Depends on my mood. I have to be in the right frame of mind to read something like Gormenghast. Right now I'm not in that frame of mind and I'm reading a Gotrek and Felix novel, which is a hell of a lot of fun to read.
That sounds fun I may try reading it. I think I am particularly in arms about language because i have just read Perfume and I know its actually the translators but I found the descriptions too fussy and highbrow for such an awful book (its meant to be awful lol about a serial killer). They had me working too hard. Having said that I have broken my own rule about using easy to follow colours and have described something as ultramarine in a short story.
Not I. It's like when someone says "I didn't like this book because it was confusing." Or because they didn't understand it, or what have you. In my experience, it's generally "user error" that is the culprit.
Same here. But then, I can't understand people who, for instance, own a dictionary, but apparently have no ability to use it.
I can use it lol just feel it intrudes on a good story. I am someone who will start on a book and finish it less than 24 hours later.
Whoops. No offense meant by the last comment, but I still go by it. Now obviously there is a limit to the amount of verbosity a reader should have to put up with, but it shouldn't be so low that the writer has to compromise his/her art. That's the bottom line for me, though; some writing (if not virtually all good writing) is art, whether it is achieved through simplicity or ornateness, and you can't blame the writer for sometimes undertaking it in the latter vein. Purple-passages can be a godawful bore, but sometimes (I would argue this, for instance, in the case of Melville) they elevate the work to the very highest level of literary achievement.
We who are on this forum like to write. Most of us who like to write also like to read. We have enjoyed reading ever since we were small children and first learned how. Most of us who have enjoyed reading since we were small children have pretty large vocabularies. And, I believe, the single most important factor in the development of our vocabularies was our reading. We've all had the experience of being kids reading an interesting story, and coming across a word we didn't know but understood from the context, or, if the context wasn't sufficient, we looked it up. Our vocabularies grew because, in our reading, we found new words and learned their meanings. This happened all the time when we were kids and most words were new to us. The more we learned, the rarer it became, until now it's very unusual for most of us to come across a new word in our reading. And now, instead of feeling the excitement and pride of learning something new, we feel annoyed. We accuse the author of trying to demonstrate his superiority, of trying to make us feel inadequate. We accuse the author of writing badly because he isn't writing down to our level. It doesn't matter if the word the author used is exactly the right word to convey his meaning; if it makes us open the dictionary, then as far as we're concerned, it's the wrong word and the author should be ashamed of himself for being such a word snob. Is that the level we've sunk to around here? This is a writing forum; we're supposed to be interested in language, and we should welcome the opportunities we get to learn more. We shouldn't resent those authors who teach us new words. Unless, of course, as I've pointed out, they're doing so just to show off.
LOL fair enough Minstrel but I am not at that stage in my life I am not blaming the author at all, simply it would turn me personally off from my reading. But with 3 small children under the age of 7 last thing I want to do is to be thinking too hard when I read
Fair enough. I guess my tastes are exactly opposite. If what I'm reading isn't engaging me on an intellectual level, it bores me.
No one is resenting authors who allow us to learn new words, at least I hope not. I was referring to writing that is so clogged with attempts at highly intellectual prose that I can't see the wood for trees. Let's not forget the main purpose of fiction is to entertain, we are not reading dictionaries. To reiterate, no one is resenting authors who allow us to learn new words.
I guess for me, the question is: Does the author need to use this word? A lot of times both in legal writing and in fiction writing, the word usage is much more ambitious than it needs to be or even should be. Crisp, clear writing is a bonus in both fields: There’s a reason why the justices whom we read today have survived (Cardozo, for instance); it’s not because they limned their writing with all manner of flowery words when they were unnecessary for the case. In things like Gene Wolfe’s New Sun series, the word usage is excessive, but serves a point in its excess: It tells the reader that he is in a different world, with different words in common usage. More specifically, it gives me the sense of reading a work in translation. However, I’m sure we’ve all read the standard fantasy book that uses huge words, made-up names with the clichéd apostrophes or hyphens all over the place, et cetera. Gene Wolfe needs to use big words to achieve his purpose; aforesaid generic fantasy writer misusing the words does not need to use them. What do you want to achieve in your writing? Sometimes, simple writing works. Sometimes, difficult writing works. The trick is knowing when to use which, and reading a variety. Obviously, reading only simple works is generally not beneficial, but the opposite is also true: Sticking to only difficult works will cut you off from a variety of wondrous writers, starting from the Classics (Sappho was a very simple writer) and progressing to modern-day classics (Conrad doesn’t use a lot of huge words, and he’s a favorite), to say nothing of pop fiction today.
oh it needs to engage me on an intellectual level as well. But you don't need difficult words to achieve that. My favourite non fiction writer is Professor Michael Hicks, he writes about medieval history, He is an incredibly intelligent man, talks like he swallowed a dictionary depending on who is talking too. And some of his works when I was at uni were definitive ones for degree study in his area. But anyone can pick up his book and follow the work. Someone who has more knowledge gets more out of it. It entirely upto the writer what they use but for me as a reader I would prefer to read one where the information stimulates as much as anything else. Obscure words are not necessary, but for some people they are a craft.
No, I agree with this. What I mean is that "not thinking too hard when I read" is not something I can identify with, but you're quite right in that the language one uses has little to do with the matter (well, to an extent). Hicks is very good, though - probably one of the more readable medievalists out there today.
You're stating you are bored unless challenged on an intellectual level with regards to lexis. If you don't mean with regards to lexis, then you can see where my confused arises considering the thread. Not to mention your comment totally disregards emotional stimulation.
No, actually, I can't. I was responding to a particular phrase, which I have clarified above in case your confusion as to what it was that triggered my (admittedly irrational and overhasty) response has only deepened. And yes, my comment doesn't explicitly state that I read for emotional stimulation. Neither does it suggest that I am incapable of being intellectually gratified by the same source.
I think he is fantastic. He's a lot more disorganised in real life I met him before I read Richard III and I was surprised at how good and organised it was.
Okay, well I misunderstood to what your comment pertained to, so I apologise. Still, you didn't quote the person to whom you were replying so telling me you can't understand why I misunderstood is just plain childish.
I really enjoyed his book on Warwick the Kingmaker. He sounds like many of the academics I know - absolutely brilliant at organizing a sound history and creating a readable and informative resource, but personally disorganized to the point that one wonders how they can possibly survive outside their apartments.
