[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 36 KB, 300x430, dfw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3421412 No.3421412 [Reply] [Original]

My composition 1 textbook says that using words that a simpleton wouldn't understand is pretentious and should never be done.

For example: you should never use the word 'reside' when you can use just as easily use the word 'live'.

What kind of horse shit is this? All pretty words are pretentious?

>> No.3421419

It's a dilemma. Sometimes I feel like the author's taking the piss with the complexity of the language but then again you don't have to cater to simpletons in your writing.

>> No.3421420

>>3421412
It sounds like you took your composition 1 textbook slightly out of context..
Which, if I'm right, disqualifies you from ever using pretty language without sounding pretentious because in your case, it would be.

>> No.3421417

It's probably talking about writing essays considering that's what composition 1 classes are all about.

>> No.3421431

>>3421420

>Good writing is clear and direct, not pompous and flowery. Revise to eliminate pretentious diction, inappropriately elevated and wordy language.

>As I fell into a slumber, I cogitated about my day ambling through the splendor of the Appalachian Mountains

Is corrected to..

>As I fell asleep, I thought about my day hiking through the Appalachian Mountains

>For every pretentious word, there is usually a clear and direct alternative.

Straight out of the textbook....

>> No.3421434

I think being intentionally esoteric is more pretentious than using words a simpleton wouldn't understand.

>> No.3421435

>>3421431

And according to the book, ascertain, commence, implement, miniscule, reside, terminate, utilize, and individual are all pretentious words.

>> No.3421438

>>3421431
This means that >>3421417 is right.
You never write flowery purple prose for essays.

>> No.3421442

>>3421438
>As I fell into a slumber, I cogitated about my day ambling through the splendor of the Appalachian Mountains

How could that ever fit into an essay?

>> No.3421445

>>3421442
It may just be a bad example. What is the criteria of the course?

>> No.3421450

This is actually good advice.

Unless you are writing to a very specific audience or journal, any good editor is going to reign you in if you get to flowery in your composition.

At the very least, it's better to use it only in certain places for imagery purposes.

>> No.3421451

>>3421442

Not him but Composition classes are always about writing essays. Creative writing is for prose.

>> No.3421460

This is both good and bad advice.

When writing you generally want whatever you write to be accessible to anyone who sits down and reads your stuff.

However, if you go to far, your work can very quickly turn into some out of children's picture book.

The goal should be a happy medium between the two.

>> No.3421465

>>3421460
>>3421450

Wow /lit/.

What happened to "HURR Y DONT U READ FOR PROSE"

>> No.3421476

>>3421435
Does it only target the words? That seems a bit off. I can use all of those words in a clear and concise essay with no purple prose. Most can, really.
I'm sure it goes into greater detail of how to avoid the flowery structure.

>> No.3421481

>>3421476

Nope. The section on Pretentious Diction isn't even half a page. I basically copied the entire section besides the part where it gives you a clear and concise alternative for each of those words.

>> No.3421488

Justify using pointlessly unusual words, OP.

>> No.3421492

>>3421488

Pretty prose. Consistent rhythmic structure.

>> No.3421499

>>3421460
>wanting your writing to be accessible

>> No.3421501

>>3421488
connotation

>> No.3421506

>>3421488
tone

>> No.3421509

>>3421488
in dialogue they can be used to indicate a person of more learned background

>> No.3421510

>>3421499
>wanting your writing to be obscure and unintelligible

>> No.3421511

>>3421488
brevity

>> No.3421513

>>3421510
>Patronising your readers to the point that you don't think they can handle a sentence containing the word "utilise"

>> No.3421514

>>3421510
>wanting to pander to the lowest common denominator

>> No.3421515

>>3421488
levity

>> No.3421517

>>3421513
>using the verbed non-word "utilise" instead of "use"

>> No.3421531

>>3421517
check and mate!

