This blog has moved. Please go over to this link to see my new website.

Friday, 6 February 2015

Ruled by Intellect or Emotion? Tips on Word Choice #21

English: British versions of the Harry Potter ...
English: British versions of the Harry Potter series My own collection ^_^ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Certain words/phrases can induce fairly specific responses in readers. As writers, we all know this, but do we use the power of emotion in our work?

For these few weeks, I’m looking at something subjective: how to choose between emotional and intellectual words for effect. You won’t always agree with me, of course; you’re writers. But, hopefully, my suggestions will get the thought processes going.

In this series I’m looking at the difference between words that seem intellectual as opposed to those that evoke a more emotional response. How you use them is obviously up to you. The point is that the alternatives have the same, or very similar, meanings, but their effect upon the reader can be markedly different. I’ve made some suggestions here, but I’m sure you can think of others.

Intellectual: Exceptional
Emotional: Marvellous

‘Harry is an exceptional student; we shall have to supervise his growth at every turn.’

‘Harry, you’re a marvellous wizard; you could do anything you want with that wand.’

Intellectual: Is Provided With
Emotional: Has

‘Government is provided with all the facts needed to rule efficiently and fairly; it is greed, self-interest and prejudice that prevents it so doing.’

‘The Government has all it needs to do a good job, but those in power don’t give a shit for the rest of us; we’re just consumers and buyers for their big business cronies.’

Intellectual: Omit
Emotional: Leave Out

‘If we omit the full truth from our dogma, it will provide the gullible with sufficient evidence to allow them to persuade themselves they are being pious and good.’

‘Look, it’s simple; we leave out the facts that don’t agree with what we want and the stupid buggers will believe every word because they’re too lazy to think for themselves.’

No comments: