For me, I guess it's kind of how the language flows with the tone of the rest of the story. For an example, without actually having the book next to me to quote, I recently read Krull (Sorry don't know author offhand and it wasn't on Amazon in the 10sec I allowed myself to search, but people who bought the movie also bought Ice Pirates and Flash Gordon 
). It's not a complicated book, it's written like a simple linear fairy tale. And every once in a while he'd throw in these words that I had never heard before. For me, it was like <wrrrgh - record stopping sound>. Ok, useless without a quote from the book, I'll try and remember it tomorrow.
Was it necessary? Do you conciously try to incorporate new language into your writing? Have you ever been jarred out of a story with a word you dind't know or by a word that didn't seem to fit?
edit: Ok, I think everything is spelled right in this post now.
[This message has been edited by Lorien (edited July 15, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Lorien (edited July 15, 2004).]
You must understand that you have two kinds of vocabulary--an active vocabulary, made up of words that you use, and a passive vocabulary, made of up words you know but don't use. (It's like knowing how to both read and speak French as opposed to just knowing how to read French.) The goal, I think, is to increase your active vocabulary as you can. Once a words moves into your active vocabulary, you'll be able to use with without consciously thinking about it.
PS -- But big words aren't necessarily the best words. What's George Orwell's rule? Don't use a big word if a smaller word will do the same job.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited July 15, 2004).]
Joke aside, I read with a dictionary next to me. I can't keep reading when i am not familiar with a word. I don't TRY to use that new word, but I've notice they happen to pop by from time to time.
That said, I do use big words, yes.
(Haven't antidisestablishmentarianism yet)
The only time a long word throws me is when its, either, rhthymically wrong for the sentence, or, at a point where it is impossible from context to figure out what it means.
I have yet to be able to use my favorite word, "alacrity," in a story because it has fallen out of style and now needs a very specific context to work. Alas.
[This message has been edited by Phanto (edited July 15, 2004).]
Flopsy fluttered her eyelids at Peter, "If you show me your scut, I'll show you mine."
Thumper turned to Mopsy, "I'm gonna kick your scut all the way home."
"You bunnies get your scut in this house this very instant," said Mrs. Cottontail
How's that?
quote:
Then there's the question of what's a big word.
Well, perhaps the phrase "big word" isn't a good one. How about difficult or obscure words--words that are not relatively common.
My own thought is that you have to use the best word--the most precise word--you can, whether is common or not. But I think you should always use a more common word if you can. Though I read with a dictionary, that doesn't mean I like to stop to look up the words I don't know.
A problem some writers have is that they focus so much on "expanding" their vocabulary the S.A.T. and G.R.E. way that they don't work on "improving" their vocabulary by striving to master the vernacular.
BTW -- I too like the word alacrity, but my favorite "big word" is officious, which I have been able to employ in my writing (I've used alacrity as well).
You can subscribe by signing on to www.wordsmith.org. It's free. And don't be overly fearful of the ad adendum. Their ads consist of two line mentions of products and the links you can go to to find them. No pictures, no hype. Low key.
Amidst our arms as quiet you shall be As halcyons brooding on a winter sea. --Dryden.
(even though that's Halcyon n. not Halcyon adj.)
I'm done being off topic, thanks.
Still, I think word usage in stories should be equivalent to your actual vocabulary. That isn't to say you shouldn't learn new words, tho... A thesaurus is an excellent resource, especially when you are reusing the same words or phrases over and over again. At that point, it may become a necessity to learn new words -- even "big" words.
I find here in the UK that people have quite an extensive vocabulary -- far greater than the 'average' American. Some of it is cultural words, and others are not. Additionally, being a "wordaholic" and playing more games of online Scrabble per week than any normal human should, I can easily find a use for obscure and big words. But, I don't want my writing to sound pretentious... so I usually won't put in words like "Queachy" when I'm writing... tho' that's a great scrabble word.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited July 16, 2004).]
I ran across something like fifty words that I had to look up in THE WOUNDED LAND (for example) and was rather irritated to find that many of them were obscure and archaic synonyms for simpler and better known words in modern usage.
It seemed to me that he was showing off, and I didn't appreciate that, even though I learned some new words that I felt were worth knowing.
(Rather than stop each time and look the word up in the dictionary, I kept a list which had the word, the page on which it first appeared and whether it was in the top, middle or bottom third of the page--so I could find it and read it in context once I had looked the word up.)
Algis Budrys has suggested that reading works with words that you don't know may be part of what is called "sense of wonder" among science fiction and fantasy readers. He says this is because many such readers started reading books for adults while they were still children and thus experienced many works with words they didn't know. This experience of not knowing all the words may add a kind of mystique to such works, a sense of something more, something beyond knowing, that contributed to the "sense of wonder" and that feeling contributed to an interest in reading more such works.
Maybe Donaldson was writing the way he did in THE WOUNDED LAND because of a similar theory. <shrug>
For example, the word "niggardly."
And I like using the dictionary to look up unfamiliar words while I'm reading-- the 1838 dictionary! 
(But then again, I mostly read the classics...)
*sigh* I guess I'm just old-fashioned...
[This message has been edited by Lullaby Lady (edited July 16, 2004).]
Notwithstanding the obsequious overtures of her mate, the hind flipped her scut at the hart as she leapt into the foliage.
quote:
Notwithstanding the obsequious overtures of her mate, the hind flipped her scut at the hart as she leapt into the foliage.
Sounds like the Discovery Channel to me... nothing wrong with that sentence. 
EX: "You like fish but not Tunafish? That's the most Demuggledited thing I've ever heard!"
quote:
Notwithstanding the obsequious overtures of her mate, the hind flipped her scut at the hart as she leapt into the foliage.
Personally, I like it, but I'm betting the average reader's eyes would glaze over at that one. Say, it really DOES sound rather like Discovery Channel!
Susan
Pyre Dynasty, the age-old question occurred to me again: Why can you tune a piano but you can't tunafish? (I know. Groans all around. )
You folks are so clever, and never cease to amaze me...
You and me baby aint nothin' but mammals so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel...
Just reminded me of the song
You know, homonyms and synonyms can sure be a lot of fun too.
synonym...cinnamon.
Randomness.
O.K. I'll stop now.
WRT Stephen Donaldson, I've only read one of his books ("The Mirror Of Her Dreams"), but didn't find him using archaic words in that (that I noticed). Perhaps he was just trying to set an archaic tone for the book you read?