I am sick with some kind of plague, so you will have to endure the reek of my crankypants.
ENDURE IT.
*shakes crankypants at you, bathing you in rage-stink*
Anyway.
I read an article. (God, it always starts that way, doesn’t it?)
Many of my kind have shared this article.
You can read this article here. It is dumb.
The tl;dr of that article is kids being encouraged to cut out simple words in favor of more complex ones. “Expressive” words. Showy words strutting their butts around like pretty pretty peacocks. Sometimes they’re not just encouraged, but rather, punished for failing to do so.
I CALL HORSESHIT AND SHENANIGANS. HORSCHTNANIGANS.
Listen, I get it. I love language.
Language is a circus of delight. It’s like a buffet of food. You don’t always want to eat meat and potatoes. You want to try new things, and encouraging kids — or adults! — to find new ways to express themselves is a win. The breadth and depth of our language is a rich garden with loamy soil. All manner of things can grow up and out of that bed of linguistic nutrients.
Here, though, let me quote a few passages from the article:
English teachers were once satisfied if they could prevent their pupils from splitting infinitives. Now some also want to stop them from using words like “good,” “bad,” “fun” and “said.”
“We call them dead words,” said (or declared) Leilen Shelton, a middle school teacher in Costa Mesa, Calif. She and many others strive to purge pupils’ compositions of words deemed vague or dull.
“There are so many more sophisticated, rich words to use,” said (or affirmed) Ms. Shelton, whose manual “Banish Boring Words” has sold nearly 80,000 copies since 2009.
Her pupils know better than to use a boring word like “said.” As Ms. Shelton put it, “ ‘Said’ doesn’t have any emotion. You might use barked. Maybe howled. Demanded. Cackled. I have a list.”
and
Now he automatically hunts for more picturesque language. “Rather than saying, ‘This soup was good,’ you can say something like, ‘The soup was delectable,’ which really enhances it,” Josh instructed. “It gives it sort of this extra push.”
One recent afternoon after school, Josie and Josh agreed to take a stab at editing famous authors, starting with the closing words of James Joyce’s “Ulysses”: “….yes I said yes I will Yes.”
Head down, her pigtails brushing the paper, Josie examined the phrase and then suggested a small amendment: “…yes I hollered yes I will Definitely.”
and finally, oh god
Robert C. March, a writing teacher at Atkins High School in Winston-Salem, N.C., stands by his list. He has banned “I,” “you,” “we,” “why” and “it,” among others. Mr. March makes clear on his Web page that he means business: “Any banned word, or contraction, that appears in a work submitted to me will count as -5 (minus five) points off the total grade.”
Holy shit, what.
The gall to edit James Joyce.
The ego it takes to claim that simple words are ‘dead’ words.
The cruelty of punishing kids for using common, everyday, essential words.
This isn’t about expression.
This is about elitism — about embracing some faux-literary divide and stepping over one-penny blue-collar words so you can instead reach for the five dollar words in the jar on the high shelf.
The problem here is that it assumes our expression is limited by the simplicity of our language. It is not. You can express complex ideas with simple words. You can tell whole stories or give voice to complicated emotions with language that is clear, direct, and confident. The soup is good is a fine fucking sentence, I’ll have you know. It is clear. You don’t need to say ‘delectable’ because delectable is a fancy-pancy froo-froo word, one that is arguably redundant. You’d be better off directing kids to learn how to express themselves not with more complicated words, but rather with complicated images, metaphors, ideas. If a teacher feels that “the soup is good” fails to go far enough, have them describe how good, or how it makes them feel. Why is it good? Why do you like it? How does it make you feel and to what does it compare?
Context is more meaningful than painting up your words to be pretty.
Pretty words are often very nice, indeed, and also very hollow.
Characters say things and do things and nothing about that limits the power of either. What a character says and does is far more significant than how that character says or does it. The language is there to serve the idea, to give it clarity and beauty. The idea is not there to serve at the pleasure of the language. Don’t let the words gum up the meaning of what you’re trying to say.
