Timeline for How do I introduce my readers to new words as gracefully as possible?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2 at 21:13 | comment | added | Amadeus | @Hrach It isn't hard at all. You show one character using the word, another responding to it. "You up for Beflex tonight? I won two doses from Phil playing Wisocki." "I've got a final tomorrow, Beflex scatters me. Save it for Friday." Now tell me, what is "Beflex"? Most people understand it is some sort of drug. What is "Wisocki"? Some sort of game you can gamble on. That's the scene. If the particular effects of Beflex are important, that's another scene. If the particular nature of the Wisocki game are important, we see later. But the reader knows basically what Beflex and Wisocki are. | |
| Apr 2 at 20:47 | comment | added | Hrach | "you should strive to create scenes in which the meaning of an author-invented word becomes obvious" The problem I have with this is that creating such scenes in-universe without it reading like a badly disguised fourth wall break for the sake of exposition is very hard. Characters living in the world are already familiar with this term and wouldn't need to explain it to anyone. To make the meaning obvious one often has to water it down for the reader once and for all which is often just corny, no better than just writing straight up explaining it without any scenes. | |
| Apr 1 at 19:14 | comment | added | Amadeus | @Ben I state it that way for clarity. Filling my writing with caveats and exceptions weakens the message. This is entertainment, not chemistry, and in entertainment all rules have exceptions. Also, this site is primarily for inexperienced writers, which is why they are asking these questions (at least the ones I answer). The best advice for beginners in this field, like in most fields, is to make no exceptions. When they are good enough to get published, by then they will probably know when they can get away with exceptions, without damaging the narrative. | |
| Apr 1 at 11:28 | comment | added | Ben | If you put it that way, I agree. In your answer, though, you phrase it like a rule without execptions. | |
| Apr 1 at 11:23 | comment | added | Amadeus | @Ben That is not a definition to memorize, it is a description. Exactly as the text says it is. it creates a visual image. I do not "forbid" anything in writing, you can find exceptions to every rule in best sellers. This is an odds game; the more rules broken, the less likely publication becomes. The heavier the "memorize this" load becomes on the reader, the more likely they are to forget some things, and put the story down, because it doesn't make sense, and when reading for entertainment, nobody wants to keep notes or bookmarks or go back and search for a meaning. They just give up. | |
| Apr 1 at 7:36 | comment | added | Ben | "Do not demand that readers memorize definitions, that is a sure fire way to make them put down your story." Interestingly enough one of the most famous stories of out time, J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, requires that its readers memorize a definition. The fourth paragraph of the book begins: "The mother of our particular hobbit … what is a hobbit? I suppose hobbits need some description nowadays, since they have become rare and shy of the Big People, as they call us. They are (or were) a little people, about half our height ..." It is certainly wrong to forbid this as absolutely as you do. | |
| Mar 30 at 15:37 | history | edited | Amadeus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Mar 30 at 12:10 | history | answered | Amadeus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |