On Dumbin� It Down

A response to wrongheadedness

On Dumbin’ It Down

By

William Walter Wraith

 

 

“Why level downward to our dullest perception always, and praise that as common sense?”

—Henry David Thoreau

 

 

“You need to dumb it and simplify the text,” wrote one reviewer.

      Another remarked, “While your vocabulary is stunning, it bogs down the reading.  Why use phrasings like ‘the becalmed lake,’ when simpler text would do?  Unless you are sure that your audience is going to be interested and captivated by the grandiose nature of your descriptions and verbiage, why alienate those who will simply misunderstand what you are saying?”

      Finally, this:  “If you are wanting readers to understand what you are saying, use more modern language.  You have a great understanding of English, which most people don’t.  If your readers need to use a dictionary to understand your work, they won’t read it.”

      The caps are mine, fellow authors.  I hope the words shake your minds—that they sound as a bugle call urging you to hold the line.  Don’t retreat.  Don’t give in.  Write to the best of your abilities.  Seek to dazzle your readers.

      Above all, don’t assume they’re stupid.  Unless, of course, you’re selling snake oil.  Then the deeply stupid will be your natural audience.

      What we choose to write is a product of our unique experiences.  Writers often attempt to create works resembling those that have most enhanced their own lives.  We want to pass along to others something of the wonders we have beheld and the joys we have experienced.

      Sure, most people I know don’t even own an English dictionary.  Yet it is their language.  Too bad they can recite the lineup of the Yankees and memorize the TV guide, but cannot choose with confidence between “affect” and “effect.”  Let them revel in the comics and wonder at the astrological tables; I don’t begrudge them their pleasures.  They need authors, too.

      But they don’t need me.  I don’t do funnies.  Therefore, I don’t expect them to read my works.  If their habits do not include a love of language, they won’t want me.

      You won’t find much literature in the funnies.  I think Jay McNerney's definition of literary fiction is right on where he includes the clause, “it requires new reading skills and teaches them within its pages.”  This is what happens when authors skilled in their craft work to express truths about complex themes arising from human nature.  Literature may well result when, in every instance, we seek—as Samuel Clemens admonished us—to use precisely the right word, not its second cousin.

      Readers averse to learning anything new read the funnies, the familiar, what makes them comfortable, what merely entertains them, what reassures them that the stereotypes and prejudices that make them feel warm and fuzzy are all they need to know.

      But I say to anyone who reads, you will enjoy reading all the more if now and then you take a moment to look up that word you're not quite certain of; and as a bonus, you might forever after be better able to express yourself.  Literature makes people better.  Authors who don’t believe this may write, but seldom will they create literature.

      Oh, and anyone who calls himself an author, but does not own a dictionary, is merely a fool.

      I know many readers out there would sooner turn on a video than look up a word.  But I know many readers, myself included, who take joy in imaginative works that attempt to instill in us wonder for the fluidity of expression afforded by the English language.

      I think it is a crime to write down to the reader.  Whatever the language of the piece, some will take to it, some will not.  I expect the kind of audience I write for to own a dictionary and love the language.

      No author should dare to target the whole world.  Why, even “Run, Spot, run,” thank all gods, could not capture all the readers.

 

Reviews

[Nicole Hellene]

Man if anything we need more rich diction in languages, afterall that's where I learned my vocabulary--from reading it in books and grasping the meaning in the contexted of the rest of the sentance. I've read good books when I was younger where I didn't understand hardly a word in it. This is one of the reasons I hate sci-fi, the language is just so primitive that it ruins the story, so mechanical and blunt that I feel like I'm one of the machines the darn thing is talking about. I want art in text, art! Rich language and very bourgeois adds depth to the story. Look at Nathaniel Hale and The Scarlett Letter. I read that book in eight grade and although it was an extremely hard book to grasp and get through, the story was full of art and I think that maybe if I went back and read it now I'd enjoy it more.

[Lisa M Peppan]

I am acquainted with people for whom "Run, Spot, run," is a stretch. I also know folks who think owning *ANY* books is a waste of space. Fortunately, I know many more who have given away furniture to make room for more bookshelf space.