I mean, for fuck’s sake. Sure, once in a while a character will yell or bark or spit a word out like it was something foul on the tongue. Once in a while a character will be pompous enough to believe food should be called ‘delectable’ because a word like ‘good’ could never be sufficient. Certainly big words are not to be avoided just because they’re big words — but we should cleave to them because they are the right words, not simply large and fancy and ever-so-precious. I’m using some fancy words here in this post. I do it because I like them but more because I think they are appropriate. They serve me. They create and enhance meaning.
Most of the time, simple words will do.
Simple words can be strung together to form complex sentences and complicated ideas. Some of the most astonishing poetry is the most straightforward — not the showiest, not the splashiest. That is what we should be striving to teach kids — and, further, to teach upcoming writers. Expression is more than the sum of word choice. And word choice is not garish makeup to slather across your paragraphs and pages just because you think it was too crude and not pretty enough. Don’t punish kids because they aren’t high-falutin’ enough for you. Sophistication is not well-demonstrated by purple prose. Work harder. Think bigger. Eschew the elitism of language.
Otherwise, fuck you.
Is that simple enough for you?
conniejjasperson says:
Well said, sickly smurf.
I must say, ejaculating into the soup makes for awkward dinner parties. I don’t encourage it at my house.
November 30, 2015 — 1:35 PM
Paul Anthony Shortt says:
Yep. I tell everyone, especially younger aspiring writers I meet, to forget what you learn in English class. Teachers over here have been doing this sort of thing since I was a pre-teen.
November 30, 2015 — 1:36 PM
Luther M. Siler says:
Spoken like a man who has never had to argue with a sixth-grader about whether it is POSSIBLE to describe the soup as anything other than “good.”
“How was it good?”
“I dunno.”
“What made it good?”
“Nothing.”
“How did it make you feel?”
“I dunno. Like I was eating good soup.”
Repeat this fifty times a day with fifty different kids and you’ll see why “good” might end up on a list of banned words. That said, there are better and worse ways to do this, and I suspect I would not enjoy working with Robert March very much.
November 30, 2015 — 1:37 PM
terribleminds says:
Then maybe they should stop asking kids about their soup and start asking them about something real.
November 30, 2015 — 1:45 PM
Luther M. Siler says:
That was your example. Choose any other you want. You will have kids argue to your face that it is IMPOSSIBLE to choose any word other than the one they chose. That adding one single more sentence to describe something CANNOT be done. We’re not talking about simplicity of language vs. elegance. We’re talking about “No, I’m serious, there actually is more than one word in this language other than ‘said’ that you could use there.” Your topic, their topic, ANY topic.
Have you ever tried to teach language arts in an inner-city school? With kids who do not read, at all, ever, unless forced to, and who have no books in their houses at all? Because I’ve done it for the last fifteen years. We’re not talking about simplicity vs. elegance. We’re talking about kids who have a working vocabulary of maybe a thousand words and people trying to find ways– ANY ways– to broaden that. Does it go wrong sometimes? Absolutely. So does every other method of instruction. But maybe worry about the problem and stop going after the people trying to fix it.
November 30, 2015 — 1:54 PM
BookChatterCath says:
I’m sure they would happily read the song lyrics from their rap or other singing idols… maybe you should think outside the square rather than assume they don’t like to read – give them something they will relate to!
November 30, 2015 — 2:30 PM
Carlos Matthews Hernandez says:
Chuck states in his post:
“You’d be better off directing kids to learn how to express themselves not with more complicated words, but rather with complicated images, metaphors, ideas. If a teacher feels that “the soup is good” fails to go far enough, have them describe how good, or how it makes them feel. Why is it good? Why do you like it? How does it make you feel and to what does it compare?”
That sounds like trying to find a solution. Forcing kids with a limited vocabulary to expand on it when they do not know how to explain the words in their limited vocabulary is going to get you or any teacher into trouble.
“You want me to use the word delectable?”
“Yes.”
“But what is delectable?”
“It means good.”
