Obviously a novel is a work of prose (Or at least, the one I talk about is), but what I wish to convey in the sentence above is that the novel's language is dull and commonplace, and does not contain any literary or sophisticated words/register. Is it logically correct to say so, or should I replace the word "prosaic" with something else?

closed as off-topic by AmE speaker, Nigel J, Jim, oerkelens, user240918 Dec 28 '17 at 14:30

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    I suggest literary criticism belongs somewhere else than ELU… even than English Language Learners. – Robbie Goodwin Dec 27 '17 at 2:11
  • This could be converted into a single word request by modifying it to ask for a word that means {what you describe above} and fits in the sentence. "The novel's language is largely ________" But as it is, it is writing critique and off topic. – Jim Dec 28 '17 at 4:56

It is logically correct, but your explanation of what you mean by "prosaic" is more specific, accurate and complete (though also perhaps more prosaic).

Prosaic says what it means, so it's the difference between:

"having the style or diction of prose; lacking poetic beauty" and/or "commonplace; unromantic"


"dull and commonplace, and does not contain any literary or sophisticated words/register"

Which as you can see, are somewhat different things. Depending on how important that distinction is to you, you can choose. Personally, I'd rather read your more detailed elaboration than wonder what you mean by "prosaic" in that case.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.