feel that they should stack the reference section right there next to them heavy-worded books. I think that I have a better-than-average vocabulary to draw upon, and once upon a time I did minor in philosophy at college, but honest truth: the more I read some of these books, the more I think the pages are made of sperm.


----------



## Auskar (Sep 26, 2010)

A thesaurus is necessary because you don't want to use the same word all the time.  You need variety.  Another word might be an obvious choice, but momentarily, it slips the mind.  When you see it in the thesaurus, you say, "Aha!"

I would like an author to paint a picture with words - and to entertain me.  Words I understand are better than words I do not understand.


----------



## Like a Fox (Sep 26, 2010)

I think wordiness is a stylistic choice, given that it's done well. 

TV shows like The Gilmore Girls and The Mighty Boosh are unnaturally wordy (in very different ways) and in both cases it's part of their appeal, (if Gilmore girls has appeal).
Catch 22 is a complex novel in terms of wordiness, that was clearly a choice, or the author's particular style. It seems lots of crafting went into it.

Stephen King talks about using the first word that comes out, but sometimes the first word that comes out gets repeated again and again. 
There can be sound reason to find alternate ways of saying the same thing.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 26, 2010)

subtlesoda said:


> I believe that utilizing a thesaurus to investigate alternatives to one or two currently employed words and exploiting the book during the entire duration of your writing are not two wholly dissimilar circumstances, and your previously quoted declarations from other members of this board are too indistinct to substantiate that over-wordiness could make it palpable to a reader that you molested a lexicon.


----------



## garza (Sep 26, 2010)

I _never_ have owned a thesaurus and I _never will_. 

There is no such thing as a true synonym. Every word exists because there is a need for it. Words shift their meanings as time passes, so there are shades of differences in denotations and in connotations. A thesaurus shows relationships as of the time of publication, and even then the relationship is not one of pure duplication but only one of duplication or similarity in denotation. Context has a great deal to do with the reader's perception of a word's meaning. The compilers of thesauri, clever and well-paid as they may be, can never guess in what context any given word will be placed. Words work together, not in isolation, one from the other.  

Only constant reading of literature both old and new, including the latest news bulletins and editorial comment, will equip the writer with the words needed to destribe what the writer wants to describe and to explain what the writer wants to explain. 

The use of the thesaurus, more often than not, will lead to the use of a word that is not quite the right word. To use a word picked from the thesaurus for no reason other than to avoid repeating the right word shifts and weakens the meaning of the sentence. There are times when repetition is needed.

A writer may pick his words from a thesaurus without it being obvious to the reader, but the effect of what is written will not be the same as the effect of a piece written with only the words that the writer owns.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 26, 2010)

It’s quite possible to find a more appropriate, precise word by using a thesaurus. 

A certain amount of discipline, a generally decent vocabulary and common sense are required to use one effectively.

And used properly, it can expand your vocabulary. You can actually learn or be reminded of words that might work elsewhere.


----------



## garza (Sep 26, 2010)

Frankly I doubt all of that. A limited vocabulary is one handicap of which I've never been accused. Discipline in writing was a subject well taught by the first two editors I worked with as a teen-ager. However, I will admit that my common sense was called into question by my father when I quit the university to jump on a tramp steamer as a wiper and land in the middle of a war where I didn't need to be, armed with notebook, pencil, and camera, and not a single thesaurus in the whole b**y jungle.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 26, 2010)

Garza, you wouldn't use a hack saw to cut a miter joint. You could, I suppose, but you'd do lousy job. If you make furniture, you might rarely use a hacksaw, but to say you wouldn't keep one in your toolbox because you don't often find a need for it or don't know how to use it properly would be pretty silly.

And I don't write fiction in the jungle. It affords me the luxury of having a bookshelf, where I keep my dictionary, _Elements of Style_ -- and my thesaurus, which I occasionally open when I'm looking for a word that might work better than the one that first came to mind.


----------



## garza (Sep 26, 2010)

I don't make furniture. You'd have to ask my son about that; he's the builder. My craft is writing.

I read a great deal and I talk with all sorts of people. Those are the external tools I have found to be adequate. I write a great deal daily, and that keeps my internal tool, my mind, sharp. Well, maybe not _sharp_ sharp, but sharp enough that I'm still selling what I write, and still loving the craft.

Edit - Perhaps you should try writing in the jungle, or at least in a situation isolated from bookshelf and computer so that you are forced to rely on your own resources. Add deadlines to that. Add the varied requirements of different wire services, newspapers and magazines. Add bouts with malaria, dengue fever, constant mosquito bites, and the ever-present threat of sudden death from a stray round. Then tell me how useful that thesaurus is.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 26, 2010)

You make it sound like it's all or nothing -- that if you own a thesaurus, you're compelled to pick up it up and use it for every other word choice.

Like I said, I occasionally use it to jog a word choice. And yes, it's possible to find a more appropriate word. Or perhaps you know every single word in the English language and all their synonyms -- and just the right ones unfailingly flow onto the page with no effort. If so, congratulations. 

Despite you experience, vocabulary etc, it appears you just don't know how to use a thesaurus, or that you've dismissed it's use out of hand for no good reason. Whatever. I'll use mine from time-to-time. I might find a better word or even learn a new one. 

You're mind is closed on the issue -- so later.


----------



## garza (Sep 26, 2010)

I haven't said that I don't know how to use one. I have studied their use, and did use them a few times in the library at school. 

I never reject anything out of ignorance. It's knowing how to use the thesaurus, knowing how they are compiled, and knowing their weakness compared with other methods of studying words that has closed my mind to their use, just as reading the Bible made me an atheist. Oftentime knowledge can lead to rejection.


----------



## caelum (Sep 26, 2010)

Mike said:


> Ever go to the philosophy section of the bookstore  and pick up a book at random and begin to read? My goodness me. I feel  that they should stack the reference section right there next to them  heavy-worded books. I think that I have a better-than-average vocabulary  to draw upon, and once upon a time I did minor in philosophy at  college, but honest truth: the more I read some of these books, the more  I think the pages are made of sperm.


I used to attend this forum where there were debates between philosophy students, and man oh man. . . they're crazy.  I think the word "philosopher" is too liberally applied to philosophy graduates; I've seen more philosophy and reason, more actual reality in one concise song than some of their overblown books.  Not always true, though.



Like a Fox said:


> Stephen King talks about using the first  word that comes out, but sometimes the first word that comes out gets  repeated again and again.
> There can be sound reason to find alternate ways of saying the same thing.


I agree, I'm not arguing against that.  What I'm saying is, if you use a word that you suspect the average reader will not know on any level, then what are you expecting will happen when they run into it?  There's a famous spat between Faulkner and Hemingway where Faulkner accused him of never sending a reader to a dictionary.  What kind of jerk wants to constantly send people to a dictionary?  (Hemingway replied emotions aren't in big words)

This is my prejudice.  Many people may side with Faulkner; the reader should learn more words to have a richer reading experience.  I agree with this to some extent.



			
				garza said:
			
		

> I _never_ have owned a thesaurus and I _never will_.


Oh they do come in handy, garza.  I just think they shouldn't be relied on.  Sometimes if I feel my word is too weak, I'll thesaurus it and see if there's one that fits better.  They can be good for helping your vocab, too, cause you'll be like, "Oh yeah there's _that_ word.  I forgot about that one."


----------



## Auskar (Sep 26, 2010)

My personal experience is that I used a thesaurus a lot more when I first started writing than I do now - and that I use it to jog my memory (which sucks).


----------



## garza (Sep 26, 2010)

caelum - Grrreat avatar. 

For me the thesaurus is a shortcut, and I was raised always to mistrust shortcuts. In elementary school we were told to use the thesaurus, and I did for a while, but then found ways that, again for me, were better ways of studying words. To each his own, said the little old lady as she kissed the cow. (This is an ancient Mississippi expression I first heard from my mother who first heard it over a hundred years ago, probably around 1907 or 1908 since my mother said she was familiar with it as a very young child and she was born in 1901, from her grandmother. In my writing workshops I use sentences such as this as exercises. I tell the students to take the sentence apart and build three subject-verb-object sentences, the first at least in active voice, no more than 20 words long, suitable for use in a radio news bulletin.)

Auskar - Your memory _sticks_? Wait till you get my age and it jams altogether.


----------



## caelum (Sep 26, 2010)

Thanks.  I'm a bit of an avatar whore, I know.  They're way too much fun.



> For me the thesaurus is a shortcut, and I was raised always to mistrust shortcuts.


I think it's only a shortcut if you use it as one.  If used well, it's no more a shortcut than a dictionary, and can be a helpful tool for acquainting one's self with similar words.

For instance, if you have a word for a context that just isn't fitting the bill, just isn't correct enough, what will you do?  Go and read books till you encounter a better one?  Or just look one up?  The second option is way faster and there's no downside other than you're not seeing it in context.


