Lemma Soft Forums

Some would do well to read and understand today's xkcd.

Clearly incorrect. The vast majority of horrible, horrible literature contains no made-up words.

Perhaps that should be "in scifi/fantasy", where this problem is most likely to occur?

But even then, you'd be amazed how much INUTTERABLY DREADFUL Harry Potter fanfic makes up no new words at all... (Or only one, to describe the new magical creation that constitutes its Mary Sue.)

:laughs at graph:
That's true, that's true...

...None of you guys are taking the graph seriously, right? Hope not...

Pah. The example is stupid. Everyone knows "awesomer" was already a word!

And yet the graph reverses when it comes to poetry

Of course, there are a lot of exceptions... Shakespeare, for instance. (I know the alt text mentions Tolkien and Carroll, but even then there are a lot more.) I think one of the xkcd's forums member's idea was best; flip the graph, and change it to number of made up words against how good the book has to be to pull it off.

xkcd is hilarious. Although I didnt seem to understand this one

More neologisms = Less chance that the writing will be good.

I completely disagree. One of my favorite things about Terry Pratchett's writing is his word play and new words he makes up.

Neologisms are a sign of creativity. Both uncreative and creative authors can write crappy fiction. The former write forgettable crap. The latter write memorable crap - the kind that people keep quoting as an example of bad writing. Hence, it often seems that bad fiction contains many neologisms, because the bad fiction that people remember does.

But creativity is unequivocally a good thing. Writing memorable fiction is also a good thing. I might even go so far as to say that writing memorable fiction is more important than writing "good" fiction.

"Younglings".