What details of an author's style annoy you?

[Bramblethorn]

I wonder if there are two kinds of large-word-using authors, those that do it clumsily and those that do it well. Or if there are just two kinds of readers, those who like large/unusual words and those that don't?

Bit o' both.

There are authors who use words they themselves don't know, and get them wrong, or who feel like they're using a thesaurus just to show off. It's hard to come up with high-profile examples of the former, since professional editing is supposed to catch that kind of thing, but I guess John Boyne counts (more "unusual" than "large" words there).

There are readers who don't ever want to have to look up a word meaning while reading something, and others who love learning new words.

But readers don't automatically understand authorial intent. Sometimes what one reader interprets as "showing off" is just the writer using their natural vocabulary, and sometimes "I don't like long words" is really more "I don't like YOUR large words".

I'm in the second category of reader. I like authors who take a delight in words and can't think of any authors who have put me off by their use of large/unusual words. Can you give me a couple of examples?

Lovecraft (the pre-WWII weird fiction writer, not the forum regular) is famous for his love of unusual vocabulary: "batrachian", "squamous", etc. etc. He was a Greek/Latin/history/science nerd writing in the first half of the 20th century, so those words would probably have been less unusual to him than to the average modern-day reader, but I think it's still fair to say he went out of his way to keep his prose baroque.

 

[Actingup]

Bit o' both.

There are authors who use words they themselves don't know, and get them wrong, or who feel like they're using a thesaurus just to show off. It's hard to come up with high-profile examples of the former, since professional editing is supposed to catch that kind of thing, but I guess John Boyne counts (more "unusual" than "large" words there).

There are readers who don't ever want to have to look up a word meaning while reading something, and others who love learning new words.

But readers don't automatically understand authorial intent. Sometimes what one reader interprets as "showing off" is just the writer using their natural vocabulary, and sometimes "I don't like long words" is really more "I don't like YOUR large words".



Lovecraft (the pre-WWII weird fiction writer, not the forum regular) is famous for his love of unusual vocabulary: "batrachian", "squamous", etc. etc. He was a Greek/Latin/history/science nerd writing in the first half of the 20th century, so those words would probably have been less unusual to him than to the average modern-day reader, but I think it's still fair to say he went out of his way to keep his prose baroque.

There are authors and readers from all over the world, too. What is common in one area might be virtually unknown elsewhere. What a glorious opportunity to broaden the mind.

I agree re: Lovecraft too, and I think that if we're fans of a particular author, it can show and also mix things up. I'm an Australian, but part of my vocab comes from (US writer) Jack Vance, who was wonderful at using unusual words well. I love (Canadian) Guy Gavriel Kay as well, and sometimes I catch myself trying to channel his particular style. We all have our influences.

 

[NuclearFairy]

But readers don't automatically understand authorial intent. Sometimes what one reader interprets as "showing off" is just the writer using their natural vocabulary, and sometimes "I don't like long words" is really more "I don't like YOUR large words".

I sometimes worry about that with my writing. I know a large variety of words for things, they're common for me because I'd rather use one word to convey a complex meaning than several. And I worry that just because I know what the word means, doesn't mean my readers will and that they'll think I'm being pretentious.

And no, I can't give any clear examples, because I don't know which one's I'm using that aren't common knowledge. So I can't even simplify my vocabulary because, aside from knowing that I have a lot of uncommon words, I don't know when I'm using an uncommon word.

 

[Actingup]

I sometimes worry about that with my writing. I know a large variety of words for things, they're common for me because I'd rather use one word to convey a complex meaning than several. And I worry that just because I know what the word means, doesn't mean my readers will and that they'll think I'm being pretentious.

And no, I can't give any clear examples, because I don't know which one's I'm using that aren't common knowledge. So I can't even simplify my vocabulary because, aside from knowing that I have a lot of uncommon words, I don't know when I'm using an uncommon word.

I used 'coterie' in a recent story without thinking anything of it at all - it was just the right word - and that was picked on as part of a hate review:

"When you offered - “She had been chatting gaily to some of her coterie…” – it was too late to force more sophistication into your prose. The horse had already bolted. "

For revenge, I've indulged myself in some acts of floccinaucinihilipilification regarding that reviewer and her work.

 

[Erozetta]

I sometimes worry about that with my writing. I know a large variety of words for things, they're common for me because I'd rather use one word to convey a complex meaning than several. And I worry that just because I know what the word means, doesn't mean my readers will and that they'll think I'm being pretentious.

And no, I can't give any clear examples, because I don't know which one's I'm using that aren't common knowledge. So I can't even simplify my vocabulary because, aside from knowing that I have a lot of uncommon words, I don't know when I'm using an uncommon word.

My whole complaint is basically: "Don't write a layman and give them the niche vocabulary of a brilliant rocket scientist."

If the words suit your character/the situation, run with it, but make sure they fit and they aren't just being used because you, the author, want to use them even if they make no sense for the characters/situation.