----------



## Auskar (Sep 26, 2010)

It was funny.  I had to use a thesaurus.  I looked at Caelum's avatar.  The word I looked up was, "smoke."


----------



## garza (Sep 26, 2010)

And what did you thesaurus say?


----------



## Auskar (Sep 26, 2010)

garza said:


> And what did you thesaurus say?


 I thought it was slightly humorous because Caelum's avatar was "smoking" many many cigarettes.  

I looked up smoke and puffs and clouds and more.  It didn't say anything I didn't already know, but since I wanted and needed LOTS of smoke, I probably got creative and made up some words.  I'll find out when I re-read and re-write.  I'm writing a short story, but it is turning out to be a bit longer than expected.  I'm at 6700 words and at the climax - but it is not yet the conclusion.  I hope to keep the word count under 7500.

That will be my longest short story ever.  Probably, too soon.  I hoped I was closer to "professional" markets.  Right now, it's called *The Disappearance of Caylid Cholg*.


----------



## gagoots (Oct 1, 2010)

I have read a lot of David Foster Wallace stuff, and his vocabulary is off the charts; I've learned many new words from his writing. What is the difference between already 'knowing' a word before writing it, or having to look it up, especially if it's used correctly or succinctly? 

Do some of you propose do have some kind of supernatural gift to discern whether or not a word came from an author who had learned it a year ago, or a decade ago compared to having learned it while he wrote the first draft of something? And further more, if he did write it in the first draft after having looked it up, and but then came back to that draft six months later and decided to leave the word in, is that ok?


----------



## WolfieReveles (Oct 1, 2010)

I believe this discussion has drifted away from the original question. Whether using a thesaurus or not, the question was elaborate vs. simple choice of language.

Richard Smith and JosephB expressed two points that I consider crucial: Adapt your style to the audience and to your story. Are your readers comfortable with Shakespearean English? In that case, by all means use it. But also think carefully what you are writing about. A gritty, rough and even foul language may be preferable if you are telling the tale of a washed up cop in Detroit and the gangsters, hookers and beggars he meets on his journey, while a metaphysical description of the human condition may be better expressed with a more "educated" choice of words. 

I believe some writers choose styles that are too plain because they lack faith in the competence of the readers or even in their own ability. Others do the opposite, trying too hard to appear intellectual. Perhaps compensating for something or simply out of insecurity or vanity, they cripple the average reader. As writers we should be the servants of our work. We  should simply ask ourselves "what can I do for my work?" and leave our egos, good or bad, out of the picture.

Not everyone has the vocabulary of a writer, so who are your readers?


----------



## mwd (Oct 1, 2010)

Really though, what is the "vocabulary of a writer"?  Which writer?  Is it David Foster Wallace or Irvine Welsh or ... ?

The important thing, I think, is to be the writer only you can be, whether your words are big, small, or otherwise.

Surely everyone has some idiosyncracies that inform their voice and choice of words.  David Foster Wallace may use a lot of ten dollar words, but I can't help but notice those words do actually feel natural in his hands.  Would they feel that way in mine?  Less so.  So I don't go out of my way to use them.


----------



## WolfieReveles (Oct 1, 2010)

mwd said:


> ... those words do actually feel natural in his hands.  Would they feel that way in mine?...


Well spoken, something everyone needs to keep in mind.


----------



## chicagnosticjew (Oct 2, 2010)

caelum said:


> I think the big, esoteric words should be used tactically and seldom.



You mean "carefully"? 

All nitpicking aside (I kid because I love), I think that wordiness comes mostly, as WolfieB observed, from not having confidence in what you are saying or in your audience's ability to know what you mean. You may fool them into thinking you write above their heads, or throw them off the scent of your work's pointlessness, but it's much better to just speak plainly and let your meaning stand for itself. 

Two of my favorite writers, Orwell (in his essay"Politics and the English Language") and Twain (in his "Letter to D. W. Bowser, March 1880"), raged against wordiness. Noam Chomsky, influenced by Orwell, credits wordiness to increasing levels of indoctrinating education.

Wordiness, if done right, comes off as witty but even that is often not appreciated. Wordiness and wit are similar in that you are going through great lengths to say something very plain. It's just that the effort put into wittiness serves a defensible purpose.

Tesla has a point with the joy in reading new words, however I prefer my new words to be small. I also like to see words used that I (especially) or others wrongly disavowed, or whose definitions have been limited too much (usually to describe only negative things).


----------

