|
Malcolm
|
|
|
|
Quote: rosefitzrobert, Friday, 13 Apr 2012 17:42Joking aside there is a real question here, as in serious question, that this whole thread poses. There are those who believe a writer "should not use words the reader won't know." What reader? Taurus? John Dylan? How old was I when I learned to read? I can't exactly remember but let's say six years old. If not for reading things that expanded my vocabulary, as well as understanding of parts of life that those words referred to, I guess I'd still be reading at a six year old level. These days, most anything one does not know can be found somewhere on the web. The claim is made that "this takes the reader out of the story." Perhaps it is the current literary fashion, no idea, that books must pretend to have no author - anything that reminds the reader that they are reading, or that someone has written, or that there are things they don't know is "bad." I was advised by two separate reviewers that I was "showing off my research" by using the the correct name for a type of armor. They though I should use the wrong term that they were used to calling it. It was obvious from the context that it was a piece of armor. I think that my character, who I am trying to show has expertise, must of course use the right name. I came to the following conclusion, any reader so lazy as to not look up a word they don't know is not in my target audience because the purpose of my book is to inspire people to change the future (by changing the present). If they can't even google a vocabulary word, they sure won't do that. I believe in respecting the intelligence of the reader. When I read, I sure want to feel the writer has respected mine. I want the writer to tell me something I didn't know, or what is the point? I happen to love mysteries, and one of the features of that genre (in good quality work) is that one learns about some area of life in order to follow the investigation. I learned that Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III was false from a novel, what goes on behind the scenes in the horse racing industry, and of the existence in 12th Century England of someone called Philip Fitz Robert. I went to my search engine to see if this was a real person. It was. That inspired the plot of "The Lady From Chameleon Lake" I wish the author was still alive so I could tell her. And thank her. So what do you think? I think your conclusion is wrong. I never stop to look up a word when I'm reading fiction, because I AM lazy. That doesn't mean I never look things up, or that I'm not willing to change the future. It just means that vocabulary-building isn't a big priority. When you read mysteries, are you aware that you're reading, or are you so absorbed in the story that you forget yourself and your surroundings? Do you, in fact, forget that you are reading? That's what the author wants--for the world he's created to be so real and so compelling that you are unaware of any other. The moment you reawaken to THIS world is the moment you realize you have other things to do. That's why, unless you're writing metafiction, you don't want to remind the reader he's reading. Even if you're writing metafiction, you don't want the reader to disengage. As a friend of mine puts it, "Unless it's because you've written something brilliant, you don't want the reader to stop and flip to the back of the book looking for your author photo, saying, 'Who IS this person?'" Having said that, I wouldn't worry about vocabulary. I think it's best to assume that the reader is at least as smart as you are, if not necessarily knowledgeable in the same areas. If he doesn't know something, he can, indeed, look it up, or he can gather its meaning from the context, or he can skip over it, if he doesn't give a shit. The ideal thing to do, which is what you've done in your example, is to describe a piece of armor so that the reader KNOWS it's a piece of armor, and then supply the proper name for it. Now the reader doesn't have to look it up--you've educated him, and you've done it without giving him homework.
No stars. No charts. Just crits.
|
|
youngun
|
|
|
|
To qualify for Greatest Worst Reviews I think the reviewer needs to commit at least one outstanding solecism, preferably two. Poor English and grammar, complete failure of understanding or use of the site for adult literacy purposes don't really make it, I would suggest.
|
|
John Dylan
|
|
|
|
Quote: Malcolm, Saturday, 14 Apr 2012 06:39....I never stop to look up a word when I'm reading fiction, because I AM lazy. That doesn't mean I never look things up, or that I'm not willing to change the future. It just means that vocabulary-building isn't a big priority. When you read mysteries, are you aware that you're reading, or are you so absorbed in the story that you forget yourself and your surroundings? Do you, in fact, forget that you are reading? That's what the author wants--for the world he's created to be so real and so compelling that you are unaware of any other. The moment you reawaken to THIS world is the moment you realize you have other things to do. That's why, unless you're writing metafiction, you don't want to remind the reader he's reading. Even if you're writing metafiction, you don't want the reader to disengage. As a friend of mine puts it, "Unless it's because you've written something brilliant, you don't want the reader to stop and flip to the back of the book looking for your author photo, saying, 'Who IS this person?'" Having said that, I wouldn't worry about vocabulary. I think it's best to assume that the reader is at least as smart as you are, if not necessarily knowledgeable in the same areas. If he doesn't know something, he can, indeed, look it up, or he can gather its meaning from the context, or he can skip over it, if he doesn't give a shit. The ideal thing to do, which is what you've done in your example, is to describe a piece of armor so that the reader KNOWS it's a piece of armor, and then supply the proper name for it. Now the reader doesn't have to look it up--you've educated him, and you've done it without giving him homework. Disclaimer: The comment below has nothing to do with rosefitzrobert's excerpt which I'm currently enjoying very much.