>> No.3421607
File: 42 KB, 235x317, foucault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3421607

OP, it just goes with the linguistic turn and modern democratic relativism veiled as tolerance. "We should only describe the way language IS instead of the pretentious prescriptivists who think that language OUGHT to be a certain way." If you ask me, this is a sad approach to speech and writing, and we ought to all strive to our personal standards of linguistic excellence: colorful vocabulary, proper grammar, and the adventurous attitude of a student rather than the arrogance of "no1 kan judg me lol there's no rite er rong".

Go read some Swift, OP.

>> No.3422432

I think this is evidence of Hemingway's cancerous influence on writing. Yes, overuse of 'pretty' or 'big' words can come across as ridiculous, but I hate that people automatically see words they don't understand and cry 'pretentious' instead of looking it up. I like big words and I like reading them. Simple prose like Hemingway's is boring and uninteresting while Pynchon's vast diction and complex syntax is challenging and beautiful and interesting.

>> No.3422439

Write however the fuck you want. There's nothing more pedantic than people who claim to write intelligibly when in reality they lack all color and charm and do nothing but pander to similarly witless dolts.

>> No.3422443
File: 48 KB, 398x561, schopenhauerprintwithsi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422443

>Now just as a great deal of reading and learning is prejudicial to one’s own thinking, so do much writing and teaching cause a man to lose the habit of being clear and eo ipso thorough in his knowledge and understanding because he is left with no time in which to acquire these. In his utterances he must then fill up with words and phrases the gaps in his clear knowledge. It is this, and not the dryness of his subject, that makes many books so infinitely tedious. For it is asserted that a good cook can produce something appetizing even from the sole of an old shoe; in the same way a good author can make the driest subject interesting and entertaining.

>> No.3422448

>>3421488
wit

>> No.3422477

>>3421412
I hold the belief that most writers are overly wordy. Is it pretentious? Not really, I just see it as silly and a little self defeating.

>> No.3422510

>>3421412
I understand the point they want to make if not wholeheartedly agree with it.

Writers spend most of their time immersed in language which can make their written expression appear out-of-touch with those who do not.

Imagine that you want a simple, catchy jingle for a children's TV-show and you are submitted an elaborate jazz odyssey that requires a doctorate in music theory to appreciate fully. Always think about the audience you are writing for.

>> No.3422556

>>3422443
>schopenhauer
Isn't it time you grew up?

>> No.3422641
File: 32 KB, 299x281, trisomy21b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422641

>>3422556

God it gets old dealing with university kids on this board.

>> No.3422645

>>3422641
>God it gets old dealing with competing ideas.

>> No.3422652

>>3422510
What if you're writing for an audience that appreciates Dickens? It's a long way down from DFW to Dan Brown and shitty pop lit.

>> No.3422658
File: 46 KB, 339x398, Schopenhauer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422658

>>3422645

I don't need to defend someone like him against a no one like you.

>Reading is merely a surrogate for thinking for yourself; it means letting someone else direct your thoughts. Many books, moreover, serve merely to show how many ways there are of being wrong, and how far astray you yourself would go if you followed their guidance. You should read only when your own thoughts dry up, which will of course happen frequently enough even to the best heads; but to banish your own thoughts so as to take up a book is a sin against the holy ghost; it is like deserting untrammeled nature to look at a herbarium or engravings of landscapes.

>> No.3422666

>>3422658
>I don't need to defend someone like him against a no one like you.
Fucking Kevin Smith defense, every time.
>Unless you have done X, you cannot criticize someone else's X.

>> No.3422667

>>3422510
>Imagine that you want a simple, catchy jingle for a children's TV-show and you are submitted an elaborate jazz odyssey that requires a doctorate in music theory to appreciate fully.
Carnival of the Animals? Peter and the Wolf? Not ringing any bells to you? This idea that you have to "talk down" to people, especially children, is dumb as fuck.

