Obnoxious Vocabulary

I'm all for vocabulary, generally. I wish mine were larger.

But I don't particularly enjoy writers who are wordsmiths first, storytellers second. I remember a thread on here about a national Web site column about how the Big Ten was "too big to fail," and people lauded it left, right, up, and down for what beautiful sentences and language it used. And yet, it said nothing. Brought nothing new to the table. Just 20 inches of verbal masturbation.

I don't know if Collier qualifies as that kind of writer. This is obviously one sentence out of his entire body of work. Speaking more generally to the issue.

 

It's not all he can do, but Collier does love playing with language. Any regular reader of the P-G sports section knows he is going to do that sort of thing. He has been doing it there for a long time and seems to have an audience.

No way would I use that word in a game story, advance or feature. Hell, I probably wouldn't use it in a column, but I don't think there is anything wrong with him doing it.

If guys like Tony Kornheiser can ramble on about shit that has nothing to do with sports, a columnist can work a word like that into his articles once in a while.

 

Not for nothing, but is "somnambulant" all that out there as a word? Anyone with a modicum* of education should know that by sight or be able to piece it together without much trouble.

*Modicum: a small or limited amount

Then again, maybe Collier should have written LOL OMG Pitt wut u doin

 

I put "Sisyphean" in a softball gamer lede once, and it got taken out by the desk.

 

I've just been told that I lack a modicum of education.

I think that we're having this discussion instead of discussing the arguments in his column -- what are the arguments in his column? -- make it bad writing. Did he write it to make a point about Pitt basketball or to have people get stuck on, and argue about, an obscure (and yes it is obscure) word?

 

Maybe he didn't think it was an obscure word, just as when Dick wrote Sisyphean he may not have thought it was obscure, and on those points I would concur* with them. Maybe people who write for a living, and who have read voraciously** for enjoyment and to hone*** those skills, come from a different point of view than the 140-character world. Maybe they aren't intentionally putting obstacles in their columns and don't consider a four-syllable word to be an obstacle.

*concur: agree
**voraciously: a lot
***hone: sharpen

Steve Rushin must be glad he got in the bulk of his career before blogs took over.

 

Yeah, I think this is it.

It's like my dad used to say about Trivial Pursuit: "It's easy if you know the answer."

 

Indeed. Because if you can't write for the biggest vocabulary in the audience, you MUST write for the smallest.

I kinda sorta knew what the word was, but I admit I figured it out on account of the word has the roots of two drug names -- Soma and Ambien. I put two and two together from there.

 

To me, it's all about balance. I don't mind a writer sending me scurrying to the dictionary with a big-boy word every now and then. I enjoy language, and expanding my vocabulary.

If I'm doing it every other paragraph, however, I'm going to lose interest.

 

THIS (per usual).

one of the best writers at my old shop also liked to 'show off' his vocabulary. now, i'd like to think my vocabulary is at least on a par with the average reader and my opinion is that the primary objective for any newspqaper reporter -- and ESPECIALLY a columnist -- is to be understood. i'm turned off by any newspaper writer who makes it necessary to keep a dictionary at my side.

you're not educating 99 percent of your readers; if anything, you're alienating them. i don't believe you have to 'write down' to your audience, but neither must you write over their head. it defeats the purpose.

the best columnists rarely use words the average joe can't understand. the best columnists, imho, show off their 'intelligence' by presenting a well-formed point of view while also making the written word their play-thing with which to entertain AND educate with an intelligent point of view.

they do not, however, do this by words the vast majority of their readers won't understand and are most unlikely to look up. why would any columnist want to make their readers feel stupid? you drive more to become 'former readers' than you drive to a dictionary.

spare us your vast vocabulary at least until you're writing magazine 'takeout' features or offering the world your version of 'the great american novel.' at least then i usually have a beer and a dictionary within reach. and the time to put 'em to use.

dazzle me with sentence structure and your use of something close to every-day language. i understand the counter-argument many bring to this issue but i will never be convinced otherwise on this one.

 

I think if you put "Sisyphean" in a high school softball gamer you'd make more than a few heads explode.

 

This is an interesting parallel. To me, writing rules -- much like the basic tune to the Star Spangled Banner -- are there for a reason. They are important. They make stories, and songs, easier to follow.

However, those who know what they are doing can and should occasionally break them. A world-class musician should be given more license with the song than some soccer mom plucked out a karaoke bar.

You want to be the one to tell Jimi Hendrix he's playing it wrong?

The trick, of course, is to determine which of us are Jimi Hendrix and which of us are warbling soccer moms. That's the job of a good editor. And if one is slicing through copy indiscriminately whacking every word one doesn't immediately understand, without regard to context, sentence flow, etc, one probably is not a very good editor.