I just read an article (an excerpt from Ben Blatt's book, Nabokov's Favorite Word is Mauve) lamenting the dumbing down of literature over the years.
Take a look at these three passages and tell me which one you think is hardest to read and which is easiest:
1) A hadron's "sea" quarks don't change its quantum numbers.
2) Penelope's playmates—rhinoceros and hippopotamus—unfortunately received no invitations to the environmental education convention, so Penelope, extremely embarrassed, created handwritten invitations, decorated expensive envelopes, and personally delivered them to rhinoceros and hippopotamus.
3) Whence hails the scythe of angst? The id ebbs. Death trysts with aught. Wrest the mote from your eye. Sage and lithe, heed the cues. Ward off the murk and thrive.
Finished? What did you think? Well, I'll tell you the results of the Flesh-Kincaid test.
2) (Penelope's playmates) Grade level: 29.9. Yes, 29th grade. Like…a second doctorate?
The Flesh-Kincade readability test (which the article
didn't use) is a little more moderate,
but its lowest grade level seems to be 5th grade. And you guessed it: the opaque third passage should be
comfortable reading for a 5th grader, according to this, and the one
about quarks is perfect for 6th graders. But don't let your kids get hold of the
passage about Penelope's poor playmates.
It can only be read comfortably by college graduates.
How?
The problem with this test is that it uses exactly two
factors: sentence length and how many
syllables in each word. It doesn't account
in any way for the difficulty or familiarity of the words themselves and
certainly doesn't delve into the difficulty of the concepts behind it or the
clarity of the writing. While these
examples are extreme, it does show the flaws of the test.
The truth is that sentences, over the years, have become
shorter. But I don't necessarily view
this as bad or "dumbed-down" writing.
It's just a different style. To
me, one very important aspect of writing—non-fiction OR fiction—is clarity. If you can convey complex ideas in a way
that's easy to read, then I think that's better writing than conveying
complex ideas in a way that's difficult to read. Long, convoluted sentences are more challenging,
and take greater attention spans and perhaps greater education, but that
doesn't mean they're necessarily better.
A curvy road with random speed bumps and potholes is more difficult to
drive than a straight, newly paved road.
But does that make the curvy road "better?" To some people, yes, because straight roads
bore them, so they like skirting the potholes and wrenching the steering wheel back
and forth like a video game. To others, it's
not better, because they like getting to the destination and being able to
enjoy the scenery as they go instead of concentrating so hard on the road. Then there's the whole, "Don't use a five-dollar
word when a fifty-cent word will do."
I'm not saying either way is good or bad. But it's unfair to suggest that shorter
sentences and shorter words mean the writing is less sophisticated. It's just different.
As for the Flesh-Kincaid test, I think it's a good tool to
evaluate whether your text might have too long of sentences for ease of reading,
but beyond that, I don't think a whole lot of it.
By the way, the Flesh-Kincaid grade level of this post: 7.3.
The Flesh-Kincaid grade level of Shakespeare's Macbeth: 6.8.
Seriously, if you're a Shakespeare afficionado, there's no
way you'd consider this post more sophisticated than Macbeth, and if
you're not a Shakespeare fan, there's no way you'd consider it more
difficult. Numbers, unfortunately,
do sometimes lie.
Read what you love and write what you love!
No comments:
Post a Comment