>> No.3422676
File: 25 KB, 242x283, influe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422676

>>3422666

Sorry, you're right. I guess all these people should have seen the light like you and grown up.

And for the record, I think there is always an element of humor in the spectacle of a short man trying to swing a blow at the head of a much taller one

>> No.3422681

>>3422658
>I don't need to defend someone like him against a no one like you.
dat ad verecundiam

His premises, within that 'aphorism', don't even match up: reading is a poor assistant to thinking, therefore you should only read when your thinking deteriorates. Maybe if he read more he wouldn't come up with such stupid shit.

>> No.3422684

>>3422676
I'm not critiquing Schopenhauer, but rather your argument form.

>> No.3422686

>>3422681
>reading is a poor assistant to thinking
No, it's a poor replacement for thinking.

>> No.3422689
File: 42 KB, 524x542, 1326001903993.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422689

>>3422681

Not even going to deal with someone with such poor reading comprehension.

>>3422684

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was an argument, seeing as you opening point was essentially HURR STOP BEING A DUMB KID.

Seriously, you've got maybe 10 minutes before I call it a night a turn this off. If you have a point to make then you'd better do so quick. My last fuck is expiring

>> No.3422696
File: 114 KB, 258x283, 1262215670692.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422696

>>3422681

>saying things in latin makes me sound smarter!

>> No.3422698

Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy and the cute. Do not be tempted by a 20 dollar word when there is a ten center handy, read and able.

>> No.3422701

It's cool if you can make it work. McCarthy uses archaic words that nobody understands, but it's okay because he knows how to use them to construct a beautiful sentence. Using big words for the fuck of it is pointless, awkward, and obnoxious. The purpose of writing is to communicate ideas effectively, and verbal wankery doesn't do that.

>> No.3422704

>>3422689
I wasn't arguing with you. I'm pointing out your repeated appeals to authority based on historical relevancy, and how this is a terrible way to construct an argument.

But wait, you're going to ignore reason and continue your hilariously ironic copypasting of Schopenhauer's "anti-reading" rants, which are not only needlessly and baselessly pessimistic, but which you also horribly misunderstand, and whenever somebody calls out your shit, you'll wave around the wikipedia citations of philosophical influence and importance (which I will not deny) as if such a list gave you authority to speak for Schopenhauer, or as if that automatically makes whatever Schopenhauer said correct.
My points have been made, now fuck off to sleep.

>> No.3422705

>>3421420
thread
Why is this shit still going on

>> No.3422707

>>3422696
>referring to things by their proper names is pretentious!

>> No.3422711

>>3422707
>their proper names
Oh man...

>> No.3422714

>>3422676
>a short man trying to swing a blow at the head of a much taller one
I was trying to swing a blow at you, though, brother, not your champion.

>> No.3422718

>>3422686
Fine, there's still no reason to reduce the amount that you read at all.

>> No.3422720
File: 46 KB, 604x454, 1263970861021.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422720

>>3422704

Not really sure what you're on about, as I already said, you gave no indication that this was a serious argument to assert and confirm a definite proposition. Naturally I have not treated it like one.

I really don't understand why everyone here has such a short fuse and feels the need to launch into a rant at the least provocation. You apparently have strong opinions about something; perhaps they could be put to better use elsewhere?

At any rate, my patience is ended. Schopenhauer speaks for himself, I have merely been toying with you for my amusement.

Here's another of those quotes you detest so much to close:

>The law of simplicity and naïveté applies to all fine art, for it is compatible with what is most sublime.True brevity of expression consists in a man only saying what is worth saying, while avoiding all diffuse explanations of things which every one can think out for himself; that is, it consists in his correctly distinguishing between what is necessary and what is superfluous. On the other hand, one should never sacrifice clearness, to say nothing of grammar, for the sake of being brief. To impoverish the expression of a thought, or to obscure or spoil the meaning of a period for the sake of using fewer words shows a lamentable want of judgment.

Sleep tight, faggot

>> No.3422723

>>3421435

Is there a reason for this? Does the book disapprove of words that have multiple meanings like 'set'? I don't understand.

>> No.3422725

>>3422720
wow u rekt me m8
Enjoy going to sleep knowing that you couldn't respond to actual challenges to your god on any basis beyond "NO UR A FAGGOT HE'S SMART."

>> No.3422726

>>3422718
There's perfectly good reason if you're using it as a crutch. Think more, don't try to replace it with rote.

>> No.3422734
File: 26 KB, 755x1255, 463883732.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422734

>>3422720

>> No.3422762
File: 27 KB, 338x344, h38178911.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422762

>>3421431
>As I fell into a slumber, I cogitated about my day ambling through the splendor of the Appalachian Mountains

nigga that is fuckin reatarded

honeslty wtf

using big words is fine when apparioritate. like there are times to do it and times not to. the times not to is generally when u wanna sound cool. but isntead u end up sounding like a fucking faggot

americans do this all the time. americans cant seem to grasp the language so they put in faggot words as i like to call them, to make themselves seeem esducated

and yes i had a couple beers fuck you

>> No.3422766
File: 40 KB, 650x503, 1304230769533.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422766

>>3422762
i wll aslo add that in englush no 2 words mean the same thing. so u mite think ur swappin out a simple word for a more complex one to sound educated but rly u r just sounding like a fucking gay bar loiterer

>> No.3422771 [DELETED] 
File: 23 KB, 230x230, 1357098685050.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422771

>>3422762
>My posture is consciously congruent to the shape of my hard chair.

>> No.3422775

>>3422726
I'm not using it as a crutch, though. I'm reading 20 books at once I actually am reading 20 books at once because it's entertaining.

>> No.3422776

>>3421431
Now do this one:
—Metempsychosis, he said, is what the ancient Greeks called it. They used to believe you could be changed into an animal or a tree, for instance. What they called nymphs, for example.

>> No.3422780

>>3422771
It's a dick joke, though. You're not patrician enough to understand.

>> No.3422781

>>3422775
>because it's entertaining
Entertainment is an opiate of the masses (think about it, if you can).

>> No.3422783

>>3422776
There's nothing wrong with that one. The complex word is the sentence's subject: a completely different scenario.

>> No.3422786

>>3422781
I was being super-uber-ironic, bro. but i am reading twenty books at once

>> No.3422808

People overuse these words and they sound ridiculous. I think you should see them like broadswords, you don't just suddenly start using them, they're two heavy, you can't even pick them up and everyone will roll their eyes at you. You start with modern words and as time goes on and you understand better how to write you can bring out the big guns, once you understand how and when they are used and your writing has the strength to carry them.

>> No.3422812

that pencil drawing is really shit

>> No.3422836
File: 6 KB, 101x85, df.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3422836

oi seriously american faggots l2write

liek use fuckin proper sentences. its called style uy dumb cunts. jesus christ. english isnt egrman stop crying over fucking shit like soem cunt on fb not capitalising every sentence

idiot

>> No.3422874

>>3421435
they are. why say "utilize the ladder" when you can say "use the ladder"?

>> No.3423045

>>3421435
When they're being used individually no, but all together in the same goddamn sentence? That's trying too hard.

>> No.3423050

>>3422698
I just want you to know, I vomited.

>> No.3423082

>>3422874
Haha I was trying to hear people say 'utilize' when trying to sound smart and it reminds me of my business writing class.

>> No.3423087

>>3421412
I'd agree with your textbook. If you write about contemporary society, be coloured by your society. Use the words people use.

Only fools go out of there way not to talk like others.

Why would you go out of your way not to be understood.

>> No.3423097

>>3421412
It's always best to use the simplest word you can. It's all about context and specificity. The only time you'd use "pretty words" (fag) as you call them, are when there is a need for greater specificity than a simpler term.

