Recently, I took a grammar refresher course to help with some aspects of my editing. I took the course because often enough I encounter something in ProWritingAid or in conversations with other editors that I don't understand. The terminology occasionally goes over my head. So, I thought that perhaps a refresher course would help with some of the terminology confusion.
The course certainly did do that, and I was glad I took the course. However, there were a few comments that actually irritated me—and they all revolved around this philosophy that we're dumbing down language.
Not everyone likes Jane Austen
These comments centered around editing exercises that utilized writing from various Jane Austen books. In one exercise, we were looking at the complexity of a sentence. Not knowing that the passage came from a Jane Austen book, I had commented that had I gotten a piece of writing with a sentence like that from a client, I would have recommended to the client to break the sentence up and simplify it. It was too complex for most readers of the genres that I work in. Then the comments of how we're dumbing down language started—and I bit my tongue.
I should probably point out that I hate Jane Austen's books. I find them too pretentious and irritating. They refer to a time in history that has long ago been relegated to the history books. Certain writers will hail Jane Austen as a diva, but her books and stories make me want to vomit. I can't stand them.
And what I hate about them the most is their over-bloated, complex usage of language.
At the time they were written, people really did speak that way. You can also see the complex usage of language in the writings from Charles Dickens. But if you consider the population who could actually read back then… Of course, the language will be over-bloated and pompous.
Only those of a certain aristocratic standing could read. The majority of the common-man population couldn't.
Today's audiences consist almost entirely of the common man. If it is discovered that a person can't read, then it's a failing of a system where they slipped through the cracks. Majority of the adult population can read. Yet, there are still some people who seem to favor these books that glorify a time when society was highly segregated. They seem to cling to books that were written for the rich.
So, when I hear comments from other editors saying that we're dumbing down language and that we should publish more books like Jane Austen, I want to scream.
There's a reason I won't work with literary fiction. Literary fiction often leaves me with the same feeling that a Jane Austen book does. And I hate it!
If you are writing genre fiction, targeting a mainstream audience, then the language used needs to be accessible to all.
The 5th grader statement
It is said that mainstream genre fiction needs to target a 5th-grade reading level. I would like to challenge that.
The actual words used could probably benefit from being limited to a 5th-grade vocabulary, but the construction of the prose could be highly sophisticated. My philosophy in general: just because a word exists in a dictionary doesn't mean that you should use it.
This philosophy also extends to words like ain't. Believe it or not, ain't is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. But if you are writing using a business tone, that is one word that should be avoided. Ain't is slang for aren't or isn't.
But just because a passage uses 5th-grade vocabulary doesn't mean that the usage of language in general has been dumbed down.
Consider The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. The usage of the first-person, present-tense narrative was highly sophisticated. So much so that first-person, present-tense now seems to be a gold standard for Young Adult books as other authors try to replicate the sophistication present in The Hunger Games. But the language was highly accessible and didn't need a dictionary to understand.
My general rules about accessibility of language
It may seem silly, but here are my rules for making language accessible.
1) If I need to have a dictionary sitting next to me while reading your book, I won't read it. And I certainly won't edit it.
That's not to say that I don't look things up in the dictionary when editing, because I do—all the time. But it's only to verify spellings. (Was that word supposed to be one word, hyphenated or two words? Is the client using the US or UK spelling? And is that even the right word in that instance?)
2) If I encounter a word I don't know, which happens all the time—thank you, technobabble—I better be able to work out from contextual clues what the word means.
Thrillers are filled with terms that I don't know and aren't normally found in a dictionary either. Cops and soldiers have their own slang for certain things. And non-English words often find stories too. Don't forget about the colloquial terms. However, I don't need that dictionary next to me to enjoy the story, because I can still work out what is going on from contextual clues.
This goes for those made-up fantasy languages too. It was frustrating when I read the Inheritance series by Christopher Paolini. Whole sentences, whole paragraphs, were in Dwarfish or Elvish. Gah! Thankfully, a glossary was included in the back of the books, but that's not the point. I shouldn't have had to look up whole passages in the back of a book to understand what was going on.
But some literary writers (not all, but some) seem to make it their mission to use that bizarre word-of-the-day in a sentence… and another one… and another one.
We get it. You can use a dictionary. How nice.
3) If your sentences span across 4 lines, then perhaps that sentence is too long and needs to be broken up.
I'm not saying that it is too long, because sometimes you need that many words to get an idea across. But… Just think about the reader experience. Too many ideas at once can be difficult to assimilate.
4) As much as you might love your flowery usage of language, if you are publishing, it always comes down to the reader experience. This means know your audience.
And my audience consists of those who live in today's society and who are not stuck in the past.
It will probably always irritate me how certain works are glorified—hailed as the "best" works ever. And those works will probably always make me want to vomit. And writers who try to emulate those classic works… I'm not your audience, and I never will be.
5) Write using the same vocabulary that you use for general conversations.
If, in your general conversations, people look at you with a semi-blank stare like you just said something that they don't understand, then go right ahead and write those works that require a dictionary as companion reading. But don't send it to me for editing, because I will turn it down.
The odd unknown word here and there is fine, but as I said above, I better be able to work it out from contextual clues what is happening.
Language is constantly evolving
What some people would call a dumbing down of language, I would call an evolution. New words are being invented all the time, and old words are being made redundant.
Once upon a time, the word gay meant being happy, but now it's another word for homosexual.
Or what about the term sugar daddy? The term for a generous benefactor found its way into our common vernacular in 1926.
And what about Nazi? Thanks to the events of World War II, this term has taken on a life of its own. (It didn't start as a term with negative connotations.)
But this evolution of language was bound to happen. As society evolves and embraces new technologies, language changes to accommodate our new lifestyles.
Remember the reader
For those seeking publication, it is vital that you remember who your reader is during your edits. You could have written the most sophisticated, brilliant masterpiece on the planet, but if it's never read, who's going to call it a masterpiece besides you? One of the best ways to ensure that your writing is read by others is to make the language accessible to today's audiences.
How do you feel about others saying that we're dumbing down language? And dare I ask it, how to you feel about the works written during Jane Austen's era?