Personally I love anything idiomatic that is different from the norms of my own region. And whether affected or not, I think whilst is more beautiful than while. And I find it a weak argument to say that all phrases should be avoided which come off affected, because for each and every one of us language itself began as an affectation. If I choose to write in a style different from that with which I would speak—even if I choose to speak in a manner different from that in which I have previously spoken—I am affecting unnatural phrases or pronunciations, yes, but natural doesn’t always mean correct. Should we limit ourselves based on convention? Convention is very often wrong.
Take the word enormity. It is only through popular misuse that the word enormity has come to refer to size. Do we want its least adept practitioners governing the course of our language?
And this is off topic, but I find this annoying: If a person writes a book in one English-speaking country, and the book is then published in another, the spelling and some of the phrases are changed to reflect the norms of the country in which it is being printed. I suppose this is all very subjective, but I revel in the differences in our respective norms for spelling. If I, an American reader, come across the words colour or defence, will I not know what to make of them? Will it prove such a distraction that I can’t continue reading? I would rather see the words the author intended as he/she intended them. Nobody monkeys with Shakespeare. Why don’t we afford every author the same courtesy? If it is good enough for the originators of the language, why must we alter it to suit anyone else?
Having said this, though, if I wrote a book that became popular here in the States, and the book was picked up for publication in the U.K., I would have to insist that the words were changed to reflect U.K. standards. Only because I find them more poetic. Colour looks prettier with a u in it than without.
And a thought on denouncing phrases for sounding archaic— if someone chooses words which happen to be outdated only because our language has devolved to the point of being less aesthetically oriented, should they be criticized for their choices when it is really our own conventions that are deficient? If someone finds literary inspiration in Oscar Wilde, is he not truer to himself to seek to emulate Wilde’s style than to conform to the contemporary norms taught to him by his parents and schoolmasters? My parents and schoolmasters never once elevated my soul by simple perfection of word choice. My own words never gave me nearly the sense of awe and wonder that Shakespeare’s have. I would do myself a disservice not to carry him with me. Why should those who take more care with the beauty of language be the outcasts? They’re the ones trying to save us.
Literary inspiration is just another term for anyone from whom you’ve attempted to steal. And don’t misunderstand me. It isn’t that I believe that you shouldn’t put yourself into your work, but this is really a non-issue; people can’t help putting themselves into their work, whether consciously or not. If I attempt to give the reader a bit of Wodehouse, it’s not Wodehouse I’m giving him, is it? It’s Wodehouse corrupted and distorted, tainted by all my own experiences and biases.
I think the point was best expressed by Elvis Costello (and I’m paraphrasing): What I do is set out to write Beatles songs, and when I fail miserably I have something that’s uniquely my own.