>> No.3423137

http://personal.stevens.edu/~ysakat/730/paper/simple%20writing.pdf

Food for thought. Also one of the best essay titles I've come across - "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective
of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly"

>> No.3423169

>>3422874
Why not?

In this case utilize is just clumsy and long. But it's not hard.

There is no reason to prefer the simple word over the less known one if you have a reason or simply want to write like that.

Seriously. People treat their public as if they are idiots and then they wonder why they behave like idiots.

Man up, learn to read. It's not hard to open a dictionary. a large vocabulary and variety in language would only do you good.

And the stupidity of today's thinking is also caused by the fact that due to essayist keeping it simple not only any concept of elegance has been forgotten (conflating today elegance with clarity and straightforwardness lol) but also that people are incapable of any sort of more refined, subtle, thinking.

What the op showed is really one of the most pernicious (ha!) advice you could give to your students. Who unfortunately will grow to be tomorrows editors and thus will probably choke some of the best writing of their generation under the weight of their prejudice.

>> No.3423173

>>3421412
>not using pretentious wording.
But Shakespeare...

>> No.3423174

>>3423087
I don't think an author should dumb down their writing for mass appeal.

>> No.3423175

>>3423173
He wrote in verse, it's different. And also lived a very long time ago.

>> No.3423176

>>3423174
I don't think an author should try to sound smarter then they are.

Hint: You don't talk in the contrived way that you most likely write.

>> No.3423182

>>3423175

Shakespeare's english wasn't current even at the time. A lot of the pleasures the masses were getting out of the plays was the aural pleasure of "fancy" words.

So even back then he was a complex author.

>>3423137

In a massive illiterate word there is only scorn for anyone who makes them feel inadequate.

That's why everyone hates on humanities, because it makes them feel ignorant. So the scorn for humanities is just a defense to justify their lack of interest and culture in the subject.

>> No.3423186 [DELETED] 

>>3421412
It's to counter the urges most kids get when writing babbies first paper. There's nothing worse in this world than a verbose 19 year old.

>> No.3423187

>>3423175
>Tis a consummation, devoutly to be wished.
not
>It is an ending to be wished for completely.
He sure didn't use pretentious wording did he?

>> No.3423189

>>3423176
Hint: Written language and spoken language are different things.

>> No.3423193

>>3423182
>he thinks common people read shakespare

MOAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>> No.3423194 [DELETED] 

>>3423193
>read
They went to performances of his plays, idiot.

>> No.3423195

>>3423187
Iambic pentameter, have you heard of it niggah?
There is reason why he wrote it like that.

>> No.3423196

>>3423194
that is his fucking point you idiot

>> No.3423198

>>3423193
>He thinks Shakespeare was read

oh my...

>> No.3423199

>>3423182
>That's why everyone hates on humanities, because it makes them feel ignorant. So the scorn for humanities is just a defense to justify their lack of interest and culture in the subject.

Hahaha. Fucking lol'd. No we hate you because you are of no use at all.

>> No.3423201

>>3423199

We certainly are of use. We make people less dumb.

I mean, if you spent more time with us you yourself would have less dumb opinions.

>> No.3423213

>>3423201
Look where you are. Look at where you are. Look god damn it!

>> No.3423221

>>3423182
>In a massive illiterate word there is only scorn for anyone who makes them feel inadequate.

>That's why everyone hates on humanities, because it makes them feel ignorant. So the scorn for humanities is just a defense to justify their lack of interest and culture in the subject.

Did you not read the paper I linked to, or did you mean to reply to someone else? Because what you wrote has very little relation to my post.

>> No.3423222

>>3423201
Humanities majors are dumb.
Certainly it is important for a man to read the great works of the past but that does not mean that it's a good idea to waste all of your money by getting a degree which won't get you a good job and the content of which could be easily learned by merely reading a book once a fortnight.
In this modern age of the internet and easily accessible information university only serves as a way for potential employers to know for certain what knowledge you possess.

