# World building and Suspension of Disbelief



## valiant12 (Sep 1, 2017)

What break your suspension of disbelief ?

What do you think about using "modern" words in pre modern worlds?
What do you think about anachronisms ?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 1, 2017)

Modern words don't bother me unless there is some specific reason for it to (e.g. it's a reference to modern tech or a brand or something that doesn't exist in the fantasy world).

Anachronisms--case by case basis. Does it make sense within the context of the fantasy world?


----------



## pmmg (Sep 1, 2017)

Modern words bother me. I do notice them and think they should be edited out.

I recently read the sword of shannara, and there is a bit of that in there. I chalk it up to maybe Mr. Brooks was not quite his most veteran writer self when he wrote it.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 1, 2017)

pmmg said:


> Modern words bother me. I do notice them and think they should be edited out.
> 
> I recently read the sword of shannara, and there is a bit of that in there. I chalk it up to maybe Mr. Brooks was not quite his most veteran writer self when he wrote it.



There is a good story reason for it in Shannara.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 1, 2017)

I've found the argument against modern language to be a bit ill-considered, in a great many cases. The reason being one is already reading a work set in a world where English never existed. In books set in such worlds, the dialogue is ostensibly being translated to modern 21st century English, and in some cases the entire narrative is. So there is no reason whatever (apart from stylistic preference) that the dialogue shouldn't include modern equivalents of whatever concepts or sayings are being presented.


----------



## pmmg (Sep 1, 2017)

With some understanding that things must be translated into a form a current reader would understand, I do feel there is room to say, they did not really say things that way, but I had in having to translate it, it is a close approximation. But I will have to stand by my comments above. Use of non-period words will very likely take me away from the story.

"Did you notice the princess today?" says 12th century stable boy

"Yes, couldn't you feel the electricity between us?" says young squire.

Electricity would stand out to me as something that neither character would know of or anything about. I would flag it if I was editing.

There are other things along these lines I find I also come to wrestle with. Earth for one. Does a bird shot on mars fall to earth? or does it fall to mars? As earth is a word for dirt, it could sneak its way in there, but if a planet has a name, I suspect it should get used. Greek fire? Could their be Greek Fire if there is no Greece?


Ah, and your comment does remind me that Shannara was supposed to be some future world where everything had reverted back to some form of pre-gunpowder days, but that did not save it for me. I found myself often questioning the language of the main characters and the narration. But in fairness, I found myself questioning a lot more about that book as well.


----------



## claramcalister (Sep 1, 2017)

I'm mixed, personally.

I think writing a story in older times without modern language is an unrealistic expectation in general. You run the risk of making it too convoluted or making it too hard for readers to connect with. Which kind of defeats the purpose, imo. And, realistically speaking, I think we can all acknowledge the ridiculousness of everything being in Modern English in the first place.

With that being said, however, I'm not a fan of an author using _modern, culturally specific phrases_- especially when it comes to modern slang, euphemisms and colloquialisms, etc. I'm especially not fond of them when they simply don't make sense within the context of the story, time, or even the culture written about. I just... _*I can't do it*_. 

There really is a limit to what kind of language is appropriate or realistic in certain settings and I think that sort of language especially crosses it and ruins the believability; unless there's a good reason for it (like the person is a modern person that went back in time- which I've actually seen done really well before), then it should probably be avoided. Or, at the very least, you should re-examine if there's a better way to say it that makes more sense in context.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2017)

pmmg said:


> With some understanding that things must be translated into a form a current reader would understand, I do feel there is room to say, they did not really say things that way, but I had in having to translate it, it is a close approximation. But I will have to stand by my comments above. Use of non-period words will very likely take me away from the story.
> 
> .



The problem with this is that we are talking about a fantasy world. With the exception of those works set on earth or some close alternate thereof, there is no “period.” It is just an arbitrary reading of earth’s history and cultures into that of a completely unrelated setting.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2017)

claramcalister said:


> There really is a limit to what kind of language is appropriate or realistic in certain settings and I think that sort of language especially crosses it and ruins the believability; unless there's a good reason for it (like the person is a modern person that went back in time- which I've actually seen done really well before), then it should probably be avoided. Or, at the very least, you should re-examine if there's a better way to say it that makes more sense in context.



I don’t agree, except in the case stated above. If it is a completely made up setting, then the author has unfettered discretion to determine what is realistic within the context of that world. Constraining the world on the basis of real Earth culture is arbitrary and doesn’t make much logical sense unless there is some basis established within the fantasy world for doing so.


----------



## CupofJoe (Sep 2, 2017)

The trouble with "modern" language or that which is "culturally specific" is recognising it.
I had a issues with the word _burglarized_ in a story by an author I usually loved. I thought _burgled_ should have been used. I assumed any thing that ended _-ize[d]_ must be new. Nope it pre-dates _burgled _by quite a few years. But one is English and the other American.
When I read, what I try to do is an internal equivalence. The characters may not really be speaking "English" [even if that is what I am reading] but they are speaking an English-like language. So there could be as many borrowed words that come from the in-world Spanish, German, Urdu, Mandarin [etc] languages. 
I don't mind if someone has a _curry_ in a _restaurant_ and washes it all down with a _lager_. I think those sort of things will happen just about everywhere. It might be a Bugbear and Mandrake curry and Rushwash flavoured Lager. 
After all they had Fish and Chips in LotR....


----------



## valiant12 (Sep 2, 2017)

> I recently read the sword of shannara, and there is a bit of that in there. I chalk it up to maybe Mr. Brooks was not quite his most veteran writer self when he wrote it.



Shannara is set in a post-apocalyptic Earth.






> "Did you notice the princess today?" says 12th century stable boy
> 
> "Yes, couldn't you feel the electricity between us?" says young squire.
> 
> Electricity would stand out to me as something that neither character would know of or anything about. I would flag it if I was editing.



I think this is a bad example. Lightnings are one of the most common powers in fantasy, particularly in video games. 
On the other hand referring to the current time period as "the 12th century" in a fantasy world is definitely a world building mistake.


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 2, 2017)

> Lightnings are one of the most common powers in fantasy, particularly in video games. 

Lightning is ancient. Understanding that lightning is electricity, or indeed that there is such a thing as electricity, is modern. And using electricity as a metaphor for interpersonal chemistry is even more modern. I'd trip over that phrasing, too.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> I'd trip over that phrasing, too.



Unless it was understood in the fantasy world that "electricity" was recognized as a concept?


----------



## ScipioBarca (Sep 2, 2017)

This has actually hit on something I have been worried about in writing my first fantasy novel. I have based my world on the world of antiquity, giving most cultures names which are plays on (for example) Roman and Greek names - however I have used Scottish names for one of the main cultures.

My thoughts are that most people won't even realise that these Scottish names are from a different period to the ancient Romans and Greeks or will simply be able to suspend their disbelief easily enough. I would be interested to hear any thoughts.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 2, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I've found the argument against modern language to be a bit ill-considered, in a great many cases. The reason being one is already reading a work set in a world where English never existed. In books set in such worlds, the dialogue is ostensibly being translated to modern 21st century English, and in some cases the entire narrative is. So there is no reason whatever (apart from stylistic preference) that the dialogue shouldn't include modern equivalents of whatever concepts or sayings are being presented.



That's how I view fantasy books. As a translation into English from whatever language they use in the fantasy world. 

This is the reason why books that include codes dependent on isolating letters from words, or any description of a character writing or spelling out particular letters, gets to me...


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2017)

ScipioBarca said:


> This has actually hit on something I have been worried about in writing my first fantasy novel. I have based my world on the world of antiquity, giving most cultures names which are plays on (for example) Roman and Greek names - however I have used Scottish names for one of the main cultures.
> 
> My thoughts are that most people won't even realise that these Scottish names are from a different period to the ancient Romans and Greeks or will simply be able to suspend their disbelief easily enough. I would be interested to hear any thoughts.



It is a novel that is meant to be set in the actual real world (even if modified by the introduction of supernatural elements)? If so, I think this could be an issue. If it is a completely imaginary world, that only draws inspiration or flavor from the real world, then there is no reason that you are bound by periods or geographies of the real world.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 2, 2017)

I do have some particular struggles though. 

