Quick update on the current situation. The new term started a couple weeks ago and that means a couple things for me. First, I am enrolled in a couple classes, a seminar course on Death in the Roman Empire and a Senior level Latin class (I am a glutton for linguistic punishment it seems). Both classes will require a high level of work involved in them but at the very least they are (for now) on campus, so the excitement of being able to participate in person is quite palpable. I have also managed to get another role as a Teaching Assistant for a medieval studies introductory class, this will be a very different challenge to the Greek language classes I have previously TA’ed for last academic year. A major part of my job will be grading papers, 4 papers (small ones) from 70 students for a total of 280 papers (plus any papers on the exams as well). There will be a lot of work and time involved in this, but it will most certainly be a great experience and fantastic opportunity. All that being said, I am still committing to one post per week, if it is not possible one week I will post up two the following week.
This past week the writers circle met up and we were discussing one of my chapters when a couple thoughts struck me which I will now inflict upon all of you reading this.
As the chapter involved was being critiqued a couple of individuals in the group explained that they felt confused by the particular setting of the interaction happening. They were confused because of the word selection I had used. The setting was taking place in a horse drawn caravan, I however decided to call it a carriage as that was a word that I believed most people were going to be familiar with (I had also provided a somewhat lengthy description of its external appearance in the previous chapter, but I guess those confused parties hadn’t remembered that portion from last time). Looking at the passage there are multiple different manners in which I could have described the environs. I could have called it a wagon but that word does not convey the concept of a mobile living arrangement, a wagon brings forth the imagery of a goods transportation device. I could have called it a covered wagon, adding a bit further description, but that too evokes in the mind concepts of transporting large amounts of goods and materials in a spartan arrangement for a lengthy trip. A carriage suggests the transportation of individuals but to the general mind it suggests ideas of travelling through a city or town, maybe going around for a day to get to some manor external to a settlement somewhere. Caravan is not a word that is widely used in the context of a pseudo-medieval setting, if people are familiar at all with the word. (I know that the notion of a Caravan is likely familiar to the British mind as Caravanning is a bit of a holidaying activity, but the situation seems to be different in North America.) In the end I decided on selecting the word carriage. But I shouldn’t have. What I ended up doing was creating a very specific and distinct disconnect between myself and my readers.
Words are important. Using the correct words, the correct categories, the correct labels, allows for correct understanding to the greatest degree. There will always be a possibility for an incorrect interpretation by the reader but it is minimal compared to using the incorrect words. Using the incorrect words can accidentally give the reader the correct meaning, but this then has more to do with the readers incorrect understanding of the terminology being used rather than the reader correctly comprehending the actual words used. So in my case I ought to have used the appropriate terminology, ie caravan, and such a choice would have prevented as many possibilities of misunderstanding. This goes beyond just the description of objects, but also of ideas and ideals, people and places and general concepts. Trying to be a fancy writer with all sorts of purple prose littered around the manuscript can lead to some elegant sounding sentences and poetic descriptors but ultimately meaningless sentences that require further elaboration by the author for the audience to be able to comprehend what he is attempting to say. There are some authors who I find very guilty of this and at a later date I will dissect some pieces to show just how vapid the passage really is. But it is not all bad, clever writers are capable of finding a way to use anything to their advantage when it comes to presenting a compelling narrative.
There can be uses to intentionally using the wrong word in fiction. Such things as the unreliable narrator or multiple point of view characters allow for a certain level of looseness in language provided it matches a purpose to the narrative. For an unreliable narrator there may be many situations when the author wants the narrator to try to hide specific things from the audience. By intentionally describing some object, idea or action based on the point of view characters own misidentification will then give the reader a false image in their mind as they read. This ought to be done with caution and suitable planning though as just leaving the reader with a falsehood only to have that unceremoniously pulled out from under them creates those terrible things known as plot twists. Plot twists in and of themselves are good, they are surprising and exciting to the reader but only if done correctly. A good plot twist should appear to be an inevitability upon the readers reflection. They should look back and see that there was no way it could have gone but the manner in which the author has manufactured. Thus the author must insert the tools within the text itself to allow the audience to assemble the truth of the matter. One might argue against doing this as it can spoil the reveal, however if the author does a suitable job then it should only be the particularly observant readers putting these points together. Throwing out red herrings every now and then, not too often mind, can put these astute readers off the scent but an author ought to feel quite happy that some individuals are keen enough to pay attention to the minutia of details.
Specifically misidentifying something is a frequently used rhetorical tool, generally used by people attempting to create a strong emotive response in the audience. In so doing the writer will likely establish a connection between some primary concept with a secondary unrelated or mildly related concept. In the world of rhetoric this type of presentation is like the Motte-and-Bailey style arguments or like the Strawman arguments. Both of these styles are called fallacies as they do not appropriately address the argument. For the Motte-and-Bailey it tends to go in this format; the arguer establishes some point, usually a controversial one that is very hard to defend, and then establishes a secondary similar argument but much easier to defend. They then proceed to argue the defense of the easier argument and when confronted about the controversial argument they suggest that because they have defended the easier argument they have also defended the harder one. The Strawman argument is quite similar to the Motte-and-Bailey but in reverse. The arguer sets up a similar argument to one that they oppose but easier to counter, then by countering their own superimposed argument they claim to have countered the original, much harder argument.
An alternative form of this misidentification process would be the alteration of the definition of some idea arbitrarily based on what the author wants it to mean rather than what it has traditionally meant within the confines of the current context. There is also the false equivalency argument, which equates two distinct ideas especially by an order of magnitude. It applies an equality between two things that are so far removed from each other. By doing these types of things the writer pre-emptively deflects any criticism of the idea as being not based on the definition that they have chosen to use. Both this and the intentional misidentification are incredibly disingenuous and bad faith arguments of pure sophistry as opposed to true dialogue, debate and communication and anyone who does these things ought to have the premise of their stance questioned and their audience should investigate and inquire deeper into the issues being discussed.
Bringing this meandering thought process to a close, an author ought to be choosey in their word choices in order to better communicate with their audience. And for the reader paying attention to the words being chosen by the authors. These ideas are applicable to non-fiction as well as fiction and are especially important when dealing with the worlds of advertising and political messaging. Anyways, just some thoughts but if you disagree then just reach out and let me know. I also think that maybe I ought to find an editor, or at least a test reader, to go over my ambling mind wanderings but future problem for future times.
God bless and all the best
DPJMiles
Gadfly Fiction 