“So why don’t I just say good?”
“Because it’s delectable.”
“Well, then, what is good?”
“You tell me.”
I mean, goodness, I can see why you’re having that conversation 50 times a day if that’s your approach to teaching.
Of course it’s impossible for them to find a better word than good; they don’t understand how significant or insignificant the word good is in expressing their emotion for the soup.
I find this sort of teaching like the NBA coach that instructs his team to follow his 10-year offensive playbook despite not having the personnel to command that offense. Those coaches lose their jobs.
I realize a lot of this sounds negative to you – and I’m 100% sure you really do give a crap about these kids learning and expressing themselves with better words – but it does seem to me that if the issue is 50:1 then you should consider that perhaps your methods need to be adjusted.
November 30, 2015 — 3:40 PM
Joyce Reynolds-Ward says:
Dude. BTDT with high-poverty rural kids. STILL do not need to resort to this crap. This is NOT fixing the problem. It just makes it worse and forces kids into hating to write. Banning ain’t the solution. Modeling more effective writing, vocabulary development activities, and throwing away the Common Core crap is one way to do it.
(P.S. Not just high-poverty rural kids. Try high-poverty special education kids, most of whom don’t read at anything near grade level, some of whom have English as a second or third language. Ten years of it. I made kids into decent writers, including kids who started out telling me they couldn’t write.)
December 1, 2015 — 12:02 AM
Paul Anthony Shortt says:
But surely this isn’t the issue? If a kid says “The soup was delicious” instead of good, and you ask them “what made it delicious?” don’t you still have the same problem? It’s not a lack of adjectives, it’s a lack of communication skills. The child still won’t understand how to describe what about the soup made them feel a certain way. And you don’t foster communication by banning words.
November 30, 2015 — 2:23 PM
johnadamus says:
With -5 to a grade for language and contractions, Chandler and Hammett would be in summer school. Probably drunk.
Language benefits because of all the opportunities “expressive” and “ordinary” words provide. I espouse that this person may take the opportunity to go fuck themselves sideways in any expressive manner conceivable, even with adverbs.
November 30, 2015 — 1:37 PM
zamaxfield says:
I have no words.
November 30, 2015 — 1:38 PM
Sasha Yedrysek says:
My mind contains a severe lack of mouth noises that are sufficient to express my dismay.*
November 30, 2015 — 1:56 PM
Nick Nafpliotis (@NickNafster79) says:
-5 off your final score
November 30, 2015 — 2:36 PM
Luther M. Siler says:
(That said, I’ve also crossed out “bellowed” and replaced it with “said” before. Isn’t your character talking to his grandmother? I don’t think he’s bellowing.)
November 30, 2015 — 1:38 PM
Smartymarty says:
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
-George Orwell
November 30, 2015 — 1:40 PM
Kevin Carpenter says:
I’m always a lot more impressed with complex themes and subjects delivered in a straightforward manner with smaller words than I am with someone mucking up a basic sentence with big words to make themselves sound smarter.
November 30, 2015 — 1:40 PM
SamKD says:
Yes. This.
November 30, 2015 — 3:03 PM
Graham says:
Faulkner: “(Hemingway) has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.”
Hemingway: “Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.”
November 30, 2015 — 1:41 PM
terribleminds says:
I mean here, look at this poem — “I, Too,” by Langston Hughes.
Tell me this is not the perfect refutation of that bullshit article.
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/177020
November 30, 2015 — 1:43 PM
mannixk says:
It is.
November 30, 2015 — 1:49 PM
Pat says:
Add “Still I Rise” to the list, as well.
November 30, 2015 — 9:30 PM
Peter Hentges says:
I contrast that kind of thinking with something like the “Up Goer Five” https://xkcd.com/1133/ (And I suspect similar kinds of joy from the Thing Explainer book.) Fancier, more esoteric words do not automatically make your writing more worthwhile and finding ways to express yourself using more common words can be an interesting exercise in itself.
November 30, 2015 — 1:44 PM
Kevin Carpenter says:
Yes! Up Goer Five was what immediately came to mind for me, too.
