...don't make you a better writer. Seriously.

This is not even a case of purple, flowery prose. It's like a whole garden of ultra-violet thesaurus abuse. I would show an example, but that'd be mean. But... uggh. And the fact that the members are all over themselves, saying how "beautiful" it is... Gag me, please. I would liken him to Dickens, but 1] Dickens was being paid by the word, and 2] Dickens is understandable. This is... WOW. You'd have to see it to understand. Whoo-boy.

Oh, and if you hate how the site is run, leave. It's not even a matter of "The admin was being unfair and was ignoring me!" or something like that. If it's something like, "I don't want to use a PB" or "I don't want to fill out this part of the application"... That is standard fare for RPs these days, but there are also plenty of boards who will cater to your needs. Making a fuss and making underhanded comments at the administration is not gonna work out for you.

Agreed. I'm tired of seeing writers pump their writing samples up with an adjective before each noun with a lengthy or obscure word. No, it doesn't make you sound neither brilliant nor poetic. Seriously, it's irritating and does not make you a better writer. All I can read as I scan the piece of writing are the adjectives before each noun and it kind of makes me laugh a bit to be honest. :p

Ugh, I hate thesaurus abuse. I knew an RPer who'd do that, and she'd end up using the completely wrong word for her character, showing that she had no idea what the word meant.

It was a case of "you keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means" (or whatever the direct quote from Princess Bride is - I can't think of it off the top of my head).

Seriously. Neolithic != what you think it means.

I hate purple prose, and I really hate ultraviolet prose.

Amen. I used to know this guy in school who actually spoke with giant words (yes he was some sort of genius I think) and the rest of us would be scratching our heads trying to figure it out two minutes later.

If you know big words, fine. Use them. Otherwise, stop abusing the poor thesaurus.

Sometimes I get stuck and can't think of different synonyms to make my writing not sound painfully redundant but when I click on the thesaurus I use words I already know the definition of, or I look at the definition to make sure I'm using it right. I hate how people love to fluff up their writing and act pompous. We used to have a guy like that at our school (he sort of disappeared) that would use these overly elaborate words and make giant speeches. Gah, it was worst to listen to him than the teacher.

I don't know what purple prose is, though...

Purple prose is just a term used to describe writing that's redundant, unnecessary, fluffed up, etc. Ultraviolet prose would be my term used to describe prose that went beyond purple, haha.

To add to my rant... Get rid of your ego. It's a game, for goodness sake.

I love purple prose. I use it all the time; it's my favorite.

Just kidding. Bleh.

Thesarus rapists are so bloody aggravating. Not to speak of completely transparent. The writing is so urple it would light up in blacklight. If they only could look the words up in a dictionary, they would be fine, and would not leave the rest of us with rapidly thinning hair.

I don’t know if they still use SAT words in high school anymore, since I have been out for years. But when I read threads by certain people, it reminds me of those SAT words.

These aren't even SAT words, per se; at least, I'm familiar with msot of them, and while I admit I have a pretty large vocabulary because I read a lot, I wasn't familiar with the majority of the SAT words I had on my test, haha. It's just... this person uses big words that people might use in everyday conversation; the difference is that you don't use them all in one sentence.

The bad thing is, he'd be a good member if it was easier to understand him. But when I told him that (in a more diplomatic manner, or so I thought), he got insulted and left. Oh well.

I agree with Ariana. It's ok to include big words in your posts if you already know them, and they actually fit. Going thesaurus crazy, on the other hand, can get utterly ridiculous.

Oh and for us non-Americans, what are SAT words?

The SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) is basically similar to a college entrance Exam. It is one of two tests that you can take. (the other being the ACT, which is given more frequently in schools because the SAT is believed to be culturally biased)

The SAT is said to be the more difficult of the two, which is another reason why some schools don't give it, in lieu of the ACT. The SAT usually has several parts, being Math, English, Writing, etc. (If I recall corrently - I only took the practice SAT)

Except back in my day, we only had math and reading on the SAT. Needless to say, I didn't do well. Then you take Math, Writing and one other subject of your choice in the SAT II.