I see this most often in first person narration where the MC is supposed to be a very simple girl/boy next door with zero ambitions or interests beyond fucking anyone whose path they cross.

It's people writing Gaston with a Sherlock Holmes vocabulary but without changing anything about the intelligence and/or experience of the character to back up the vocabulary usage.

 

[NuclearFairy]

My whole complaint is basically: "Don't write a layman and give them the niche vocabulary of a brilliant rocket scientist."

If the words suit your character/the situation, run with it, but make sure they fit and they aren't just being used because you, the author, want to use them even if they make no sense for the characters/situation.

I see this most often in first person narration where the MC is supposed to be a very simple girl/boy next door with zero ambitions or interests beyond fucking anyone whose path they cross.

It's people writing Gaston with a Sherlock Holmes vocabulary but without changing anything about the intelligence and/or experience of the character to back up the vocabulary usage.

Yeah, I'm trying to write my harpies as mostly having a simplistic foulmouthed vocabulary. But I oftentimes worry that I'm failing, because other than the foulmouthed part, I'm not entirely sure what simplistic is supposed to sound like.

Which words that I use are common and which are uncommon. I don't know.

My SO is my beta reader and he'd classify his cousins as typical country hicks, and I've told him that other than certain individuals I want them to sound like his cousins. Minus the thick accent that I can't understand. And he's only occasionally had to help me find other words for them. So I think I'm succeeding, but I dunno.

 

[YmaOHyd]

If the words suit your character/the situation, run with it, but make sure they fit and they aren't just being used because you, the author, want to use them even if they make no sense for the characters/situation.

I just had to stop myself from writing "glistered" for "glistened." I've never written 'glistered' before. I've never heard anyone say it. It's totally inappropriate in the context of a modern hot-n-heavy sex scene. I've only ever encountered it in the context of Churchill. Where the hell did that come from.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I sometimes worry about that with my writing. I know a large variety of words for things, they're common for me because I'd rather use one word to convey a complex meaning than several. And I worry that just because I know what the word means, doesn't mean my readers will and that they'll think I'm being pretentious.

And no, I can't give any clear examples, because I don't know which one's I'm using that aren't common knowledge. So I can't even simplify my vocabulary because, aside from knowing that I have a lot of uncommon words, I don't know when I'm using an uncommon word.

Why worry? There's no need to apologise for your literacy, your vocabulary, it's a feature of who you are. So what if the other person's vocabulary isn't as rich as yours? That's their issue, not yours - education, inclination, society, up-bringing, whatever.

Why dumb down to the lowest common denominator? That does no-one any good, coz if you follow it to its logical conclusion you get, "Dick had sex with Jane. The End."

 

[ElectricBlue]

I just had to stop myself from writing "glistered" for "glistened." I've never written 'glistered' before. I've never heard anyone say it. It's totally inappropriate in the context of a modern hot-n-heavy sex scene. I've only ever encountered it in the context of Churchill. Where the hell did that come from.

Glistered is a brilliant word.
literary
verb
past tense: glistered; past participle: glistered
meaning: to sparkle; glitter.
"the wedding ring caught the light, glistering brightly"

 

[YmaOHyd]

Glistered is a brilliant word.
literary
verb
past tense: glistered; past participle: glistered
meaning: to sparkle; glitter.
"the wedding ring caught the light, glistering brightly"

It is, and it was the right context for it but not the right speaker or mood. Hopefully the chance will come up again.

 

[nice90sguy]

I just had to stop myself from writing "glistered" for "glistened." I've never written 'glistered' before. I've never heard anyone say it. It's totally inappropriate in the context of a modern hot-n-heavy sex scene. I've only ever encountered it in the context of Churchill. Where the hell did that come from.

It's the actual word used in the Shakespeare-coined "All that glisters is not gold".

 

[TheLobster]

"All that glisters is not gold".

Huh. Who would've thought, that the guy who coined the world's most famous tautology -- b || !b -- would turn around and spread such blatant logical falsehoods?

 

[Eosphorus]

Oooo, just thought of another! When the writer tries to write pseudo-archaic English. Thees and thous, wouldst and prithee, and worst of all "an" (or "and" - yes, I'm looking at you, David Eddings) instead of "if".

Unless the story is set in a very poorly programmed historical simulation, there's no excuse for it.

Maybe if it’s a spoof or anything in the comedy genre.

Oooo, just thought of another! When the writer tries to write pseudo-archaic English. Thees and thous, wouldst and prithee, and worst of all "an" (or "and" - yes, I'm looking at you, David Eddings) instead of "if".

Unless the story is set in a very poorly programmed historical simulation, there's no excuse for it.

What if it’s something in the Satire or Comedy genre? I’ve written a farcical sketch set in 13th Century Canterbury. The words “doth” and “hath” make a few appearances, but it’s all in the spirit of silliness.

 

[ElectricBlue]

What if it’s something in the Satire or Comedy genre? I’ve written a farcical sketch set in 13th Century Canterbury. The words “doth” and “hath” make a few appearances, but it’s all in the spirit of silliness.