>> No.3423224

>>3422775
>i actually am reading 20 books at once
lel

>> No.3423225

>>3422786
and wow you said it again. HEY GUYS ACKNOWLEDGE ME BOOK AMOUNTS!

>> No.3423228 [DELETED] 

>>3423222
It is thoroughly disturbing how higher education is seen as nothing more than a preparatory mill for work.

>> No.3423232

>>3421435
Even DFW thought utilize was bad, its in Both Flesh and Not. (24 word notes)

>> No.3423250

What about Nabokov? He used so many obscure words, but his prose was incredible

>> No.3423267

>>3423228
Welcome to the real world.

>> No.3423297

>>3423250
It's a stylistic choice for Nabokov. And he's consistent.

>> No.3423345

>>3423267

>Welcome to America

FTFY

It seems like you guys are the only people in the world that don't see education for what it is.

>> No.3423353 [DELETED] 

>>3423267
>>3423345
Yeah. It's not "welcome to the real world", because the idea that education is only useful and worthwhile if it equates to a bigger paycheck is very, very, very, very modern and capitalistic and decadent.

It did not exist 100 years ago, and it is centrally located among declining, capitalistic societies--like America. To say it is the "real world" is a hilarious misunderstanding.

>> No.3423355

>>3423222
I studied in europe and got my education for 4k euros.

Now i do 50k a year as an assistant editor

>> No.3423413

>>3423222
But I'm too dumb to do something with math.

>> No.3423418

>>3421412
Well, Borges used to say the exact same thing.

>> No.3423421

To learn is not to fill your head with stuff, dear "alumni". This "information is everywhere" talk is nonsense.

>> No.3423423 [DELETED] 

>>3423413
It doesn't take smarts to deal with math. It takes ironclad resolve to wade through unending tedium.

Math isn't some magical talent people have or don't have. They tell you how to do it; literally anyone may learn it.

>> No.3423435
File: 23 KB, 921x606, picard-facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3423435

>>3423345
>>3423353

I play a lot of vidya and one of my American mates once said something along the lines of

"I don't know what I want to major in. I love music and painting but there's no money in that".

>mfw

>> No.3423438 [DELETED] 
File: 56 KB, 900x600, hrfgbjheg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3423438

I studied in Europe and made €10k debt with no degree.

Now I do 8k a year as a rakish bohemian.

>> No.3423441

>>3423423

>Math isn't some magical talent people have or don't have.

Are you retarded? Some people have a knack for working with numbers

>> No.3423444 [DELETED] 

>>3423441
Are you retarded? It does not matter if one has a "knack" for it or not. It is easily learned regardless.

>> No.3423445

>>3423444
no.

>> No.3423450

>>3423444

Yep you're retarded. Some people have mathematical logic and others lack it.

Sure, you can be taught the concepts, but if you don't have the natural mathematical logic, you're never going to be better than people with a knack for maths. No matter how hard you work.

>> No.3423451

>>3423444
Math is something that really does require a proper instructor. I had a series of awful math professors in high school that's probably fucked me for life. As much as I want to learn higher-level math, my major doesn't require it, so the best I can do is take online courses and shit through places like Coursera.

>> No.3423456 [DELETED] 

>>3423450
>>3423451
Oh, Jesus. The /lit/ excuse squad is in full formation.

>> No.3423463

>>3423423
The thing that people fail to see, in my opinion, is how much their taste influences this kind of thing.

Some people get a kick out of doing math for god knows what reason, they like to organize stuff or something, I don't know. They will do well, because they are interested.

The rest doesn't give two fucks about it. They will find it extremely hard. Because they don't want to really solve the problems, prove anything, they are not interested, they don't care enough. They are doing it to get through highschool and they give up because they never wanted to get into that from the start.

