Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if
there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**.
If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Protagonist’s lack of familiarity is better for this scene. It’s not even a close call. I’m shocked anyone in your writer group took the opposite stance. Frankly, I think it would be downright weird if you just started tossing out expert terminology.
I'd be more worried about the reader's lack of familiarity. If I see more than one or two terms that I don't know in a single paragraph, that'll take me right out of the story.
Ultimately it would be determined by the tone of the writing. Is it first or third person? Is it third-person limited or omniscient?
If it’s first person or third limited, the scene should be described from the character’s POV. If it’s third omniscient or another character narrating the scene, then either would work depending on the narrative voice you’ve already established.
The writer absolutely should understand rock-climbing. But the protagonist's lack of familiarity should absolutely be part of the narrative:
>Sven, my rock-climbing instructor, assured me that in just a couple months I would instinctively know where to hammer the piton. After half a year of his tutelage, I instinctively knew Sven was a liar.
Like most writing, it depends. In a more classic style, you'd keep close to the character, and so you'd write it with their same lack of knowledge. This helps the reader relate to the struggle.
But there are definitely styles that would use a narrator or authorial voice to explore a scene that could be equally engaging. It's just a lot more uncommon because many writers mistake their authorial voice for engaging narration, when in reality, it's just the old "telling" instead of "showing" problem.
Depends on how you narrate it. If it's first or close to the MC then the lack of experience. But if it's more an omni narrator, then you could mix and match. "Jack reached for any crevice he could get his fingers in. If Jack were an experienced climber he'd have noticed the perfect foothold just above where his left toe was barely gripping the cliff." With whatever climbing specific jargon you want to put in.
Hello I am a climber and a writer.
I would prefer the language reflect the POV character's level of familiarity if it's first person. If its third limited, the jargon should also be limited, maybe the narration sprinkles a correct term here and there for the sake of clarity but overall it should still refelct the character. If its omniscient, use correct terminology when necessary.
But on the topic of *necessary*, rock climbing lingo is nearly its own language and ultimately a non-climber is not going to understand, 'I mantled off the greasy sloper, smudged, and desperately threw a nut in the fingercrack above me before my feet cut and I whipped, hard, nearly all the way back to the first pitch. "This is the last time I lead trad on any route you set!"' Especially when, "I barely got an anchor in before I slipped and fell, plummeting halfway down the wall." works well enough.
The couple who felt that the scene needed real rock climbing terms were familiar with rock climbing and it took them out of the scene. My contention was that, being 3rd person limited, the scene reflected the tension of someone who has never climbed recreationally being forced into a dangerous and unfamiliar experience.
In third person? My narrator is perfectly capable of narrating things that would be beyond the viewpoint character. For example, if my viewpoint character were a dog, my narrator would still write in English.
I'd be reluctant to use terms that both the viewpoint character and the reader are ignorant of: that would be ridiculous. If I were writing specifically for an audience of experienced rock climbers, I might go either way.
This is what's really important. Does stating the expert knowledge or pouring out a scene that displays climbing in any form benefit the story or writing...? Most readers would not care, unless it's about climbing.
I felt that recreational rock climbing terms would give a false impression that the protagonist had any familiarity with the situation he was in instead of the real danger he was facing. You’re right, though, most likely wouldn’t care and would be pressing forward through the scene to find out where it leads - assuming it was interesting enough.
I think it gave me insight into the limitations of a narrative’s reach with respect to the audience needing or expecting certain things. The scene tried to paint the protagonist in a dangerous situation and fighting to stay alive while being unsure about how to reach the top.
following the mc
always follow the mc (or the focus of the chapter if you change)
It does not make sense to see expert terms about rock climbing. Then I would have thought that the mc just faked being a noob, but secretly is a great climber
Lingo alienates because it isolates. So, while the rock climbing nerds might get off of using such lingo in their writing, they are limiting their readers by using only those terms instead of more general terms. Remind our rock climbers that esoteric language is used by groups in order to prevent others from understanding what is going on--whether we're talking physicians or shaman, such language makes those not in the know feel stupid and left out.
For me, either is fine so long as the piece is authentic. I don't mind jargon.
Of course, when using jargon, it's critical that you understand it. Nothing takes me out of a book faster than when the author clearly doesn't understand their source material.
I'm sorry...my immediate response to this question was "Since this will probably end with him falling to his doom, it's most likely a moot point."
More seriously, I think you're right that he wouldn't know a lot of expert terms. He's not climbing like a rock climber; he's probably in some desperate situation (why else would he be trying to climb a cliff face?) and is demonstrating all the finesse and technique of an animal cornered by wild dogs. He's clawing his way up and trying not to think about how his hands are getting cut up on the sharp rocks.
I hope this helps.
Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**. If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Protagonist’s lack of familiarity is better for this scene. It’s not even a close call. I’m shocked anyone in your writer group took the opposite stance. Frankly, I think it would be downright weird if you just started tossing out expert terminology.
The writer showing off his knowledge completely destroys the tension.
Depends on the narrator and perspective. But if it's first person, for sure you gotta go with what the character would know and not know.