SAT words are vocabulary words that you should have learned sometime in your high school career. Basically, they're "hard" words that should not be difficult if you're at a college-level in terms of reading and vocabulary. But it doesn't necessarily test you on knowledge of the definition, rather reading comprehension, as I did very well on my reading and writing portions of the SAT because of the context clues, not because I remembered words I learned back in freshman year. XD

And the SAT II is not required; people usually take it if the college they're applying to requires it (highly competitive schools usually ask for SAT II scores).

I hate epithets. You know, using every descriptive under the sun for characters who have names. What's wrong with perfectly good pronouns and names?

'The blonde stared at the Cajun thief in astonishment, the German acrobat shook his head sadly.

"What's wrong?" The Southern Bell ask the lanky mutant, as the green haired vixen glared at the lesser mutants.'

Seriously.

NAMES.

On that note, a personal pet peeve of mine is when people stare at me with their "orbs". (cool)

If it's a man, just assume in your post they're staring at you with their testicles. If it's a woman, gaze right back at her other, 'orbs'

But that's just me having a bit o' fun.

I'm all for a bit of the ol' vocabulary. I don't mind it if I come across words I don't know. It's good for me; I learn. I even have a list of words I want to use that I come across in other people's posts or in the books I read. Yes I know, I am a dork.

I don't even mind if someone is making me do a bit of work and doing a bit more looking up than I'd usually do--it's good for me. However, I'm in full support of lynching any and all people who abuse language to the point where I'm having to look up every other word. It's unnecessary and far from a joy to read. If their usual RP partner doesn't mind, then that's fine, but when they play with me, I expect them to dumb it down just so I can enjoy what I'm reading. Enjoyment is paramount and I think it takes time for us to get to know the people we RP with--test the boundaries, see what they like and what they don't but please don't torture us all in equal measure!

Heh. That made me laugh. I do that sometimes but usually that's when I feel like I've said their names and he/she waaaay too many times and I hate having my writing sound redundant. I don't take it to such an extreme as your example though... but more along the lines of "the young woman" or something like that. I also cannot use someone's name in my post until our characters have formally introduced themselves... It's really weird.

Yeah, I find it really weird when people use words like "orbs" or even worst "glassy orbs of ocean blue" to describe their character's eyes. First off, they are called eyes and second, nobody really refers to their eyes and eyeballs, which is what orb means, right?

"Her eyeballs were so beautiful."

I do that too. I mix in "the businessman" and such between my names and pronouns. It keeps the redundancy down. I also refuse to use the character's name until it's been given to my character. I don't think it's weird at all, realistic actually.

As for all the poetic prose, that just kills the thread for me. No one talks like that so why would someone describe a character they're trying to make as real as possible in that manner. I could never write that way myself even if I tried.

I saw the "orbs" things, and now you get to see a general idea of my perverted mind.

Orbs -> Balls -> AC/DC Song "Big Balls."

Yeah... My mind is in the gutter for serious today.

In all seriousness, I agree with you in principle, but I think you're being a bit harsh [needlessly].

Yes, people abuse the thesaurus, which I think is despicable. One of the most lasting things I ever learned in English was that the thesaurus is "dangerous." Too often the thesaurus spits out words that have similar denotation, but a completely different connotation. If you don't know the usage of a word, it shows.

That said, if someone genuinely has precise usage of language, and their use of "big words" is actual more direct and concise than the alternative, then let them use the damn big word. Complaining about big words is one of the most annoying things I've come across. For heaven's sake, you're on the internet, you have this lovely tool called "Google" (a multibillion dollar conglomerate that is taking over the world, but I digress) that can find you the definition of a word within seconds. I have no problem with the accurate and proper use of a big word.

And on second though, what the hell is a "big" word, anyway? Is there a certain number of syllables or letters or phonemes or morphemes that a word has to have before it qualifies as "large"? Would synaptic be large because it has one more syllable than synapse? Would "malar," even though it is rarely used, not be a "big" word because it's only 5 letters?