November 30, 2015 — 1:57 PM
Andrew F. Butters says:
“Eschew the elitism of language.” In the context presented, Chuck, that is the greatest sentence ever written.
This rant is good.
November 30, 2015 — 1:44 PM
@elizabethamber says:
A million times YES. Plus, if “said” is good enough for Stephen King, it should be good enough for some middle school teacher in hippie dippy California.
November 30, 2015 — 1:44 PM
mannixk says:
I love this post, Chuck. Oops, that’s probably dead and boring. Rather, I extol the astute and sententious nature of this obiter dictum, Chuck.
November 30, 2015 — 1:48 PM
Aura Eadon says:
Love this. 😀
November 30, 2015 — 1:56 PM
Davide Mana says:
Elitism, exactly.
Thank you for putting in (simple) words what I felt reading that article..
November 30, 2015 — 1:53 PM
jjtoner says:
Get well soon. Hot soup is good for fever.
November 30, 2015 — 1:54 PM
Terri Lynn Coop says:
Until you know how to properly use “avoid” in a sentence, you should avoid using “eschew.” We learn hard language by learning and manipulating simple language. Making those fucking little single syllable bitches earn their keep.
“How’s the soup?”
“It’s good.”
“What do you mean?”
“I mean the soup is good.”
“What’s ‘good’ mean’? Is it as good as your mother’s? Do you like it? Do you love me?”
“Babe, this soup is fucking delectable. Get off my back already.”
“Does delectable mean you love me? As much as you loved your last girlfriend?”
Characters speak their own language and sometimes it is simple. I feel bad (yes, bad, not despondent) for the kids (yes kids, not scholars) in that class (yes, class, not colloquium.)
Terri
November 30, 2015 — 1:56 PM
ebrobinson says:
Here, here. I was one of those weird kids who read encyclopedias and thesaurus’ so when I took Creative Writing in HS, my teacher told me I needed to ‘Dumb down’ my words because normal people don’t talk that way. But I did and so did my other geek friends. I don’t use them all the time, just as they come up within a story. You know, like a well educated character’s thoughts or dialogue. (We all have that literary friend who talks like that). Kudos, Chuck for calling out the craziest flowing through our education system. That the one thing they forbade me to do back in the day is now being pushed beyond the envelope to the point of word debauchery makes me fear for literature’s future.
November 30, 2015 — 1:56 PM
TymberDalton says:
Please tell me they just accidentally published an Onion article? Please?
Pretty please?
November 30, 2015 — 1:57 PM
TymberDalton says:
And I hope you feel better soon!
November 30, 2015 — 1:58 PM
writing, writing, words words words. says:
Lol thank you for that. William Zinsser is somewhere clapping. *swoons*
November 30, 2015 — 2:03 PM
staceyuk says:
It also punishes kids who struggle with English at school, at likely to put them off pursuing the language further in whatever form they wish to take it.
Well said, Mr Wendig. Elitism at its worst.
November 30, 2015 — 2:03 PM
Aura Eadon says:
Embracing language through diversity and with loving care is the better way instead of “banning” and “enforcing”. Children will adapt to make sure they maximise the points gained but the points gained is not an indication of quality in terms of what was learnt. Education ails heavily when it’s enforced in such ways. Such a pity.
November 30, 2015 — 2:03 PM
Steve Fahnestalk says:
So, I guess “said-bookism” is now “ejaculated-tomeism” or something of the sort?
November 30, 2015 — 2:05 PM
Tom B says:
I think some of these educators must have been studying the televised works of Pip and Jane Baker (noted for their verbiage in some “classic” Doctor Who stories, notorious for giving us the phrase “the catharsis of spurious morality”). Either that, or their is a disease that should be called PipandJaneBakeritis that these educators caught a severe case of.
November 30, 2015 — 2:07 PM
percykerry923 says:
First of all, the title was so effing brilliant that I laughed till my eyes hurt with tears and my stomach with a dull ache. That said, the article is brilliant. There is this misconception among some people that ‘literary writers’ use big words, and commercial ones use ‘simple’ language.
Nothing can be farther from the truth.
I read Toni Morrison, Kurt Vonnegut, JD Salinger and others- these stalwarts of literature manage to say the most complex things in simple words- and their prose is so beautiful it forms award-winning stuff. Richard Flanagan uses simple words and yet, says a lot with each sentence, in his Booker winning book ‘The Narrow Road to the Deep North’.
If big words are to be used there must be context, always. And yes, you are right, WHAT is being said is more important in a story than HOW it’s being said. Purple prose doesn’t make anyone a literary giant. The ability to string simple words together to form a profound thought does.
And Yes, i ‘said’ this, and not ‘hollered’ this 😀
November 30, 2015 — 2:09 PM
socalvillaguy says:
No freakin’ typical adult (let alone kid) is going to use “delectable” in normal conversation. It’s certainly a lovely word and not even of the 25 cent variety, but it’s
Just. Not. Done.
“The soup tastes good” seems like a simple, yet slightly more descriptive way to say the sentence. Embellish a bit on the verbs, reduce the passive “to be” verb and vocabulary can slowly be improved. Adding fancy adjectives impresses college professors … sometimes.
November 30, 2015 — 2:10 PM
geraldhornsby says:
Banning words won’t make people use the posh ones. Exactly like telling your kid to stop saying “poop”. It ain’t gonna happen.
November 30, 2015 — 2:14 PM
Kay Camden says:
“Poop” is the first word both of my children learned how to spell. Now I see I need to teach them how to spell “excrement.”
November 30, 2015 — 4:21 PM
Wendy Christopher says:
My son wrote ‘boob’ in his Home Learning Book when he was five. No reason – just randomly, at about halfway through on a nice blank page. I was REALLY looking forward to explaining that one to his teacher… :^/
December 1, 2015 — 4:20 PM
David Wilson says:
I find it funny that said is on the list of banned words. I have seen advice given that you should always use said and instead make the words carry more of the meaning. Same freaking reason.
Also it seems most of the support of the idea behind banning words comes from the thought that some of their students might not know any other words for good and need the vocabulary expansion. But some times good is good enough.
November 30, 2015 — 2:14 PM
dpatneaude says:
Amen. As writers, our job is to communicate, not impress, not demonstrate that we know how to open up a thesaurus and find the most obscure synonym for a more effective means of communication. I’ve taken and taught lots of writing classes over the years, and one of the most telling indications of someone who’s new to the craft is the painstaking effort they make to substitute silly attribution verbs (stated, ventured, offered, sighed, smiled, uttered, declared, pronounced, blah blah blah). (Yeah, those were contractions back there, in your face, because that’s how people talk and listen and contractions contribute to a thing called VOICE and without voice your writing is just an odorless fart of wasted energy).
Some words should have impact; they should be memorable. But in dialogue, verbs indicating who’s talking should be invisible. We want to know what’s being said and who’s saying it. Period. “Said,” and when appropriate, “asked,” are the most invisible of the attribution verbs, so use them. Your reader won’t notice the repetition, but if you’re worried about it, occasionally include the dialogue in a paragraph describing action or interior monologue by the character who’s about to speak. Fancy-schmantzy words and attempting to provide variety in word choice simply for variety’s sake just get in the way and take us out of the story and that’s the last thing anyone wants.
November 30, 2015 — 2:19 PM
Jennifer Bushroe says:
My university writing instructors always encouraged us to use “said” in our dialogue for the very reason that it disappears into the page, so that the reader can focus on the story and not the puppetry of the writer. “Hollered” and “hissed” and such leap out and thus should be used sparingly.
And how on earth do you ban “I” and contractions?! That’s just ridiculous.
November 30, 2015 — 2:20 PM
Luther M. Siler says:
He’s talking about formal essays, which are another kind of beast entirely. I’m still not sure I agree– I used first person in plenty of pieces in grad school– but it makes more sense.
