Big vs. Little Words

[glynndah]

I was listening to a book recently where the hero says "wow" after having sex for the first time with his woman. She teases him about his limited vocabulary because he has said the same thing each of the three times. He replies, "I try never to use a big word when a little one will do just fine."

Any thought or comments?

 

[Alex De Kok]

I was listening to a book recently where the hero says "wow" after having sex for the first time with his woman. She teases him about his limited vocabulary because he has said the same thing each of the three times. He replies, "I try never to use a big word when a little one will do just fine."

Any thought or comments?

Some of the best advice that might ever be offered to a writer, in my view. I thought it might be attributable to Elmore Leonard, but I can't find it in his 'ten rules.' Rule 3 comes closest.

Alex

 

[rgraham666]

I was listening to a book recently where the hero says "wow" after having sex for the first time with his woman. She teases him about his limited vocabulary because he has said the same thing each of the three times. He replies, "I try never to use a big word when a little one will do just fine."

Any thought or comments?

I suppose that depends on the meaning of the phrase 'big word'. I'll use 'malevolent' and 'tenebrous' instead of 'evil' and 'dark'. Personally I think the former has more flavour.

When writing, I try not to over use words and phrase. 'As always' and 'as if' frequently sneak into my work too often. I'm not yet successful in weeding them out in the edit stage of working.

Mostly it's to keep the flow of a story alive. Using the same words over and over makes the rhythm too repetitive and I believe the readers will get bored.

My exception is in dialogue. I don't mind a character being repetitive when speaking, as people do tend to be repetitive when speaking. But in such cases, I'll break the dialogue up with other characters and descriptions of actions.

 

[rgraham666]

Some of the best advice that might ever be offered to a writer, in my view. I thought it might be attributable to Elmore Leonard, but I can't find it in his 'ten rules.' Rule 3 comes closest.

Alex

Cripes! I've broken every one of those rules.

Good for me!

 

[3113]

I was listening to a book recently where the hero says "wow" after having sex for the first time with his woman. She teases him about his limited vocabulary because he has said the same thing each of the three times. He replies, "I try never to use a big word when a little one will do just fine."

Any thought or comments?

It's perfectly good characterization.

I mean, that's the question isn't it? Is this the character speaking or the author. If it's the author...I'd rather not be preached to in my literature. If it's the character, then it defines him quite well.

 

[Alex De Kok]

Cripes! I've broken every one of those rules.

Good for me!

Not without blame, myself. Always helps to know 'em before you break 'em, methinks. If you've ever read my story, 'Aye, pet, aal the way' you'll know why I now try very hard to obey Leonard's Rule 7!

Alex

 

[NoJo]

Some of the best advice that might ever be offered to a writer, in my view. I thought it might be attributable to Elmore Leonard, but I can't find it in his 'ten rules.' Rule 3 comes closest.

Alex

I like that Elmore Leonard link. You can see from his rules why his stuff works on film -- the rules for script writing are very similar to this. But of course there's more than one way to skin a cat than drowning it in butter.

As the great James Joyce said, in Finnegan's Wake:

Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronn*tuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk

 

[3113]

Cripes! I've broken every one of those rules.

Good for me!

Let's keep in mind what they're for, however. Crime Novels. Different readers have different needs. It's like sex...not everyone likes the same thing so advice about sex is going to be of limited use, isn't it? Good if you're a virgin, but worthless if you're experienced.

There are readers that adore detail and will read certain authors who have rich descriptions of people and places (Anne Rice seemed to do very well breaking that rule, didn't she?). What about science fiction? There are readers of Hard sf who read it for the pages and pages of discussion about science. Speaking of which, if I write a sf novel about a planet with extreme and bizarre weather than the best thing I could do might be to start with the weather, right? Things you'd leave out of a crime novel because they slow the action are exactly what readers may want in some other type of novel.

By the way, here's the second line of one of my favorite crime novels, the author won the Edgar for this novel:

It was mid-July. Hot winds that felt like the devil's breath blew into Los Angeles from the desert, rattling though the shaggy eucalyptus trees like a dry cough.

