THE Group for Authors! discussion
The Craft
>
Am I writing above my intended audience?
date
newest »
newest »
Brava, Sally!For the "I won't dumb myself down" remarks.
I'm tired of hearing how dumb American readers are and what a low grade-level their reading is at, on average. But: (a) there are readers out there who aren't at the lower end of the spectrum, and (b) I don't and won't write for the "lowest common denominator."
Yes, I have an unusually large vocabulary for this "era" (my first deep sea voyage was with Noah), but I use the words I know, and don't go hunting in a thesaurus...as you pointed out...for more complicated words to convey X meaning.
As a digression, a couple of years back I was having a conversation with a talented, intelligent, successful young lawyer who had to ask me what "obfuscate" meant...a word which is often used in the legal profession. So yes, vocabulary these days isn't as broad as it once was.
Back to my point, and I think yours: Is the character who speaks the "objectionable/too hard" words using them because s/he's the type of person who has that vocabulary and for whom "Z" word comes to mind to express the idea? Then yes, use the word.
If the "o/th" word is in the narration and its 1st person POV, then the above still applies. If the narration is 3rd person, then if that's the best word for what you want to convey, then stick with it.
Granted, there are times when I've been editing one of my books and I've looked at a word used by a particular character and I've realized: oops! Yep, that's the word I would use in that particular situation, but the character wouldn't. So I've substituted a "smaller" word for the "bigger" word. But again, that's because the word choice is character driven.
For what my never humble opinion is worth, stick with quality writing. If it costs you some readers who won't come back because you're "too hard" to read, you have to be willing to say, "So be it," and be grateful for the fans who enjoyed your book...even if they might have had to mine the dictionary a couple of times...and will come back for more.
Just my USD .02.
Eric
I appreciate that I can always rely on you, Eric, for a reasoned response. Sometimes I don't agree entirely with your comments on various threads, but you always support them with substantive points, and at those times, I learn a lot about how others see the world.Actually, "obfuscate" is in my current WIP, but when the character with experience in a law office uses it in informal conversation, the other character makes a joke, asking her if she has a license to use that word. So he's the one pointing out her use of an unusual word. Even without the pointing-out, the meaning of the word is clear in the context of its use.
Sally wrote: "I appreciate that I can always rely on you, Eric, for a reasoned response. Sometimes I don't agree entirely with your comments on various threads, but you always support them with substantive point..."Aw, shucks, m'am. *bare toe back and forth in the dust*
*G*
What a marvelous compliment...just the right note to send me off to a meeting for the dreaded "Typing For Dollars" part of my life.
Thanks!
Eric
Eric wrote: "Aw, shucks, m'am. *bare toe back and forth in the dust..."Aw, shucks, indeed! ;-)
A cursive skim through the comments sections of such sites as Yahoo news reveals that having a limited vocabulary is common among many people, as is not having basic spelling and English communication skills.A publisher once told me that a novella I wrote was "too literary" for her audience. It was hardly "literary", but it did not fall neatly into the genre this company finally realized was their bread and butter, a genre almost everyone would agree is hardly challenging reading. I published the book without dumbing down the plot, story, or dialogue. A 14 year old could easily enjoy it as a modern day "Twilight Zone" episode. I will always listen to feedback and seriously take it into consideration, but I may also choose to disregard it in certain cases.
This is another subject that has a big it depends against it. If writing dialogue then it is essential that the vocabulary used fits the character, alongside jargon and slang. I have read a number of pieces where the narrative suddenly uses a word that I would not expect the character to use. I do not write historical fiction but this must be a real challenge for those that do. Likewise classic texts often have challenging vocabulary because the words used are not in modern use.
....Or, to put it another way, we writers must make sure that even though it is said there is perhaps more than a bit of us in all of our primary characters we must avoid the temptation to simply make our characters speak as we ourselves do. The dialogue must believably fit the character.I have occasionally read books where I wondered if the characters would say some of the things they do. I also have questioned whether certain characters would expound at length as long as they sometimes do in certain books. I am thoroughly enjoying reading 'The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoevsky but I sometimes find myself thinking,"When do these characters come up for air?" This is one of the most dialogue-bloated books I have ever read ! Indeed the characters seem to torment one another with endless and at times wearisome verbal communication and ponderous, heavy-duty musing on religion in particular, but also politics and Russian socio-economic debates. The author must have been quite the conversationalist at a dinner party, but his characters are mostly young and seem too young for such florid, lengthy, rambling discussions. One wishes they would simply buy a few bottles of Stoli and go sledding or frolicing in the mountains once in awhile.
Steven wrote: "....One wishes [Dostoevsky's young characters] would simply buy a few bottles of Stoli and go sledding or frolicking in the mountains once in awhile..."HA HA HA!
I can say the same about Henry James' work and that of D. H. Lawrence. Fish or cut bait, already!
Indeed, Sally. Reading this bloated, yet strangely compelling novel "The Brothers Karamazov" sometimes conjures my inner Joker, and I want to toss the book across the room and say, "WHY SOOO SERIOUS??". As I recall, "Anna Karenina" was a bit the same way; the characters in Russian novels not exactly the most mirthful in literature. The Karamazov family are like an endless dinner party from hell. (Great novel, but it will make you question whether Fyodor should've considered hiring a sharp editor if there were any around back in his day.)
Many (if not most) 19th Century authors were pretty well steeped in this style of overblown narration. It can be quite difficult for today's readers to adapt to reading this style. It may have been difficult for contemporary readers of that day, too - look how popular Twain was in his day, and Jack London. They wrote stuff you didn't have to be a scholar to read, understand, and enjoy. Poe strongly promoted a new, American style of writing - he had little patience for pedantic, narrative bloat, and he was advocating for cleaner, engaging prose in the first half of the 19th Century, long before most others took it up and made it work.
Well said, Sally, especially this bit:"I prefer to adhere to Beatrix Potter's theory (proven correct by the evergreen popularity of her books) that children will learn new vocabulary by seeing the context in which new words are presented. This can apply to adults, if they are not lazy readers.
I do not want to dumb down my narrative. I believe that our vocabulary is rich, and that the right word should be used at the right time to convey the right meaning. I don't poke through the thesaurus just to find words to use to show off the fact that I found a cool new word."
I feel as you do. I like to find the exact word that conveys what my character feels, or what the scenery looks like. And when I come across a book written like that - I am delighted.
Go for it! You might be laying down classics which your grandchildren will cherish.
I know what you mean though - I've had to choose to go for the money or go for the quality. I've tried for the latter but one of my books has a simpler style and it sells better! Something in me still tries for the right word, and the right rhythm and appealing sounds. I love our language and I hope you can write to your own standards, Sally. They are to be cherished.
The warnings from others on here about not bloating the narrative are well worth considering (by me, at least). I'm sure I don't... but reminders are useful because, as has been said, lengthy expositions are not today's writing style.
Um, like, um, you know, like, what's wrong with looking up words?
Sheila wrote: "Um, like, um, you know, like, what's wrong with looking up words?"Granted, having to look up a word does break one's reading rhythm, takes the reader out of the story. But if one looks at the surrounding text first, the meaning should be clear. If it isn't, the author should fix it, at least to benefit readers of future editions.
Sally, would you like to give us an excerpt from your work, perhaps particularly rich in the type that have been circled. It might help us to give a definitive answer.What IQ level are you aiming at?
When I was young it was normal for readers of my age to read a book with a dictionary close at hand. Many even marked up the novel with notes. These days I would guess that the reader would check the word up on their smartphone (I'm not in the US, so things may be different there.)I often get comments about my books regarding words that the reader had never seen before. I don't tend to use complex, literary words just for the sake of having them, but I do sometimes use lesser seen words and words that have fallen from popular use (in historical works) but are appropriate in the particular situation. I write what feels correct to me in the context of the novel.
Word level in children's literature has been consistently lowered since the early 20th century.Use the words, but make it so that kids can figure out pretty much what you're getting at by context, if they're not near a dictionary. (I hated being condescended to in my reading when I was a child. And there are children out there who are reading above, and in some cases well above, grade level, but aren't necessarily ready for "adult" books yet, either.)
I love this conversation! I'm currently reading The Scarlet Letter, published 1850, and even though I think I have a fairly large vocabulary, will admit to having had to look up some words. Mostly, I think, it's that the way we speak has changed a great deal over the years and writing reflects that change. However, I do agree that 'dumbing down' literature is definitely not helping the cause. I have no problem looking up a few words; in fact, I enjoy it. Who doesn't want to learn something new? If I had to look up an obscure word per paragraph or per page, I would get frustrated. This is especially important with kids. Stretch their minds, make them think, and by all means don't 'dumb down' your writing.
Anna Faversham wrote: "Sally, would you like to give us an excerpt from your work, perhaps particularly rich in the type that have been circled. It might help us to give a definitive answer..."At Anna's suggestion, here are a few excerpts with words that have been questioned by some of my beta readers. I have placed those words in brackets, since I don't see any way of making them bold or in italics. (Again, I have been familiar with these words since my own reading as a child, so their unfamiliarity to others leaves me a bit baffled.)
“You know where the Rideout estate was?”
“The house at the end of Jasper Way?” Rory asked.
The old man [demurred]. “Daow. That ain’t nuthin’. He built some estate, he did, just for his bride. Brung in one of them highfalutin’ architects to design a house as grand as Miss Lillia’s Boston home. Thought to content her with that…”
The echoes, returning in a rhythm and a tune, infused in her a lilting language she didn’t know, but recognized as a spoken tongue. It [purled] with joy and longing. She had heard the air before, but her wits were too swaddled with cold to place it.
They explored the [shingle] after eating. The handprints of raccoons and the mirrored tear-drop tracks of deer etched the sand.
Although the lively slip-jigs and slides, the strathspeys and reels made his spirit soar, the pathos of the laments and lullabies coursed in his blood. Gaelic provided a serenity that English couldn’t approach. It [slaked] him; he didn’t care why.
Rory admired a jade plant three feet tall and as big around on a low table, surrounded by smaller plants. A stuffed toy fox, a tattered relic from childhood, stood sentinel among them, its legs splayed for want of wadding. Rough affection had eroded its fur, faded to the color of hay. Its nose was more darning than not, and its single remaining whisker drooped. Despite one eye still an original button and the other an embroidered replacement, it surveyed its domain with a canny attitude evocative of its live cousins.
“Who’s your furry friend here?” he asked.
“That’s Toddie. He’s been my best friend since I was a rug rat. Toddie was the king of my stuffed animals.”
“Shouldn’t he consider retirement? He’s all used up.”
“Don’t you make fun of Toddie! He’ll gnaw your ankle!”
The earnest fervor embedded in her jest [nonplussed] him. Viewing its stance, he allowed as she might be right. The toy was obviously treasured. He [turned a calf] and bowed to the little creature. “Pardonnez moi, Monsieur Renard.”
I explored the (shingle) near my house, and along the creek bank. This was where I found my young 'pet' raccoon. True story! LOLMy son used words in grade school that turned his teachers off. Why, because he knew them, but they did not. This continued through his College years with instructors telling him to use words with real meaning, or that he understood. Well, everyone was in for a rude awakening, as my son, each time he was confronted in elementary up through college, would describe in living detail what each word meant. So, instead of a paragraph to explain each word, he simply posted the word HE KNEW. LOL
Now he is was recently considered for the prestigious Eisner Award for Editing of Puma Blues (A Comic Graphic Novel). :-} Don
Sally,Thanks for the sample. Breaking up the rhythm of reading is okay. My earlier comment with "ums" and "likes" pointed to the need to look up words not the opposite. Words go out of use, granted, but can still be found in a good dictionary. Some books take more work to read than others on the part of the reader. So? We're always learning. It keeps the little gray cells charging!
Don wrote: "I explored the (shingle) near my house, and along the creek bank. This was where I found my young 'pet' raccoon. True story! LOL..."Maybe my best plan of action is to LOL (because it hurts too much to cry) and go forward. Thanks for your post, Don.
And my deepest congratulations to you for raising a child to be an independent thinker, and to your son for accepting your guidance in broadening his vocabulary (and thus his understanding of the world) and defending his word choices. I can only imagine that it's been a tough road to follow. Please give him my sincere admiration.
Sheila wrote: "Sally, ... learning. It keeps the little gray cells charging!..."You are absolutely right!
Sally wrote: "Anna Faversham wrote: "Sally, would you like to give us an excerpt from your work, perhaps particularly rich in the type that have been circled. It might help us to give a definitive answer..."At..."
In my never humble opinion, Sally...don't change a single bracketed word. That's some very rich writing, and if a reader doesn't understand a word, let them eat cake...er...get them to a nunnery...er...oh, yes: let them hie themselves to a dictionary and find out.
It's been a long, and I do mean long (as in decades) time since I had to look up a word. I'm familiar with "purl" in the knitting sense, and I was fairly sure I understood the meaning from the context, but I checked anyway. I still know how to use a dictionary!!! *teasing smile*
And I have to say I'm surprised at some of the questioned words. Demurred, perhaps, but nonplussed?? "Turned a calf" is so marvelously elegant! I'm a Regency addict (reading/writing) and it seems I've read that phrase in either a Regency or Georgian novel, but even if I hadn't the context makes it so very clear. Besides, using the phrase changes the bow from an ordinary modern one to something with an historical flourish, especially with the French.
Keep up the good work, and...with all due respect to whatever qualities your beta readers might have...use the words your characters would use, and your narrator would use.
Just my (never humble) USD .02.
Eric
Eric, I always love your NSHO!RE: "turn a calf" It indeed dates back a couple of centuries, if not more. In the days when a man wore knee breeches, such as in the 18th Century, the tight-fitting legs of the breeches were intended to highlight the calves of the man. When bowing to a lady, the man would extend one leg slightly and turn his foot so as to display the calf. I believe that the culture considered a well-shaped calf as a sign that the man was at least of the middle-upper-class and could afford good food. A scrawny calf would not send that signal, and therefore the man may not be as desirable as a husband.
The seat of those tight-legged breeches, on the other hand, was very baggy, so that the trousers would not split in the crotch or the knees when the man bent over, squatted, or rode astride a horse. This bagginess, not terribly attractive, was hidden under long-tailed coats. By the time of the War of 1812, a lot of the seat bagginess was eliminated, resulting in much breech-splitting, one instance of which occurred when Isaac Hull, the somewhat stout commander of the USS Constitution ("Old Ironsides"), jumped up and down in delight at his naval battle victory over the HMS Guerriere.
Yes, I keep trivial tidbits like this in my head, like so many cobwebs.
I've just run your excerpt through the Flesch Kinkaid Grade Levels and yours comes out at suitable for 7th grade and 'fairly easy to read'.I had to look up 'purl'.
If I had been asked to guess the level of yours I would have said 6th form level (age 18).
IMO your writing is good and I love reading books where words make me think - so long as the use is correct. I thought 'purl' was effective.
<>I have no great advice beyond what you've received here, but can I just say, you are my kindred spirit. :)
You should not change your writing style because it's you.I love it so much, because it makes writing more beautiful and interesting.
That's what Roy Peter Clark wants from us.
Interesting thread - it seems that there are two related themes: 1) how "literary" an author's overall writing should be including vocabulary and 2) whether characters need to speak realistically given their age, class, education, region, etc.For point 1, I'd agree with most comments above about writing in your own voice. Being an author is tough enough without trying to contort your vocabulary to suit the lowest common denominator. You'll never make everyone happy. For point 2, the author should work to create dialogue authentic to the character; for characters of limited education, that may mean dumbing down the vocab. Simply listening to everyday language is a good way to gather the vocabulary and cadences of 'everyday folk' to make realistic dialogue. Good luck with your writing!
That is right.Currently I am looking for a translator of my Heliodic novels into French.
I have a principle that I always pay attention to what my beta readers say, especially if I don't (initially) agree with them. Their reactions to my writing are priceless. It is as close as I will ever get to climbing inside someone's head and seeing how they see my work.In this case, I don't think your beta readers are challenging the meaning of the words (with a couple of exceptions). I think it's more about the way that they have been used. Let's take them one at a time.