As for "orbs":

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orb

2. the eyeball or eye: He looks with blind orbs on an indifferent world.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/orb

4: eye

Anyone who uses "orb" to reference the eye is, in fact -gasp-, using the word correctly (shocking, I know).

And for Dickens, he wasn't paid by the word: http://dickens.ucsc.edu/chronology/bytheword.html

From Encarta:

No publisher in his right mind would pay by the word. It is impractical economically, and in the literary sense, it's a great way to get flayed alive by even the most charitable of critics. Also, if Dickens WERE paid by the word, it would be in his best interest not to write large words. Consider this:

"If I were paid by the word, I could use a lot of tiny words to get the most pay out of a very small sum of text. The lines I write take up small space on the page, but this text has a lot of words. I will laugh all the way to the bank."

This passage has a very large word-to-page space ratio, and Dickens would make more money if he wrote like this. The preceding paragraph is extremely roundabout, and no word has more than 5 letters. There are certainly no "big" words in that excerpt, but if I wrote consistently in that format throughout the entire post, it would be terribly annoying and circumlocutory. It would be much simpler to say something like so:

"To maximize profits when paid by the word, I should strictly overuse small and meaningless syntax."

The second sentence is at least as descriptive and informative as the first, and [unless you were attempting to convey a specific purpose with the former] the better example of writing.

O hay, old thread!

That was the thing; his word choice was not direct or concise. I really have no idea how to explain his writing without an example. But I will not subject myself to copying his style, and posting his work is a no-no. I suppose you'll have to take my word for it. :p

As for the term "big words"... Obviously the amount of syllables and such has nothing to do with the frequency of use or its complexity or whatever; everyone else understood that I meant it in more of a general, joking manner, so don't take it too seriously.

Oh, and thanks for the research on Dickens. My Sophomore Eng. teacher is a liar. My life is in shambles. :( ... No, really; I'll be sure to remember that.

Never once did I *gasp* say that using orb in that way was wrong. I just said it was a pet peeve of mine because it was overly poetic. They are of course, free to use it. I just don't have to like it even if it is used correctly.

Kind of like when people refer to their hair as "tendrils of silk" and fingers as "digits." For the sake of variety, it's okay once in a while, but to continuously call them such frilly things... I get what you mean. XD Actually, I have no problem with digits and metaphors for hair; orbs bugs me though, because it brings me back to my bad LOTR RP days.

I wasn't addressing you in particular, per se. However, it is, distinctly, a definition of the word. In fact, the medical definition of "orbit" is the eye socket (e.g. orbital process). Etymologically speaking, "orb" is a closer derivative referring to the anatomical eyes than "eye" is.

There are certainly some cases where buzz words are used to mean something "poetically," but orbs for eyes is certainly not one of them. In that respect, neither is "digit." Digit comes from "digitus," which means 'finger' in Latin. In fact, law students are taught to use words like "digit" in their drafts.

If you want to talk about the phenomenon where Germanic words sound more crude and Latinate words seem more ornate, then that's an entirely different matter. The most obvious example would be "shit" versus "defecate." They mean exactly the same thing, but the former is derived from German and the latter is derived from Latin. Which one sounds more formal to you?

The same is true with finger vs digit; Finger is German, and digit is Latin.

They have their different purposes. For example, in a legal document, if you use "shit" instead of "defecate," you'd be obscene. If you were having a casual conversation amongst close friends, if you said "defecate," you'd be absurdly pedantic.

Neither usage of the word should be laughed at, because they both produced the same meaning but with slightly different implications. If I were to play a stiff, upper class character, I would certainly be willing to substitute digit for finger and orbs for eyes on a regular basis. In fact, not doing so would arguably be missing out on a good chance to take advantage of said connotations.

