My last column lamented the need for so many readers to look up unfamiliar words. I said that, in nonfiction communications — say, business or journalism — an unfamiliar word such as adamantine does a reader a disservice, interrupting the smooth flow to understanding.
That prompted a bunch of reader protests. Some samples:
1. “Really? You want to chuck all that richness and diversity of language so you won’t need to look up a word? Who is going to be the standard bearer for that, Gary? Me? The guy at the Taco Bell drive-thru?
“Sure, the intention is to communicate, not to obfuscate, but why choose blunt simplicity over precision or eloquence? Personally, I like adamantine, but I like my dictionary, too.”
2. “I disagreed with your last column. I don’t mind if someone occasionally uses a word I’m not familiar with, especially if the word describes the situation better than a dumbed-down version. I’m 69 and not opposed to learning something new, especially from a writer I enjoy.”
3. “The quote about Hemingway’s never having driven a reader to the dictionary came from William Faulkner, who intended it as an insult.”
4. “I used to hate being driven to my dictionary, interrupting my reading to walk to my bookcase. But now, with Google on my cell phone, in seconds my vocabulary expands.”
Another reader’s view:
