# Does the use of vocabularies add value to a book?



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

Recently, I read a book that had so many vocabularies. I had to keep glancing at a dictionary so that i could understand some of the things the author was saying. however, that made me wonder if the difficult words were adding any value to me. The situation become worse and I had to stop reading the book altogether. Have you ever been in a similar situation?


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

Honestly no, although I am a language freak, and that helps.

Just to make an example: the very first book I read in English was HMS Ulysses, I had already read it in Italian so I thought I was set, brought out my English-Italian dictionary and off I went (way back pre-Kindle).

I hadn't taken into consideration two things: the first was sailor-speech, the second was the fact that most of the characters were Scottish, it took me about three months to finish that first book but there was no turning back.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Not really. There's been times when I've come across words here and there that I am unfamiliar with or have come across before but am not 100% sure what the definition is. But I just quickly use Kindle's trusty built in dictionary. I have never read a book where I've had to do this more than a few times. I don't know whether that means I have a pretty good vocabulary or whether I just read simplistic books, lol. 

I'd say as long as the vocabulary is natural and not forced, it's not a problem for me.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I agree. . . .I rarely come across a word that I'm unfamiliar with.  Even if I do, I can usually puzzle out a meaning from the context.  Sometimes I will then look it up on the kindle to see if I figured it out right.  I think I actually enjoy a book more if it turns out to be more challenging. . .but I'm weird that way.  In college I always looked for the professors who had a reputation of 'You just can't get an A from that guy'.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I rarely have to look up a word unless it's archaic or foreign.  But that being said, I'm not interested in the author showing off his vocabulary or thesaurus.  Use the words to carry the story.  If they're needed, that's great.

Betsy


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I do like the Kindle's dictionary, it helps for those words that I'm unclear on. I do this more with older books, that use words that are now becoming dated or archaic. I'm reading The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant right now (and reading it in paper, so no-online dictionary) and he seems to be throwing in the whole thesaurus. I can usually figure out the meaning from context if I don't know the word.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

It depends on the vocabulary.  Since I read a lot of Fantasy/Science Fiction, I'm constantly coming across novels where authors are peppering their novels withe their own languages.  Sometimes it's something like Tolkien's Elvin or Dwarvish and sometimes it's just English with replacement words like new terms for noble classes or religious hierarchies.    If it's done well, then I like it as flavoring - but when it's done poorly, it can ruin a book for me.


----------



## Groggy1 (Jun 21, 2010)

yes, and the better the use of the language the better the book. I am trying to imagine Tarzan or any Burrough's book without intelligent use of the language... Nope, Goodkind, Donaldson, Modesitt Jr.... the list is too long of authors using proper language to really draw the pictures of the mind.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

I really enjoy an occasional big word.  I ran across the word 'sartorial' twice in two books, and am so pleased to add the word to my vocabulary.  Also, using the Kindle is great for this since I can look up words with a click.

Otoh...it can become annoying when too many big words are used.  I hate it when authors want to prove they have large vocabularies.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I don't mind a rich vocabulary as long as it's a case of the author finding the best word to use, as opposed to thumbing through his/her thesaurus in an attempt to impress me.

Now, when you start getting into vernacular, slang, and phonetic representations of accents and dialects, I have, on occasion, found that to get in the way of the story-telling. A recent example is Charles Stross's _Rule 34_, which I gave up on, as large chunks were written (narration, not just dialogue) in a thick Scottish accent using a lot of Scottish terms that I did not recognize. I found it took more effort than I was willing to supply to get through what otherwise might have been an interesting/fun story to read. In that case, this particular reader would have been better served if Stross had more or less just hinted enough at the accent and vernacular to set the tone, instead of making me essentially sound out every other word in those sections of the book.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

In my experience, even the most egregious excesses of literary verbosity and obscurity pale in comparison to the regional colloquialisms ubiquitous in Australian or British English. If an American or Canadian reader can follow the protagonist in the wooly jumper out of their ute, past the gang of hoons, up the lift and into the flat with mod cons, where a snag, a stubbie, and a sloppy joe - only two of which are edible - lay waiting on the table, "susurrus" or "hirsute" ought not present an especially taxing contextual challenge...