Hair as "tendrils of silk" is just a completely different beast altogether. Hair is 1 word; "tendrils of silk" is a 3 word phrase that only moderately makes any sense. If you say "hair," everyone knows exactly what you are referring to. On the other hand, "tendrils of silk" is vague and abstract and adds weightiness to any sentence. If you're replacing 1 word with 3, you better have a damn good reason why you are sacrificing clarity and concision for whatever purpose you're trying to achieve.

I'm not. :p

I thought the picture would be enough to tell you that I'm not taking any part of this thread seriously.

But that said, "big" words seems like the thing little kids complain about in school because they haven't learned about it yet in English class. If you're a writer or linguist by hobby/trade, it loses all its intrinsic meaning. All words in the English language has some meaning, and each has a slightly different nuance.

As I previously asked, what would you even consider a big word? I bet a "big" word for me may be completely different than a 'big" word for my neighbor, and vice versa. It's hard for me to give you a serious answer if you're leaving the parameters as vague as they are.

Wow. See, the thing is, Aleph, that I doubt most people who like to constantly use the words 'orb' and other uncommon words actually know they are more technically correct. They probably feel as I do: I don't care! It makes writing more 'pretty' if you use more 'interesting' words.

Anyway, how often do people describe their entire eyeball? If you're describing what someone's eyes look like you describe the colour of the iris and, if there's anything special about it, you describe the pupil. Very rarely would you start talking about their sclera or other parts of the eye.

That would make orb technically incorrect, wouldn't it, if the user simply meant the iris? Yeah, they could say 'iris', but they could say 'eye' and we'd know what they were talking about. When they say 'orb' we now think they are saying their whole eyeball is cerulean.

I think, that as someone who seems to take more of an interest in the technical side of what words mean you should be more bothered than any of the rest of us by the incorrect of words, because it's easy to tell when someone is using a word out of context or, as you said before, they use the word which has the wrong connotations.

I doubt there is a correct term for what we are complaining about because each person has a slightly different view and may be complaining about different things - or even the same person might be talking about different problems with words.

I would say 'big' is the wrong term for words which are just put in because they sound more impressive because they aren't necessarily long words. Perhaps unnecessary. Or superfluous. But either way, not many people notice the word 'said' when they are reading dialogue. The author doesn't need to replace every instance of 'said' with different words, because they will end up running out of words which have the correct connotations. And so the same with descriptions of hair, mouths, eyes or anything else. They aren't going to get lynched because they call eyes eyes, but they may if they call them 'orbs' or any other replacement continually when everyone can tell they have no idea what the words actually mean.

Whew. That was fun. I apologise if I didn't make sense - I tend to lose focus when I write a lot.

Most people also know what you're talking about if you say "orb" since it's such a popular "synonym" nowadays. Using "eye" doesn't specify anymore than using "orb" does, and so both could be used interchangably to mean the iris, or any other part of the eye. I think most people just use common sense and work out that "orb" refers to the iris and not the eyeball.

Same difference, isn't it?. >.<

OhmiGOD I hated doing this when we wrote stories at school. We were forbidden to use "said" more than once in a paragraph, just to improve the vocabulary...now I use "said" more than anything else and tag an adverb on the end. My English teachers would be turning in their graves if they were dead. XD

True, but it doesn't make the usage any more incorrect. Like anything, you can abuse the crap out of a word until it loses any of its rich meaning, but much of the backlash I see in this thread against "orb" seems to be unfounded.

Not exactly. Orbital refers to the entire eye. Orb in itself can be used to refer to the iris alone or the eye in general.

To be completely technical, "eye" would also be incorrect by your definition, because the pupil is but one feature within the entirety of the "eye" structure. If you say, "OUCH, that MF'er poked me in the eye," you aren't exactly saying "that guy poked me in the anterior chamber." If you say that you have "cerulean eyes," I would assume that you mean that the iris alone is cerulean. If it was the entire eye, I would be a little concerned....

In functional English, there is no difference between "orbs" and "eyes."

I am. I just wanted to clarify that "orbs" or "digits" as substitutes for eyes or fingers is not incorrect.