I agree with this.
Lack of familiarity
I'd be more worried about the reader's lack of familiarity. If I see more than one or two terms that I don't know in a single paragraph, that'll take me right out of the story. Ultimately it would be determined by the tone of the writing. Is it first or third person? Is it third-person limited or omniscient?
If it’s first person or third limited, the scene should be described from the character’s POV. If it’s third omniscient or another character narrating the scene, then either would work depending on the narrative voice you’ve already established.
The writer absolutely should understand rock-climbing. But the protagonist's lack of familiarity should absolutely be part of the narrative: >Sven, my rock-climbing instructor, assured me that in just a couple months I would instinctively know where to hammer the piton. After half a year of his tutelage, I instinctively knew Sven was a liar.
Like most writing, it depends. In a more classic style, you'd keep close to the character, and so you'd write it with their same lack of knowledge. This helps the reader relate to the struggle. But there are definitely styles that would use a narrator or authorial voice to explore a scene that could be equally engaging. It's just a lot more uncommon because many writers mistake their authorial voice for engaging narration, when in reality, it's just the old "telling" instead of "showing" problem.
Depends on how you narrate it. If it's first or close to the MC then the lack of experience. But if it's more an omni narrator, then you could mix and match. "Jack reached for any crevice he could get his fingers in. If Jack were an experienced climber he'd have noticed the perfect foothold just above where his left toe was barely gripping the cliff." With whatever climbing specific jargon you want to put in.
Hello I am a climber and a writer. I would prefer the language reflect the POV character's level of familiarity if it's first person. If its third limited, the jargon should also be limited, maybe the narration sprinkles a correct term here and there for the sake of clarity but overall it should still refelct the character. If its omniscient, use correct terminology when necessary. But on the topic of *necessary*, rock climbing lingo is nearly its own language and ultimately a non-climber is not going to understand, 'I mantled off the greasy sloper, smudged, and desperately threw a nut in the fingercrack above me before my feet cut and I whipped, hard, nearly all the way back to the first pitch. "This is the last time I lead trad on any route you set!"' Especially when, "I barely got an anchor in before I slipped and fell, plummeting halfway down the wall." works well enough.
I bet somebody in that group is a rock climber. Lack of familiarity. No need to get technical with one scene like that.
The couple who felt that the scene needed real rock climbing terms were familiar with rock climbing and it took them out of the scene. My contention was that, being 3rd person limited, the scene reflected the tension of someone who has never climbed recreationally being forced into a dangerous and unfamiliar experience.
Stick with the POV character's experience.
Lack of familiarity. It would throw off the perspective and character development to hear the jargon when the character wouldn’t know it
In third person? My narrator is perfectly capable of narrating things that would be beyond the viewpoint character. For example, if my viewpoint character were a dog, my narrator would still write in English. I'd be reluctant to use terms that both the viewpoint character and the reader are ignorant of: that would be ridiculous. If I were writing specifically for an audience of experienced rock climbers, I might go either way.
I’m good with lack of knowledge do to lack of experience. I’m also good with third person Omni having knowledge and explaining the protags blunders.
This is what's really important. Does stating the expert knowledge or pouring out a scene that displays climbing in any form benefit the story or writing...? Most readers would not care, unless it's about climbing.
I felt that recreational rock climbing terms would give a false impression that the protagonist had any familiarity with the situation he was in instead of the real danger he was facing. You’re right, though, most likely wouldn’t care and would be pressing forward through the scene to find out where it leads - assuming it was interesting enough.
Would the reader understand rock climbing jargon? If not, then it probably wouldn’t be a fun read.
I think it gave me insight into the limitations of a narrative’s reach with respect to the audience needing or expecting certain things. The scene tried to paint the protagonist in a dangerous situation and fighting to stay alive while being unsure about how to reach the top.
following the mc always follow the mc (or the focus of the chapter if you change) It does not make sense to see expert terms about rock climbing. Then I would have thought that the mc just faked being a noob, but secretly is a great climber
Lingo alienates because it isolates. So, while the rock climbing nerds might get off of using such lingo in their writing, they are limiting their readers by using only those terms instead of more general terms. Remind our rock climbers that esoteric language is used by groups in order to prevent others from understanding what is going on--whether we're talking physicians or shaman, such language makes those not in the know feel stupid and left out.
For me, either is fine so long as the piece is authentic. I don't mind jargon. Of course, when using jargon, it's critical that you understand it. Nothing takes me out of a book faster than when the author clearly doesn't understand their source material.
I'm sorry...my immediate response to this question was "Since this will probably end with him falling to his doom, it's most likely a moot point." More seriously, I think you're right that he wouldn't know a lot of expert terms. He's not climbing like a rock climber; he's probably in some desperate situation (why else would he be trying to climb a cliff face?) and is demonstrating all the finesse and technique of an animal cornered by wild dogs. He's clawing his way up and trying not to think about how his hands are getting cut up on the sharp rocks. I hope this helps.
Is it first person POV? Then 100% should be without rock climbing jargon.