I'm currently writing something that requires I describe a fairly complicated thing, which while I think I accomplished the task itself relatively well, I realized that some of my readers may not have the prerequisite surrounding knowledge to actually get it. It's not like they really have to, its kinda just a cool reference more than anything, but it got me thinking: How much do we assume our readers know? Obviously, most people are not disgustedly educated in the specific areas I am, and I am not educated in the same fields you guys are. However, I think its safe to say we could determine the difference between nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and so could pretty much all of our readers could too. So what should we assume is 'general education'? I'm not talking about language barrier here, that's a seperate issue and not the reader's fault, though cirriculum may vary between countries. How much of basic subjects would an average adult recall from school? Most people would know water = H2O, but do they remember (or ever learned) that photosynthesis = 6CO2 + 6H2O + sunlight -> C6H12O6 + 6H2O? Would a normal person on the street be able to name the quadratic formula off the top of their heads? You've probably noticed that I've underlined a few of the bigger words in the post. Would you expect the average reader to be able to define all those terms? Frankly, I would expect my fellow authors to, but I'm not entirely sure a general samaritan could. There's always the old reliable Google.com and the even older reliable paper dictionary, but would a reader be willing to tab out mid-reading to look up a new word? I look up synonyms and spelling all the time, but that's because I'm writing, not reading. Thoughts?
You misspelled 'curriculum'. The only word in your post I would be hesitant about is 'quadratic'. Math is scary. But generally speaking, I wouldn't be too worried about individual complicated words. Just write the way you're comfortable writing. We are pattern-seeking entities. If you occasionally use a word that's very constribalish, people will just figure it out from context. And even if not, it's not the end of the world to misunderstand a word every now and again. If your story relies on complicated concepts, though, you might have a bigger problem. Simply put, not everything can be "explained like I'm 5", and it's one of my pet peeves when people insist that it should be. However, even in cases where it is possible, ELI5 is hard. You're on CHYOA, so you're probably writing an erotic story. Is that really what you want to spend your (and your reader's) time doing? Explaining the quadratic formula or the chemistry of photosynthesis? (P.S. If you're writing an erotic story that relies on the reader being able to reproduce the quadratic formula from memory, then I congratulate you, for you have undoubtedly come up with the oddest erotic story of all time.)
I'd generally assume that the kind of knowledge that's specifically either a course curriculum or professional shop talk needs to be given some context and explanation ONLY if it's absolutely necessary for the reader to understand the context of the story. An example I'm thinking of is lawyers talking about their cases. If the case is actually relevant to the plot, you might need and slow down to explain what particular legal terms like habeas corpus mean. However, if your goal is just to convey that these are competent lawyers who know their business before they have sex, it's not important and you should definitely avoid getting bogged down in it. As a possibly relevant example, you can see how a show like the recent Daredevil, treats legal terminology. You'll see characters yell at each other "You think I don't know what habeas corpus is?!" It prompts the reader to know it's relevant and either context it out or look it up themselves if they need to, without slowing down the action to fill in the entire blank for them. All that being said, I think a good rule of thumb is not to dumb down your writing/terminology by pre-supposing your reader will be too lazy to look things up. Unless your goal is specifically to make your story readable by the type of person who'd be scared off just by seeing a word they didn't recognize... which, if so, fair! Just keep in mind the nuance and technical correctness you might sacrifice by doing so.
Minor spelling mistake Also, I tried to search up constribalish, and not only did Google and Bing have nothing, but merriam-webster.com thought I was trying to say 'constipated' lmao In essence though, I think after the ever so technical 'this is what's going on here' introduction, the issue doesn't pop up. To be honest, I mostly just wanted to know how other people handled this, as some of you are DEFINITLY smarter than me, and I'm already smart enough to realize that a lot of people aren't.
I think a lot more people are keenly aware of what habeas corpus is, and why it's the foundational right of due process, than you would think right now considering it's topicality to US politics (also it's really sad that it's become so critically relevant but I digress). ------------------------ On the whole, I think that context is key. Feel free to even coin your own words if the context makes it clear what it means. For example, if the precise term for something doesn't exist, feel free to just fabricate your own word using Latin and Greek roots (please do do your best not to mix Latin with Greek though - the occasional word such as hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia does mix the two but this really isn't good linguistic practice). There's roughly a million words in English, the world won't end if you add one more.
I feel like the terminology and actual definition may be seperate points of knowledge in some cases. Example, the aformentioned habeus corpus. I could tell you that in the USA, you are entitled to challenge your believed unlawful jailtime. I could not, however, define the term without context. I'd expect you to be able to describe a priest as 'man of the cloth', a pastor, or even clergy. I would not expect you to define him as ecclesiastical, despite that being the exact definition of the word.
For sake of spreading definition, the right of habeas corpus is the right to have your prosecution be before a court of law or judge (in case of a simple written request) rather than before the executive or his subordinates. This ensures that the executive can't act unchecked.
The "due process" debate from USA has been hilarious. The people screaming that J6 suspects didn't get due process (they did, all of them were taoen to court instead of simply being punished without a trial) also argue that victims of ICE are getting due process when many of them were deported without any sort of trial to determine if they should be allowed to stay or not. People just use terms like that as buzzwords without understanding them.
Many do, but if you look at what's going on by the political elite controlling the narrative, it's more insidious. The US political right (and as a reminder, the US Overton Window is center-right, and so the DNC is center-right despite often being called left-wing) has been actively engaging in doublespeak for about twenty years now. Which means the day-to-day Republican who always votes Republican and believes that Democrats are evil (I was raised on these beliefs, unfortunately), simply believes due process to be the process which results in those who deserve punishment getting punishment and those who don't deserve it not getting punishment. They have no such parallel definition for Habeas Corpus, which is a very very specific term that rarely got used prior to 2025.
There's nothing wrong with complex language and even terminology, especially if it comes natural to you. Better to have a good flow with your writing than stunt things because you're forcing your brain to dumb it down or do something it wouldn't naturally. That said, I think a good rule of thumb is writing with the knowledge that the reader won't understand certain things unless they're elaborated on or explained in a coherent manner. Context is extremely important. If a chemical formula is a focal point of the story, it'd be wise to explain it and inform (or educate) the reader. It's why movies and media love exposition. If it's a passing comment between brainy characters? There's no need. I've always understood "show and tell" as a key rule for roleplay, so I like to think general storytelling and writing is no different. For what it's worth and maybe some extra data: Math is my downfall in general. I also couldn't tell you what the chemical formula for photosynthesis is, but I absolutely understand the process of photosynthesis. I equally have a deep understand of nuclear fission and it's process, but I couldn't even begin to tell you the formula for a given radioactive element in said fission. I don't think someone would bat an eye at "photosynthesis", but most will be in the dark if you throw only the technical or formula term at them. Proceeds to look at US military designation with unwavering disdain.