----------



## MalloryMoutinho (Aug 24, 2012)

George Berger said:


> In my experience, even the most egregious excesses of literary verbosity and obscurity pale in comparison to the regional colloquialisms ubiquitous in Australian or British English. If an American or Canadian reader can follow the protagonist in the wooly jumper out of their ute, past the gang of hoons, up the lift and into the flat with mod cons, where a snag, a stubbie, and a sloppy joe - only two of which are edible - lay waiting on the table, "susurrus" or "hirsute" ought not present an especially taxing contextual challenge...


I wish I could accurately draw how this is interpreted in my head...


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

George Berger said:


> In my experience, even the most egregious excesses of literary verbosity and obscurity pale in comparison to the regional colloquialisms ubiquitous in Australian or British English.


American English has its share of colloquialisms. The first time I read in an American novel "... he slapped her across the fanny", I hardly knew what to think. And I'm still not sure what a Twinkie (sp?) is, other than I gather it's something to eat.

There are American expressions and grammar that jolt me every time I come across them, such as 'spit' for past tense instead of 'spat', or 'two times' instead of 'twice', or 'aluminum' - what have you done with the second i? There are of course many, many more examples both sides of the Atlantic.

But I think the differences add to the reading experience - enrich the flavour (or flavor). Long may we avoid standardisation (or even standardization).


----------



## Groggy1 (Jun 21, 2010)

George Berger said:


> In my experience, even the most egregious excesses of literary verbosity and obscurity pale in comparison to the regional colloquialisms ubiquitous in Australian or British English. If an American or Canadian reader can follow the protagonist in the wooly jumper out of their ute, past the gang of hoons, up the lift and into the flat with mod cons, where a snag, a stubbie, and a sloppy joe - only two of which are edible - lay waiting on the table, "susurrus" or "hirsute" ought not present an especially taxing contextual challenge...


Golf Clap!! Well done! Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!


----------



## AnnMHammond (Aug 9, 2012)

Sam Kates said:


> American English has its share of colloquialisms. The first time I read in an American novel "... he slapped her across the fanny", I hardly knew what to think. And I'm still not sure what a Twinkie (sp?) is, other than I gather it's something to eat.
> 
> There are American expressions and grammar that jolt me every time I come across them, such as 'spit' for past tense instead of 'spat', or 'two times' instead of 'twice', or 'aluminum' - what have you done with the second i? There are of course many, many more examples both sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> But I think the differences add to the reading experience - enrich the flavour (or flavor). Long may we avoid standardisation (or even standardization).


Not completely on topic, but when I was Berlin I ran across someone from England. They thought I was English as well (not sure why, I don't have an english accent) but my use of the word "cool" told her I was American 

Funny how we all have our "tells"


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

Sam Kates said:


> American English has its share of colloquialisms. The first time I read in an American novel "... he slapped her across the fanny", I hardly knew what to think. And I'm still not sure what a Twinkie (sp?) is, other than I gather it's something to eat.


I see you your slap across the fanny, and raise you a field of rape.

Seriously, though, this is unquestionably true, but the unfortunate global pervasiveness of American media means that far more people throughout the world know what a Twinkie is than a Jaffa cake or a digestive biscuit. Everyone, sadly, knows what a Wal-Mart is, but Asda? Not so much so. Most people in the UK know what a muscle car is - but most Americans think a saloon is a quaint name for a bar...


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

George Berger said:


> Most people in the UK know what a muscle car is - but most Americans think a saloon is a quaint name for a bar...


I'm in the minority then - I have no idea what a muscle car is. Quick straw poll: neither do my wife and my 15-year-old daughter and she has been watching programmes (or shows) like Hannah Montana for years. She even used to say, 'My bad', until we had to lock her in the cellar for a week (just kidding; we don't have a cellar, or even a basement).

