Jacqui’s post got me thinking about prose, and especially, the meaning of good prose; I had written about that before.
In Jacqui’s post, Stephen King was quoted as saying that a simple word, with its purported directness and lucidity, is usually better than a longer one, with its clumsy pretentiousness.
There’s a happily intuitive appeal about King’s view. I mean, do I really want the 2L students in my First Amendment seminar, the night before their papers are due, to raid Roget’s Thesaurus, looking desperately for pseudo-scholarly substitutes for “significant” and “odious,” in some vain endeavor to gravy over an otherwise substantively mediocre paper?
But should King’s dictum apply for everyone? Take the satirist David Lodge or, for that matter, Christopher Hitchens, with their luscious grammar and deft—no, masterly—grasp of English. (Lodge and Hitchens, both British,. . . that wasn’t intentional, by the way,. . . please, no accusations of America-bashing.)
I find their vocabulary, multisyallbic and challenging, to be gorgeous and illuminating, the sort of stuff that I wish I had written, not just for their substance, but their fabulous style.
Good for you, John. It is great to see somebody sticking up for the virtues of a broad vocabulary. One might add William F. Buckley and George F. Will (and the late William Safire) to the ranks of popular writers who do not restrict themselves to common words.
Posted by: Steven Lubet | November 01, 2011 at 12:36 PM
I second Professor Lubet's sentiments.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | November 01, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Two cheers for Roget's! Hurrah! Hurrah! Steven--well said--Buckley (William and Christopher) are terrific; how I wish I were born with their talents.....
Posted by: John Kang | November 01, 2011 at 01:31 PM
I don't think it's coincidental, the British thing. The British do tend to use the language better than Americans, from both directions. That is, not only in using the big words better, but also (and this is critical) knowing when small words will do. Ordinary British English tends to be much more free of the horrible corporate-speak that infects American English ("utilize," and that kind of garbage). To see this, compare the prose on the BBC website with similar from, say, CNN. Or read a Congressional speech and compare it with a speech in Parliament. (Or just watch Question Time.)
Posted by: Paul Gowder | November 01, 2011 at 01:39 PM
Paul, your "utilize" example brought to mind a word currently in vogue (among not a few law profs) that I utterly detest: "incentivize" (and the related 'incents').
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | November 01, 2011 at 01:58 PM
I strongly disagree. A "big" word adds no value over a "small" one. And if the "small" word makes your prose easier to comprehend, choosing the "big" word would be a mistake. Peppering your prose with bigger words does not signal good writing. Consistently opting for the word that makes your sentences as accurate, clear and brief as possible, however, does.
Posted by: Brando Simeo Starkey | November 01, 2011 at 03:26 PM
I've wanted to ask/complain about a particular word for a while now, and this post seems to be the perfect vehicle: explicate?! Why in the world do people say "explicate" rather than explain (or something similar). I can stomach "utilize," but explicate? Any defenders out there?
Posted by: Jason Kilborn | November 01, 2011 at 04:05 PM
Explicate is used by those with an unconscious or sub-conscious wish to pontificate, not merely explain. Hence what was originally a Freudian slip is now commonplace.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | November 01, 2011 at 04:13 PM
I'm not quite sure if Patrick is joking in his comment or not, but I'd like that to be true. That said, I don't mind "explicate", at least in the context that I see it the most- in philosophical texts. You can see some examples here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=explicate
In this case "explicate" means more than merely "explain"- it's a special sort of explanation, often involving showing structural relationships and the like. Used in this community, it has a semi-technical sense and works quite well. Perhaps it's more of a problem in other cases. But, my experience is that technical terms, when used in the appropriate community, are often more clear than "smaller" words, even if they are merely showing off or worse when used in the wrong setting.
Posted by: Matt | November 01, 2011 at 05:54 PM
There are times when you want readers to go through materials quickly. There are also times when you want readers to slow down--by using passive voice and multisyllabic words, perhaps. Sorry, I mean big words; multisyllabic is too long a word.
Sadly, law review editors tend to follow rigid rules that privilege rule compliance over providing a better reading experience. Even worse, some journals tend to chop articles up into different sections with editors and staffers focusing intensely on individual sentences or paragraphs. What we sometimes ended up with was a perfectly formatted document full of forgettable information, not a memorable piece of writing.
Posted by: Peter Yu | November 01, 2011 at 07:55 PM
"Incentivize" needs to die.
Posted by: Paul Gowder | November 01, 2011 at 08:45 PM
I'm almost half tempted to begin a post asking readers, "Which words do you hate most--e.g., 'incentivize,' 'opine,' 'that which,' 'explicate,'--in the law reviews?" A modest bid at reform, I know, but still, a bid at reform.
Posted by: John Kang | November 01, 2011 at 10:21 PM
John: I think you should definitely begin such a post and allow commenters to add to the list. I am annoyed by utilize, opine and incentivize and I'm sure there are others out there I could think of...
Posted by: Jacqui Lipton | November 02, 2011 at 03:28 PM
Churchill said (or so I was taught): "Old words are good and short words are best." What else do you need to know?
Posted by: Bill Reynolds | November 03, 2011 at 12:39 PM