|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Dec 14, 2015 10:58:07 GMT -5
I recently read a fantasy novel in one of my favorite series and was unhappy to find the word "nonplussed" used seven or eight times. For me, "nonplussed" is a once-a-book word. It's just too unusual and standouty to use more often. Clearly it's one of this author's favored words. IMO, her editor needed to do a better job of going through and taking it out. (This was a trad pub book.)
What do you guys think? Am I being too hard on "nonplussed"? Do you have any beloved pet words whose use you restrict?
|
|
|
|
Post by lindymoone on Dec 14, 2015 14:08:05 GMT -5
I think you are "spot-on" about "nonplussed". Seems to me there are "multitudes" of words that should be once-a-bookers -- unless they are character-defining dialog. Most of the ones that come quickly to mind are adjectives or adverbs. "Supercilious", "rambunctious", "fractionally"...
Some nouns also call too much attention to themselves if used more than once. "Serendipity", for example.
"On the other hand", "once upon a time" I thought there were once-a-book phrases -- and then I realized it was because I was "avoiding cliches like the plague". I wasn't just "whistling Dixie"!
(In other words, you "hit it out of the park" with this thread!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Suzy on Dec 14, 2015 14:14:54 GMT -5
My editor always slaps my wrist when I use these kind of things more than once. So yes, I agree. So grateful to have a strict editor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Dec 14, 2015 14:34:58 GMT -5
I think you are "spot-on" about "nonplussed". Seems to me there are "multitudes" of words that should be once-a-bookers -- unless they are character-defining dialog. Most of the ones that come quickly to mind are adjectives or adverbs. "Supercilious", "rambunctious", "fractionally"... Some nouns also call too much attention to themselves if used more than once. "Serendipity", for example. "On the other hand", "once upon a time" I thought there were once-a-book phrases -- and then I realized it was because I was "avoiding cliches like the plague". I wasn't just "whistling Dixie"! (In other words, you "hit it out of the park" with this thread!) Ooo, those are good ones. Though I think I'm pretty free with "on the other hand." "Idiosyncratic" is one of my faves. Gotta keep an eye on that one or it'll pop up like mushrooms. |
|
|
|
Post by lindymoone on Dec 14, 2015 14:43:11 GMT -5
It is SO easy to spot these in other authors' books, and so hard to see them in our own!
|
|
|
|
Post by Miss Terri Novelle on Dec 14, 2015 16:34:48 GMT -5
I just read a book with several uses of nonplussed in it and thought the same thing...there were also 6 or so instances where someone turned their head until their neck cracked. It was still an enjoyable book but there was one other phrase used over a dozen times.
My list of those types of words includes persnickety, shenanigans, and nefarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Dec 14, 2015 18:55:55 GMT -5
I actually thought "nonplussed" was pretty common so it wouldn't leap out at me but I agree eight is pushing it!
|
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Dec 14, 2015 20:36:47 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm thinking once a book for nonplussed, maybe twice in a long book. I think level of diction comes into play. If I see hircine on the first page, subfusc won't seem strange on page 4, collimate on page 9, aleatory on page 21, and intussusception would be expected by page 55.
|
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Dec 15, 2015 5:12:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm thinking once a book for nonplussed, maybe twice in a long book. I think level of diction comes into play. If I see hircine on the first page, subfusc won't seem strange on page 4, collimate on page 9, aleatory on page 21, and intussusception would be expected by page 55. That's a really good point, actually (and beautifully made)! One really impressive word will stand out awkwardly in a book with relatively simple language and will just look like the author needed a synonym and picked the fanciest, but a consistently sesquipedalian author can probably use them with impunity. I, for example, am disproportionately fond of "sesquipedalian". |
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Dec 15, 2015 9:43:08 GMT -5
I agree that "nonplussed" should be rare. Once or twice a book seems reasonable.