If I've read anything so impressively spot on and worthy of the readers' time and attention on this board, it is Malcom's comment above. IMHO a writer should do all what he can to offer the reader a smooth and easy ride through your world. If it is possible to go to every reader's home and turn the pages for him to save him the effort, I would do that. The reader has every right to be lazy, uninterested and unwilling to do any effort of any sort. He is fully entitled to throw your book away the moment he bumps into one single boring sentence. Isn't it enough that he have suicidally accepted to expose himself to your ramblings instead of, say, mowing the lawn? Isn't he such an incredibly nice guy that he might even become willing to treat his hard-earned money like a typical fool and go as far as PAYING you for such ramblings! The least you can do for such an amazing fellow is to offer him a pleasant experience, and not to treat him like a pupil who is supposed to do his homework!
This post was last edited by John Dylan, 14 Apr 2012, 20:04
|
|
PERRY
|
|
|
|
I applaud writer-research in any mode. It adds authenticity and personally I relish encountering unfamiliar terms. A day without expanding the mind is a day wasted. What did I do when I encountered Lyn's "fracking"? I investigated. What did I do when I encountered the word "halberd" all those years ago in the song " Follow Me Up To Carlow". I looked it up. It all depends on your philosophy on writing. Do you want to be didactic, populist grist, or that median which entertains and educates. I'm not going to employ the IMHO card here, because I don't feel very humble on this subject - writers are educators and if they have nothing to say, why write? Every story has a lesson and it is inane to chug out endless rubbish wary of actually challenging a reader. Terry Pratchett, God bless his cotton socks, is one of the most prolific writers on the planet, is regarded as entertainment, yet constantly churns out challenging concepts - nor does he restrict himself to baby talk to give the reader and "easy ride"- a nebulous concept in itself (He said, almost succumbing to the urge to use "intrinsic"). As long as the novel doesn't read like a textbook, thesaurus, or some self-edifying list of loquacious marble-mouthed soliloquy, then bring it on. These days anyone willing to actually open a book can be assumed to have the acumen to appreciate the opportunity to learn.
|
|
Frank Chan Loh
|
|
|
|
Quote: PERRY, Sunday, 15 Apr 2012 04:28I applaud writer-research in any mode. It adds authenticity and personally I relish encountering unfamiliar terms. A day without expanding the mind is a day wasted. What did I do when I encountered Lyn's "fracking"? I investigated. What did I do when I encountered the word "halberd" all those years ago in the song " Follow Me Up To Carlow". I looked it up. It all depends on your philosophy on writing. Do you want to be didactic, populist grist, or that median which entertains and educates. I'm not going to employ the IMHO card here, because I don't feel very humble on this subject - writers are educators and if they have nothing to say, why write? Every story has a lesson and it is inane to chug out endless rubbish wary of actually challenging a reader. Terry Pratchett, God bless his cotton socks, is one of the most prolific writers on the planet, is regarded as entertainment, yet constantly churns out challenging concepts - nor does he restrict himself to baby talk to give the reader and "easy ride"- a nebulous concept in itself (He said, almost succumbing to the urge to use "intrinsic"). As long as the novel doesn't read like a textbook, thesaurus, or some self-edifying list of loquacious marble-mouthed soliloquy, then bring it on. These days anyone willing to actually open a book can be assumed to have the acumen to appreciate the opportunity to learn. Hip-hip-hooray, Perry. I second every word you say. There are some writers who think we should write like Dr. Seuss. Don't tax the poor reader's brains. Frank.
