I had to reread the first line two times after reading the second one to get the meaning/see similarities. But then I am a bit dense...

I know that when I was writing my first story (coming soon ), I tried my best to make sure the characters weren't coming off as walking thesauruses. That's not to say they were totally dumb, but rather that their language was, well, typical of people their age.

I'll admit to sometimes flexing my own vocabulary a bit when I speak or post, because I know different words and what they mean. I also know it's not exactly guaranteed that someone I write about will be the same way (unless I make them so). So...having to use some restraint on my choice of words was sometimes a bit challenging, especially since I used a first-person POV. But, I'm not sure I could've made it work the way I wanted to with third-person.

So true. I see some beautifully written stories on the internet, but sometimes the beauty of the words distracts from the content of the story.

This is especially true for the first person POV. I'm having an interesting time writing from an inner-city teenager's POV . . . it takes some work to weed out my adult vocabulary. I keep using the thesaurus to look for simpler synonyms

Using too much flowery language can come over as pretentious or contrived. Simpler is best wherever possible, IMHO.

I dunno, Cia. I'm 50/50 on this one. Generally, you're probably right. On the other hand, words are important. Perhaps it's part of the 'dumbing down' debate. For example, your word 'dislocation' is incredibly powerful. For me, at least, it sums up a whole host of powerful images and emotions. I guess I'd have to get the context where you used it but, for me, I'd hang on to it tenaciously!

Riley J

I agree that strong words can make an impact, but if they're drowning in other flowery/ornate words, they stand out less. I think if 'dislocation' were to be the focus of the first sentence, that'd be fine, so long as some of the other words were a bit plainer.

I've struggled with this a lot over the last few years. Through college I picked up a lot of vocabulary, and I became concerned for those words: if no one uses them, will they die? At first I didn't like the idea that part of the language would atrophy, but over time I've accepted that if a word does not get used, then it must not be useful enough. (There is, however, an element of education here: vocabulary is becoming less and less the object of education before college. Sure, the SAT assesses it, but other than that, the focus is shifting toward research and information retrieval skills.)

But what about pleasure? Having several available terms to cover a small field of meanings can afford a certain pleasure. Synaesthetes will tell you that sensory experiences attach themselves to certain letters. In that case, selecting a word means not only approximating a meaning, but also importing sensual cues. When I write a particularly affective scene, I listen to songs that represent that feeling for me with that hope that the music will guide me toward more sensually accurate word choices. (Weird, eh?) Having a field of terms to select from--even if some might drive the reader to the dictionary--is a privilege.

Very good point Cia. Also very valid when doing public speaking. Use 'common' language and don't try to make yourself sound or look smarter than your audience

I have several points of disagreement or at least clarification here. Part of the joy of reading is, according to some, being in the hands of a master story-teller; hence, the tie between author and authority. To tell the truth, I do want to read an author who seems smarter than me, or who has something to offer that I do not have. I completely sympathize with the sentiment here: no one wants to read an author who's flexing his vocabulary for show, but let's not assume that all uses of non-"common" language necessarily have that as an aim. Lastly, there are certain characters who are fun to read or write because of their overblown diction. (For examples: Nabokov's Humbert Humbert and Faulkner's Rosa Coldfield.)

I agree that strong words can make an impact, but if they're drowning in other flowery/ornate words, they stand out less. I think if 'dislocation' were to be the focus of the first sentence, that'd be fine, so long as some of the other words were a bit plainer.

I like this understanding best. When an author places a slightly erudite term amongst otherwise everyday vocabulary because that term is the most specific, the effect for the reader is really exciting. I just read a Gwendolyn Brooks novel, Maud Martha, where her vocabulary is mostly simplistic, but occasionally she lets fall a perfect, specific word, and the effect is stunning.

I can agree to simple being best, but only if simple means most exact. Simplifying would be dangerous.

You touch a nerve with this subject. I guess because I often get "wordy" in my writing and it kills the flow. At times I wish I could be more like Hemingway was: I;ve heard he was unrelenting in cutting out all unnessecary words which allows for a fast pace, but at the expense of developing characters that seem shallow in their thoughts, unreflective and pragmatic to the extreme. At the other end of the spectrum is David Foster Wallace; his writing is awesome, but also infuriating in detail and vocabulary. I have to keep a dictionary by my side while reading his novels. It's a slow tedious process. So, I guess there needs to be a balance.

Every writer needs to find their own (hopefully unique) voice. Umm, imho.