Difference between revisions of "Talk:483: Fiction Rule of Thumb"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 15: Line 15:
 
:If you can make up a story you should be able to make up words. A much worse problem is when an author thinks describing scenery is part of the story. And when women stop in mid paragraph to describe clothing... Feck that!
 
:If you can make up a story you should be able to make up words. A much worse problem is when an author thinks describing scenery is part of the story. And when women stop in mid paragraph to describe clothing... Feck that!
 
:Making up a word or two to get around shit like that is OK. It is only hand-waving a ghost out from the machine. Asimov was terrible for that crap in his early work. He grew out of it, in a manner of speaking, recognising there was a time and place.
 
:Making up a word or two to get around shit like that is OK. It is only hand-waving a ghost out from the machine. Asimov was terrible for that crap in his early work. He grew out of it, in a manner of speaking, recognising there was a time and place.
 +
 +
there are many exceptions to this rule... Jhereg, for example.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.116|173.245.51.116]] 10:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 +
  
 
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 00:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 00:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:43, 6 July 2015

Also, you get minus points if you have to add a totally reading-flow rupturing explanation. And if the words which supposedly come from one language have completely different linguistic structure. And for random apostrophes. And if you cannot read the book without a wordlist for constant reference next to you. Rule of thumb #2: if it's not clear from the context or from a smooth, unobtrusive explanation* and/or if the reader has to go back the second time it is mentioned to remember what it was, don't use it.

Exception to this: Terry Prachett. How the hell can that guy make funny literature out of annoyingly large footnotes?? 132.187.20.160 09:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I know an author who made up words and still turned out well! His name is Andrew Hussie, creator of Homestuck. Captchalogue, Sylladex, Alchemiter, Cruxite, Respiteblock, Recuperacoon, Cookalizer, Fenestrated Wall, you name it! 108.162.219.47 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Well one, that's a webcomic, not a book. Two, most of these words are portamntus (Captcha + Catalogue = Captchalogue, Recuperate + Cocoon = Recuperacoon). And while this is certainly a nice observation, it doesn't really contribute to the discussion since the page is not really about Homestuck.--Edrobot (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Dune comes to mind... 199.27.128.71 07:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that Randall omitted Shakespeare from the list of people allowed to make up words. Shakespeare used 17,677 different words in all of his known works. About 10% of those words are words that he made up and are now technically official English (includes changing parts of speech for existing words)108.162.216.100 21:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem?
If you can make up a story you should be able to make up words. A much worse problem is when an author thinks describing scenery is part of the story. And when women stop in mid paragraph to describe clothing... Feck that!
Making up a word or two to get around shit like that is OK. It is only hand-waving a ghost out from the machine. Asimov was terrible for that crap in his early work. He grew out of it, in a manner of speaking, recognising there was a time and place.

there are many exceptions to this rule... Jhereg, for example.173.245.51.116 10:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)