I think the root of the problem is that a lot of authors, particularly authors of purple, trashy bodice rippers tend to stick in a bunch of euphemisms and ornate metaphors that really don't add anything to the work, but instead just makes the sentence sound overdramatized.

But again, as I said, you can overuse any word or phrase until it no longer carries any meaning, but I'm not the person that lets the indiscretions of a few ruin the language for the the masses.

If it's superfluous, it's unnecessary. ;)

Right there, I could accuse you of abusing "big words." But again, it's trivial. I'm certainly not going to throw a hissy fit and rant about it.

And that's precisely what I mean. I think the original poster may be a tad harsh. I obviously don't have the excerpt of this so-called "terrible writer" in front of me, so I can't review his body of work. But on the flip side, if I went through everyone's posts with a fine tooth comb, I'm sure I could find a hundred places for improvement, and 200 for my own.

I also feel that "big words" here is being scapegoated. A "small" word can be just as superfluous and abstract as a big word. It can just as easily be out of place, misused, or abused. A good writer minimizes these instances, regardless of the number of phonemes are in a word. I ask what people define as a "big" word, because I think it's easy to look at words that we don't understand and pin all of our frustration on those few words, but too often it's the smaller, everyday words that trip up a piece of work.

Consider:

"absolutely essential."

Neither would or should be considered a "big" word. But this statement is redundant. Essential is already an absolute (all or nothing) modifier. A sentence with this phrase is pleonastic.

"advanced warning," or "forewarn."

Again, I fail to see how it's physically or logically possible to "warn" about something after the fact. The definition of the word "warn" precludes any need for 'advanced' or 'prior' modifier.

"and also."

I'm guilty of using this as a force of habit. But it's still completely redundant. Either one does the trick just fine.

"completely surrounded."

I can't imagine how someone can be "partially" "surrounded."

"He clenched his teeth tightly."

Is it possible to clench your teeth lightly? What part of "clench" needs an adverb?

"end result."

I've never seen results come at the beginning.

"might possibly."

Both words say the same damn thing.

"smooth to the touch."

How else is something smooth? I can't "hear" smoothness.

"few in number."

As opposed to few in something else?

"plan ahead."

Well, I sure can't plan behind.

"arrive on the scene."

Where else are they arriving?

"complete opposite."

I don't know how it's possible to be a "partial opposite."

And I can go on. English is readily butchered as it is, "big words" or not. It's easy to pin bad usage on vocabulary words that you don't understand (because of "thesaurus rape"), but this is, at best, only one element of the equation. I can show plenty of examples where someone rapes the English language without sexually assaulting a thesaurus.

And guess what? The usage (and potential misuse) of these 'big words' often pale in comparison to the smaller things. For example, most RPers I've seen tend to abuse words like "slightly." Which I find very odd, because "slightly" honestly doesn't tell you much.

"She grimaced slightly."
"She nodded slightly."
"She laughed slightly."

My god, if she does everything slightly, you may need to consider using different verbs altogether. Use a "big word" if you have to so you don't keep repeating some generic verb with a nondescript adjective.

No, they aren't going to get lynched. But if you're dedicating a paragraph to talk about eyes, it can become distracting if every sentence makes two references to 'eyes.' I can see, simply for rhetorical purposes, why someone would want to change it up.

Certainly there's a line in the sand that you don't cross, but I think it's marked enough. Occasionally substituting "orb" for "eye" is just fine. Using "endlessly scintillating oculus of blue" is going too far.


As for "said," that's another matter. I'm one of the biggest proponents of not needing anything other than said, actually. In fact, some of the greatest lines of dialogue did not have any accompanying narrative. Why should the narration say "he asked" if the sentence clearly ends in a question mark? Why should it be "he exclaimed" if it ends in an exclamation point?

Besides, good dialogue doesn't need any adjoining clause. I think Hamlet is just fine with just the screenplay.

Don't worry about it. It's a pleasure, really.