My catch phrase in high school was, " If you're having horrendous defugalties comprehending my oratorical redundancies, attempts will be made to comply with greater simplicity." I acquired this prodigious vocabulary reading works by authors who challenged my comprehension and associating with like minds who amused themselves by re-writing nursery rhymes using big scary words. 'Course now, it didn't hurt I was raised in a household with a dictionary 11 inches thick that had belonged to my mother's grandfather; Mom was and is a reader and encouraged the practice in her children.

I want to be an author who can challenge my reader's comprehesion but cannot if we allow pressure from the lowest common denominator to dumb our work down to the point great literary works begin with the words, "Look, look. See, see."

Thank you for your words, Good Sir.

[Jonah Hawthorne]

Coming back and reading this again has reaffirmed the suspicions that were beginning to creep upon me recently.

[Dave]

F**K AN A!!!!
First off, I cant believe you got those type of comments. Second off if the people that left you those comments read this and didnt give you a thanks for keeping the words small for them, then I thank you on their behalf. Thirdly...

www.m-w.com

...thats where I go when I dont have my dictionary on hand and stumble across a word that is alien to me. Seems you have the same peeve with affect and effect as I do with then and than...I hate seeing then and than used improperly.

Great article and even though I've never read any of your work, I agree with what you said. Thanks for sharing.

[Jonah Hawthorne]

So is it bad that the only dictionary I currently own was written by Abrose Bierce?

[Francis Meyrick]

"But it's just too, too easy to blame readers when a story doesn't work. If I write a novel in German, is it your fault that you can't understand it?"

Dear "guest". I don't think he's "blaming the readers". At all. He's sticking up for the love of English. And refusing to serve comfort food.
And, yes, if YOU were to decide to write a novel in German, I for one CAN read it, because... I LOVE the German Language. (Oh! I do believe that was precisely one of William's points...)

[Adam Greenfield]

I think I can see both sides of the argument. I know, I know, nobody likes a fence rider but, well, there it is. On a personal note, as a reader, taking a break every other sentence to check a dictionary reminds me (negatively) of footnotes. I always end up finding myself backtracking a sentence or two to bring me back up to speed. However, as a writer, I enjoy throwing multi-syllabic words out there. I don't do it to impress, I just like the way they sound.

I think I read someone say you can't please every reader. How true that statement is. I can only have faith that my target audience will enjoy the words I string together to form sentences. In fact, I think that's all we can do.

I once had an English professor assign us each a different short poem and told us to re-write each word in the poem using a Thesaurus. Not only was it a fun assignment but it taught us that sometimes there just are no other words than the ones used to get the right meaning, whether the word is cat or cathartic.

[Francis Meyrick]

Very nicely written. And I do own a dictionary. It is somewhat dog-eared and shows the scars of many a battle. And how right you are. We dare not target the whole world, if we wish to convert folk to readers and admirers of beauty.
Then again, if we simply wish to take pot-shots at laughable humanity, ourselves included, then, indeed, let's target the whole world.
Frankly, the whole world IS daft... save thee and me.
(and even thee...is... a little daft)

[Creepy Swine Guy]

I was going to write a rather scathing review, filled with caustic sarcasm and biting attacks on what I perceive to be some views expressed in the piece that I am not in complete agreement with. I decided, however, to take the high road.
So let me just say that my own definition of lierature (as well as Websters) is much less restrictive than the one that you offer in your piece. I agree that vocabulary enhancement is a good thing, but is difficult to force feed to people. You have every right to write in a fashion that might cause others to take you to task, but understand that you might not generate a large following.
There! I have had my say, and I hope that I've done so without having put you to defense.

[Josh Burke]

...Okay? So, you're angry that not everyone is as smart as you. I hope you realize that, when people usually tell you to dumb it down, they're probably trying to help you. Yeah, it sucks that not everyone is proficient in the English language, but what are you going to do about it? If you don't write to a level they can understand, they simply won't buy it. I think the best way I've heard someone put it was this, "if you write a word they don't understand, you might as well put 'bddsfgfcsk,' because it will have the same effect." Believe me, I'm all for people educating themselves, but putting numerous unknown words into your writing won't do that, it'll just make sure that people don't buy your work.