The same happends for the humanities. The difference is that mathematics is always a foreign language. So the guy who is not interested in the humanities will simply throw "why do I need to know this?" "roman empire is in the past!" "the curtains are fucking blue!"

Of course they don't realize that college level (and up) can get pretty hard to anyone, to those in their own field of interest. So the others don't stand a chance. Mathematicians writing papers and developping ideas they don't want to develop wouldn't survive in a humanities course, they would feel miserable and doing nonsense. The same would happen if you put a literature expert in front of a bunch of numbers for hours on end. Instructions won't help this guy. Meanwhile the mathematician will have no instruction at all. Both lost.

Gladly, we are not black and white and this bipolarity is meaningless.

>> No.3423497 [DELETED] 

>>3423463
That is precisely my point. The point is that math isn't some magical skill some babies are born with and some aren't. My point is that math is goddamn fucking boring to a lot of people.

We don't even have to use a lofty example, like a physicist. We can use a plain one like an accountant. Now, compared to a humanities major, how much more a year do accounting majors make? A lot more, and accountants are always in high demand.

Now, do you really think that there isn't a person alive who doesn't have the skills necessary to be an accountant? Honestly? I'm not talking about an awesome, rockstar accountant. I'm talking about a plain-ass accountant.

So why aren't people just getting accounting degrees? Because it's goddamn boring and nobody really wants to do it, despite the money and job security.

This is the " ironclad resolve to wade through unending tedium" part I was talking about earlier, by the way.

>> No.3423514

>>3423497
DFW's The Pale King deals with this:
“To be, in a word, unborable.... It is the key to modern life. If you are immune to boredom, there is literally nothing you cannot accomplish”

I mostly agree with you, at least if you are not the guy who put Humanities down because they won't lead to a good income that easily.

>> No.3423527

>>3421442
No, OP's right, that does sound like a creative writing counterexample and honestly, it does apply to creative writing too. Not as much though. In creative writing it's more like "if you're going to use fancy words where you could use everyday words, make absolutely sure you know what you're doing".

>> No.3423531

>>3423450
>Sure, you can be taught the concepts, but if you don't have the natural mathematical logic, you're never going to be better than people with a knack for maths. No matter how hard you work.
Lol.

>The rest doesn't give two fucks about it. They will find it extremely hard. Because they don't want to really solve the problems, prove anything, they are not interested, they don't care enough. They are doing it to get through highschool and they give up because they never wanted to get into that from the start.
This is mostly because we are unable to see the beauty of arithmetic and mathematics at first. I, and many of my friends were like this. Everything turned upside down when I read the pre-Socratic philosophers; now I'm hooked ever since. The shitty way of teaching mathematics and geometry is what kills the whole beauty of it. Blame the teachers.

>> No.3423532

>>3421607
Dude, even in the 18th century good writers thought purple prose was fucking stupid.

>> No.3423538

>>3422701
/thread

>> No.3423549

Hey OP, can you give an example of the kind of fancy writing you want to be able to do? Like a sentence example please?

>> No.3423587

>>3423549

>It was the last that remained of a past whose annihilation had not taken place because it was still in a process of annihilation, consuming itself from within, ending at every moment but never ending its ending

>The house became full of love. Aureliano expressed it in poetry that had no beginning or end. He would write it on the harsh pieces of parchment that Melquíades gave him, on the bathroom walls, on the skin of his arms, and in all of it Remedios would appear transfigured: Remedios in the soporific air of two in the afternoon, Remedios in the soft breath of the roses, Remedios in the water-clock secrets of the moths, Remedios in the steaming morning bread, Remedios everywhere and Remedios forever.

>> No.3423602

>>3423587
Gabriels writing works because it is set in a certain age. You'd never get away with that in a contemp. setting.

>> No.3423603

>>3423587
See, that's not quite comparable to the textbook example or what your prof's talking about, I think. The only word in there that could be easily replaced by something simple is "transfigured". Most of the complex words Marquez uses are necessary.