*grins* Heh heh heh, random note, but "slightly" is a word I've banished from my written vocabulary. I started noticing I abused it, realized how stupid it was and got twitchy over it, and have sense eradicated it from my writing. Well...I've eradicated a lot from my writing, lately. XD

The "slightly" thing now makes me twitchy when I see other people using it. Gaaah! Use more definite sentence structures! Make them actually do it, instead of just kinda half-arsing it. XD The word "slightly" makes me imagine the character as not really doing anything fully, if that makes any sense. *twitch*

Oh, I'm a tutor and mentor for fifth graders two hours a day -- I know how they like to complain about "big words." XD As I said, I was joking; I also stated earlier that I understood the meaning of every word he used, but when he used them all at once, it sounded cumbersome. So, it's not the words individually, it's just that used together it made everything much more complex than needed... I don't know if this will help get my point across, but it's like these assignments we have to do for English. We have to use our 40 vocabulary words in a story. Everyone knows the meaning of the vocabulary words, but used in the middle of normal, everyday speech or in common subject matter, it sounds silly.

That's an excerpt of one of my English assignments. Of course, some people probably do use words like peccadillo and casuistry in everyday speech... But hopefully you see what I mean. And to clarify, this is nothing like his writing; you could clearly understand most of what I was saying just by context clues. His writing was almost undecipherable. For example, when he was describing his character's eyes, if the passage had not been under the "eyes" section, I probably wouldn't have known what the hell he was writing about.

Rhi-Rhi: I use slightly rather often as well, but usually when the action is half-hearted... Like, "she smiled slighty" or "he shifted over slightly." What I hate seeing a lot of is "softly," as in, "he smiled softly" and "he laughed softly" and "he looked at her softly." I've RPed with people who use that word as if it's the only adjective in the world -- quite annoying!

I don't like using synonyms of said. I believe dialogue should speak (lol) for itself. However, I don't like repeating the word said over and over, but if your characters have strong personalities then the reader should be able to work out who is speaking. For example, you have a pompous royal girl and a profane male speaking together, can you guess who said this?

"Your castle is shit."

Now, not necessarily the best example, but anyway. As well as that, do I need to say how he said it? Do I need to say he said it jokingly or he humorously quoted it. Maybe, because it could go either way in this case. But saying that is kind of... well not needed if you added something about him laughing afterwards, which is a lot more descriptive then how he said it. It implies he said it with the intention of humour and he actually found it amusing.

Then again, it depends who you are writing for. If you look at one of Stephen Kings books, you'll find the word said ending more then 90% of the dialogue that is ended with said or a synonym or anything. That's because he writes for adults who probably know the difference between his characters that have strong personality, and his dialogue is amazing. You just know how they said it just from how he words it.

Open someone like Lloyd Alexander who's books are directed at 8-15 year olds or thereabouts, and he will do the opposite. Many descriptive words after his dialogue. Now, I prefer Stephen King's style when it comes to dialogue but a lot of people prefer the opposite.

Anyway, I'm delving too far into this. Basically, to conclude everything above into one quick read: well written dialogue doesn't need these amazingly descriptive words.

Just my opinion really, many prefer the other way.

Anyway, back to the topic, I don't see why you'd hate the word 'orb' if you know they're talking about. It's just another word. Now if I called a box 'a locket of unknown treasures within' or something of the sort everyone would think I'm talking about a locket. If you know they're talking about eyes, I don't see the problem.

Edit: Didn't notice this was so old. I wonder why it got posted in again *shrugs*.

In all honesty here, I believe that big words should be used at times. Those who know how to use them well in a sentence deserve some credit.

I agree. With the debate earlier about how people are using the "correct" words, there's a point where using a word may not be incorrect, but it may be inappropriate. Sure you can use orb to mean eye and not be wrong, but if I were to keep referring to my character's eyes as "crystalline blue orbs" (as orbs are never left on their own in writing I have seen), I'll be seen to be, well, thesaurus happy.