Anyway, back to topic... I've no problem with big words that I've never heard of being used so long as they add something to the writing and are used sparingly, rather than to demonstrate how superior the author thinks he or she is. I find that rather discombabulating.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Muscle Care: a car with a big-block V8 engine when it could have gotten by just fine with a fairly modest V6. Mainly was good at going in a straight line very fast. Mostly archaic now. (In the '70s, everyone knew what a muscle car was -- not so sure it means much to youngsters today who think a souped up Scion is the epitome of hot rides (and which sound so...whiny?...when compared to the throaty rumble of those big V8s). The fact that they probably got 15 miles per gallon at best probably had something to do with their general demise.


----------



## Low Kay Hwa (Jun 15, 2012)

To some extent, I feel that it adds "prestige" instead. Knowing many words does not mean that a book is more impressive; it merely suggests that the readability index is higher. 

I do a degree in English, in which we sometimes analyse crazy words, and many of us use an iPad (who still uses the large, heavy dictionary?!) or their smartphone regularly in class.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

I once developed a huge vocabulary in preparation for taking the GRE verbal but I've since rarely used that vocabulary except when reading academic texts, which I do now for fun, not professionally. I've written three suspense novels in which I've intentionally kept the language simple because the point of view characters speak and think simply. But now I'm working on a new book in which the main character is a highly educated, pompous ass in love with his own erudition. So at last I can unleash all those fancy words I once wrote down on flash cards and memorized. (No idea how the general reading public will take it, though.)


----------



## projectbk (Apr 12, 2012)

I feel that the vocabulary used should fit with the tone of the novel.  It's all about finding the diction that expresses a time period and character to its fullest.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

NogDog - thanks for the explanation. My family wasn't alone in not having heard of one - nobody in work had either.

Eric - you read academic texts for fun?


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Sam Kates said:


> American English has its share of colloquialisms. The first time I read in an American novel "... he slapped her across the fanny", I hardly knew what to think. And I'm still not sure what a Twinkie (sp?) is, other than I gather it's something to eat.
> 
> There are American expressions and grammar that jolt me every time I come across them, such as 'spit' for past tense instead of 'spat', or 'two times' instead of 'twice', or 'aluminum' - what have you done with the second i? There are of course many, many more examples both sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> But I think the differences add to the reading experience - enrich the flavour (or flavor). Long may we avoid standardisation (or even standardization).


I'm American and I've never said "two times" - it's always "twice". That strikes me as just poor writing.

I don't mind regional terminology as long as it fits with the character and setting. I was annoyed once when a British author had an American character use the term "spooks" - which I had never heard of until I moved to England started watching the TV show Spooks. They even changed the name of the show for airing on BBC America to "MI5" because Americans wouldn't know what "Spooks" were - they'd probably think it was some ghost show!


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

history_lover said:


> I'm American and I've never said "two times" - it's always "twice". That strikes me as just poor writing.


Agree. . ."twice" is the usual term. "Thrice" is less common than "three times", but I've heard it.



> I don't mind regional terminology as long as it fits with the character and setting. I was annoyed once when a British author had an American character use the term "spooks" - which I had never heard of until I moved to England started watching the TV show Spooks. They even changed the name of the show for airing on BBC America to "MI5" because Americans wouldn't know what "Spooks" were - they'd probably think it was some ghost show!


Well, I admit my first instinct was to think in terms of ghosts. . . .but "Spooks" as a term for spies is not at all foreign to me.  But then, I read a lot from both sides of the pond. . . . .

You wonder if it's sometimes these changes are done by some idiot who doesn't know something and assumes everyone is a stupid as he is.  

Mostly I think you should give people some credit that they'll be able to _get_ things that are new to them.


----------



## George Berger (Aug 7, 2011)

projectbk said:


> I feel that the vocabulary used should fit with the tone of the novel. It's all about finding the diction that expresses a time period and character to its fullest.


