They seemed clunky to me because Ludlum used descriptively useful but technically incorrect terms--terms that a firearm expert like the main character would never think in--to describe the firearms. For example, the sentence "Bourne slammed the half-empty clip into the handle of the gun. Four shells left, he thought." made me wince. But it also got me thinking--how is jargon or technical language best used is fiction?

If we're hovering somewhere around Bourne's POV, and Bourne is an expert in firearms, he would never think in terms like "clip", "handle of the gun", or "shells." He would think "magazine", "magazine well" (or "butt") and "rounds".

On the other hand, readers might recognize technically inaccurate terms like those used by Ludlum more readily than they would recognize correct jargon. And no rule dictates that raw description has to be colored by the POV.

Use mostly terms that a lay reader will recognize. When talking about technical details, include accurate technical terms in places where its obvious what you are talking about. Ideally, the reader will learn the meaning of the technical word by it's use. The definition they learn will not be exact, but it will be accurate.

In my opinion, this kind of jargon issue is less one of quantity, but more of quality (although too much of a good thing is a bad thing; some of Tom Clancy's books are excellent examples of this, since he can go on for pages about the inner workings of a Mk.65 torpedo warhead...bleh). If your 'jargon' is relative to the plot of the story, doesn't exceed the bounds of reasonable reader knowledge (what you can expect the average reader of your type of story to know), and fits well into the flow of the exposition, keep it in. If at any time it becomes totally unnecessary to the enrichment of the reader's experience, or the relaying of vital information, strongly consider why you've included it in the first place.

This is how I've tried to do it in recent years, though my writing can still lean toward the ponderous side. At least, my military SF does, but that's mainly because military SF is usually saturated with such jargon to begin with. However, I have fought a long battle with using language that's too technical for clear, enjoyable reading. Only recently have I developed a better conscience for such things, I think...and that's mainly due to helpful feedback in F&F. Still, it is a tricky decision to make...especially with more technical genres.

Inkwell
-----------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous

It may also be a deliberate choice on the author's part to make the story more accessible to people who are not in the field. For instance, I wrote a story with a puppeteer in it and simplified some of the jargon or included definitions in my character's thoughts because people outside theater just didn't get it. In a story about touring puppeteers I went from:

quote:

---

Jules was standing next to me, and without speaking headed for the proscenium. We’d been on the road together long enough...

---

quote:

---

Jules was standing next to me, and without speaking we headed for the canvas that made our proscenium arch. The mass of cloth lay on the gym floor, attached to a long wooden batten like a sail waiting for wind. As one, we hoisted it on poles, letting the cloth unfurl and define the front of our stage. We’d been on the road together long enough...

---

I was more troubled by the way he inverts the Bourne's mental and physical actions. I was also a little bothered by an ambiguity arising from that, does he mean four rounds including or in addition to the one in the barrel? "Shells" contributes to that, it implies that he was counting the casings visible to him rather than all the shots he had remaining.

Write for your audience.

You know those futuristic narratives that are supposed to be recorded experiences? I bet they edit those.

I think it's the trick of finding that perfect balance. If the jargon is self-explanatory from the context, there's no reason why not to use it, especially if it adds to characterisation. If adding a word or two of explanation is enough and doesn't break up the flow, use it. If you're going to need a line or more to explain your jargon, it's probably not worth the effort even if it would be in character.

I think the issue, as is common, is making the author disappear as much as possible, which implies striking a balance.

The best thing I ever wrote -- not saying much, true -- was a story about a skilled woodworker. (I'm trying to strike a balance here, too: he'd probably consider himself a "cabinetmaker", even though he doesn't actually make many cabinets.) For me to disappear from the writing, I had to use the terms that a real-life skilled woodworker (or at least someone who watches too much _New Yankee Workshop_) would perceive as telling details that made this character a known entity to him. Planes, plane irons, backsaws, dadoes, fixtures, things of that sort.

But it had to be done in a way that wouldn't confuse people who _don't_ know woodworking, so I used them in a context that showed dedication to craft, and avoided them otherwise. Someone who doesn't know a fixture from a jig would still be able to know that he was using them to achieve exceptional precision.

I don't know how well I hit the mark, but I think it was a good mark to shoot for.