"Big" words help make things interesting, and exchanging one or two basic words for a slightly richer counterpart can liven up some writing. But there is a point where all one cannot see what is written for the fancy words. Bad attempt at a "can't see the forest for the trees" there. <_<

A person who knows how to use big words "well", in my eyes (not orbs :p), is someone who knows what the word actually means and who also knows when it is appropriate to use it.

In all honesty, orb for eye is neither incorrect or inappropriate. I would say it's one of the words that gets a bad reputation because of its prevalence in bodice rippers. It is very much a word that gets overused by kids who want to express every intimate detail about ones eyes but lack the vocabulary to do it with any amount of grace.

In my opinion, "softly" is a more descriptive modifier than "slightly." I can see where both are abused, but slightly really tells you next to nothing. It makes action more passive and abstract, and that's something you definitely don't want in your writing.

If your character is half-heartedly smiling, you should use some other verb or modifier that fits the situation. You could say, for example, "she smiled politely" to imply that it isn't as genuine or effusive as a normal smile, but rather out of a sense of obligation. Or "she grinned graciously" to state that your character smiled without breaking into laughter. Or "she simpered weakly" to indicate a self-conscious, evasive beaming.

There are hundreds of words and phrases you can use instead of the nondescript adverb, "slightly."

Roger that.

True to some extent. Orbs can stand alone, but too many people choose to accompany it with needless adjectives. I'd argue that adjective abuse is the root of the problem, not the word itself. The same I would say for "locks" (for hair). Both words are perfectly acceptable substitutes, but they often suffer from adjectival abuse when they are perfectly capable of standing alone. The result is that they appear needlessly and overly poetic.

Both Lici and Aleph, when I said unnecessary or superfluous I was offering two different words for the same thing. I know they mean the same. I just love to say and write 'superfluous'. And I believe that using 'superfluous' is not using a 'big word' because the definition of it being 'excessive' was exactly what I wanted - therefore it had the correct connotations. I suppose I could've taken unnecessary out, but as I said I'm a fan of rambly writing.

I'm not sure if I wrote this before, but Aleph, the problem is that probably 99% of people who use the word 'orb' to describe eyes also uses other words to describe it which are really excessive and are not needed for the desription. The same goes with other words which are in place of more common words - like digit. They are not going to say 'she prodded him with a digit' they are going to write 'she prodded him with a long, slender, perfectly manicured digit'. With more fancy writing because for some reason whenever I write examples I can't think of any synonyms for words at all.

'She grinned graciously?' To me that is an oxymoron. It's probably technically correct but its 'feeling' to me is that a grin is a big, wide, pretty ungracious smile. 'She grinned enthusiastically' would work for me.

That could be our major difference. I work off what words feel like to me and that's how I decide whether to use a word or not.

Basically, Sunday stated why I don't like seeing orb being used. If someone came up to me outside of the internet and said " My orbs hurt," I would probably be surprised. I'd call the word antiquated but I'm not sure it was ever used in that sense. Many people want to be as "realistic" as possible with their characters but they choose to use a word which is not contemporary. I wouldn't mind in high fantasy but it seems needlessly "artsy" anywhere else.

That "softly" stuff is annoying. I don't mind big words, I tend to use them a lot myself but thats because I know what they mean. I've had people on Xanga RP constantly use "softly", its cute sometimes, sometimes it's appropriate, other times its just plain aggravating to be reading something full of the word "softly". ... yeah... :x

Haha, yeah, I used to abuse softly a lot, as well, and have also stopped doing that. ^^;; I still use it, but only when appropriate.

I also dislike the word "orb" a lot. I know it really means eye, but I hate it. No one ever uses the word "orb" for eyes in everyday speaking or in published works aside from those trashy purple prose novels. Generally when I see orbs used it's something like "her eyes were green with flecks of gold within the orbs, blah blah blah..." or...something like that. That's bearable. Or when eyes are compared to orbs, that's fine by me. But "she rolled her orbs"...ahaha, yeah, that makes me go wtf.

