This is a bit like the Java philosophy. It works, it's arguably perfect for writing huge, plot-driven, King-like novels, but using this rule diminishes the author's ability to use interesting constructs in the same way Java prevents the programmer from using interesting constructs. You could say "if you have to look the keyword up in a textbook, it's wrong". This applies not only to coYoneda but also to goroutine.

It's more-or-less obvious that it was a great rule for Stephen King, but it's not clear if it would have helped David Foster Wallace write this:

'How did you know I was interested in Byzantine erotica?'

'You seem persistently to confuse me with someone who merely hangs out a shingle with the word Conversationalist on it, and this operation with a fly-by-night one strung together with chewing gum and twine. You think I have no support staff? Researchers at my beck? You think we don't delve full-bore into the psyches of those for whom we've made appointments to converse? You don't think this fully accredited limited partnership would have an interest in obtaining data on what informs and stimulates our conversees?

'I know only one person who'd ever use full-bore in casual conversation.'

'There is nothing casual about a conversation with a professional conversationalist. We delve. We obtain, and then some. Young sir.'

Damnit, I have a sinking feeling you just added a substantial amount to my reading list.

The book is Infinite Jest; it's the unrivaled best piece of writing I've ever put my eyes on.

I thought it was great, one of the best books I've ever read. Actually, in large part due to the language.

But I know a lot of people who tried it and were turned off; they seemed to get put by this "showboating".

Don't forget the fact that the book, even in paperback, is big enough to severely wound somebody if you throw it at their head. And something like a third of its bulk is footnotes. Lengthy footnotes that can be fill most of a page. There is a certain joy to making your way through a dense labyrinth of a story like this, but you have to put a lot of energy into the journey...

Okay, now I'm definitely sold. I'm a sucker for footnotes in a story.

For footnotes, have to mention House of Leaves (Danielewski) as well, although this definitely falls more into the gimmicky "hold the book up to the mirror" camp than the eloquence of IJ.

I've heard this advice from other sources and I always assumed they meant that it is the wrong word if and only if you weren't already aware of the word. I use a thesaurus when the perfect word is just on the tip of my tongue but it won't come out.

Stephen King is not the ultimate authority on prose style, nor, I believe, would he presume so to present himself.

He wrote about himself and writing in a book titled On Writing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Writing

So I guess if he makes statements that sound like writing advice he probably means them as writing advice.

(None of which is really a counter to something as absolute as 'ultimate authority', but maybe you could elaborate a little)

I've read On Writing, though not recently. The strong impression I have is that his advice was intended as just that -- advice, rather than binding pronouncements.

That is, King in On Writing seems essentially to be saying "Here's what worked for me. Maybe it will work for you, too," rather than trying to be Moses on the flank of Mount Sinai.

And, for any wordsmith, much of his advice has value! Certainly there's no doubt of that. On the other hand, King is a writer of horror fiction, and I am not. This, at the very least, suggests that not all of his advice will be applicable to my purpose, a consideration which seemed absent from the comment originating this thread.

If you assume King is clear and intentional in his writing (which of course he is), there is a lot of nuance available in "you have to hunt for".

Writing covers a topic large enough to encompass the act of programming, news articles, and poetry. Assuming the author intended it in the widest possible sense and expected it to apply to every situation does a disservice to both them and yourself.

I think he means, "Any word you have to look for in a word-book is the wrong word."

Basic English. Improving communication since 1930. Er, that is, Making better exchange from 1930.

Easy exception:

I need a word that pretty much carries definition-X of word-Y, but cannot be word-Y, because I just used word-Y in the last sentence.

As a writer and editor, I come across this exception a dozen times a day. You aren't looking to spice anything up, you simply need a purely functional synonym.

This is my primary use of a thesaurus, too. Ideally, a good writer should be able to naturally remember synonyms without referencing anything, but unfortunately my memory isn't quite as good as I wish it to be.

That sounds to me like it's talking about looking up obscure words that are related to the one you were going to use. Trying to get a better feel for a word with related phrasings in understandable speech is another thing altogether. Look at the definition for fustian, Webster's "An inflated style of writing; a kind of writing in which high-sounding words are used, above the dignity of the thoughts or subject" is actually simpler than invoking a term such as 'pretentious'. Taking "a feeling that comes suddenly to mind" or "Pertaining to, or situated under, the northern constellation called the Bear." gives you seeds of metaphor, not a stale and misused thesaurus word.

You have just hit upon the problem with using old dictionaries. Pretentious has not had either of those meanings in a very long time, and though the semantic drift of a word may originate in misuse or metaphor, once the new meaning is established in common use, it becomes the meaning of the word. I suppose I could use "silly" to mean "blessed" or "censure" to mean "evaluate" in writing today, but I wouldn't expect many readers to understand those words used that way. What, pray, makes language change preserved by the accident of print in the 18th century more valid than the language change that has occurred since?

It's difficult to make blanket pronouncements like this because there are so many different types of writing. News is different from fiction is different from technical manuals etc.

I'm reasonably with King, and I must say the suggestion that I use a 1913 dictionary to add floweriness to my prose makes me feel slightly queasy because I mostly write news and marketing material and I'm usually striving for clarity.

I prefer the notion that if you write a line, then look at it and think "that's the most beautiful, perfect, artful thing I've ever written," then it's probably overworked and you should cross it out and try again.

I think you just have to find a balance (depending on the audience you're writing for). There are times I write something that's clearly too flowery, and then I modify or remove a few of the words to make it sound a bit plainer, but while still retaining some of the original flair. And there are occasional times where I make something sound slightly more flowery.