I think he made very good use of the weather. Don't you?

On the whole, I find writing advice like this good for beginning writers, for those who don't quite know what they're doing and are making mistakes most beginners make. Such advice and rules, however, are, at best, nice reminders to non-beginners. At worst, they're totally useless. If you know *why* one of those rules should be broken to make the story work, then you are master enough to not have to have any rules. What works for the story works. What doesn't, doesn't.

 

[R. Richard]

The Elmore Leonard rules are good. However, it is necessary to understand them, not merely memorize them.

I started one of my Literotica stories with a brief description of a record breaking snowfall in an area. I had to start the story that way, as the entire plot hung on the fact that it was a record breaking snowfall in the area. However, I confined my description of the weather to a brief, factual explanation and then got the protagonist busy solving the problems that the weather created. I didn't spend pages describing the texture, colors and covering effect of the snow; who cares?

 

[Equinoxe]

I think that, as dialogue, to agree with 3113, it probably suits the character's personality and adds some sense of flavour to him, but as advice to authors it is questionable, at best, and ill suited in a story. That sort of didactic storytelling can be a bit tiresome, to be sure. The opposite ("One should never utilise miniscule wordage in a situation wherein one could instead employ gargantuan terminology.") is perhaps likewise to be avoided.

Having said that, in general, I do not think one should deny oneself, as an author, the right to use anything that is linguistically valid, but that one should pay very close attention to why something is being used and to what effect.

 

[3113]

The Elmore Leonard rules are good. However, it is necessary to understand them, not merely memorize them.

I started one of my Literotica stories with a brief description of a record breaking snowfall in an area. I had to start the story that way, as the entire plot hung on the fact that it was a record breaking snowfall in the area. However, I confined my description of the weather to a brief, factual explanation and then got the protagonist busy solving the problems that the weather created. I didn't spend pages describing the texture, colors and covering effect of the snow; who cares?

Again. They MIGHT care. It depends on the reader, on the story, on the theme, on the style, on the point of the story.

I'm writing a story about a guy getting buried in the snow and almost dying. I think, in that context, that texture, color and the covering effect of snow might be important.

Never say never, not when it applies to art.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Well... I break most of Leonard's rules regularly

Often times it's done for good reason. Some characters talk in BIG WORDS because that's who they are. Some characters use localized vinacular.

And sometimes, especially in humor, you break those rules to get a joke across.

As far as the direction this thread has taken, ie. the use of massive discriptions, I almost never do that. I'd much rather sketch an image and let the reader fill in the blanks and color it whichever way he/she wants. I think it helps drag them into the story.

Just my thoughts.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I enjoy coming up with new ways for characters to "say" things. "Said" is so boiing, and overused if used every time. Sometimes people "grunt", "groan", "shout!" (with the exclamation point and all), or "sigh".

Those seem like rules for the sake of rules, and I'm against that kind of thinking in all activities.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't trust any rule that tells me that a certain type of word is always or nearly always better than another. I think it's better to say, instead, "It's important to know the precise meaning, weight, connotation, and effect of each word, and to select the one that most precisely fits your intentions." Sometimes the shorter word will be the better; sometimes the longer will be. Why reject the long ones out of hand? They have a reason for existing, and in some situations the longer will be better. If I must describe a female acquaintance within her earshot I will go for "voluptuous" rather than "fat," and "smart" wouldn't catch a really shining intellect as well as "incandescent."

I do think that rhythm is important and that a long string of long words can get heavy, but I don't think the best solution to that problem is elevating word length to the position of greatest importance when choosing words. A long string of short words also has problems in rhythm. Any string of words chosen without care to all of their aspects - sound, meaning, connotation, formality, and so forth - will have problems. It's a complex matter, those interrelated effects of words, and I don't believe it can be usefully approached with automatic rules of thumb.

Shanglan

 

[tanyachrs]

The rule is not to use a big word when a small word will do. A small word won't always do, but don't use a big one just for the sake of it. Know why you used the bigger one.

And no, "said" isn't boring. "Said" is invisible. That's why it's used. Too many said alternatives is irritatingly noticeable.