This post was last edited by Frank Chan Loh, 15 Apr 2012, 05:36
|
|
John Dylan
|
|
|
|
I do hope we are not regarding a couple of valid and naturally coexistent opinions as two mutually exclusive ones. In my very humble opinion, based on my very limited knowledge and experience in this field, I believe that writers are, beyond any doubt, educators. Or at least should try to be so. I also believe that readers, beyond any doubt, are not pupils, and should never ever be treated or expected to behave as pupils. In other words, the greatest achievement for any writer, the one that makes him or her truly useful and successful in this world, is to be able to offer the reader the biggest possible dose of brain stimulants in the easiest and most entertaining form imaginable. I assume that if you have something new to say to the world, or a feeling you really want to share with others, then it is natural to want to propagate it to the biggest possible audience ... the whole world if you can, for that's the beauty of sharing. It doesn't mean, at all, that you should simplify your message to the point of destroying it, no! You have to simplify it without destroying one drop of it, and that is why the craft of writing is among the most difficult crafts in the world. So much so that they sometimes call it magic. Also in my very humble opinion, the true value and usefulness of any writer gets diminished with every reader he fails to attract. Even if that reader is the 14 year old girl who picked a book someone left in a bus and hoped it would help her pass the time, but got disappointed and dropped it back where she found it, because reading it required too much effort to be considered a joy. You might chose, for so many valid reasons, to label her "unimportant", "insignificant", etc... but the fact is that she didn't benefit from or enjoy your offering, and you would've no doubt been a better writer if you could've reached even her. A better writer always does just that, especially when his book is not written exclusively for 14 year olds. In a similar fashion, your value also diminishes with each meaningful experience you destroy in your attempt to over-simplify your message or shared feeling. Even if you managed to attract the kid's attention long enough, you'd still become a lesser writer for every worthy controversial idea or vivid emotion you failed to transmit to her because you didn't know how to simplify it and had chosen to do without it instead, or because you've flattened it beyond recognition while polishing it. Terry Pratchett, as Perry mentioned, was a master in delivering maximum value with maximum ease for so many readers. Douglas Adams was a God in that regard, so were Stephen King, H.G.Wells, George Orwell, Mark Twain and practically every writer who managed to make significant intellectual and emotional contributions to the many millions of hearts and minds who enjoyed his writing. Bottom line: the two equations of ease and fullness have to be solved simultaneously. So, do your research, inject as much information, mind games, wake-up calls, lessons from life, and riddles of the physical and the metaphysical worlds into your story, but make sure it is done in a way that isn't at all demanding or, God forbid, boring to the readers. Don't waste your dream on your ego, make it reach the widest range of human beings. You will never reach everyone on earth, but don't stop trying to do so unless you've really done all what you can. Translate, don't lecture. Cajole, don't rape. Negotiate and convince, but don't ever dictate your terms. That's how the keys to the hearts and minds are found. However, if someone writes only for a certain limited audience, or just for himself... if the joy of sharing what he has with the largest number of individuals is not really what he yearns for, then he can write anything at all, regardless of what others would think of it. After all, it would be none of their bleeding business!
This post was last edited by John Dylan, 15 Apr 2012, 07:38
|
|
youngun
|
|
|
|
In this business of the writer as educator, I don't suppose anyone would wish to exclude the unique function of literature as an expression of emotional intelligence, its power to reveal aspects of the human spirit and condition - or indeed its ability to add to our self-knowledge, as well as our knowledge of 'other things.'
And in these respects, with a good book, the person who ends up being educated the most is its author.
|
|
John Dylan
|
|
|
|
Quote: youngun, Sunday, 15 Apr 2012 08:14In this business of the writer as educator, I don't suppose anyone would wish to exclude the unique function of literature as an expression of emotional intelligence, its power to reveal aspects of the human spirit and condition - or indeed its ability to add to our self-knowledge, as well as our knowledge of 'other things.' And in these respects, with a good book, the person who ends up being educated the most is its author.  
This post was last edited by John Dylan, 15 Apr 2012, 08:31
|
|
PERRY
|
|
|
|
No disagreement there, John - and who on earth would presume to restrict the word "educator" to that of academia, yougnun? Not I. And Sir Terry ain't dead yet. The last Discworld novel has been finished, but who knows? As regards the young lady on the bus - it all depends on what puts her off. If it's polysyllables, then it's a wonder how she got on the bus in the first place. Some will turn their nose up at genres. I know I wouldn't lift a Mills & Boon, Jilly Cooper or Harold Robbins - which is likely unfair on the former, since they appear to be expanding their quality. The problem these days doesn't get as far as frightening vocabulary - it's the lack of pictures and presence of vowels which makes the delightful young things cast that paperback serpent from them.
This post was last edited by PERRY, 15 Apr 2012, 08:47
|
|
John Dylan
|
|
|
|
Quote: PERRY, Sunday, 15 Apr 2012 08:39No disagreement there, John - and who on earth would presume to restrict the word "educator" to that of academia, yougnun? Not I. And Sir Terry ain't dead yet. The last Discworld novel has been finished, but who knows? A terrible "was" it was, I stand corrected. May they find a quick cure for beastly Alzheimer.
|
|
And thank you Taurus?
14 Apr 2012, 06:39
