Read the article from the London newspaper, The Guardian (click on "Maurice Sendak" link) and post a comment about the importance of diction. What does Sendak have to say about using just the right word...?
He says how it conveys a different message and conutation to his publisher. When to him the word hot may refer to state of the food when your mother just gives it to; "be careful it's hot."
He questioned himself "..I couldn't believe it. But it turned into a real world war, just that word." He just doesn't get how one single word caused chaos in his publisher's reaction. And also the way he expressed his reaction towards the parents' concerns of the book being too "scary". He just said one word and everything turned into an argument.
I think Sendak does not appreciate that he has to change one word so that people won't fuss about it. If you think about, would a kid reading the book really care if the author put "warm" or "hot"? I think that he trying to say that he chooses the words he does for a reason and when the publishers says that you have to change it because the public might take it wrong way, it changes the book. Like when he says that Mickey Mouse is not the same from when he was a kid. That they made him look and act nicer thus no longer the same.
Maurice Sendak's word choice was very important to him, he fought to keep one single word that his publisher wanted him to change because he knew just how important his choice was to the meaning of his story. He said to use the word warm instead of the word hot would be dopey, "Unemotional. Undramatic." Sendak is very particular about choosing just the right word to convey his meaning. His dinner was not warm, it was hot, "Everything about that book is 'hot'."
Sendak thinks it is vital to use the appropriate word to express the true emotion. This can be demonstrated with the disagreement on the word "hot." I agree with him, because the word "hot" evokes visual imagery. The connotation it provides makes me think of hot soup, burning, just finished being made meal. The word warm as substitute just is unable to suffice. It does not provide the reader with that crystal clear image and instead under dramatizes it. He wished not for it to mean hardly anytime went by, to the point where the meal was still "warm," but as if no time had passed and it was still "hot" freshly made.
I believe that using the proper diction in your story will draw the crowd you may want to it. If you do end up including the wrong diction in your story and people begin to hate your choice you should not have to change your writing. Sendak believes that his diction by using the word hot was exact. He says it adds a dramatic affect to the ending. Parents all around prefers that he uses warm. He scorns this and says it takes away from the the true meaning of the ending of the story and sugar coats what he is really trying to speak of.
I don't think Sendak just picks any interchangeable word to put in his story, considering that the story was only about ten sentences long. When the editors attempted to replace the word "warm" with "hot", Sendak would not take it. "Warm" has a far weaker connotation than "Hot", and thus does not convey the true message of the book.
Maurice Sendak expresses his disgust for parents' rants regarding how frightening his book, "How the Wild Things Are" may be. He explains that Mickey Mouse, for instance, did not have the same implication when Disney changed the Mouse's persona over time; he felt it degraded the character entirely. The same is conveyed with the word "hot" instead of "warm" in his book. He even had to argue with the publisher regarding this-he wanted his book to be "hot". Hence, for Sendak, "just the right word" is something each writer feels conveys the entire essence of their story.
Sendak displays his discontent toward the negative feedback he is receiving from parents in regards to his movie. By sharing the Micky Mouse anecdote and later commenting on the word choice of his novel, Sendak implies that he is opposed to the idea of substituting the word "Hot" with "Warm". Sendak suggests that the word "warm" does not carry as much weight as the word "hot" and therefore does not fufill the idea he is trying to convey. Also, the word "warm" does not aid the audience in interpretting the work the way Sendak intends them to, thus making the word completely irrelevant to the work as a whole.
If found it humorously ironic that the author of a children's book would tell parents to "go to hell" and children to "wet themselves" but I guess this is just a very passionate guy. However, I can't see how this can by "too scary" in anyway. Regarding word choice, Sendak feels that diction determines the emotional effect by connoting different things. For example, hot is a more severe word than warm and thus accentuates the idea that the boys trip was short, since the temperature had not changed.
Although to some the word "hot" compared to the word "warm" would be a small margin of contrast, Maurice Sendak clearly causes us to understand the meaning of diction by distinguishing between the two. Recognizing the more impactful influence of the word hot alone is not the lesson but he also teaches that even a single word can make a difference. Ultimatley this proves exactly what Ms.Hurst has been repeating "no word is written by accident" and similarly Sendak justifies this by striving to enact exactly what the novel calls for "hottness."
I think that Sendak honestly believes that every single word counts. Diction is rather important, but he is going to the extreme that changing one word to an equally relevant synonym would throw off the work as a whole. But, Sendak is justified in believing this because he wrote the book using the exact words that he wanted to use, and if he wanted the other words, then he would have used them in the first place.
Sendak's message is that each word is chosen for a reason, as we have learned in class time after time. People expect writers to modify their art to suit popular taste, but that is not what art is about. Each author has some kind of message to convey, and for anyone to complain that a certain word choice or presentation of a story is too suggestive or too scary is simply ridiculous.
A person has every right to think that a film is too scary for kids, or to think that a certain word should be changed in a book, but that does NOT mean the world will change to suit their tastes. Writers choose certain words to convey certain meanings, and to change those words is to change the meaning of the work; it is simply no longer the same piece.
Diction can make all the difference to a piece. Maurice Sendak calls the effect of using 'warm' instead of 'hot' at the end of the book as 'unemotional' and 'undramatic'. The author's diction is chosen in order to best convey the meaning the author is trying to convey and as Sendak says "Everything about that book is 'hot'."
Sendak must have chosen his words in his novel very carefully, expressing exactly what he wanted to express. The importance of diction is particularly significant when Sendak refuses to change the word "hot" to "warm" at the end of the book. Clearly Sendak felt the word "hot" gave off a better meaning than merely "warm" to describe Max's meal after the imagined adventure. Thus, saying the food was still hot means that his journey was evidently rather short whether or not Max believed it took place over a longer period of time.
Sendak feels as if diction was important in empasising different moods in his writing. For example, he argues with the publisher in changing the ending of his novel to "Hot" instaed of "Warm" because it suggest that the soup was burning hot. If the word choice was to be changed to warm instaed of hot, it would change the whole meaning and outlook on the novel as a whole.
I don't believe that Sendak just picks any interchangable word to put into his story, considering that it was only about ten sentences long. When the editors attempted to replace the word "Hot" with "Warm", Sendak felt that they were going to take away a part of the story. The dinner was "Hot" just as Max left it, thus, it gives the reader the feeling that absolutely no time has passed. "Hot", also has a more powerful connotation than "Warm", and thus contributes more to the theme of the story (According to Sendak), since everything in the story is "Hot".
Sendak alludes to the importance of diction when he states that using the word "warm" word dullen the story somehow. Him like many writers believe that word choice is very important it comes to writing. A writer uses word specifcally in order to emphasis on a subject or to get a reation from the reader. However, not all the messages that a work reveals are interpreted a positive way, such as the use of the word "hot" to describe the food only adds to the Hostility of the movie but Sedak believes it adds flare to the film.
The diction being used conveys importance to the words warm and hot. He uses the word hot to describe the food which makes the movie more interesting. He uses these words specifically to show emphasis on that subject to contribute to the theme of the story, and how if they were changed they would change the initial meaning of the story.
He says how it conveys a different message and conutation to his publisher. When to him the word hot may refer to state of the food when your mother just gives it to; "be careful it's hot."
ReplyDeleteHe questioned himself "..I couldn't believe it. But it turned into a real world war, just that word." He just doesn't get how one single word caused chaos in his publisher's reaction. And also the way he expressed his reaction towards the parents' concerns of the book being too "scary". He just said one word and everything turned into an argument.
ReplyDeleteI think Sendak does not appreciate that he has to change one word so that people won't fuss about it. If you think about, would a kid reading the book really care if the author put "warm" or "hot"? I think that he trying to say that he chooses the words he does for a reason and when the publishers says that you have to change it because the public might take it wrong way, it changes the book. Like when he says that Mickey Mouse is not the same from when he was a kid. That they made him look and act nicer thus no longer the same.
ReplyDeleteMaurice Sendak's word choice was very important to him, he fought to keep one single word that his publisher wanted him to change because he knew just how important his choice was to the meaning of his story. He said to use the word warm instead of the word hot would be dopey, "Unemotional. Undramatic." Sendak is very particular about choosing just the right word to convey his meaning. His dinner was not warm, it was hot, "Everything about that book is 'hot'."
ReplyDelete>>~~Katie~>
Sendak thinks it is vital to use the appropriate word to express the true emotion. This can be demonstrated with the disagreement on the word "hot." I agree with him, because the word "hot" evokes visual imagery. The connotation it provides makes me think of hot soup, burning, just finished being made meal. The word warm as substitute just is unable to suffice. It does not provide the reader with that crystal clear image and instead under dramatizes it. He wished not for it to mean hardly anytime went by, to the point where the meal was still "warm," but as if no time had passed and it was still "hot" freshly made.
ReplyDeleteMEGHAN CORSON
I believe that using the proper diction in your story will draw the crowd you may want to it. If you do end up including the wrong diction in your story and people begin to hate your choice you should not have to change your writing. Sendak believes that his diction by using the word hot was exact. He says it adds a dramatic affect to the ending. Parents all around prefers that he uses warm. He scorns this and says it takes away from the the true meaning of the ending of the story and sugar coats what he is really trying to speak of.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Sendak just picks any interchangeable word to put in his story, considering that the story was only about ten sentences long. When the editors attempted to replace the word "warm" with "hot", Sendak would not take it. "Warm" has a far weaker connotation than "Hot", and thus does not convey the true message of the book.
ReplyDeleteMaurice Sendak expresses his disgust for parents' rants regarding how frightening his book, "How the Wild Things Are" may be. He explains that Mickey Mouse, for instance, did not have the same implication when Disney changed the Mouse's persona over time; he felt it degraded the character entirely. The same is conveyed with the word "hot" instead of "warm" in his book. He even had to argue with the publisher regarding this-he wanted his book to be "hot". Hence, for Sendak, "just the right word" is something each writer feels conveys the entire essence of their story.
ReplyDeleteSendak displays his discontent toward the negative feedback he is receiving from parents in regards to his movie. By sharing the Micky Mouse anecdote and later commenting on the word choice of his novel, Sendak implies that he is opposed to the idea of substituting the word "Hot" with "Warm". Sendak suggests that the word "warm" does not carry as much weight as the word "hot" and therefore does not fufill the idea he is trying to convey. Also, the word "warm" does not aid the audience in interpretting the work the way Sendak intends them to, thus making the word completely irrelevant to the work as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIf found it humorously ironic that the author of a children's book would tell parents to "go to hell" and children to "wet themselves" but I guess this is just a very passionate guy. However, I can't see how this can by "too scary" in anyway. Regarding word choice, Sendak feels that diction determines the emotional effect by connoting different things. For example, hot is a more severe word than warm and thus accentuates the idea that the boys trip was short, since the temperature had not changed.
ReplyDeleteAlthough to some the word "hot" compared to the word "warm" would be a small margin of contrast, Maurice Sendak clearly causes us to understand the meaning of diction by distinguishing between the two. Recognizing the more impactful influence of the word hot alone is not the lesson but he also teaches that even a single word can make a difference. Ultimatley this proves exactly what Ms.Hurst has been repeating "no word is written by accident" and similarly Sendak justifies this by striving to enact exactly what the novel calls for "hottness."
ReplyDeleteI think that Sendak honestly believes that every single word counts. Diction is rather important, but he is going to the extreme that changing one word to an equally relevant synonym would throw off the work as a whole. But, Sendak is justified in believing this because he wrote the book using the exact words that he wanted to use, and if he wanted the other words, then he would have used them in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSendak's message is that each word is chosen for a reason, as we have learned in class time after time. People expect writers to modify their art to suit popular taste, but that is not what art is about. Each author has some kind of message to convey, and for anyone to complain that a certain word choice or presentation of a story is too suggestive or too scary is simply ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteA person has every right to think that a film is too scary for kids, or to think that a certain word should be changed in a book, but that does NOT mean the world will change to suit their tastes. Writers choose certain words to convey certain meanings, and to change those words is to change the meaning of the work; it is simply no longer the same piece.
Diction can make all the difference to a piece. Maurice Sendak calls the effect of using 'warm' instead of 'hot' at the end of the book as 'unemotional' and 'undramatic'. The author's diction is chosen in order to best convey the meaning the author is trying to convey and as Sendak says "Everything about that book is 'hot'."
ReplyDeleteSendak must have chosen his words in his novel very carefully, expressing exactly what he wanted to express. The importance of diction is particularly significant when Sendak refuses to change the word "hot" to "warm" at the end of the book. Clearly Sendak felt the word "hot" gave off a better meaning than merely "warm" to describe Max's meal after the imagined adventure. Thus, saying the food was still hot means that his journey was evidently rather short whether or not Max believed it took place over a longer period of time.
ReplyDeleteSendak feels as if diction was important in empasising different moods in his writing. For example, he argues with the publisher in changing the ending of his novel to "Hot" instaed of "Warm" because it suggest that the soup was burning hot. If the word choice was to be changed to warm instaed of hot, it would change the whole meaning and outlook on the novel as a whole.
ReplyDelete~Camile Hall~
I don't believe that Sendak just picks any interchangable word to put into his story, considering that it was only about ten sentences long. When the editors attempted to replace the word "Hot" with "Warm", Sendak felt that they were going to take away a part of the story. The dinner was "Hot" just as Max left it, thus, it gives the reader the feeling that absolutely no time has passed. "Hot", also has a more powerful connotation than "Warm", and thus contributes more to the theme of the story (According to Sendak), since everything in the story is "Hot".
ReplyDeleteSendak alludes to the importance of diction when he states that using the word "warm" word dullen the story somehow. Him like many writers believe that word choice is very important it comes to writing. A writer uses word specifcally in order to emphasis on a subject or to get a reation from the reader. However, not all the messages that a work reveals are interpreted a positive way, such as the use of the word "hot" to describe the food only adds to the
ReplyDeleteHostility of the movie but Sedak believes it adds flare to the film.
The diction being used conveys importance to the words warm and hot. He uses the word hot to describe the food which makes the movie more interesting. He uses these words specifically to show emphasis on that subject to contribute to the theme of the story, and how if they were changed they would change the initial meaning of the story.
ReplyDeleteJennifer<3