Originally Posted by valteena 
Ebe, farooqkperogi and quietswami
Every writer has a style wether they are aware of it or not and emphasis on style can only compromise the effectiveness of the a written work. And the use of big vocabulary in itself does not constitute style.
Style involve a whole gamut of things from grammar, punctuation, arrangement of thought to method of writing as in first, second or third persons etc. What is incontrovertible in all of this is that the writing should be as clear, attractive and easy to read as possible. And the choice of words used very much determines this than anything else.
It is known that most complicated vocabulary has a simpler version, an everyday word that can be used in its place. Methink using such everyday words does help to convey a writer's meaning more clearly to all audience.
Not that there is anything wrong with the use of complex words/vocabulary, afterall they are there to be used. By all means use them if they do convey the message you want to better and discard it if not necessary. In essence, one must choose the best word best suited to do the job of conveying the message. And everyday words known to be generally be more effective in achieving this than using complex vocabulary.
Not only that, complex words can be misused by the writer. It can also be misinterpreted by the audience as is happening on this thread.
Like Ebe, some intellectuals do develop much attachment to the use of big vocabulary that it becomes second nature to use it with them. That's understandable. Others though believe they have to use them. They employ the use of big vocabulary because of the misguided notion that it will impress while some just use it out of pomposity to show their so called superior intellect.
But more importantly is the audience/reader's perception of the writers intent and their reaction to it which can vary to include those mentioned above and distract from the appreciation of the writing as we are seeing here.
So I guess it just boils down to finding the right balance really. That is, not so simple to the point of blandness and not too complicated as to be offputting. As someone already said, the job of a writer is to convey meaning and not to confuse or frustratethe reader.
Ebe mentioned in an earlier post, that there is nothing wrong in readers stretching themselves a little bit to research an idea or look out the meaning of a word in the dictionary. Absolutely agree. But there is nothing wrong also in a writer doing same to simplify his message to the reader as much as possible. Infact, the onus lies more on the writer to do so than on the reader I would think.
Having said all that, Ebe I do enjoy your write up a lot, vocab and all. Definitely one of my favourite writer here.
Val
Found myself having several passes of your piece and nodding in agreement at every instance but yet had a gnawing sense of something not being quite right!
Think we have both covered the same grounds -intent, message... Perhaps the missing piece is the implied subjective notion of "complex", "simple", "big vocabulary", "big grammar"! Subjective because I'm unsure of any possible means to reconcile the writer’s perception of the varying notions to those of the disparate members of his audience or readers. What constitutes “simple” or “big” words to me could very well be the staple of some, and completely alien to others. Tellingly -tongue in cheek - would we require some style stewards to dictate categorisation or classification?
As agreed with SLB in a previous entry on this thread - defining an audience is an infinitely impossible task! Is it really appropriate for the burden to be on the writer thus denying us his/her entries, or should it rather be on the audience who do have a choice? I believe the learning process is a two-way channel where access to the writer can clarify areas of misunderstanding to aid the exchange of ideas. Wole Soyinka, in the Nigerian context, is often highlighted as one with an inscrutable writing style – yet has a purported large following! Has his style been “accepted”? or has the audience simply adapted by raising/reducing their standards to his level?
Appreciate the call for “writers” to adopt readily accessible vocabulary where feasible but then one ought to cater for subject matters as well! The thought of communicating quantum physics in a “simple” vocabulary is an intriguing one! Not that I necessarily envisage such on this forum but point being made is that there is a need to acquiesce to the subject matter -there is only so much simplification that can achieved in “simple-speak”!
I use the tag “writers” unlike Joey, not condescendingly, but in acknowledging that not all are “writers” but most feel compelled to write as a form of expression – like the amateur artist – may use colour or brushstrokes clumsily but has a vision to express - shall we subject such to the rigours of an art critic? Or should we take it for what it is; appreciate the essence, and look forward to a point where a true blend of message and artistic technique evolves the point of being qualified as Art! Writing is an art form that evolves over time. However, this does not excuse those who should know better or those with ulterior motives who neither have ideas, vision, thought, concept... to express but still feel compelled to write. Coming from a school of thought that one should only open up to speak when one has something to say... anything else... well....! Feel very much at home in the category of writers – not a professional, not an academic, not an “intellectual”, do however have a vision to express but not in need of acceptance! Ok maybe a little just to validate my sanity or otherwise!
I say all these, in conjunction with previous entries, based on my old review of the much-maligned works of Amos Tutuola (first published Nigerian author in “English” – I believe?!). Might explain my unrelenting attraction to this thread! Yes, he did not have a mastery of the language, literary technique ... and yes linguistic and literary critics had a field day but all of these distract from the simple fact that he had a message to convey, and ultimately, he did! An upgraded review or re-write of his works will readily rival those of J K Rowlings or JRR Tolkien for creativity and imagination. An illustration that makes my argument vulnerable to that of acceptance but also supports the uniqueness of non-judgemental expression of genuine thoughts!
Equally, not intended as excuses, provisions should also be made for such linguistic phenomenon of thinking, and speaking in different languages (transliteration?! Need to check that) as there are varying degrees of competence especially where Nigeria is concerned as a nation of bilinguals and polyglots. Then, of course, variations between oral and writing forms of expression a blurred phenomenon in the age of texting, twittering... that conspires to obliterate the essential component of structured and constructive thought-process which may or may not translate into prose. Effort is the least requirement!
As I’m not adequately equipped to be a critic – linguistic or literary – I am content to be challenged within tolerable reasons; be forgiving and accepting of expression of thoughts where “something” is being said; and be dismissive of vain attempts to gain my attention either as a “peacock” or a shroud to cover up hollow spots! Speaking from the convenient purview of my prerogative of course!
Feel like I’ve covered all the ground - intent, writer, styles, message... but then who knows!
Who Do You Write For? 
Linear Mode
RSS Feeds |
Podcasts
