$20 Words

I used 'Titivate' in a recent story I was surprised by the beta reading picking up on it.

I thought everyone titivates.
 
Sometimes an unusual word is just the right one. My general rule is to keep things fairly simple and familiar, but I like stretching the vocabulary when it feels right. I had a reader praise me for using the word "lambent" once, and I agree that it was just the right word in the circumstance.
This captures my stance on it pretty well. I wouldn't use uncommon words because they're uncommon. But the right word is the right word, and I won't forego the right word just because I think not everyone will be familiar with it.

Sometimes the right word for a given context is "tearful" or something similar. Sometimes it's "lachrymose." (Though I don't believe I've had cause to use that particular one yet.)
 
I've had to look up palimpsest every two or three years for my whole life. At this moment, I have no idea what it means.
I get it.


In my own work, also used palimpsest once. I liked Rocco's use of "crepitation", too.

--Annie
 
Example... music and memory are ubiquitous.
I'm not sure which of these words is the $20 one.

I prefer to use words in such a way that you know the meaning through context.

Not sure if I always manage, but it's my preference.
Overall, no. I prefer to use common, everyday words. I don't want the words to get in the way of the story.

Agree with both of you

Previously, when conversations about unusual words have come up, a lot of it boils down to people's differing sense of normal. The words I've struggled with most when reading are words which the writer thought were well known and didn't require any context to work out.

eg, many years ago I read a story about a kid who really wanted a specific haircut-- "with bangs." There was no context to what bangs were, other than something related to a haircut (a hair cutting tool, perhaps?) because to the author this was a normal word, not a strange foreign word. (Obviously, these days I have access to the internet, so I know what "bangs" means.)

I do try to think about the language which would be used by the narrator. While sometimes that might make it difficult for some readers, it's not my intention to break someone's immersion so they have to go and google something to understand it. I have a group of international writing friends who are good to bounce sentences off to check if something's understandable in context.

Eg, I used "shagged" in a scene and asked them if they understood what it mean. I thought the context of the scene was enough for them to, but turned out, not really. They knew the sexual meaning, so that might have messed with them understanding in context. So, because I was trying to immerse, not confuse, I added some more context.

So if I have a narrator who would use words which might not be "normal" for the reader, and thus might be considered $20 words or whatever, I'll try, where possible, to include enough context for them to understand the word without having to rush off to the dictionary. Obviously I can't predict every word a reader might not know (you can't know what you don't know) but if a reader has to look up the definition of a word in order to comprehend the story, I wouldn't call that a success.
 
I always keep my words simple and easy to understand. Nothing turns me off faster than reading something containing a word I don't encounter in normal conversation.

That said, I have used long words if such a word was common in a dialect. In a story about an English highwayman I used, "scobberlotcher", "rantalion", "beardsplitter", and "rumpy-dumpy", and "tallow ketch, but they were used in a context that made it pretty for the reader to understand what those words meant. I've also made up some words to use as slang in dialogue, but again, it's pretty easy to understand the words because of the context. An example would be, "She had a pair of bazongabamas as big as balloons."
 
In my own work, also used palimpsest once. I liked Rocco's use of "crepitation", too.

--Annie

I don't know that I've ever used it before.

What I do know is that I LOVE the concept it represents. I find it interesting on a lot of levels.
 
I first came across the word in "The Name of the Rose" - which is how Eco described the story itself, and which featured, in its literal meaning, in the plot of his story.

Richard Dawkins' latest book, "The Genetic Book of The Dead" uses the metaphor for how our gentic makeup contains traces of our evolutionary ancestry, overwritten, but never erased.
 
I first came across the word in "The Name of the Rose" - which is how Eco described the story itself, and which featured, in its literal meaning, in the plot of his story.

That's the same place I came across the concept.
 
"scobberlotcher", "rantalion", "beardsplitter", and "rumpy-dumpy", and "tallow ketch
I love hearing/reading slang from other countries. I don't get to hear or read it much, except netflix and here on lit. Had to search a couple of them for meaning, and wasn't disappointed 😆
 
I always keep my words simple and easy to understand. Nothing turns me off faster than reading something containing a word I don't encounter in normal conversation.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. If I'm reading smut, I don't want to have to stop and look up what a word means. Using obscure words for the sake of using obscure words is a bad way to communicate and just looks amateurish and sad.
 
I agree with this wholeheartedly. If I'm reading smut, I don't want to have to stop and look up what a word means. Using obscure words for the sake of using obscure words is a bad way to communicate and just looks amateurish and sad.
But aren't we all just different levels of attention whores anyway? 🤭 😜
 
You definitely have, at least once :)
Have I? Appreciate the close reading, because it's not one of my go to words!

My other favourite is "susurrus", mainly because it rains in my stories a lot. Usually, the context makes the meaning clear - it's one of those neat words that sounds like the sound it describes.
 
Back
Top