If I'm writing a book for teens and young adults, how...uh, complicated do you think the language I use should be? I don't want to insult my readers by making them think I'm baby talking to them. But at the same time, if I use words that are too far outside their vocabulary, it might pull them out of the story when they have to stop and think about what I just said. For example, if I wrote: "The light coalesced around his hand, becoming a sword." would it be better if I changed it to: "The light gathered itself around his hand, becoming a sword."?
Hard to say as a flatly objective statement. China Miéville certainly put my vocab subroutine to the test, whereas Arthur C. Clarke never once made me reach for a dictionary. I enjoy both writers immensely for differing reasons. Also, I don't think of coalesce as a high-register word, but I doubt any two cars are going to get the same mileage on this one.
You know, these kinds of statements are strange to me. When I was a teen, I read any book that looked interesting. I never once went for books targeted at my age, sex or general demographic. I read works by Wilde and White because they had beauty to their craft. And though there were words I didn't understand at the time, it was easy solved because dictionaries exist. Readers are always going to stumble over certain words unless they have an all-encompassing lexicon, and so what? Discovery is one of the best parts of reading, so I say don't treat younger readers like they're idiots and just write the story so that it reads well. The only exception to this rule is going to be for very very young readers with a very rudimentary understanding of language, but I took it for granted that this wasn't the scenario implied.
But every time you had to look at the dictionary, you had to stop reading the book. Wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to do that? If you just knew what every word meant without having to break your immersion to understand what the author is trying to say? Obviously you can't get around this entirely. There's always going to be a word that somebody doesn't know. But why use big, strange words when smaller and more commonly known words will do just as well?
It always depends on genre and audience. Those two guide your voice, and you ignore them at your own peril. You can always say "The audience is me!" But if you want to sell multiple copies then there had better be others out there like you. I've always looked at it as a matter of balance. You have the big three elements: vocabulary, grammar, style. Each can be made complex be expanding its breadth or its depth. vocabulary breadth: number of syllables or length of word depth: word frequency in the lexicon grammar breadth: length/number of phrases depth: complexity of structure (differing from standard SVO order) style breadth: number of linguistic devices depth: indirection of elements (do they get to the point or are they cryptic?) So for vocabulary, it gets complex by either making it longer (e.g., unquestionably) or by making it more unusual (posilutely) or even more sinister, both (withouten wantruke). I'd avoid the latter unless you're going for a strange effect, a character's quirks of voice, maybe, because most people don't like to read that. They like complexity in small bites. Everyone likes to lick the beaters, but nobody wants to eat the whole bowl of icing. (I sometimes want to eat the whole bowl of icing.) So there is a "best" complex word, and that's one that is short and unusual. There are "bad" complex words too, though they have their uses. Most of what you find will land somewhere in between. The thing is, complex words only work when they're set in a simple grammar and style. If everything is complex (grammar and style are counted in this) then it's overwhelming to read. It's the whole bowl of icing again. It's what Mozart always called "taste and refinement." He may have been making an icing metaphor too. I picture him holding a beater. Your example sentence has a very simple grammar and style, so IMO it would be a candidate for elevated language. Whether you do that or not depends on the surrounding sentences and your audience and the narrator's voice. And of course, are you gaining more than you lose? Because you are going to lose something. Some simplicity is always sacrificed. I've always felt that the absolute best writing isn't so much simple as it is elegant. There's an underlying sophistication that never overwhelms. That's a "me" thing, again. I definitely can't prove that point.
Ooh... nice Bloom County drop! Greatest comic ever! Good comaprison between Mieville and Clarke, too. I recently reread the Rama series and remembered thinking, Jesus, Clarke is really Dick and Jane. Mieville uses words that I don't think were real until the dictionary saw them and filled them in so it didn't feel stupid.
That reminds me of Robin Williams' line in The Dead Poets Society. "You are not very tired, you are exhausted." (And I forget the rest.) So I guess it comes down to how well known the word you're trying to use is. Like coalesce. Do enough people know that word that they'll understand what I mean just by hearing it, or would it be quicker to just say "gathered itself"? Haha, is that what it's called? I just remembered one of my high school English teachers having it on their wall. I thought it'd help make my point so I googled it.