I think there's a statistical sensitivity at work when I read. If a word is used more often than it's "normal" (according to my reading experience) probability of occurring, it will stand out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Mills on Dec 16, 2015 0:46:39 GMT -5
I actually thought "nonplussed" was pretty common so it wouldn't leap out at me but I agree eight is pushing it! Jeepers, really? In my experience, it's decidedly uncommon, especially if you're holding out for the "correct" definition (it's one of those words that's coming to mean the opposite of what it means, which is annoying). I don't know that I've ever heard it used in speech, and I hang out with eggheads. ETA: Common in comparison to WH's words, though! I was 0/5 on those. |
|
|
|
Post by lindymoone on Dec 16, 2015 6:29:54 GMT -5
I actually thought "nonplussed" was pretty common so it wouldn't leap out at me but I agree eight is pushing it! Jeepers, really? In my experience, it's decidedly uncommon, especially if you're holding out for the "correct" definition (it's one of those words that's coming to mean the opposite of what it means, which is annoying). I don't know that I've ever heard it used in speech, and I hang out with eggheads. ETA: Common in comparison to WH's words, though! I was 0/5 on those. Re WH's words: That's where the dictionary feature in ebooks really comes to the rescue! Re "nonplussed": It's "literally" all over again! Why is there's always a North American version that means the opposite of the true meaning?! No wonder our politics are in a mess! Look: non·plussed nänˈpləst adjective 1. (of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react. "he would be completely nonplussed and embarrassed at the idea" 2. NORTH AMERICAN informal (of a person) not disconcerted; unperturbed. Another word with common American usage that seems nearly opposite to its true meaning is "moot". People tend to use it to dismiss a point of argument, to declare it no longer relevant -- when it means "disputable", "open to discussion". No one said this communicatin' business would be easy...  But honestly, if people insist on using words as their own antonyms, what is the point of it all? Hmmm... Perhaps it's a clever ploy so nasty people don't ever have to deal with the backlash: "Sure, I said you're an 'ugly toad'... but I obviously meant it in the 'beautiful prince' sense, you idiot!" ("Idiot" meaning "member of Mensa", naturally.) |
|
|
|
Post by Victoria on Dec 16, 2015 6:38:18 GMT -5
I actually thought "nonplussed" was pretty common so it wouldn't leap out at me but I agree eight is pushing it! Jeepers, really? In my experience, it's decidedly uncommon, especially if you're holding out for the "correct" definition (it's one of those words that's coming to mean the opposite of what it means, which is annoying). I don't know that I've ever heard it used in speech, and I hang out with eggheads. ETA: Common in comparison to WH's words, though! I was 0/5 on those. Oh, no, I rarely if ever hear it in speech. But I feel like I come across it in books all the time. It's not an everyday word by any means but it wouldn't leap uncomfortably out of the page at me if it came up more than once in a book. I don't think I use it much myself though, and I'll be careful not to after this!  |
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Dec 16, 2015 9:38:01 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm thinking once a book for nonplussed, maybe twice in a long book. I think level of diction comes into play. If I see hircine on the first page, subfusc won't seem strange on page 4, collimate on page 9, aleatory on page 21, and intussusception would be expected by page 55. That's a really good point, actually (and beautifully made)! One really impressive word will stand out awkwardly in a book with relatively simple language and will just look like the author needed a synonym and picked the fanciest, but a consistently sesquipedalian author can probably use them with impunity. I, for example, am disproportionately fond of "sesquipedalian". If you're only pulling out one $5 word per book, you'll probably have to hang a bell on it--e.g., "Well, that's a big word, Bill." |
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Dec 16, 2015 9:38:50 GMT -5
I actually thought "nonplussed" was pretty common so it wouldn't leap out at me but I agree eight is pushing it! Jeepers, really? In my experience, it's decidedly uncommon, especially if you're holding out for the "correct" definition (it's one of those words that's coming to mean the opposite of what it means, which is annoying). I don't know that I've ever heard it used in speech, and I hang out with eggheads. ETA: Common in comparison to WH's words, though! I was 0/5 on those. I read the dictionary. It's easy because the chapters are short.  |
|
|
|
Post by whdean on Dec 16, 2015 9:39:29 GMT -5
Jeepers, really? In my experience, it's decidedly uncommon, especially if you're holding out for the "correct" definition (it's one of those words that's coming to mean the opposite of what it means, which is annoying). I don't know that I've ever heard it used in speech, and I hang out with eggheads. ETA: Common in comparison to WH's words, though! I was 0/5 on those. Re WH's words: That's where the dictionary feature in ebooks really comes to the rescue! Re "nonplussed": It's "literally" all over again! Why is there's always a North American version that means the opposite of the true meaning?! No wonder our politics are in a mess! Look: non·plussed nänˈpləst adjective 1. (of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react. "he would be completely nonplussed and embarrassed at the idea" 2. NORTH AMERICAN informal (of a person) not disconcerted; unperturbed. Another word with common American usage that seems nearly opposite to its true meaning is "moot". People tend to use it to dismiss a point of argument, to declare it no longer relevant -- when it means "disputable", "open to discussion". No one said this communicatin' business would be easy... But honestly, if people insist on using words as their own antonyms, what is the point of it all? Hmmm... Perhaps it's a clever ploy so nasty people don't ever have to deal with the backlash: "Sure, I said you're an 'ugly toad'... but I obviously meant it in the 'beautiful prince' sense, you idiot!" ("Idiot" meaning "member of Mensa", naturally.)  This too true. |
|
|
|
Post by carlos on Dec 23, 2015 16:32:07 GMT -5
I read the dictionary. It's easy because the chapters are short. I thought you'd been reading Patrick O'Brian--I remember four of those words (at least) in the conversation of Dr. Maturin--but that was a 22 book series. Subfusc appeared several times, as I recall. |
|
But honestly, if people insist on using words as their own antonyms, what is the point of it all? Hmmm... Perhaps it's a clever ploy so nasty people don't ever have to deal with the backlash:
This too true. 