It's kind of like words like "thee", "thou" and all that. Yes, they're real words and appropriate. But they're antiquated and obscure. People don't talk like that anymore, people don't write like that anymore (unless the story takes place in the appropriate time period), so while the words can still be used correctly today...that doesn't make it any less out of place and just...weird.

There's nothing wrong with just good ol' "eyes", and I say if you (general you) need to use alternate words for eyes so it doesn't get repetitive...the word "eyes" is probably being used too much to begin with.

If they said "she prodded him with a long, slender, perfectly-manicured finger" it would still be just as bad.

Adjectival abuse will kill any paragraph. Some writers walk a fine line.

If you believe that grinning is a big, wide, ungracious smile, then grinning enthusiastically would be redundant. ;)

Want me to be honest?

Here's a challenge. Take a recorder, and record a typical conversation. Play it back, and write down, word for word, sound for sound, glottal stop for glottal stop, what happens. You'll see a garble of half-finished sentences, half-assed thoughts, and a slew of verbal diarrhea that would look absolutely ridiculous on a page.

Most everyone tells you that writing dialogue requires some liberties with organization. One of the first things they'll teach you in journalism school is how to transcribe speech into quotable lines.

Secondly, who says anything about using the word in speech? Most people don't say half of the adjectives used in a forum post in common speech. If you listen to me when I talk, you'll hear a bunch of derivatives of four letter words that would make my grandmother blush, slang from six different regions of the world, and sprinkled vocabulary mixed in from 3 different languages. When I type/transcribe it into presentable form, I tend to clean it up.

To be completely fair, orbs aren't "antiquated." They were hardly ever in the mode for speech. You could go back to Christopher Marlowe or Chaucer and people wouldn't call 'eyes' 'orbs' in dialect. However, it is, without any doubt, a perfectly acceptable substitute in narrative language. I tend to stray away from them, but I'd rather see you write "orbs" than repeat "eyes" six times in a paragraph.

This is a fair assessment. But this is more because "rolling [her] eyes" has become an idiomatic expression expressing frustration or annoyance. Breaking up idioms is going to be bad, regardless of the word.

I wouldn't change the expression "there's more than one way to skin a cat" to "there's more than one way to skin a dog," even though dog is perfectly acceptable in both colloquial and formal speech. At the same time, anyone who says, "I'm going to walk my canine" is going to sound pedantic, even if canine is acceptable in other contexts.

A different matter entirely. "Thee" and "thou" predated New English and went out of style centuries ago. "Orb" is New English and still used in colloquial language, of which 'eye' is a perfectly acceptable definition.

I think we can all agree that the people who tend to abuse 'orb' are people who tend to dramatize their writing to the point of near absurdity, but what I'm saying is the backlash against the word itself is unwarranted. The word is perfectly fine; the people who use it sometimes need to have their head examined.

By this mantra, there is nothing wrong with any word in the English language. Writers should drop confounding uses of synonyms (often with different etymological origins) completely. The fact of the matter is that English, perhaps uniquely, is an amalgamation of half a dozen languages. And it's precisely this rich and varied vocabulary that makes it so malleable and great.

As expected, there is a downside to this level of expressiveness and versatility. The usage can be disastrous in the wrong or incapable hands.

Speaking of antiquated, anyone who uses semicolons or colons can find themselves coming off as too "dated" too. However, I think both forms of punctuation have tremendous potential within written language, and would encourage their use—within moderation, of course.

*is a semicolon abuser, unfortunately*

I use semicolons a lot more then other people but whatever. I hardly ever use colon because there are very few instances where they are needed, but look wonderful on profile templates!

I know my conversations would always be the same "I hate this political party because blah blah blah" or some sort of four lettered word repeated several times with the suffix "ing" after it many times. Not very stylish at all.

I don't have a problem with the word orb, but I think it's used by several writers because the word eyes looks very redundant when repeated often. Orbs looks less so. Just my opinion really, but I'd rather see a sentence describing "orbs" then one describing "eyes". I don't think either beg much description, but whatever floats those writer's boat. They enjoy it, so I guess that's all that matters.