Does SRD write with a Thesaurus in his lap?

[SerScot]

Seriously... I enjoy his work but in the first chapter of AATE I get a brief dissertation on Plate tectonics by investigating the words I'm unfamilier with. I do appreciate why he chose those terms. It shows the sesmic shift removing Covenant from the Arch of Time is for the world of the Land. However, does he really need to throw $.50 word in every paragraph if not every other sentence?

[Zarathustra]

I've complained about it and poked fun on occasion, but usually I enjoy it and see the logic in it. Part of it is just his style. He peppered Mordant's Need with "lugubrious" and the Gap with "exigencies." (I'm sure there were many others in those works, but those two stand out for their repetition.) But without question he cranks it up a notch for the Chronicles. There have been several GI answers over the years that deal with this, so going to the source would be the best way to illuminate the issue. But the way I see it, it's a way to imbue the Chronicles with a sense of "alien" without straying too far from "the familiar." The Land is a world that is ostensibly in Covenant's head. You have characters named, "Kevin." You have Ravers named after states of enlightenment. Rather than invent entirely new languages to give his work a sense of the exotic, like Tolkien did, Donaldson delves into our own language for obscure words which evoke a similar sense of "exotic," but because they share roots and etymologies with our own real history of languages, they still remain intuitively familiar, even when we don't know exactly what they mean. It's a very unique tool for a very unique narrative effect. Each time one occurs it's like a sparkle of magic in a drab black-and-white collection of letters on a page. It calls attention to the mysterious within the mundane, reminding us of the magical power of these black shapes we call "letters" to evoke meaning--a transcendental, trans-personal quality of connective intention--by the very act of "withholding" meaning ... which is still nevertheless accessible with a little bit of effort.

[Seven Words]

Z--

you summed up my feelings about it far, far more eloquently than I've ever been able to put into words. *polite clapping*

thanks.

Also....ravers named after states of enlightenment....mental state....Ravers are noncorporeal, possession is a "mental state" of sorts. Think that is part of why he chose those names for them?

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

Very interesting.

[Vraith]

Yes. Everything that Z said, plus something else:
Part [not all] of the "obscurity" is that when learning to write, almost every teacher teaches [often explicitly] "Never use a hard word if an easy one will do." It's considered a fundamental of "style."
We only learn to read/write the easy stuff. And we learn weak substitutions.
One example of the "rule" I remember was "don't say "utilize" when "use" will do, or "modification" when "change" will work. Well....I'm sorry...they don't mean the same thing: denotation/connotation, allusion and implication are different.
Look up synonyms listed in a thesaurus, and see how many times you say "WTF?...they don't mean the same thing at all!"
I could quite easily write several pages on why/how these particular books would be just another mediocre fantasy without the vocabulary. Partly because of all the things Z said, partly because replacing the words with simple, ordinary, close enough substitutes would result in a simple, ordinary, close enough [NOT] series. Not just in the way it "feels," but in actual structure, thought, idea.

[SerScot]

Vraith,

A gentleman I went to Law School with made a strong case that there are no true synonims in the English Language. Everything has a slightly different meaning and connotation therefore they are not truely synonmus.

[Vraith]

Vraith,

A gentleman I went to Law School with made a strong case that there are no true synonims in the English Language. Everything has a slightly different meaning and connotation therefore they are not truely synonmus.

I would agree completely with that gentleman...and it is part of why "law" as a whole field is so difficult.

[Zarathustra]

One example of the "rule" I remember was "don't say "utilize" when "use" will do...

I remember hearing about this in reference to Hemingway. Didn't he use "utilize" in ways that made this point explicit? Or was he saying the opposite? Being ironic?

I found this online:

"Use" and "utilize" are two verbs with distinct meanings. Don't confuse them.

"Use" is to employ objects for the purposes they were designed for.

"Utilize," on the other hand, is to employ objects for unintended purposes.

Authoritative proof:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb use as "to make use of (some immaterial thing) as a means or instrument; to employ for a certain end or purpose."

But utilize is defined as "to make or render useful; to convert to use, turn to account."

MSN Encarta Dictionary defines to utilize as "to make use of something, or find a practical or effective use for something."

And here is the logical proof of the crucial distinction between these two verbs: the logical extreme of "use" is "abuse," referring to the act of using something in ways that is contradictory to its original "mission statement" or designed function.

But there is no corresponding logical extreme for "utilize" like, let's say, "disutilize" or "abutilize" since by its very definition, to utilize something means to use it in ways that is different than the purpose for which it was originally designed or created. "Abuse," so to speak, is a built-in semantic component of "utilize."