Like this: My story takes place in a world with a very different history from Earth. I have a werewolf type character who, instead of transforming into a wolf, transforms into a pit bull-type dog. 

Can I use the term 'pit bull' to describe her alternate form? Heck, would pit bulls, or dogs in general, even exist in this world?

This isn't exactly a language problem, I guess, but it's one of the problems of alternate worlds.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> That's how I view fantasy books. As a translation into English from whatever language they use in the fantasy world.
> 
> This is the reason why books that include codes dependent on isolating letters from words, or any description of a character writing or spelling out particular letters, gets to me...



Certainly dialogue has to be explained that way, unless the characters are speaking English. And at that point there is no reason not to translate it into entirely contemporary modern English. Of course, it isn't necessary to do so, and for a more formal work you might well choose a more archaic form of English, but there's no logical reason not to use 21st century English, including idioms and the like, if you want to (so long as you maintain in-world consistency).


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I do have some particular struggles though.
> 
> Like this: My story takes place in a world with a very different history from Earth. I have a werewolf type character who, instead of transforming into a wolf, transforms into a pit bull-type dog.
> 
> ...



My take: you decide if pit bulls exist i that world. If they do and they're called <your world's language equivalent of pit bull>, then I think it is fine.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 2, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Certainly dialogue has to be explained that way, unless the characters are speaking English. And at that point there is no reason not to translate it into entirely contemporary modern English. Of course, it isn't necessary to do so, and for a more formal work you might well choose a more archaic form of English, but there's no logical reason not to use 21st century English, including idioms and the like, if you want to (so long as you maintain in-world consistency).



I notice that the dialogue of Narnian characters in the Narnia books sounds both distinctly dated and distinctly British. But I think there's no way to avoid that. Books written nowadays in America will have characters in fantasy worlds that sound like they're from 2010's America, and it will be very noticeable 70 years from now. 

Like, where do you draw the line? Do you full-on write in Middle English?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I notice that the dialogue of Narnian characters in the Narnia books sounds both distinctly dated and distinctly British. But I think there's no way to avoid that. Books written nowadays in America will have characters in fantasy worlds that sound like they're from 2010's America, and it will be very noticeable 70 years from now.
> 
> Like, where do you draw the line? Do you full-on write in Middle English?



Whanne that April with his shoures sote
The droughte of March hath perced to the rote.

Not sure the modern reader will stick around for a whole novel written that way, but maybe


----------



## claramcalister (Sep 4, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I notice that the dialogue of Narnian characters in the Narnia books sounds both distinctly dated and distinctly British. But I think there's no way to avoid that. Books written nowadays in America will have characters in fantasy worlds that sound like they're from 2010's America, and it will be very noticeable 70 years from now.
> 
> Like, where do you draw the line? Do you full-on write in Middle English?



That's where my problem lies. Like, you can't write a book in full on middle English and expect a reader to stick around. We can all reasonably suspend disbelief when it comes to modern use of language. But at the same time, that suspension of disbelief is only to an extent.

If you say something like "can't you feel the electricity between us?" (to use someone else's example from earlier) in a book where Electricity does not exist, is not understood to exist, in a time period and culture where a colloquialism like that wouldn't have been used... It's out of place in a way that's obvious- and it temporarily suspends the reader's own suspension of disbelief as a result.

And in that case, I don't think we should_ avoid_ modern language all together. That makes no sense and is completely unnecessary. But I _*do*_ think we need to be particularly careful of those words and phrases that would be _blatantly _out of place in that manner/


----------



## TheKillerBs (Sep 4, 2017)

claramcalister said:


> That's where my problem lies. Like, you can't write a book in full on middle English and expect a reader to stick around. We can all reasonably suspend disbelief when it comes to modern use of language. But at the same time, that suspension of disbelief is only to an extent.
> 
> If you say something like "can't you feel the electricity between us?" (to use someone else's example from earlier) in a book where Electricity does not exist, is not understood to exist, in a time period and culture where a colloquialism like that wouldn't have been used... It's out of place in a way that's obvious- and it temporarily suspends the reader's own suspension of disbelief as a result.



