Complex and Simple Language

[ForrestJG]

I've just been writing an article for my history class about the Russian Revolution and Alexander II's reforms he introduced, and I was asked, for homework, to write this article explaining and examining them. I completed it at one sitting, and when I looked back on it, I had inserted lots of complex words, which you would not find in an ordinary article and was quite glad of it. When I showed my parents, their critique referred to all the complex, long, and drawn-out words and the little need for them. When I read it again I wasn't too sure about them either, and was quite disappointed at how many times I used them. They were saying it is much better to write in simple language rather than the complex style I had written in. Instead of saying, 'Why! the tempestuous storms are of an abundance this week, and the surreptitious mice skulking along the floorboards are beleaguering me!', would it not be better to say, 'Why! the storms are plentiful this week, and the sly mice scurrying along the floorboards are getting under my skin!'.
I do kind of prefer simple language rather than complex language, and sometimes I think there is no need to use such words. Can not a meaning be expressed using clear and simple words instead without any need of going deeper? My favorite writers are Franz Kafka and Nikola Tesla - yes, the scientist - and they write in very simple language; Kafka is often regarded as one of the giants in literature, and I think he is indeed. He wouldn't be the same without the simplicity he pours onto the pages. But then Poe is too, and I'm sure you're all aware of how he writes...if not, go and read him!
So, what do you prefer? I think a thought, feeling, can be expressed using clear language rather than complex language. But then, is complex language necessary when trying to express a certain idea?

[krymsonkyng]

Post too complex. Did not read.

Just kidding of course,
I think simple language is easier to understand and therefore more applicable, er, useful.

Complex language has its appropriate time and place, more often than not to obfuscate and beleaguer (thank you for that word by the way).

So I guess it depends on your goals, right?

[keilj]

I'm in Hemingway's corner on this one



"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."

[MarkBastable]

I think my attitude is precisely the same as everyone else's - because everyone has reached the same happy equilibrium on this issue, which can be boiled down to:

Anyone who uses words I don't know is a pretentious arse, and anyone who doesn't know the words I use is an illiterate jerk.

[kiki1982]

Post too complex. Did not read.

:lol: that was what I was going to say!

Also kidding, of course.

I don't see anything wrong with either of them. I just think it is important to find your own style. Some people like to be precise, so they use just the right amount of words and the ones they believe come closest to what they mean. So they are wordy and have a wide vocabulary. Others prefer to say it plainly and don't bother with precision.

There is an argument for both. Or you can go the middle road.

To me, if there is a clear message behind difficult and precise, then I will enjoy it. Simple is also good. As long as the writer himself is enoying his writing and is not using words for words' sake.

There is something great in writing that is precise and well-constructed. That's why I like English legal texts so much (I know, weird :rolleyes:).

[mal4mac]

Complex (Macbeth speaking):

Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas incarnadine

Simple:

Can I wash my hand clean in the ocean? No; my hand
will turn the ocean red.

So simple isn't alway best ;)

[muhsin]

The essence of any writing is to communicate. Hence if writing then is hard, difficult to grasp its prime purpose is not achieved. With these short but precise "saying", I do not subscribe to using complex words in all my writing. Though in a very rare case the need for one to use them (for instance, to fascinate) arises, and I do that. LOL

[MarkBastable]

There is something great in writing that is precise and well-constructed. That's why I like English legal texts so much (I know, weird :rolleyes:).

Actually, precisely what English legal texts are not is precise*. They're wordy, full of redundancies, and constructed around the most arcane and twisted (and not necessarily correct) grammar.

'The party of the first part, and/or the agent thereof, will be authorised without let or hindrance to constrain upon the goods and chattels of the respondent ('you', 'your'), notwithstanding any expression to the contrary implicit or explicit herein.'

I exaggerate not much. And I've actually been careful with the grammar.

There's a theory that this absurd sub-dialect developed because legal clerks, who used to write such stuff out long-hand, were paid by the line.

That may be part of it but, as Martin Cutts says,

"Fog in the law and legal writing is often blamed on the complex topics being tackled. Yet when legal texts are closely examined, their complexity seems to arise far less from this than from unusual language, tortuous sentence construction, and disorder in the arrangement of points. So the complexity is largely linguistic and structural smoke created by poor writing practices."

(Martin Cutts, Oxford Guide to Plain English, 3rd ed. Oxford Univ. Press, 2009)

And where do poor writing practices originate?

"Those who see legal writing as being simply a matter of cleaning up grammar and punctuation, as well as learning citation form, grossly misunderstand what the field should be. Good writing results from good, disciplined thinking. To work on your writing is to improve your analytical skills."

(Bryan A. Garner, The Mad, Mad World of Legal Writing. Garner on Language and Writing. American Bar Association, 2009)

For me that informs the original topic of this thread. I'm not interested in whether a writer uses simple language (Kurt Vonnegut) or complex language (Will Self). I care only that they think well and write just as well.

I'm much more interested in distinctiveness of style (Wodehouse, Amis, Roth, Sterne) than in any preceding notions of the words they should use to do it.








*Well, if you mean 'precise' in the sense of 'they accurately do what they intend to do', perhaps they are.

[osho]

I've just been writing an article for my history class about the Russian Revolution and Alexander II's reforms he introduced, and I was asked, for homework, to write this article explaining and examining them. I completed it at one sitting, and when I looked back on it, I had inserted lots of complex words, which you would not find in an ordinary article and was quite glad of it. When I showed my parents, their critique referred to all the complex, long, and drawn-out words and the little need for them. When I read it again I wasn't too sure about them either, and was quite disappointed at how many times I used them. They were saying it is much better to write in simple language rather than the complex style I had written in. Instead of saying, 'Why! the tempestuous storms are of an abundance this week, and the surreptitious mice skulking along the floorboards are beleaguering me!', would it not be better to say, 'Why! the storms are plentiful this week, and the sly mice scurrying along the floorboards are getting under my skin!'.
I do kind of prefer simple language rather than complex language, and sometimes I think there is no need to use such words. Can not a meaning be expressed using clear and simple words instead without any need of going deeper? My favorite writers are Franz Kafka and Nikola Tesla - yes, the scientist - and they write in very simple language; Kafka is often regarded as one of the giants in literature, and I think he is indeed. He wouldn't be the same without the simplicity he pours onto the pages. But then Poe is too, and I'm sure you're all aware of how he writes...if not, go and read him!
So, what do you prefer? I think a thought, feeling, can be expressed using clear language rather than complex language. But then, is complex language necessary when trying to express a certain idea?

I do not agree with you when it comes to Kafka's writings I find his sentence very lengthy and at times a single sentence covers the entire page.

[henriquefb]

I think that there is no straightforward recipe in regarding the use of "complex" vs. "simple" writing. My guess is: you should develop a style of writing which is able to express more fully what you mean. If you "make it ten-dollar" or if you "make it simple" just for the sake of it, it will probably end up bad.

It depends on the mean you choose to express yourself as well. If you want to write a short story about your first love, complex words will most surely look like rubbish. Otherwise, if you decide to write a sonnet about death, they will probably look nice.

This being said, my own experience tells me that one must be VERY careful in the use of "ten-dollar words". Most times you end up looking like a pretentious prick. Only resort to them if it REALLY fits with what you are looking to express.

[kiki1982]

Actually, precisely what English legal texts are not is precise*. They're wordy, full of redundancies, and constructed around the most arcane and twisted (and not necessarily correct) grammar.

'The party of the first part, and/or the agent thereof, will be authorised without let or hindrance to constrain upon the goods and chattels of the respondent ('you', 'your'), notwithstanding any expression to the contrary implicit or explicit herein.'

I exaggerate not much. And I've actually been careful with the grammar.

There's a theory that this absurd sub-dialect developed because legal clerks, who used to write such stuff out long-hand, were paid by the line.

That may be part of it but, as Martin Cutts says,

"Fog in the law and legal writing is often blamed on the complex topics being tackled. Yet when legal texts are closely examined, their complexity seems to arise far less from this than from unusual language, tortuous sentence construction, and disorder in the arrangement of points. So the complexity is largely linguistic and structural smoke created by poor writing practices."

(Martin Cutts, Oxford Guide to Plain English, 3rd ed. Oxford Univ. Press, 2009)

And where do poor writing practices originate?

"Those who see legal writing as being simply a matter of cleaning up grammar and punctuation, as well as learning citation form, grossly misunderstand what the field should be. Good writing results from good, disciplined thinking. To work on your writing is to improve your analytical skills."

(Bryan A. Garner, The Mad, Mad World of Legal Writing. Garner on Language and Writing. American Bar Association, 2009)

For me that informs the original topic of this thread. I'm not interested in whether a writer uses simple language (Kurt Vonnegut) or complex language (Will Self). I care only that they think well and write just as well.

I'm much more interested in distinctiveness of style (Wodehouse, Amis, Roth, Sterne) than in any preceding notions of the words they should use to do it.

