Why do authors choose to use obscure/old ways to write words?


To be clear, this is **not** a question on why alternate forms exist.
Obviously there are a lot of historical reasons behind them. It is also not
about why people use rarer alternate forms generally. Often they can convey
more subtle meaning, like using 已む instead of 止む or 亘る instead of 渡る.

No, the real question is about why authors **choose** to use versions of a
word which, to the best of my knowledge, are **both** rare/obscure, and convey
no extra meaning, even when there are less obscure ways of writing this. As an
example of this, and the specific one that prompted this question, is the
usage of 莫迦 instead of 馬鹿. The only difference between the two is that 莫迦
seems rare and comes from the old Sanskrit Buddhism stuff. Maybe one could use
that if one of those things was relevant, but in the Tsukihime remake, it is
used in a completely irrelevant context (calling the protagonist stupid for
saying he would never use his power).

Obviously this was just a recent example for me. Another would be for これ. If
one wishes to be fancy and write it as a kanji, 此れ or 之れ are going to be more
understood than 是れ, but a quick google search will show that the latter is
still used in modern published books, even though, again, as far as I can
tell, there is no nuance between any of the three.




There _is_ a nuance between them which only experienced readers can feel. 莫迦
looks more literary, elevated, fancy or poetic than 馬鹿, and readers will
eventually develop such a sense after reading many literary works. I didn't
know 莫迦 is related to Sanskrit because I haven't bothered to look it up in the
dictionary, but I can easily imagine what kind of situation 莫迦 tends to be
preferred in.

In almost every language, including English, there is a contrast between
common words and literary words. In Japanese, such a distinction exists also
with the choice of kanji. Many uncommon kanji are used in aesthetic writing to
add a subtle nuance or literary flavor. I don't think it makes much sense to
try to make clear distinction between "conveying subtle meaning" and "making
it look elevated"; in many cases, it's about both.

  * [What is the difference between 護る and 守る?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/16155/5010)
  * [Native speakers, do you recognize the kanji 謳?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/54836/5010)
  * [What's the difference between 災い and 禍](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/77755/5010)




There _is_ a nuance between them which only experienced readers can feel. 莫迦
looks more literary, elevated, fancy or poetic than 馬鹿, and readers will
eventually develop such a sense after reading many literary works. I didn't
know 莫迦 is related to Sanskrit because I haven't bothered to look it up in the
dictionary, but I can easily imagine what kind of situation 莫迦 tends to be
preferred in.

In almost every language, including English, there is a contrast between
common words and literary words. In Japanese, such a distinction exists also
with the choice of kanji. Many uncommon kanji are used in aesthetic writing to
add a subtle nuance or literary flavor. I don't think it makes much sense to
try to make clear distinction between "conveying subtle meaning" and "making
it look elevated"; in many cases, it's about both.

  * [What is the difference between 護る and 守る?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/16155/5010)
  * [Native speakers, do you recognize the kanji 謳?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/54836/5010)
  * [What's the difference between 災い and 禍](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/77755/5010)