WRONG: "The TV set utilizes coaxial cable to connect to the antenna." (A TV unit and a coaxial cable were meant to be used together, by definition.)

CORRECT: "The TV set uses coaxial cable to connect to the antenna.

CORRECT: "The TV set utilizes paper clips to connect to the antenna." (A TV set is not designed to use paper clips to connect to the antenna. That's a highly unusual improvisation and -- in the stretched sense of the word -- an "abuse" of paper clips.)

[johnsomc]

Actually, I have a lot of fun expanding my vocabulary by reading Donaldson - I'm still looking for ways to incorporate "frangible" and "flensed" into every day conversation.

[Revan]

I'm uncertain, but I know I read his books with one in mine.

[Seareach]

No. He doesn't. He compiles word lists. He said something about it in the GI once.

[SerScot]

I like Cthonic.

[Zarathustra]

No. He doesn't. He compiles word lists. He said something about it in the GI once.

I've read his answer, but I'm not sure I see the distinction. A thesaurus is a word list, too. If these are words which are regular parts of his own vocabulary, why does he have to make a list of them? We don't usually make lists of words we already know and use. And if he has to look them up in his list, what's the difference between that and looking them up in a list someone else compiled (i.e. a thesaurus)?

[Starkin]

I love SRD's vocabulary, it does set the tone. But the word "theurgy" was used way too much in AATE. Almost every other page! I kind of cringed every time it came up. I should keep track how many times it comes up on my next re-read.

TC and LA were about the only characters that didn't say the word. Aren't there other words that would mean the same thing, like puissant? Oh wait... he used that one a lot too...

[Vraith]

No. He doesn't. He compiles word lists. He said something about it in the GI once.

I've read his answer, but I'm not sure I see the distinction. A thesaurus is a word list, too. If these are words which are regular parts of his own vocabulary, why does he have to make a list of them? We don't usually make lists of words we already know and use. And if he has to look them up in his list, what's the difference between that and looking them up in a list someone else compiled (i.e. a thesaurus)?

It's the difference between learning about a hammer in use, or by pointing and naming one in a toolbox. It's really just a process thing...the two reinforce each other...as a pragmatic, educational matter though, vocab through exposure/reading is in all ways superior to memorized vocab lists.
[which, if I remember SRD's post correctly, is how he acquires the words.]

[Seareach]

No. He doesn't. He compiles word lists. He said something about it in the GI once.

I've read his answer, but I'm not sure I see the distinction. A thesaurus is a word list, too. If these are words which are regular parts of his own vocabulary, why does he have to make a list of them? We don't usually make lists of words we already know and use. And if he has to look them up in his list, what's the difference between that and looking them up in a list someone else compiled (i.e. a thesaurus)?

It's the difference between learning about a hammer in use, or by pointing and naming one in a toolbox. It's really just a process thing...the two reinforce each other...as a pragmatic, educational matter though, vocab through exposure/reading is in all ways superior to memorized vocab lists.
[which, if I remember SRD's post correctly, is how he acquires the words.]

Ok, yep Z. I'll agree with that, although I think its kinda different in the sense that he doesn't go out of his way, flipping through a thesaurus to be clever. And if you actually look up these words (the obscure ones), most of the time (imo) they're absolutely perfect for what he's trying to convey.

On a related note, he also said somewhere (sorry, I'm in a rush..but it was recently in the GI I think) that the choice of language is purposeful--gives it an epic tone.

[Vraith]

heh...didn't realize till I read Sea's quoting that the end of what I wrote is unclear in reference...IIRC, SRD picks up the words in use, and notes the ones he finds interesting...not that he studies vocab lists...is the thing I meant to say.

[Zarathustra]

Ok, yep Z. I'll agree with that, although I think its kinda different in the sense that he doesn't go out of his way, flipping through a thesaurus to be clever. And if you actually look up these words (the obscure ones), most of the time (imo) they're absolutely perfect for what he's trying to convey.

Good point. I suppose there is a difference between choosing from a wordlist you compiled yourself because those words particularly fascinated you, and just flipping through a bunch of words you don't know in order to sound more clever than you are. [There's that damned "earned knowledge" concept popping back up again ... ] I'm sure Donaldson wanted to distinguish what he does from the way a high school student with a poor vocabulary might use a thesaurus as a crutch or an illusion. But I think there could be a bit of overlap between the two techniques and the two different kinds of wordlist sources. A thesaurus can be used in an intelligent, intentional manner, too.

[Maybe I'm just subconsciously defensive ... I have used a thesaurus from time to time in order to find just the right word.]

[SerScot]

Well, I just met the Ardent and discovered about 20 new colors.

[aliantha]

Well, I just met the Ardent and discovered about 20 new colors.