I have no problem with that phrase. It doesn't seem any more out of place than the rest of the English words in the text. I see it as a translation, and the phrase "can't you feel the electricity between us?" would be a colloquialism in the language of the world that wouldn't translate as well to English. To use a real world example, if you were translating a text from Spanish and it said said "camarÃ³n que se duerme se lo lleva la corriente" you might translate it literally as "the shrimp that falls asleep gets swept away by the current", *or* you might use the much simpler and more elegant English equivalent, "you snooze, you lose".


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 5, 2017)

Except, I'd object to that one, too, Killer. "You snooze, you lose" is such a specific colloquialism, it feels completely out of place. It's not the use of modern English that's the problem, it's the use of modern *slang* that is out of place, because slang is so specific in time and place. And the danger for the novice writer, especially a young one, is being unaware of what is slang and what is not. The line is not at all bright and sharp, but a writer must develop an ear for that sort of thing.

My model on these lines is Patrick O'Brian. He works in phrases that are not merely English, not merely 19thc English, but are specifically Napoleonic era turns. He does this while still using "ordinary" English for most of his sentences. It is no easy feat and reflects uncounted hours of research on his part.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 5, 2017)

The fantasy world language is likely to have slang. Since the dialogue is being provided in English why wouldn't you provide the fantasy world slang as the modern English equivalent? Assuming the rest of your dialogue is in modern English, which it usually is.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 5, 2017)

I'm against using slang and modern word coinages in a (serious, adult, non-Earth-based) fantasy work for one reason: reader expectations.  It's not about historical accuracy at all, because of course we're not going to sit down and write like Chaucer.  It's about the contextual pastiche in the reader's mind, which has been created through other fantasy and historical films and literature.  Anything that diverges from this conception will feel jarring, sloppy, wrong, like the writer hasn't bothered--on some level.  If you can win the reader over regardless, if it's essential to the tone of your story, fantastic.  If it's not, why make the reader work harder to believe in your story?

You can say it's obvious that everything's being translated, technically, but I don't think the average reader has this translation conceit in the back of their mind.  What they do have in the back of their mind is the cultural conception of "a fantasy story", which by and large excludes slang and modernisms (again, excepting humor).  The setting and story should be able to stand without the reader having to consciously spool through the logic of the language--unless, again, that's something you want to play with.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 5, 2017)

Nimue said:


> If you can win the reader over regardless, if it's essential to the tone of your story, fantastic.



Being able to pull it off (i.e. winning over the reader) is essential. I don't think modern language has to be essential to the story before you can use it, however. It just has to be consistent with the story world. I'm not in agreement, either, that readers of fantasy necessarily expect more formal or archaic language. Fantasy is wide-ranging genre. Readers expect it when it is consistent with the story, but I think they're open to other options when those other options are consistent with the story. And even if the perception of reader expectations is accurate, the idea that one must avoid things that don't coincide with reader expectations is an argument to follow established tropes, don't subvert, etc., and I don't really like that as a general rule, either. '

I think the problem with the admonitions here is they are _way_ to broad. There are certain, narrow types of fantasy where you're going to jar the reader by using modern language. There is a lot more fantasy where I think the reader will be just fine with it, assuming (as always) you have a skilled writer who doesn't bungle it.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 5, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I think the problem with the admonitions here is they are _way_ to broad. There are certain, narrow types of fantasy where you're going to jar the reader by using modern language. There is a lot more fantasy where I think the reader will be just fine with it, assuming (as always) you have a skilled writer who doesn't bungle it.


I think we essentially agree with each other.  But I gave the response I did for new writers asking this broad and vague question. "Can I get away with slang? Would it bother people?"  My answer to that is yes, it probably will.  If you don't have to, why do it?

If the answer to that is "I think using slang in this book will strengthen the character voice and be accurate to the surrounding world," then that's fantastic and forget that generalized advice.

The question is: why are you using slang and anachronisms?  If it's hard for you to kick the habit of using "cool" or "okay", maybe work a little harder on that, and pick out your worst offenders for some find and replace.  If you know that this language in some way _betters_ your story, even if it's only in a small way, then stick to it.  Sounds like you're in that camp, Steerpike.

It's hard to give advice for everyone here, which is why I generally avoid these kinds of threads.  I just wanted to briefly sum up the standard position.  Writers are always free to challenge accepted wisdom at their leisure.


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 5, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> The fantasy world language is likely to have slang. Since the dialogue is being provided in English why wouldn't you provide the fantasy world slang as the modern English equivalent? Assuming the rest of your dialogue is in modern English, which it usually is.



For the same reason I would not, for example, describe peasant houses as painted with shingled roofs. Or have nobles ride in carriages (my stories being firmly medieval). Or have someone eating tomatoes. Some things are too clearly anachronistic.

I say this fully realizing that such things will not take *all* readers out of the story. But I must satisfy myself first, and can only report what is jarring to me.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 5, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> For the same reason I would not, for example, describe peasant houses as painted with shingled roofs. Or have nobles ride in carriages (my stories being firmly medieval). Or have someone eating tomatoes. Some things are too clearly anachronistic.



Yes, because those things do not make sense within the context of your story (firmly medieval). That's different from saying one cannot have those things in fantasy stories. What works best for one story shouldn't be a prescription for the genre.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Sep 5, 2017)

^Even though there's tomatoes in The Lord of the Rings [well, in the movies]? 

[I'm just being silly.]


----------



## TheKillerBs (Sep 5, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> Except, I'd object to that one, too, Killer. "You snooze, you lose" is such a specific colloquialism, it feels completely out of place. It's not the use of modern English that's the problem, it's the use of modern *slang* that is out of place, because slang is so specific in time and place. And the danger for the novice writer, especially a young one, is being unaware of what is slang and what is not. The line is not at all bright and sharp, but a writer must develop an ear for that sort of thing.
> 
> My model on these lines is Patrick O'Brian. He works in phrases that are not merely English, not merely 19thc English, but are specifically Napoleonic era turns. He does this while still using "ordinary" English for most of his sentences. It is no easy feat and reflects uncounted hours of research on his part.



Specific? Maybe I'm missing some context here, because I've seen it used all over the anglosphere and not just these past few years.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 5, 2017)

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> ^Even though there's tomatoes in The Lord of the Rings [well, in the movies]?
> 
> [I'm just being silly.]



Which is fine


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 5, 2017)

valiant12 said:


> What break your suspension of disbelief ?



Smart characters doing obviously stoopid things because plot demands it. 

Writer establishes rule in world. Writer breaks rule without due set up or reason.



valiant12 said:


> What do you think about using "modern" words in pre modern worlds?
> What do you think about anachronisms ?




To me this is all about the type of story being told and the expectations the writer sets up in the story. 

Take for example the move A Knight's Tale. Hard rock soundtrack, etc., yeah, anachronisms and a few modern words/phrasings don't bother me at all in that, because expectations were set up in the trailer. In fact those things add to the movie.

In addition, it's about the author knowing their story and their world and having a clear idea what one can and can not do in it. 

If I'm telling a whimsical story like say the Princess Bride, I can get away with more anachronism and modern language and phrasing than if I was trying to tell a gritty realistic tale about what it was like to march with Napoleon's army at Waterloo.

There's a certain amount of those things one can get away with depending on type of story.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Sep 5, 2017)

> Smart characters doing obviously stoopid things because plot demands it.


That happens far too often these days. Or has it always been that way? *looks at the Greek myths* Hmm...

As a general rule, in my less-lighthearted stories, the characters are quite formal depending on how old they are, and never use contractions. In my silly stories, the characters speak much more casually, but still never use contractions.  In both cases, I occasionally check the etymology of a certain word to see if it might match up to the culture and language of whatever world my current story takes place in. Then again, not a lot of people do that kind of thing...*aside glance at Prf. Tolkien*


----------



## claramcalister (Sep 6, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I'm not in agreement, either, that readers of fantasy necessarily expect more formal or archaic language.