Silliness can still follow the rules of grammar. That's the point folk are making here - those who know how the archaic words should be used - and it grates on them, seeing the words used incorrectly.

 

[StillStunned]

What if it’s something in the Satire or Comedy genre? I’ve written a farcical sketch set in 13th Century Canterbury. The words “doth” and “hath” make a few appearances, but it’s all in the spirit of silliness.

Now I have a new plot bunny bouncing around my head. Two time travellers called Doth and Hath. Or perhaps Dost and Hast.

Dammit.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Now I have a new plot bunny bouncing around my head. Two time travellers called Doth and Hath. Or perhaps Dost and Hast.

Dammit.

And some Royal Ugly Dude can "Put them in the Iron Maiden." Excellent!!

 

[TheLobster]

Now I have a new plot bunny bouncing around my head. Two time travellers called Doth and Hath. Or perhaps Dost and Hast.

Dammit.

I've heard about Lady Doth, and that she often seems to protest too much.

 

[NuclearFairy]

I've finally remembered what I've been wanting to post in here. When a writer refers to feminine secretions as mucus, or discharge. Technically it might be correct, but it's also unsexy as hell.

 

[RetroFan]

Present tense narrative, either first or third person. It just sounds so pretentious, and as soon as I see it the book goes back on the shelf or I click the back button.

 

[JTass]

One of my biggest pet peeves is glaring factual errors that the author could have checked with a 5 second search on Google. For example, authors referring to bullets as being made of steel (not specialty steel-jacketed rounds, but ordinary run-of-the-mill handgun ammunition).
This also covers the example mentioned earlier about properties and position of the hymen.

 

[JTass]

Oooo, just thought of another! When the writer tries to write pseudo-archaic English. Thees and thous, wouldst and prithee, and worst of all "an" (or "and" - yes, I'm looking at you, David Eddings) instead of "if".

Unless the story is set in a very poorly programmed historical simulation, there's no excuse for it.

To be fair to Eddings, his use of Mimbrate/Elizabethan language was grammatically correct.

As a side note, I was a huge Eddings fan when I was growing up, and was seriously upset when I found out a few years ago that David and Leigh Eddings were absolutely horrible human beings.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Present tense narrative, either first or third person. It just sounds so pretentious, and as soon as I see it the book goes back on the shelf or I click the back button.

That's not a hard no for me, but I often find myself lapsing into present tense when writing intense sex scenes, then shifting back. I catch myself in edit, or if it's short and first person, might stay in present tense. Too much present tense gets to be exhausting though, very quickly.

 

[Actingup]

To be fair to Eddings, his use of Mimbrate/Elizabethan language was grammatically correct.

As a side note, I was a huge Eddings fan when I was growing up, and was seriously upset when I found out a few years ago that David and Leigh Eddings were absolutely horrible human beings.

You mean the convictions for child abuse? I'm kind of glad I didn't know about them. I hated his books on their own merits

 

[Kumquatqueen]

One of my biggest pet peeves is glaring factual errors that the author could have checked with a 5 second search on Google. For example, authors referring to bullets as being made of steel (not specialty steel-jacketed rounds, but ordinary run-of-the-mill handgun ammunition).
This also covers the example mentioned earlier about properties and position of the hymen.

You need to know what you don't know. I just read that and went 'aren't they?' My shooting experience is limited to air rifles, a few weeks at a rifle club, and one time in a cocktail bar in a Japan with a pistol range in back. Very drunk people and guns - what could possibly go wrong?
"Faster than a steel bullet" is a phrase, right?

So I googled and AI was fairly useless, as we're the next 20 links to videos. But the one-minute best result was Wikipedia: "A bullet is a kinetic projectile, a component of firearm ammunition that is shot from a gun barrel. They are made of a variety of materials, such as copper, lead, steel, polymer, rubber and even wax;"

A couple other results also suggested steel bullets with lead core were a norm.

Now I avoid mentioning any details about guns in my stories because I know however much research I do, there's always gun nerds ready to spot a mistake from eight furlongs away. Ditto the military, WWII and later wars, and cars.

I did end up doing one story with a British ex-soldier, and read up ridiculous amounts about locations of various barracks, operations, daily life in barracks, etc. No-one's told me there isn't a laundry room for soldiers to use, which was one thing I never managed to check.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

You need to know what you don't know. I just read that and went 'aren't they?' My shooting experience is limited to air rifles, a few weeks at a rifle club, and one time in a cocktail bar in a Japan with a pistol range in back. Very drunk people and guns - what could possibly go wrong?
"Faster than a steel bullet" is a phrase, right?

I'm no gun expert but bullets are made of lead, aren't they? I'm sure that lead will tear flesh just as easily as steel and is far cheaper. And the phrase is "faster than a speeding bullet" from Superman. Also the phrase, "don't move or I'll fill you full of lead!"