There was a book published in the '20s by Cormac Mackenzie called _Extraordinary Women_. Very, very few people have ever read the thing in its entirety; it's far more overt and salacious than Radclyffe Hall's _The Well of Loneliness_, but was never prosecuted - or even proposed for prosecution - on obscenity charges, anywhere. It involves a bunch of well-to-do, mostly European, almost exclusively female socialites during WWI, and their vocabularies are - even by the standards of the day - rather impressive indeed.

And that, by the way, is to completely ignore all the passages in French. And Greek. And Latin. And Russian, if I remember correctly. None of which are in any way explained, along the way.

Don't get me wrong - it's perfectly natural and appropriate for these women to be speaking French, and Greek, and so on. It's just irritating as hell to the reader. 

_--George, and the Greek isn't transliterated into roman letters, either..._


----------



## projectbk (Apr 12, 2012)

George Berger said:


> Don't get me wrong - it's perfectly natural and appropriate for these women to be speaking French, and Greek, and so on. It's just irritating as hell to the reader.
> 
> _--George, and the Greek isn't transliterated into roman letters, either..._


Yes, and that's the trick to diction- to set the tone of the novel without putting off the average reader  I think that, perhaps accuracy isn't as important as giving people what they expect the diction for a certain setting to be.


----------



## djnash (Sep 18, 2012)

I think there is a fine balance sometimes. I was always taught to write for the 13 year old student, not the 50 year old English professor. Obviously having your vocabulary stretched by seeing new words that you have to look up can be a good thing, but there have been many occasions where the author of a book has littered their book in an attempt to be clever without adding any value to the story. Also, it really annoys me when I find obscure words in dialogue that nobody would ever use in real life.

Basically, for someone who is well read, one or two new words in a whole novel is great. But if I find myself constantly reaching for the dictionary because the author got a new thesaurus last birthday I can end up not finishing the book.


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

vocabularies can complicate a book for non-native readers


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

As a non-native reader I enjoy it when a book helps me to increase my knowledge of English, thus enabling me to be more precise and nuanced when writing and speaking. 

Of curse the prose must be appropriate for the book, I hate it when 'big words' are just a way for the author to show off.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Sometimes, boiling off the excess verbage renders a tale so much stronger -- rendering leaner, and meaner meat on the bone, enhancing the story's core structure. See also: _The Road_.

In the genre fiction world, a common fault of beginners is over-populating their worlds with too many terms esoteric to the writer's world-building, so for example:

"Overhead, the sense pylon throbbed like a snarky Cambrian Eel. The franden dampener was in phase flux 3, so there was no chance in Eldon's Fraxalon that Cord Casteel would dramme-purge the snarszack in time to beat the pirates."

Here, Cord Casteel, our hypothetical alien hero, is trying to flush his rather exotic toilet before the pirates catch his ship. The handle is stuck. The proximity alarm is beeping overhead.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

So far, I'm enjoying The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, but it's in spite of this throwing the thesaurus at the book.


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

i agree with you QuantumIguana


----------



## Aussierotica (Sep 22, 2012)

It might have been Mark Twain that said it - "Never use a two-dollar word when a fifty-cent one will do".

I've always found that any time I'm tempted to use fancy words my readers will more than likely trip up on them or be ripped from the story while they try to decipher what I wrote.  My biggest issue seems to be the differences between US and everyone else with respect to English idioms and usage.  As an Aussie, I write mainly to Australian English standards (UK-English spellings), but many of my readers expect US-English standards.  As someone who takes pride in the language he was taught, I stand by my use of Australian-English but do expect to have readers who might have some difficulty with reading the text from time to time.


----------



## tahliaN (Nov 6, 2011)

history_lover said:


> Not really. There's been times when I've come across words here and there that I am unfamiliar with or have come across before but am not 100% sure what the definition is. But I just quickly use Kindle's trusty built in dictionary. I have never read a book where I've had to do this more than a few times. I don't know whether that means I have a pretty good vocabulary or whether I just read simplistic books, lol.
> 
> I'd say as long as the vocabulary is natural and not forced, it's not a problem for me.


Same here. I don't mind a couple of new words, but if a book was full of obscure vocab, it's not good, because it takes readers out of the flow of the story.


----------



## LT Ville (Apr 17, 2011)

I love reading a book and discovering new words but not when it happens in almost every paragraph. I’m pretty good at using the context to figure out what the word means, but I’d rather focus on the story. If I have to constantly reread a sentence or keep looking in a dictionary then I tend to get frustrated with the book and start skimming more than reading.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

With the Kindle dictionary, unfamiliar words are not a problem. I have come across authors who use rich words and don't understand the meaning or use the wrong meaning in their work - definitely a turn-off.


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

very difficult words can  at times cause one to loose focus on what he is reading. as a result, they stop concentrating on the story to look for word meanings. I have undergone this sometimes and its quite a bother.


----------



## Harry Nicholson (May 25, 2011)

tahliaN said:


> Same here. I don't mind a couple of new words, but if a book was full of obscure vocab, it's not good, because it takes readers out of the flow of the story.


It can be good to meet new words and take them aboard.
I find words that are rooted in Anglo-Saxon tend to be short but weighted with emotional power, whereas those that come via Norman-French or Latin seem to have less 'clout' ('clout' can mean: 'a hard blow', 'clothing' or, originally 'a patch' - all from the OE 'clut'). Lovely things are words - some you can almost chew.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I'd much rather read a book that has some difficult words -- assuming they are the _right_ words -- than a book that has the vocabulary of a remedial reader in junior high. I've come across any number of books, supposedly for grown ups, that have such a dull vocabulary that I can't finish them. I totally get the idea of not using a $10 word when a 50¢ one will do. . .but if the $10 word is exactly the best word then it should be used. Don't assume I'm not smart enough to figure it out.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Harry Nicholson said:


> It can be good to meet new words and take them aboard.
> I find words that are rooted in Anglo-Saxon tend to be short but weighted with emotional power, whereas those that come via Norman-French or Latin seem to have less 'clout' ('clout' can mean: 'a hard blow', 'clothing' or, originally 'a patch' - all from the OE 'clut'). Lovely things are words - some you can almost chew.


I think that if a word had a lot of emotional impact, it was more likely to be preserved. Other words faded out, but some words we hung onto harder than others. It seems similar to the non-standard forms of words that our language preserved. "Thinked" looks ridiculous, the word is "thought", even though "thinked" follows the general rule. When an old form is used a lot, it tends to stick around, while lesser-used words will adopt the standard form.


----------



## DavidFWeisman (Jun 10, 2012)

I've noticed that all those books written by authors using vocabularies end up full of words. I hate that.


----------



## William S. (Sep 25, 2012)

I think the use of vocabulary is important depending on the type of book.  For example, it is important for scientific and technical books.  Other than that, simple words should be used for works of fiction and especially children's books.  Otherwise the children will only look at the pictures if that much.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

William S. said:


> I think the use of vocabulary is important depending on the type of book. For example, it is important for scientific and technical books. Other than that, simple words should be used for works of fiction and especially children's books. Otherwise the children will only look at the pictures if that much.


See, and I think it's important to use more some more advanced words, especially with kids, so that they can be challenged. I was pretty much totally bored with reading by the time I was 7 because the books were too easy. I could read them in about 10 minutes. I couldn't _carry_ enough books home from the library to last me to the next week. Plus I'd already pretty much read everything available.

THEN, my mother and the librarian had a chat and I was introduced to the Grown Up side of the library. . . which is where the 'young adult' level books were kept. And I never looked back.

ETA: One children's author who does this magnificently is "Lemony Snicket". The Series of Unfortunate Events is brilliant in its use of complex language while still explaining, completely, what is going on at a level a middle- or junior high- schooler can grasp easily. It introduces all sorts of 'big words' while still keeping the overall reading level age appropriate.


----------