 

[3113]

The rule is not to use a big word when a small word will do. A small word won't always do, but don't use a big one just for the sake of it.

Why not? I mean, I'll go along with this if we're talking about some asshole who's using big words just to show off. But sometimes, a person likes to use big words for the fun of them. Just because they're rich and unique and sound good. Sometimes because they're more apt or powerful.

I mean, if a guy was in bed with me and said "Wow," I'd be flattered. But if he turned to me and said, "Jesus, that was INCENDIARY!"

Well that would really tickle me and I think I'd remember HIM over the guy who just said "wow."

Why should there be a reason NOT to use big words...other than a lot of people don't bother to read and enrich their vocabulary and so don't know what such words mean?

 

[Joesephus]

This is tough for me...

My English vocabulary comes from reading a dictionary. I'm generally not aware of the emotional impact of words. English is such a rich language that I want to use its subtle nuances. What has surprised me is how few complaints I get about using "big" words and how often I'm castigated for using a provocative word like "abuse."

 

[NoJo]

I can't fully agree with the Elmore Leonard rule about "said", because one of my favorite quotes breaks it so beautifully, describing a husband's remark (and his relationship) to his wife:

'"For Christ's sake, shut the hell up", he explained.'

 

[R. Richard]

I'm writing a story about a guy getting buried in the snow and almost dying. I think, in that context, that texture, color and the covering effect of snow might be important.

Never say never, not when it applies to art.

I can see your point and it is a good one. However, I would never voluntarily read a story about a guy getting buried in snow and the story is about his emotional reaction to the experience. I don't care about his emotional reaction and never will. I want a story about a guy being buried in the snow and thinks his way out of the trap or thinks his way out and it fails. I want to see some thinking, not feelings. JMHO.

 

[CharleyH]

I was listening to a book recently where the hero says "wow" after having sex for the first time with his woman. She teases him about his limited vocabulary because he has said the same thing each of the three times. He replies, "I try never to use a big word when a little one will do just fine."

Any thought or comments?

This is a familiar quote and I dont recall who said it. Is it good advice? Sure for dialogue it is, but not for narrative..

 

[NoJo]

I can see your point and it is a good one. However, I would never voluntarily read a story about a guy getting buried in snow and the story is about his emotional reaction to the experience. I don't care about his emotional reaction and never will. I want a story about a guy being buried in the snow and thinks his way out of the trap or thinks his way out and it fails. I want to see some thinking, not feelings. JMHO.

perhaps he could pee his way out

 

[CharleyH]

perhaps he could pee his way out

ROFLOL - he just might - LOL I get SJOE now

 

[tanyachrs]

Why should there be a reason NOT to use big words...other than a lot of people don't bother to read and enrich their vocabulary and so don't know what such words mean?

Well, that's one reason. In one of my stories I used the word "frenulum" and I got a comment asking what it meant. I thought a long time about that word before I used it. I knew not everyone would know it but I couldn't figure out a simpler one, so I was stuck. If I'm wrapped up in a story, porn or not, coming across a word I don't know takes me completely out of the moment.

But I think the main reason that rule gets tossed around is because a lot of beginning writers have the idea that complexity indicates mastery whereas it's more the case that simplicity indicates mastery.

 

[WARNINGWARNING]

I really enjoyed reading BlackShanglan's response to this issue. Thank you, BlackShanglan.

Other insights were superfluous. (just taunting)

 

[3113]

I can see your point and it is a good one. However, I would never voluntarily read a story about a guy getting buried in snow and the story is about his emotional reaction to the experience. I don't care about his emotional reaction and never will. I want a story about a guy being buried in the snow and thinks his way out of the trap or thinks his way out and it fails. I want to see some thinking, not feelings. JMHO.

I didn't say anything about whether he'd be having an emotional reaction or a thinking reaction...just that he was going to get buried under the snow and almost die. I suspect that if I wrote such a thing I'd go for BOTH emotional reaction and his thoughts on how to escape...as well as whatever he was feeling physically and whatever the snow was like.

It doesn't afterall, have to be one thing or another. A writer can mix and match.