"The old man [demurred]." How exactly did he demur? Demurring is not a specific action. This comes in a passage of dialogue, so the reader is expecting an action or a comment. It might be connected to the next piece of dialogue, but then I would expect a colon instead of a full stop. But it's not a great speech attribution. It's usually better to include the plain "said" and use the text to show that he is demurring.
"It [purled] with joy and longing." For me, "purling" is a knitting stitch. But I don't see any other references to knitting in the text that surrounds it. It feels like an odd metaphor to use as the rest of the text is talking about the use of language.
"They explored the [shingle] after eating." Shingle is a collection of small stones, found at a beach, by a river or in a driveway. You've not given the reader enough information to know which bit of shingle you are talking about.
"It [slaked] him; he didn’t care why." It is more usual to slake a thirst than to slake a person. But this doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the paragraph which is talking about serenity. I don't see any metaphorical thirst which needs to be slaked.
"The earnest fervor embedded in her jest [nonplussed] him." I think the issue here is that "nonplussed" is normally an adjective and you are using it as a verb.
"He [turned a calf] and bowed to the little creature." This one also puzzled me. We talk about a "well-turned" calf or ankle as a metaphor for a shapely leg which seems to have been turned on a lathe as if it was a piece of wood. But no-one actually turns a calf. I've got this strange image of someone turning their leg at the same time that they are bowing ... it doesn't seem to work.
Using archaic terms is all very well, (although if overdone it can result in purple prose) but we need to help the reader by giving them enough context to work out what the word means. In the passages you have shown us, I think if I had been a beta reader I would also have underlined those words. Not because I didn't understand them, but because I am not sure that you fully understood them or that the meaning was clear to the reader.
Hi, Will, I appreciate the specifics you present for my examples. As you point out, input from beta readers is invaluable, and I couldn't prepare any work of quality without them. I incorporate probably 75% of their comments during revision and editing. Just in the past week, I have had to "kill" two of my "darlings" at the suggestion of my beta readers. After consideration, I reaIized how right they were that those sections either did not move the plot or were realistic. Of course, I will review the valid points you make here, too.Just for the fun of it, specifically on the "well-turned calf," that goes back to that posture from the 18th Century (as described in one of my answers to Eric above) and has nothing to do with resemblance to lathe-work. In one of my hobbies, a graceful bow while turning the calf is one thing I learned to do 40 years ago, and it isn't really difficult. In fact, I engaged in such a bow less than two weeks ago at the conclusion of a musical performance. Properly done, it also includes sweeping one's hat from one's head. Some might think it's like trying to do too many things at once, and maybe it is for some. But practice makes perfect. Having a good sense of balance helps, too, not an activity for those who suffer vertigo.
Be that as it may...
Try googling it. The phrase "well turned leg" (or calf or ankle) returns definitions from online dictionaries such as: "symmetrically shaped or rounded" (Collins). In other words, the turning has been done to the leg when it was formed. Turning traditionally refers to shaping wood on a lathe.I can find no references to an actual turning motion of the leg or to the phrase "turn a calf".
The only derivation that I have found is this one:
https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_b...
This again talks about "well-turned" referring to woodwork and quotes examples including: "They are a well-made race,..with well-turned thighs and legs."
And just because the phrase "a well turned calf" exists, it does not mean that we can twist this to "he turned a calf". You may have a personal theory about where this phrase comes from, but I suspect the vast majority of your readers wouldn't know it.
Of course, you can use the image of turning a calf in your writing, but I do think you need to explain it. Describe how the character turns their legs whilst bowing and all will be well. But relying on a definition that only you know is risky.
Your beta reader had an issue with this phrase. I stumbled over it. The internet can't find it. Online dictionaries go for the idea of well-turned = "well made" and not "well moved".
It's your choice. All we can do is to offer advice.
Hi, Will,I don't rely on the internet as a be-all for all information. (I doubt you do, either.) It's only as complete or accurate as the people who operate it. (It's useful generally, but when I'm doing research, I go for authenticated sources. I often find gross errors online, as I'm sure many people do.) I've been familiar with the turned-calf term (and all the rest of my examples here) far longer than the internet has been in existence.
