World, Writing, Wealth discussion

I remember most editors I've worked with constantly replaced relatively rare words with more widespread synonyms.. I know the genre (in my case - thriller) should probably dictate the lingo, but should this be the rule?

If anything, I argue use plain language to write laws, so laymen would better understand them..

Plan language is never part of law. My daughter is an attorney, and they try to make verbiage universal. Which means: what do they mean? Or, you'll always need their services to explain problems. It's like a doctor--keep the patient in a state of need.

I've got a detective story in the works that uses non-detective lingo because the PI came about by solving a personal case. He's not a detective or a PI, but became one by default. In this case, the novice doesn't have to use crime language or cop lingo.

One of the unintended purposes of reading is to expose yourself to new words and expand your vocabulary. Unless the word is too far above the grade level you're trying to reach, an editor should never switch it out for something simpler. That said, you do need to make sure if you're using "unusual" words, the context in which you use them makes it clear what the meaning is.

GR wrote: "Plan language is never part of law. My daughter is an attorney, and they try to make verbiage universal. Which means: what do they mean? Or, you'll always need their services to explain problems. I..."

There is a movement advocating for plain language to substitute legalese, but the opposition is strong, so not sure it'll ever happen..

J.J. wrote: "One of the unintended purposes of reading is to expose yourself to new words and expand your vocabulary. ..."

Yeah, that's what I thought too..
Another thing that is kinda expected - a 'steady' voice for a character.
But show me someone who speaks in the same voice with his mates in a pub and with wife and kids at home -:)
And even a more extreme example can be of a high-end lawyer, who speaks almost pure Latin in court, cursing like a sailor while buying coke from his dealer just half an hour later...

Nik wrote: "GR wrote: "Plan language is never part of law. My daughter is an attorney, and they try to make verbiage universal. Which means: what do they mean? Or, you'll always need their services to explain ..."

I'm curious about the opposition. Is it an actual organized movement? Also, do you think that once someone is indoctrinated in legalese that it becomes normal enough so they would feel uncomfortable with plain speak?

Don't really know the specifics, but from what I read here, if true, 'plain language' is even institutionalized to a degree:
"Government Mandates
On June 1, 1998, President Clinton issued an executive memo requiring agencies to write in plain language. Several statutes have also admonished agencies to write certain types of documents in plain language. In 2004, an interagency task force working on behalf of the Office of Management and Budget called for federal websites to be written in plain language. Most recently, President Obama signed the Plain Writing Act of 2010, requiring agencies to write in plain language."
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/

Knowing legalese and plain language usually comes together. However, imagine millions of templates that lawyers like to work with so much in need to be 'simplified'. Maybe some look at it like: "Who's gonna pay for simplification now?" -:)

Nik wrote: "Don't really know the specifics, but from what I read here, if true, 'plain language' is even institutionalized to a degree:
"Government Mandates
On June 1, 1998, President Clinton issued an execut..."

I didn't know he signed that! :) Good point though, who is going to pay for the 'simplification'? And before even getting to that point, there would have to be agreement on the language. There is also the idea of obfuscation so some would not want any clarification at all. It would take, in the US, and act of congress (just kidding, sort of), but if that's the case (all the agreement necessary) we'll be in another ice age before it happens! :) I think so.

So, plain and simple, or sophisticated and exquisite?

During the American Civil War (1861 - 1865), Confederate general, George Pickett, was often teased by his fellow officers for having the habit of "Complicating the obvious and trivializing the momentous." I believe those in the literary, government, legal, and medical professions might, on occasion, be guilty of the same behavior.

Comparing politicians to Pickett gives me a sense a dread about how Pickett's Charge fits into the analogy.

One should say or write whatever is necessary to make the point. Once that is done, one should stop. Anything that follows would be superfluous. Allow your work to speak for itself. Don't interrupt!

I think when you write the passages, you have to create a "voice" - many great writers are identifiable by their writing style. And I think its really important that your characters use the vocabulary and terms dictated by things like their age, profession, upbringing. A PhD is not going to use the same vocabulary as a petty thief.
Just don't do that annoying thing where you write the whole book in the present tense.

M.L. wrote: "Nik wrote: "GR wrote: "Plan language is never part of law. My daughter is an attorney, and they try to make verbiage universal. Which means: what do they mean? Or, you'll always need their services..."

Having worked in the legal field for 30 plus years, there are certain words I use that I feel comfortable with. By 1988, I used spouse instead of husband or wife. Of course, in todays' world spouse works better with all the same sex, gender identificaion that happens. I say marriage dissolution instead of divorce. There are certain phrases that I can't name now but I know I use in written form. For me, it became every day language.

In response to the initial comment, I like variety in my descriptions. Please use words that aren't every day. How often must I hear/read the same descriptive words when there are so many that are so much more specific or evoke clearer images?

That being said, any conversation or other actions should fit the character. A lawyer speaks one way, a truck driver another.

Lizzie wrote: "....A lawyer speaks one way, a truck driver another. ..."

With a second career trend, I'd bet there will be more than few willing to switch

I remember a use of language that did not include is-ness. People spoke in terms of 'have' and 'do', and from their experience rather than absolutes. Regardless of vernacular and such, I think a return to the above will do Humans well.