Sometimes a writer is on a treasure hunt for a particular
word, a specific word that will clinch a certain passage. The French, of course, have a
phrase for that type of word. They call it le
mot juste, the exact right word. The author Gustave
Flaubert was famous for finding le mot
juste in his novels, such as Madame
Bovary. But what do you do as a writer if le mot juste is just not coming to mind, or if you can think of a
word that has the right meaning, but it’s too cliché. What do you do?
Many writers turn to a thesaurus. That reference work is a
great bestiary of words, holding almost all the synonyms in the English
language. The word literally means “treasury” in Latin—very appropriate.
I have nothing against thesauruses. I love just reading
through them and seeing all the possible gradations of meaning that exist among
different words that mean almost the same thing, and how those synonyms differ
slightly, partly because they are used in different contexts. In fact, when I was thirteen, one
of my best friends nicknamed me Roget, I had such a crush on words.
The first English thesaurus was compiled by Dr. Peter Mark
Roget (1779–1869) in 1805, but the book was not published until 1852. Dr. Roget
was a physician from London who served as a human subject for the earliest
experiments on the use of nitrous oxide, or “laughing gas,” which he also wrote
about.
Dr. Peter Mark Roget |
Roget’s first collection of synonyms was titled, Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases Classified and Arranged so as to
Facilitate the Expression of Ideas and Assist in Literary Composition. I’ll
buy that a thesaurus can facilitate the expression of ideas, but I do believe
it has limited use in literary composition.
Why? Because a word that a writer is seeking is almost never
as obvious as a synonym of another word that a writer might reject as cliché language. Le mot juste most often appears out of
nowhere, a word that surprises, delights, or shocks the reader. A thesaurus
will not help a writer leap across a chasm to that sort of word. At best, the
thesaurus will help a writer step over a narrow puddle.
Here is an example from a poem that Sylvia Plath wrote right
before her untimely death on February 11, 1963. The very last poem in her Collected Poems, dated six days before
she died, is titled “Edge.” Describing a woman who has passed away, leaving
behind her children, Plath writes:
She has folded
Them back into her body as petals
Of a rose close when the garden
Stiffens and odors bleed
From the sweet, deep throats of
the night flower.
Interesting to think about a mother incorporating her children
back into her—or maybe the subject of the poem is gathering into herself a kind
of childishness in a flight from the tonnage of adulthood.
Sylvia Plath |
If Plath had used a thesaurus to find the right word in this
passage, she could never have come up with the stunning phrase “the
garden//Stiffens and odors bleed/From the sweet, deep throats of the night
flower.”
Normally, a writer might say that a flower’s scent wafts. But that’s a cliché. If Plath had
cast her net wider and looked in a thesaurus under waft, she would only have found drift, float, be carried, etc. More cliché language. You can’t get from tired
language to more dynamic speech just with synonyms. A writer has to distort or
wring the language till she arrives at something as vivid as a flower bleeding
its odor. The search for le mot juste requires imagination, not just a reference work. Well, Plath might have gotten odor
from a thesaurus. She could have started with the more conventional aroma or scent and then picked a synonym rarely paired with flower, because of its negative
connotations. There, a thesaurus
could be useful.
Another example. Three months earlier Plath had penned a
poem called “The Childless Woman,” where she writes:
I spin mirrors,
Loyal to my image,
Uttering nothing but blood…
The usual verbs that describe emitting blood might be shed, ooze, spurt, seep, or trickle. (OK, I admit, I got this list
from Roget’s Thesaurus.) But Plath
goes so much deeper with the verb “Uttering.” The blood of this childless
woman’s period is eloquent, it can speak of her emotions. Never could a
thesaurus produce that result. It might even impede it. That’s why a writer has
to be cautious in using a thesaurus. You can’t get deeper just by casting wider.
Other recent posts about writing topics:
How to Get Published
Getting the Most from Your Writing Workshop
How Not to Become a Literary Dropout
Putting Together a Book Manuscript
Working with a Writing Mentor
How to Deliver Your Message
Does the Muse Have a Cell Phone?
Why Write Poetry?
Poetic Forms: Introduction; The Sonnet, The Sestina, The Ghazal, The Tanka
How to Be an American Writer
Agreed completely. In an interview with yours truly published in AWP's magazine, I said that I thought the use of the thesaurus was a problem for poets, and that using a word found there would pretty much always make you look you were wearing somebody else's clothes. I was surprised by how upset a couple of the letters they received in response were , as if I'd done something anti-intellectual by counseling poets not to seek advice there. I think it's actually the opposite; building your verbal resources by reading widely, exploring unfamiliar disciplines and just generally being curious, but it's a much richer way to find words. Plus you'll know a lot more about the words you're using.
ReplyDeleteMark: Thanks so much for your comment. Maybe this is the difference between the Enlightenment approach to cataloguing the world, which the thesaurus reflects, and the Romantic vision of perceiving the world through the imagination.
Delete