November 30, 2015 — 2:23 PM
Luther M. Siler says:
Everybody talking about elitism is badly, BADLY missing the point. This isn’t “you need to be more hoity-toity in your writing.” This is “this language has more than five words; try to get acquainted with a few more of them.”
November 30, 2015 — 2:24 PM
Paul Anthony Shortt says:
I’m all for teaching various words. But the article Chuck’s pointing to isn’t saying “let’s learn some different words for this.” It’s saying “these are *dead* words” and “these words are *banned* in my class.” That’s going a step beyond education and into indoctrination. I’ve seen it in schools here in Ireland. The goal isn’t to teach kids to understand, but to know the easiest way to score higher on exams.
November 30, 2015 — 2:29 PM
RishaBree says:
I don’t see how teaching children to write badly could be the right way to go about fixing a paucity of vocabulary. Surely that will just create a difficult-to-fix problem in place of your current easy-to-fix problem.
November 30, 2015 — 2:33 PM
terribleminds says:
I call horschtnanigans on that. Because this contains some key elements that, to me, refute this —
First, catch words like “sophistication.”
Second, editing classic authors, as if those authors didn’t know what the frothy fuck they were doing.
Third, actively punishing simplicity. Docking points for using simple, common words is a poisonous act and acts contrary to how communication actually functions. It’d be like punishing a physics student for finding a simple way to complete a problem — “What? A LEVER? What common component is this?”
— c.
November 30, 2015 — 2:40 PM
SamKD says:
I absolutely support “this language has more than five words; try to get acquainted with a few more of them.” I was a little kid with a big vocabulary who got sick of having to explain myself. What I do -not- support are the outlined methods. Banning words is not so very different from banning whole books and editing Hemingway or Joyce strikes me as hubris. Even just changing the model to “for this -particular- assignment you may not use the words…” would dial down my outrage. I’m not reading “elitism” nearly as much as “power.”
November 30, 2015 — 3:26 PM
mariahavix says:
“this language has more than five words; try to get acquainted with a few more of them” would be giving a word like “good” and then a list of possible more descriptive words, which it sounds like you have to buy the book to get. Not “I, we, and you are banned from this classroom”.
(And why does he get to use “me” when his students can’t use “I” what is the substitute for “I” other than talking about one’s self in third person?)
November 30, 2015 — 4:10 PM
Jeff Xilon says:
You know, I get there’s more than one way to decorticate a feline. I mean, there are both different teaching and learning styles, but I taught kids of all ages for 13 years in an EFL environment (so, yeah, limited vocab in many, many cases – and often limited interest in English) and I would never have considered using the methods referenced in this article to improve their writing or vocabulary. The only thing remotely similar I ever said was that you couldn’t use extremely generic words like “it, thing, place” if they weren’t more clearly explained either before or afterwards.My classic example was “I went somewhere with someone and bought something”. Those were times we could try to get a bit more descriptive. Still, now that I think about it my constantly repeated advice for my students was that they didn’t need fancy words or complex sentences to communicate well. Instead using the limited vocabulary they had they could tell full stories if they just kept adding a little more detail. “The soup is good. It’s tomato. My mom made it. She doesn’t like tomato soup but I do. She made it for me.”
November 30, 2015 — 9:14 PM
Joyce Reynolds-Ward says:
SIOP training is your friend. Sentence frames. Picture books and descriptive writing. Most of all, model, model, model word choices in writing. Regie Routman has some good suggestions. The methodology advocated in that article sucks and isn’t even good teaching. I bet I’ve done an inservice with one of those types who advocate such activities…the gentleman in question couldn’t write worth a hoot and got highly offended when I suggested that a student had written one of his model stories. “But *I* wrote that.”
Um, yeah, buddy, and if you ever ran it through a writing critique group they’d hand you your head on a platter.
December 1, 2015 — 12:08 AM
Robert Sadler says:
I stay away from blah words like “bad” and “good” in my writing, but only in favor of more descriptive adjectives, and never to simply use a more complex synonym.
I’d rather the soup be “just the right amount of salty, with each spoonful loaded with meat” than “good.”
But on the other hand, I’d much rather the soup be “good” than “delectable.”
November 30, 2015 — 2:24 PM
Ruby Browne says:
This article is good. It makes me happy.
November 30, 2015 — 2:36 PM
laurieboris says:
No soup for you.
November 30, 2015 — 2:49 PM
laurieboris says:
Didn’t mean for Chuck. Chuck should have soup.
November 30, 2015 — 2:52 PM
bruce says:
I see the point and I agree with Mr. Hemingway as well. However, I rather prefer the idea of teaching a child to “tell me what the soup tastes like”, as a means of expression on taste. Good really does not serve this purpose. “She was good, man. Fucking awesome.” When she touched me there the hair on the back of my neck felt like it was going to lift right off and my legs felt like that time I went on that ride at the fair that drops you from ten stories and then yanks you back up again.
November 30, 2015 — 2:53 PM
terribleminds says:
Yeah, but sometimes soup is just soup, and if you ask me how soup is when I’m eating it, I’ll probably tell you — at best — the soup is good. Viable sentence. Ideal for expression? No. Encourage kids and writers to do better? Sure. But better here does not mean GUSSY THAT SHIT UP. It means think deeper, not put more dongles and widgets on it.
November 30, 2015 — 2:55 PM
Bill Bridges says:
If the writer says “creatures” instead of “snakes,” if in an attempt to impress us with fancy talk he uses Latinate terms like “hostile maneuvers” instead of sharp Anglo-Saxon words like “thrash,” “coil,” “spit,” “hiss,” and “writhe,” if instead of the desert’s sand and rocks he speaks of the snakes’ “inhospitable abode,” the reader will hardly know what picture to conjure on his mental screen. These two faults, insufficient details and abstraction where what is needed is concrete details, are common — in fact all but universal — in amateur writing.
— John Gardner, The Art of Fiction
November 30, 2015 — 2:55 PM
Tim Adams says:
I think that anyone who believes in a “proper” way to use language should read THE UNFOLDING OF LANGUAGE by Guy Deutscher. It’s a great book that explores many misconceptions about language, ultimately arguing that it develops and evolves from a natural trend towards simplicity.
November 30, 2015 — 2:59 PM
Jeannie says:
There have been times in my kitchen I’ve wished the husbo would elaborate a little more on my dishes than just a simple “it’s good”, but if he’d come out with delectable or scrumptious I would’ve laughed my behind off and known that he was bullshitting me. Writing should sound real and true, period.
And I hope you feel better soon, Chuck!
November 30, 2015 — 3:00 PM
writing, writing, words words words. says:
I hear ya. Probably Joyce responded to his wife similarly.
December 1, 2015 — 11:03 AM
Lia says:
Hm. While I think that in terms of creative writing you are absolutely correct that it’s silly to substitute multi-syllable words for simple words, these people aren’t teaching creative writing. They’re teaching writing, period, and part of what they’re trying to do is get their students to expand their vocabularies. Although I think the best way to build vocabulary is just to read like crazy, teachers can only ask their students to read so much. Getting them to find synonyms seems like a fine exercise to me, and as another commenter noted, sometimes you have to push students out of their comfort zones.
Should 6th graders be editing Joyce, no, especially that particular passage… but it does seem the opposite of elitist as an assignment, no?
November 30, 2015 — 3:01 PM
johnpbaur says:
… And the fiur-legged equine on which you cantered to this locale!
November 30, 2015 — 3:03 PM
Karen Robinson says:
Literal LOL. Oops. I emitted cackles of glee in a most immoderate manner.
November 30, 2015 — 7:11 PM
mariahavix says:
To me the thing this says is that if you are a person who, as a human being in the world, uses simple language, your story isn’t worth telling.
That makes me sad.