I've seen some of these online references, too, including one from Colonial Williamsburg, that addresses this term. CW states that its chore is to make the effort to re-educate the public about the importance of the social standing indicated by a man's calf, which many modern people have mis-interpreted as an 18th Century obsession. What is true is that (as they state) what started out as a grain of truth has grown into a beach of myth. They do have period references to turning a calf or turning a leg or turning a foot, which 18th Century men did do in courteous and social situations. The term (whether or not its interpretation is correct) and the activity it describes do exist.
The term's origins, whether from a lathe or from Moses throwing down the golden calf or from the concept of a well-formed or -shaped calf as indicative of power and wealth, or some combination of all of these (as such things can easily be morphed over centuries or millennia) really don't relate to my story. This thread has become somewhat side-tracked, for which I am no doubt equally guilty. (Sometimes it is fun to explore a tangent.)
Anyway, as you say, it is my choice.
"Turn a leg" (I'm not sure I've seen "turn a calf" anywhere near as frequently) is indeed an 18th century expression (I say this as a historian), but it's not used much in the last 150 years, so I think perhaps it should be used with caution.
Sally - the internet is a fabulous resource if we know how to use it and what it shouldn't be used for.If we are looking for historical accuracy, then the internet should be used with caution. We can trust authoritative sources such as the OED online and Merriam Webster, but we need to be wary of amateur websites, forums and blogs.
The internet is a fabulous resource for telling us what our readers are likely to think about a word or phrase. That's when the amateur and social side of the internet becomes very useful, because it gives us a window into how the language is developing, and which words the general public know and which they don't.
If a search comes back with no meaningful matches across the entire internet - both the authoritative and the amateur - then there's a high chance that the word or phrase either doesn't exist or is so obscure that it might as well not exist.
That's not to say that an old word can't be revived or a new word can't be coined. But it needs to be done with some explanation so that readers don't trip over it.
Sally wrote: "Sheila wrote: "Um, like, um, you know, like, what's wrong with looking up words?"Granted, having to look up a word does break one's reading rhythm, takes the reader out of the story. But if one lo..."
THIS.
My goal as a writer is to immerse my reader in an experience, in another world and another life. If my language constantly jerks them out, then it isn't doing what I want it to. That said, I do use big words or historical words on the assumption that they are words 'my' readers will understand. But knowing who my readers are is imperative, and having beta readers is also imperative.
I will say that if I thought too many of my readers were constantly having to stop and look up words, I'd change those words in a heartbeat. Because for every one reader whose attitidue is 'what's wrong with looking up words?' there are many who will simply not buy the book, or if they already bought it, not buy any others I write.
I tell stories. I hope to tell stories that people will read. And my job as a writer is to tell stories that work for my readers in 2017, not people in 1817 or 1917. This isn't selling out or dumbing down. William Shakespeare did the same thing. He shaped his plays for his audiences and for the political climate of his day. It is no accident that the Plantagenets looked pretty bad in those plays, since the Tudors overthrew them to take the throne, and Elizabeth was the last Tudor monarch.
Patricia wrote: "...my job as a writer is to tell stories that work for my readers in 2017, not people in 1817 or 1917...."Well said!
I read somewhere a long time ago that Shakespeare nearly doubled the English vocabulary of his day with his word coinage. I don't know if this is true, but I think it is true that he coined a lot of new words that have enriched our language.
It will always be a juggling act for us writers to balance the maintenance of a rich vocabulary with the (perhaps culturally expected?) dumbing down for contemporary readers. What we individually give in to or stand firm on is always a body of personal decisions, each unique to the written work in progress.
Did you ever say what kind of book you're writing and who your target readership is? Whether it's kids, YA, adults, a specific genre? Your discussion about turning a calf would be very familiar to readers of English Regency, for example.
Patricia wrote: "Did you ever say what kind of book you're writing and who your target readership is? ..."Contemporary (set in the 1980s) literary adult fiction, maybe also called commercial fiction or mainstream fiction. (It's hard to assign genre titles these days, there is so much blending and stretching.) Audience? Readers like me - middle-class, white or blue collar (I've been both), maybe college-educated but not necessarily (some who have enjoyed my one published book never completed high school).
Patricia wrote: "If my language constantly jerks them out, then it isn't doing what I want it to. That said, I do use big words or historical words on the assumption that they are words 'my' readers will understand. But knowing who my readers are is imperative, and having beta readers is also imperative....."First, I agree that the language of your story has to add to the story, not throw people out of the story. I also agree that authors can rely on shared experience (language) with readers. If I'm writing about the US Civil War, I'm assuming the majority of my readers know it's the North v the South, Lincoln is President, ...
Second, I also strongly believe that the limits of my language are the limits of my world. If I use a jargon because a character knows the meaning but the reader doesn't, somebody has to play Watson and ask for an explanation of the reader loses out. Example: HULC (pronounced "Hulk"). "Human Universal Load Carrier". Ever seen "Aliens"? Remember the final scene with Sigourney Weaver battling the Alien Queen Mother? Weaver was in a HULC. Once you've seen one, you've got it, but until you've seen one, it has to be explained somehow. Especially if it's a key plot point/story element.
Editors aren't always right. The editor of my novel set in Britain in WW11, changed housewife to homemaker - a word that wasn't invented in the 40s. She also changed emigrated to immigrated. I don't know if American English only has one word for emigrate and immigrate, but British English has two words and I used the correct one, which is obviously what my British character would have said.I think the writer has a duty to the particular reader they are writing for but that doesn't mean leaving out words you want to keep. There are ways of adding clarity to unfamiliar words. In one book I read set in New Zealand, a wine maker used the term "clearskins". I didn't know what that meant, but the next character went on to talk about bottles supplied without labels.
My books have a few words specific to British English which Americans wouldn't know, but I make sure the meaning is clear from the context.
Don't forget, your books might be read by people for whom English is not the first language.
The Beta editor may have a point. I do not know the word avocational in your post and can't extract the meaning from the sentence it's in.
Janet wrote: "Editors aren't always right. The editor of my novel set in Britain in WW11, changed housewife to homemaker - a word that wasn't invented in the 40s. She also changed emigrated to immigrated. I don'..."Janet, I hope your editor marked these changes for you to review and proofread (and correct!) before it went to print. We do need to remain diligent in double-checking verbal anachronisms when dealing with stories (or parts of stories) set in the past.
The editor of a friend of mine's book was a wannabe-writer who kept rewriting his book for him, introducing wrong material that she thought made it better, and rearranging the chronology of his story. (He was a WWII fighter pilot with experience in southeast Asia, and she was not, but she thought she knew more about military aviation than he did.) She even included her own name with his in the copyright, which is highly unethical. Needless to say, he was happy to drop her as soon as he could.
Yes, American English does have both "immigrate" and "emigrate."
Housewife is not a verbal anachronism in the UK. It's still in use, along with househusband.
Most of my beta readers have an education similar to mine - I have a liberal arts education but never went to graduate school. I have worked in the public sector and the private sector, in engineering, in heavy industry, in land use planning, white collar and blue collar. I have lived in remote rural communities and urban ones. I have broad avocational interests in American history, domestic arts and crafts. I like to read non-fiction about scientific discovery and novels both contemporary and based in historical venues. I tend to have more traditional values, many of which some would call old-fashioned.
These beta readers haven't said that I should not use these words, but I think they are implying that I am writing above my intended audience, which I believe is ordinary folks like myself who like to read a good story.
I prefer to adhere to Beatrix Potter's theory (proven correct by the evergreen popularity of her books) that children will learn new vocabulary by seeing the context in which new words are presented. This can apply to adults, if they are not lazy readers.
I do not want to dumb down my narrative. I believe that our vocabulary is rich, and that the right word should be used at the right time to convey the right meaning. I don't poke through the thesaurus just to find words to use to show off the fact that I found a cool new word. (A reader did express appreciation recently that I don't use adjectives (or adverbs) excessively.)
So, have any of you writers out there run into anything like this? If so, what are your thoughts about it?