Showing off your vocabulary in articles...yay or nay?

Agree with your assessment. Good thing I don't have access to that person's toothbrush ;D (cross/thread). Fart will understand.

 

It's not showing off if the writer knows the so-called big words and uses them correctly. How can s/he know what words the readers will comprehend?

 

Then the person who writes "ostensibly" is not asking the question to himself that every journalist should ask all the time: "Is there a better way to say this?"

If I'm the editor, you can use all the big words you want provided you show me concrete proof that it will not trip up any readers. Until you do that, I'll err on the side of simplicity and clarity every single time.

 

And if I'm the editor, I read right past a word like that and it doesn't strike me that it is beyond a reader's comprehension.

 

Context is the issue. Words that flow freely and fit within one set of parameters (an opera review, a longform feature) can clunk obnoxiously and be completely out of element within another set (a crime brief, a volleyball gamer). White truffles are great, but that doesn't mean you should use them on a PB&J.

Also, vocabulary =/= intelligence. You can write intelligently without engaging in writerly writing. In many respects, choosing to avoid words is a better show of your brainpower than using them for the same of using them.

Remember, reporters (even the crummy dumb ones like you guys) have a broader lexicon with more unique words in your working vocabulary than many of your readers. Just because it sings harmoniously for you doesn't mean everyone else is going to have the same reaction. And "the readers need to open a dictionary and get to my level" isn't an acceptable answer. Message clarity is paramount -- if something you do can interfere with its delivery, then exise it with all due haste. You can always come back here and tell everyone how much smarter you are. You'll find kindred spirits.

 

," George Will said.

 

So sports writers, who wouldn't hesitate to throw in sports jargon that is incomprehensible to some, think it is wrong to use big words.

That is, umm, interesting.

 

"Cognizant" means "aware", and it doesn't mean anything more precise than that. So why use the former, when everyone knows and uses the latter?

 

Almost as "interesting" as comparing everyday, general-use vocabulary to sports jargon written for a very targeted audience of sports fans and athletes.

 

A big word is fine if it is the most accurate word (and reasonably understood). It is not fine in place of a more common word that means the exact same thing.

"The Colts had trouble with the Steelers' blitz packages."

Now, if you can find an easier way to write and understand that sentence that avoids sports jargon, go for it.

 

Because that's just the way it pops into someone's brain. I don't think people are typing away, stopping and saying "'aware' sounds boring. How can I spice it up?" I think "cognizant" is just the word that you come up with. If you've spent a lifetime doing the one thing that is most strongly suggested to make you a better writer -- reading, and reading, and reading some more -- you wouldn't even consider "cognizant" to be on a higher plane of understanding than "aware."

 

You're looking at it from a writer's standpoint. That's the whole problem.

It's perfectly normal for a writer to think that way. It's not normal for all of your readers.

Journalists also have to write for the people who haven't dedicated themselves to mastering the English language.