November 30, 2015 — 3:11 PM
Effy J. Roan says:
“Said” is a horrible word to ban. I’ve had many conversations with Englishl/writing teachers I respect greatly who encouraged me to use “said” instead of something more descriptive. 90% of dialogue is more easily read with “said” and “asked” than something more descriptive. We tend to skim over the “he said” “she said” while reading. So throwing in something else can actually cause us to pause and get caught on the unnecessary word.
Best advice I’ve received for my writing. I’ll take the -5 points.
~ Effy
November 30, 2015 — 3:17 PM
Teresa Schulz says:
I would rather read something clear and concise, than dripping in ‘froo froo’ words which distract me from the story flow, and even occasionally force me to hunt for a dictionary to remind myself precisely what the hell they’re on about.
I have done a few years study at University, and it seems to be common practice there to waffle on and inundate your reader with so much verbal diarrhea that the person is forced to agree with your conclusion, merely to escape the tedium of your dribble.
Shame on those English teachers for restricting the words children can use. They are suffocating the creative juices which would otherwise arise naturally from a freed imagination.
November 30, 2015 — 3:24 PM
editorialmonster says:
So, I teach writing, composition, and remedial english at a community college and I deal with the fallout of teachers who advise that shitty nonsense to pull fancy words out of the air.
Here’s the thing: The problem isn’t the words being chosen. The problem is literacy. Ask these same kids how many books they read in their own time, and too many answer “uh… None.” The development of vocabulary comes from reading, not from writing. So, approaching the problem from this angle only exacerbates the problem of literacy by making students feel they are inadequate as they are. Seriously, this mindset increases feelings of inadequacy in students, like their own words and ideas aren’t good enough. They also produce papers with the thesaurus instead of their own ideas.
To increase student vocabulary, increase reading of works that have vocabulary. It’s that simple. Devaluing the experience and meaning of student’s thoughts through word policing will only diminish their sense of adequacy, putting more barriers up between them and meaningful literacy.
November 30, 2015 — 3:40 PM
mckkenzie says:
This! Exactly! Absolutely! Yes.
November 30, 2015 — 8:14 PM
Jeff Xilon says:
I second mckkenzie’s reply with every fiber of my being: “This! Exactly! Absolutely! Yes.”
November 30, 2015 — 9:21 PM
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious says:
It seems to me that context is based on action and things. Pretty words require good memory. If you’re writing for children, I would think to stick to context and simple words. (Although JK Rowling threw in a huge word that I never heard of in one of her books – apparently done to make kids think.) I would say either context or big words for adults, however I think context seems to be used in situations where time is of essence, in material that requires a lot of brevity. And context seems to be used especially when the author really wants the reader to get a real good solid handle on the idea behind the word. I’m sure I can think of a lot of other reasons, but I’ll stop here.
November 30, 2015 — 3:56 PM
Lia says:
An added note–I’m looking over your post again and thinking about the ways that you’re using language, sometimes unnecessarily embellished language, for purposes of voice and style here. What these teachers are trying to do, I’d argue, is get kids to do exactly what you’re doing when you write, for example:
“I CALL HORSESHIT AND SHENANIGANS. HORSCHTNANIGANS” rather than “That is bad.”
or
“Language is a circus of delight” rather than “Language is good.”
Don’t you think kids should learn to do exactly the thing you’re doing?
November 30, 2015 — 4:05 PM
Amanda Hagarty says:
Yeah. Once I read a flowery paragraph description of someone’s arm hair sticking up from a sudden dread. And I thought why not just say “the hair on his arm stood up” rather than wasting 100 words on a biological event that had no real significant impact on the story. I don’t remember where I read that…so if someone recognizes it as their story…sorry but it’s true!
November 30, 2015 — 4:12 PM
Joelle says:
My problem is that the context is missing. A cowboy in the early 1800’s sitting around a campfire with two friends. He’s picking his teeth with a toothpick made from a twig. He’s going to look at his friend who made the soup and grunt, “Soup’s good.” Perfect for that character. In contrast, I’m writing about a fancy dinner party in Victorian England and maybe the guest does say, “The soup was delectable.”
November 30, 2015 — 4:23 PM