I find the assertion that being creative with language (i/e creatively finding ways to express what you want your characters to say, in a way that is consistent with their setting) and not relying on modernisms when they don't make sense within context is "using archaic or formal language"..... A bit ridiculous, personally.

It doesn't always go back to "yeah but we're reading a translation so you should reasonably expect people to understand the modern slang is appropriate". It goes back to the world you have created, and how realistically things fit within it. And if you've got electricity in medieval England, as a reader I'm going to expect a damned good explanation that makes sense with their level of technology. The same goes for language; how realistic are those phrases within that specific context? 

If you've set up a world that's decidedly medieval in concept right down to the very last detail? Referencing Electricity or using modern slang is going to boot your reader out of your world 9 times out of 10. The same goes, I think, for pretty much any other genre of fantasy; using modern slang in a Sci-Fi story set 200 years from now is going to date it and boot the readers out just as often.

Unless it's relevant to the context and the world you've built or is otherwise necessary or logical within it, it's better to avoid it unless absolutely necessary... Plus, honestly _what is the harm_ in getting a little creative with your language and finding different ways to say the same thing while still retaining its meaning?



Penpilot said:


> If I'm telling a whimsical story like say the Princess Bride, I can get away with more anachronism and modern language and phrasing than if I was trying to tell a gritty realistic tale about what it was like to march with Napoleon's army at Waterloo.There's a certain amount of those things one can get away with depending on type of story.



^ Pretty much my entire point ^

The exception is (and always has been) _unless it makes sense_. In other words: I would accept (and pretty much_ expect_) Starlord from Guardians of the Gallaxy to whip out 70's slang before I would expect Luke Skywalker to. And it would certainly be out of place enough in Star Wars that I'd probably stop reading the moment he did. (I've never read any of the novels, so -shrugs-)



TheCrystallineEntity said:


> As a general rule, in my less-lighthearted stories, the characters are quite formal depending on how old they are, and never use contractions. In my silly stories, the characters speak much more casually, but still never use contractions.



Contractions are probably my only exception just because if you want to make something sound stilted and incredibly formal take out contractions. Sometimes it completely changes the tonality of dialogue. Plus, reading text without contractions is just.... Freaking_ weird _to me.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 6, 2017)

claramcalister said:


> I find the assertion that being creative with language (i/e creatively finding ways to express what you want your characters to say, in a way that is consistent with their setting) and not relying on modernisms when they don't make sense within context is "using archaic or formal language"..... A bit ridiculous, personally.



It is good, then, that no one has made that assertion. I've stated from the beginning that anything you do has to make sense within the context of the fantasy world (see, _inter alia, _posts #2, 9, 13, 18, and 19 in this thread). Of course one has to maintain in-world consistency. The idea that using modernisms indicates lesser creativity (or greater, for that matter), laziness, or <insert ad hominem characterization> is not supportable, however.


----------



## valiant12 (Sep 7, 2017)

> Smart characters doing obviously stoopid things because plot demands it.



You know what is worse.
This combined with elite soldiers dying like flies and teen farm boys/teens from our world being better in everything that people who trained for years.


----------



## Corwynn (Sep 7, 2017)

One of the things that bothered me about the late Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books is that the characters never use contractions in their dialogue, no-one, not ever. This could be justified for certain types of characters, but all of them, always? It feels unnatural and artificial.

To give credit where credit is due, at least Jordan didn't try too hard to make his characters sound old-fashioned. In my opinion, trying too hard to make your characters sound "period appropriate" can be just as bad as not trying hard enough. I once watched part of an episode of a TV show set in the Victorian Era (I forget the name of it), and I decided to avoid it because it was obvious to me that the writers were stuffing the characters' dialogue in order to make them sound as "Victorian" as possible with no regard to how that affected the flow of speech.

Words and phrases are actually a good means of world-building without resorting to infodumps, and it's a shame more authors don't use it this way. Tarring everyone with the same linguistic brush not only feels unnatural, but one is also robbing the setting and individual characters of depth and complexity that could show through their use of words.


----------

