Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/32942
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/32942
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Authors often look to synonym dictionaries to find words different than what first occurs to them, but this is generally NOT to achieve rhythm, but to find a more accurate or evocative word for what they **really** mean.

The reason is that synonyms **_do not mean the same thing._** They are only close, each one has different overtones.

For example, Virtuous, Moral, Pure, Righteous, Good and Ethical are considered synonyms. But "Moral" and "Righteous" have religious overtones, "Ethical" has a logical overtone, a "Pure woman" does not seem the same as a "Good woman." A "pure" woman tends to mean virginal or chaste, a "good" woman can be neither, but we'd expect her to be faithful, honest, and hard working.

"Good" is used in circumstances where "Virtuous" would not be, we don't say "Virtuous dog." Even more nuanced, I can imagine real differences between a "good heart" and a "virtuous heart." "Virtuous" in its definition requires "high moral standards," while a "good heart" is not about morals, per se, and more about being kind or helpful for its own sake, not because rules demand it.

**BECAUSE** synonyms do not always mean the same thing, the answer is generally **_no,_** it is seldom acceptable to use synonyms to achieve rhythm, because the most rhythmic will seldom be the most accurate word to use. Failing to convey the meaning as accurately as possible is, IMO, bad writing.

Original score: 6