This is looking at it in too simplistic terms, and misses my point somewhat. Big words aren't necessarily difficult and short ones aren't necessarily simple. A word should not be used in place of another in order to make the author sound intelligent. That's bad writing. Words have their place whether they are for emphasis, atmosphere or simply because no other word will do. There's a plethora of reasons why an author might want to use a particular word. I could have written 'there are a very large number of reasons why an author might want to use a particular word.' But I prefer how the first sentence reads.
I was once invited to be a guest writer for a screenwriting forum, do a weekly take on various interests. After my first article I was told to dumb it down. This forum had some kind of software or something that would assign a number to any particular writing style. Mine was 14, they wanted me to write at 8 or below. I declined the offer to continue. Dumbing down for writers. That's a new one. Or is it?
I'm pretty sure I knew what coalesce meant when I was 14 but then, I read LOTR when I was 9. It means "to become coal-like", right?
Even if I didn't know the word, it'd make sense to me from the context. Perhaps I'd learn it. I don't know how applicable this is to native speakers, but for SLE, we pick up a lot of words from context. Sometimes they go ... off. And we end up using words the wrong way. That's a sacrifice to take. It becomes "too much" when the less-known words make up the majority of your text and thus not even context can be understood. "Royalty and dignitaries, brandy and cigars" - Even if you're unfamiliar with "dignitaries", "royalty" is still well-known and the association with "brandy and cigars" immediately conjures the picture of upper-class, important people. I learned the word "Coxswain" from this song (Empire of the Clouds) - the context perfectly portrays the role on an airship. I don't think you should censor words because you feel they are "hard vocabulary". I think you should double-check whether those words are understandable from the context. "The light coalesced around his hand, becoming a sword." or "Coalescing light made way for a sword to manifest." The 2nd one's the weirdly convoluted one where the light's movement isn't all that obvious and the whole context is hidden behind another big word. This one?
No idea if that's the one they used. This was maybe twelve years ago. As for this one, what a ghastly invention. I popped in a few blips from various 'famous' authors and was pinged for this and that and the other thing. When I pieced together the suggested changes, the writing goes flat. Very little signs of life or of a 'writer's voice'. Cookie-cutter stuff. Why would anyone use that? It's interesting, but seriously? BTW: The above blip was pinged (pinged me) for three 'issues' and given (gave me) a grade of 3 (good).
Many of my students have reading disabilities, but I do not dumb it down for them. First of all, if I always do that, then their vocabulary, and sentence structures will always be simple. That is really not fair to them to forever keep them at that level. As compensation, most get more time to complete work, so they do have time to look up words that they do not know. But anything done electronically now, can be read to back to them, including the students who do not have English as their native language. Surprisingly, it is not reading that gives them trouble, it is our sayings. As one guy told me, "And I no poop on you." The week before I had used the phrase, "I shit you not", to reiterating a story I was telling him. He took the phrase a little differently. But for children's books, yeah you have to write to their level. I just have Word scan my sentences and see what grade level they are coming out at. Word will also scan for readability for disadvantaged readers. I check mine now and then, and I have always been fine, even on some technical stuff.
This might be part of the problem. Does this mean refusing to dial back on one's writng level means that they will not have an audience, and therefore never get published? Are we supposed to pick a low common denominator and that becomes our 'market trend' novel? 'In the United Kingdom, a study by Flynn (2009) found that tests carried out in 1980 and again in 2008 show that the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period. For the upper half of the results the performance was even worse. Average IQ scores declined by six points. However, children aged between five and 10 saw their IQs increase by up to half a point a year over the three decades. Flynn argues that the abnormal drop in British teenage IQ could be due to youth culture having "stagnated" or even dumbed down. He also states that the youth culture is more oriented towards computer games than towards reading and holding conversations. Researcher Richard Gray, commenting on the study, also mentions the computer culture diminishing reading books as well as a tendency towards teaching to the test.'
I heavily doubt video games and a drop in IQ are correlated, because being good at video games and having higher IQ /is/ correlated. Really. This is especially true for non-English countries where they even help with picking up the language. Then again, the study is from 2009 and there wasn't all that much a credit given to video games back then. Since then, Minecraft made it to the classroom and scientists started developing games to detect and/or prevent advanced age dementia/Alzheimer. When I copy in aged pieces I wrote when I hardly spoke English (laden with errors, small vocabulary), I get a grade 6 and a "Good!" mark for it. When I copy in more recent / more serious stuff, I get 13. Quite the perspective, no? I'm still in strong agreement with this statement.
Video gamming has its place, and I try to convey that to students. The same student that play 18 hours of video games on a computer on the weekend, is the same person that would put in an 18 hour day trying to get a 2 million dollar, 5 axis robot to weld the perfect weldment. That takes an incredible IQ to pull off. But that is not the issue. What students do not understand is, they have to do the work up front, to get to that point. There are 18 million people in the same age bracket as them who want the same thing, to run that 2 million dollar robot. And that is fine, but they must work at a location for awhile to earn that level of trust with the employer. "Do the work up front, and reap the rewards later", is what I try to convey to them. They are not wrong in playing video games, or in their thinking, its just that they do not understand how big their competition is.
'First of all, if I always do that, then their vocabulary, and sentence structures will always be simple. That is really not fair to them to forever keep them at that level. As compensation, most get more time to complete work, so they do have time to look up words that they do not know.' As am I, and argued the same point. For the rest we will just have to agree to disagree.
If the words/wording detracts from the story, tends to pull the reader out of the story, then consider altering them. It is also a stylistic issue, so I am not sure there is a right or wrong answer. Another issue is POV. The description and observations, from first person POV for example, would influence the words in descriptions of actions, observations and events used. Deferent characters, based on age, experience s, temperament, etc. would likely use different vocabulary.
Yes, people know that word. That's a word in the realm in which you should learn it if you don't know it. I would stick with it. I'm against "dumbing down" in general, but at the same time, how many junior high kids are going to make it through Nabokov? Granted, some will, but the majority are going to feel bored, confused or insulted. You have to make a decision with every "vocabulary word" you use: Is this important to the sentence or story? Some people will look it up; others will skip it and move on, so if it's sufficiently advanced, and the meaning isn't semi-obvious from the context, you have decide if it's really needed. I wouldn't worry about it too much though. You're not talking about small children or S.A.T. words either one. You are talking about readers though, and readers have more advanced vocabularies on average. I like what Stephen King said in his book On Writing: (and I'm probably paraphrasing like hell here) You should never talk down to your audience, but you should also never use the word "perambulate" when you mean "walk."
What I found is, on my second revision I will go through my writing and change my words so they are more sophisticated, but realized on my following revisions, many times those fancy words don't flow right, so I end up changing them back anyway. But really, how many of us have ever "preambled" in the last twenty years? I don't think I have ever "skipped" since I was 10 years old.
Considering a preamble is a foreword or an introduction, I've read a lot of preambles. Have I perambulated? Not in writing, I haven't. I skip things all the time, if they don't interest me.
I am 71 years old, with a BA in English, and I still look up words. It hasn't killed me yet. But if I have to stop and look up a word on nearly every single page, it will interfere with my ability to get immersed in a story or essay or piece of nonfiction. As a writer, I'm not interested in being known for my amazing word choices. I usually go for the simplest word that conveys the exact meaning. Walk and perambulate aren't really synonyms. If my character is actually perambulating (walking slowly while inspecting or examining a location or border), that's the word I might choose. The meaning should be clear enough, in context. And bingo ...folks learn a new word. Painlessly.
Maybe that's why - my characters are usually frantically running for their lives and trying not to get eaten. They don't have time to perambulate...
I like to use different words to keep a certain rhythm going, but I agree with what people say that looking up too many words kills the moment. And I treasure Stephen King's On Writing as well, because it is one of the few books that doesn't try to give you formulas about writing or attempts at teaching the craft, but talks to you about what it is like when you write. In general, if you try to be too smart or fancy in your writing, more because you like the sound of the words than because it is an expression of the content of the book or style, then the readers will know and might perceive as you are trying too hard. I also feel the same way.
In my Dying Earth stories, I've tried to use difficult or less-common words in the dialogue, because that's the style of how the characters speak, and it lends the story a rhythm or cadence of its own. It has caused some readers on the forum difficulties, but I wouldn't change it.