*Well, if you mean 'precise' in the sense of 'they accurately do what they intend to do', perhaps they are.

I don't think legal English is all that unprecise and foggy. The opposite really. You can say an awful lot in English with one word, but that is not supposed to happen in a legal text. Before you know it, they will be milking that ambiguity. Like the human rights thing seems to be last craze :rolleyes:.

The thing about legal English is that it is old (thereof, whereof, heretofore, hereinafter :rolleyes:, forthwith is a minor one), but that it also exactly states what it is about and that in one sentence. I get such texts under my hands now and have to write them too. One idea = one sentence. Rarely two.

You should see legal German.Think Kafka times two :eek:.

The thing with legal English is not that the grammar is sh*t, but that they want to cram all into one sentence, because they believe that that is how it should be. That idea also exists in other languages like Dutch, where a whole court order can be virtually one sentence seperated by semi-colons.

I don't know whether that is disorderly in its thinking behind it, but rather addressing the point when it occurs and not two sentences later.

That's not how I would write a bok, of course, but there is something in it that is admirable ;).

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm in Hemingway's corner on this one:

"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."

I like that. You really can tell when people are trying too hard.

However, my favorite author at this point in time is Lovecraft, and his prose is somewhat complex. He just puts it forth as though it were the most natural thing in the world, you could imagine him actually talking like that when he was alive.

So I guess my opinion is, just write (or indeed, simply speak) in whatever way comes naturally to you. You can certainly try to improve your vocabulary and grammar, but do so through study until it becomes natural. Never try to force it, or write with a thesaurus by your hand, people will be able to tell instantly and your work will be exposed as crap. And when you are trying to write something, remember that it is about free-flowing effective communication of the idea which is important.

[osho]

I hate a jumble of complex words and sentences and I also abhor the kind of monopoly some British and Americans want to have over the use of English. Today English had been a global language. Whether or not America prospers or worsens English will remain. It has been a lingua franca across many geopolitical territories and today it is impossible to reverse the trend. India is for example a growing / booming economy and English has earned an official status.

That is why I feel English must be written in a very simple way to make it comprehendible to all who read it

[zoolane]

I hate a jumble of complex words and sentences and I also abhor the kind of monopoly some British and Americans want to have over the use of English. Today English had been a global language. Whether or not America prospers or worsens English will remain. It has been a lingua franca across many geopolitical territories and today it is impossible to reverse the trend. India is for example a growing / booming economy and English has earned an official status.

That is why I feel English must be written in a very simple way to make it comprehendible to all who read it

Well you bet not reading any my writing. Personal it depends on what I am writing whether it story, poetry or just thoughts. It did depend about year ago but now I write and use words that sound right and make the sentence flow.

Reading I will reading anything with limit but I am reading book and I do not understand then I will look it up.

[ForrestJG]

I do not agree with you when it comes to Kafka's writings I find his sentence very lengthy and at times a single sentence covers the entire page.Oh, yes, I know. They can often cover a whole page and sometimes I daydream whilst reading them because they are very lengthy. What I mean though is that he doesn't tend to use complex words but rather quite simple and brief words. I guess you have to write without necessarily concentrating too much on the words themselves, but rather, just pour yourself onto the pages. Then you can go back and edited your writings, a couple of times, then 5 times, then 10 times, maybe even reach 20, before finally throwing it in the bin.

[Arrowni]

Simplicity and complexity should be used to cover a writer's faults and that's it. Looking into the question as if a general truth could come from it is counterproductive.

[osho]

Oh, yes, I know. They can often cover a whole page and sometimes I daydream whilst reading them because they are very lengthy. What I mean though is that he doesn't tend to use complex words but rather quite simple and brief words. I guess you have to write without necessarily concentrating too much on the words themselves, but rather, just pour yourself onto the pages. Then you can go back and edited your writings, a couple of times, then 5 times, then 10 times, maybe even reach 20, before finally throwing it in the bin.

I second your view hundred percent. I have never problem with his words, they are a good selection since he was a very careful and mature writer. The problem was understanding his views which are so profound and intricate. I read the Metamorphosis so many times and every time I found the book somewhat different.

[ForrestJG]

Josefine the singer, or the mouse people, can be quite complex at times but I managed to get through that and understand every part. But I made sure before, that I would concentrate hard and follow it closely. Really, it's a good job Max Brod didn't burn his books like he was asked to do by Kafka himself, because it's about times some cockroaches got some recognition; I don't think there's any others that have.