Where it would get stupid would be if he started using "respiration" instead of "breath" or some shit.

>> No.3423610 [DELETED] 

Man, /lit/ is full of some real anti-intellectual slobs. I can picture each and every one of you shying away from a "big word" like an autist's shoulder from a teacher's hand.

Cracks me up that you all pretend to like reading, too.

>> No.3423617 [DELETED] 
File: 20 KB, 298x390, 53.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3423617

>>3423603
>yfw "breath" in Spanish is "respirar" (verb) and "respiración" (noun)

>> No.3423627 [DELETED] 

>>3423610
>why won't they publish my verbose drivel

>> No.3423651

For a simple concept, a simple word ought to always work just fine, shouldn't it?
So you don't need "reside" if you just want to say, for instance, "I live in a small house at the end of a cul-de-sac." And if all you're doing is thinking about hiking, "cogitate" is totally out of place.

But, yeah, for a complex topic, a complex word is often necessary. Somebody used the example of "metempsychosis," and that actually makes since. There isn't any basic equivalent that properly conveys the connotations of "metempsychosis" (e.g., "rebirth" lacks a lot of nuance), and you would certainly be remiss if you were to avoid using that word in an essay about the Greeks.

So your textbook has a point. It's just overstating it.

>> No.3423683

>>3421435

Utilize is an utterly useless word.

>> No.3423713

>>3423683

That's not the point though. It just gave a small set of examples. Like I said, the section on pretentious diction wasn't even half a page. But it made the point that using large and 'confusing' words should always be avoided when there is a non-pretentious alternative

>> No.3423727

Non related, but is this be a good way to learn English grammar?

http://grammar.about.com/

>> No.3424193 [DELETED] 

>>3423683
>calling utilitarianism useism

>> No.3424880

>>3422781
>Entertainment is an opiate of the masses

so young, so edgy

>> No.3424907

>>3423683
>calling utilize useless while using utterly

>> No.3424911

>>3423222
>university only serves as a way for potential employers to know for certain what knowledge you possess.
>employers to know for certain what knowledge you possess.
>know for certain what knowledge you possess.

Boy are those employers in for a surprise. Half the fucking uni graduates can barely tie their shoes without using sparknotes

>> No.3424914

>>3423232
for someone who thought utilize was bad he sure utilized it a lot in IJ

>> No.3425221

>>3424880
About as edgy as anyone else on /lit/. If you want to read your Harry Potter, Twilight, Fifty Shades, Stephen King or some generic fantasy or sci-fi series, no one is stopping you. But reading stuff like that because "it's entertainment" isn't any defense for anyone judging you being an idiot. Especially if one is bragging about reading 20 at a time.

>> No.3426212

>>3423222
>le fortnight face

>> No.3426285

>>3422762
Okay guys completely off-topic post here but I see the same kind of sticker used all the time to cover the apple on apple products. Are they sold for exactly that purpose or something?

>> No.3427883

Someone remove all the pretentious words here and give me a version for simpletons.

>She is hidden from all view by a jointed triptych screen of cream chiffon that glows red and green in the lights of the phone bank and the cueing panel's dials and frames her silhouette

>> No.3428105

>>3427883

impossibru

>> No.3428134

>>3427883
Do you seriously have difficult understanding that sentence?

>> No.3428638

>>3422874
well, utilize and use are actually pretty different words.

to 'utilize' something, you turn it into a tool. ladders are already tools.

honestly even 'use' the ladder would sound awkward in a lot of sentences. probably better is, 'position the ladder' or 'climb the ladder' depending on the situation.

>> No.3428658

>>3421465
People like you, who think good prose is thesaurusing every word of a sentence, really exist.

>> No.3428699

>>3427883
Well jointed is completely superfluous, I guess I'd leave triptych in unless you want to go into length describing what it actually is. The rest of it's just prosing it up