The Power of Language

Impactful, I'd say.

Precisely!

Orwell, in Politics and the English Language, discusses the relationship between thinking and writing. Worth a read.

 

Lol. Yes, all those ingredients are related in an exponential way.

 

can you provide us with a little bit of what he says?

 

Well, there’s some practical nuts-and-bolts advice on sharpening prose, but your post made me think of his point about good writing being both a cause and an effect of good thinking.

I found your distinction between ‘idea’ and ‘prose’ to be quite philosophical. (I don’t agree with the Reddit user’s take on Huxley. I wouldn’t say Huxley’s prose was poor; rather, he had an academic style that worked well in his non-fiction, like The Perennial Philosophy and The Doors of Perception, though perhaps less so in his fiction.)

I currently lean toward the view that ‘idea’ cannot be separated from ‘prose.’ While an idea can be expressed in many different ways, there's no prose that does not convey some form of idea.

Because of this, I think writing (assuming it reaches an audience) cannot be fully separated from the context in which that audience experiences it. Therefore, while we can make our prose clear, its power depends on more than just the words.

 

Very interesting. I'd add to that to say that the meanings of the words provide the ideas - and in that case I can see what you're saying. The words in prose provide the clarity.

It also makes me think of poetry, which tends to be more evocative.

 

Without the idea, there can be no story. The plot is what gives the idea a structure. The characters are how the reader identifies with the story, and draws them in. The prose is what breathes life into the experience of the story.

 

How powerful would it have been if God had simply turned the lights on instead of saying "Let there be light"? Or Juliet had said "Why are you called Romeo?" instead of "Wherefore art though Romeo?"?

 

I think you have a mistranslation there. I think more accurately it would be, "Where are you Romeo?" OR it could be "Where is my booty call?"

 

No - "wherefore art thou Romeo" actually doesn't mean "where are you Romeo", even though it looks like it does, and appears to in context of the play (Romeo is hiding from her).

It actually means "why are you Romeo" - she's asking "why do you have to be Romeo, a man from a family opposed to mine", in other words, she's lamenting the fact that he is Romeo.

One of the dictionary definitions of "wherefore" is "For what reason".

 

This is turning into the things I learned today thread.

 

@Naomasa298 thanks for clarifying the correct translation.

 

All good questions Louanne. I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself.

I want my story to be powerful. (if I have something important to say) For me it begins with the concept. (What subject am I exploring? Why is it important? How is it affecting the person... the group of people... the world?) The concept for me grounds the story and acts as its foundation. Then the depth of character, the plot, the prose stem out of that.

Also, words are powerful in and of themselves. Words contain; hidden meanings, assumptions, biases and insinuations, personality flaws, traces of culture and rules and regulations by which we are governed. (among other) We as writers have to remember that the right combination of these magical things (words) can create / manifest so much of the above.

I hope that made sense.

 

For me personally there is no balance here. Or the balance is so heavily skewed towards "personal expression" that wanting for reader's attention no longer matters. Whenever I try to please an imaginary reader, I fail, I lose my motivation to write and then I stop writing all together. (although I do veer in that direction from time to time and have to psychologically slap myself to snap out of it) In my mind trying to please an imaginary reader is reaching for the infinite. Who are these imaginary people anyway? What do they want from me? I don't know.

 

Perfect sense, and mirrors how I approach writing, too.

 

When I ask myself, who am I writing for? I have to answer, "I don't know." Sometimes I feel like I am just writing for myself, but other times I want to reach the largest audience possible.

 

Love it, yes. I think it is something that takes a lot of skill.

Totally agree. That's how the writer connects with the reader.

 

I sometimes feel like I'm writing not for the audience, but for the story. I ask myself "Have I done right by the story? Is it telling everything it needs to tell?" So maybe the story itself is my audience. It's my number one critic.

I assume the readers are coming on a journey with me. They want their disbelief to be suspended. They want to explore the world that I created. Hence, the story is less about them and more about itself.

 

I feel this, too. This reminds me of a thread from a while back, "Do you feel a responsibility to your characters?"

Lots of interesting and thoughtful opinions, if you want to have a look:

https://www.writingforums.org/threads/do-you-feel-a-responsibility-to-your-characters.173427/

 

This thread also reminds me of the thread about a character with a limited range of expression, which put in mind two recent encounters. Here's hoping this doesn't turn into tldr.

Earlier this year, for reasons that won't be specified other than mentioning a rare opportunity for me to tell my wife that I told her so, she and I found ourselves at a service station in Limerick around midnight. I was outside on the forecourt while my wife was inside when I was called by a guy in the back of a car that pulled in. I couldn't see him but fairly quickly recognised the dulcet nasal tones, someone I'd worked with a couple of years ago. He slagged me off for wrecking his head, to which I replied that doing so was my job. He left a parting shot before the car took off to say "you walked on my brain", an expression I've not heard before but one I'll definitely borrow in a story some time.

Another kinda similar encounter last week, heading into Tesco's and a guy asked me for the cigarette I was about to toss before going into the shop. I gave him a couple of cigs, chatted a few minutes and, again, he recognised me from a few years previous when I'd worked with him. He said all was going well for him as I was leaving and then "just a little bit homeless."

Where this ties in to this thread, sometimes how people use language, what's said and how it's said, what's not said and how it's not said, all combine to create impact. The first, I think, was a strong, creative use of language, with both humour and meaning. The second was more powerful than if the guy had spoken about the misery of what, clearly evident, was a big bit homeless.

 

This is another Irish expression that I had to look up the meaning of - "a gentle and friendly mocking" - is that so? And no similar English word comes to mind.

This says so much, not only about his situation, but how he feels about it, and his attitude towards misfortune in general (like it's temporary and not so bad)

Very much so, and an inspiration to me to try and come up with similar meaningful expressions!

Thanks for sharing.

"Sure look, the Irish are balladeers."

 

In Britain, it usually means to insult or mock - and not necessarily in a gentle or friendly way.

 

My sense of the word is closer to Louanne's, though it's often used by the perennially offensive to say "I was only slagging" or "that fella can't take a slag."

God, that's optimistic. I think there's more resignation to permanence mixed with a little of not wanting to bring down the mood after a friendly interaction and a smidgen of things could be worse, like when I go to hell, look around at the torment, and comment that at least there's no IKEA outlet in the locality.

 

It's also used in some parts of the country (particularly in London) as an equivalent to "bitch". Hence, you'll often hear it in East Enders - "Oi, you slag!".