: THE CASE OF OVERBLOWN WRITING AND SHOWOFF VOCABULARY.

Clear communication should require the writer not only to write clearly and smoothly, but also to ensure that his sentences are well-organized with carefully placed emphasis that makes the writing accessible to readers. Looking up too many words in a sentence is not only a sign of bad writing, but also unnecessary effort for the reader. It is all right to have large vocabulary as a writer, but effective writers use their large vocabulary to create clear, and exact meaning – not to show off. Too many writers think that using big, unfamiliar words or complicated structures will impress their readers. The objective of this article is not to critique Mr. Pryce’s article but to sympathize with the many readers whom he has been beating with this club for sometime now.

Mr. Pryce response to his readers’ frustrations in understanding his article is not merely academic snobbery, but a writer’s contempt for his readers. Oscar Levant once said, “What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left?” Oscar was right; most of the great Ghanaian intellectuals I have met are humble and unassuming people. There are some Ghanaians who hold academic chairs in universities abroad, but are deeply humble and respectful of those not as fortunate as they are, who could not obtain such an education. They interact with the learned and the unlearned, the haves and the have-nots, as the powerful and the not-so-powerful. I have nothing but great admiration and respect for such Ghanaians.

I try not to critique other people’s work in public, but I couldn’t withhold my thoughts or put down my pen after reading the condescending remarks by Mr. Pryce in response to a comment by one of his readers. The reader writes, “Dear Mr. Pyrce, Your article is not clear to the point. You write very well, but this time I am afraid I was confused with the use of the term Ghanaian and love in your article.” This is a person complimenting Mr. Pryce’s earlier articles, but expressing her frustration about her difficulty in understanding his present article. Instead of returning this kind gesture, Mr. Pryce decided to show how unlearned his readers are. Pryce writes,

“I started reading the Daily Graphic when I was 6, and by age 8 had gone to the local library and got a library card. In short, I love to challenge myself all the time, which is why I think our people just complain for nothing. I agree this article may best be understood by someone with an 'A' Level certificate or higher, but therein lies the challenge for others to want to improve their English language skills! What's wrong with being a lifelong learner?

People don't want to learn any new vocabularies and want us to write for primary 6 pupils all the time. I understand what writing for an audience is, but I should not limit my craft simply because some don't like my style; after all, I am not a paid journalist. Not that I don't listen to what people say, but I think we Ghanaians complain too much about everything! “

Pryce penned these words despite the fact that many of his readers have expressed the same frustration in reading his article, “Why I Married a White Woman: A Ghanaian Tale of Love.” To Mr. Pryce, the reason his readers were having problem understanding his writings was that they don’t want to learn new words. Thus his writing wasn’t the problem; his readers’ limited vocabulary skills were. What Mr. Pryce and some educated Ghanaians don’t understand is that effective writing is not about using arcane vocabulary and syntax of stereotypical academic prose. The purpose of writing is to communicate your ideas clearly and effectively. Clear, smooth writing communicate better than muddy, awkward writing.

Many people with graduate degrees still take writing classes, but not because they can’t write English, or don’t know many big words. Instead, they do so because they don’t know how to communicate. Knowing something and being able to communicate it effectively to others are two different things.

What Mr. Pryce forgets is that good writing is not about packing unfamiliar words together in one sentence. To be fair to Mr. Pryce, I ran one of his sentences through an editing program to see how it would score. I didn’t believe he could write such a long sentence with so many unfamiliar words and expect his readers to understand with ease. I ran the following sentence from Pryce’s article through the style editor program.

“Kojo insists there are the daily challenges of living with a person of a different race: the different cultural beliefs; the ostensibly Lucullan parties that Jill loves to throw, which Kojo still finds irritatingly profligate; the regular stares of the dilettante; the morose and diabolical glances of the less traveled; the pavane of irascible and contentious interlocution among extended family members when there is a birthday or a funeral or a graduation party in either family, and a host of other untenable burdens that an interracial marriage imposes.”

I obtained the following results after running the above sentence through the Style Writer: Style Index: 123 – Bad; Average Sentence: 89 - Unreadable. The results mean Mr. Pryce writing style is not only bad, but unreadable. So you see, the problem of readability is not with his Ghanaian readers, but his unreadable sentences. Professional writers describe this kind of writing as “logorrhea” – the practice of using many large and obscure words in badly constructed sentences.

There are three essential parts in written communication: a writer, a reader, and a text. The writer writes and the reader reads. The text stands between the writer and the reader, sometimes acting as a bridge, sometimes as a barrier, between the two. As a writer, I cannot simply write anything that comes to mind if I want my readers to interpret the text the way I intend it to be interpreted. I need to know my readers’ expectations to make my work meaningful to them. The text is where I interact with my readers.

Good writer put themselves in the place of their readers and adapt their writings to their needs. Our readers should be able to understand us effortlessly and be able to appreciate our stories without much difficulty. Our prose should therefore demonstrate clarity, presence, and unity of thought. Further, good writers try to be sensitive and respectful to their readers; if readers detect the voice of the text is pretentious or condescending, the relationship between readers and the writer may be marred. It is therefore important that as writers we convey our message with intelligence, warmth, and lightheartedness.

Our problem is that most of the times we want to believe that being wordy is more academic or classier. Howard S. Baker in his book, “Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article, “narrates an episode in which he asked one of his Ph.D. students to remove some words and wordy phrases from her dissertation. The student was reluctant because, she said, “I want to be classier and Academic.” Howard asked the student to write to explain what she meant by “classier and academic.” These are some portions of what the student wrote after a month’s reflection.

“Somewhere along the line, probably in College, I picked up on the fact that articulate people used big words, which impressed me. I remember taking two classes from a philosophy professor simple because I figured he must be really smart since I didn’t know the meaning of the words he used in class. He sounded so smart to me simply because I didn’t understand him.”

Commenting on the student’s response, Howard remarks, “The more difficult /poor the writing style – the more intellectual they sound to beginning scholars.” Many educated Ghanaians believe the more obscure words they use, the smarter they are.

One wonders why a good writer would start an article with an introductory sentence like this one. “As a social scientist, I am imbued with an incessant propensity for sauntering into the trenches of information and assessing, albeit circumspectly, the pertinence of mottled stories, anecdotes and facts to the human experience.” The human brain does not easily process such convoluted sentences. Such writings are difficult to read because the brain is forced to go to the end and work backwards. I don’t believe readers should be put through this arduous task. Such writing is simply irresponsible.

I don’t know what scholarly journal Mr. Pryce reads, but I am sure he does not read introductory sentences like this in those journals. Professional Editors will not allow writers to publish these kinds of sentences. Reading is basically decoding; packing words like these in one sentence makes it hard for the reader to understand. Yet Mr. Pryce lays the blame at the doorstep of his readers, accusing them of being lazy and uneducated.

Pryce writes in another article that he believes he understands the problem, but turns around and hit his readers harder with the club. He writes, “I get it, folks!” Then moves on to explain what he gets: “Many of us simply are not interested in looking up a word or two in the dictionary. We have been out of school for so long that we do not want to be bothered.” My questions to Mr. Pryce are: What do you get when you keep hitting your readers harder? Why do you keep demeaning your readers? Though Mr. Pryce claims he “gets it,” he still believes the problem is with his readers. He believes the reason they don’t understand his verbosity is because they don’t apply themselves. Thinking the problem of understanding his prose is unique to his uneducated Ghanaian readers, Pryce further writes, “I guess I might as well just seek a second audience for my other writing style (no sarcasm intended) ? far away from ghanaweb.com and other pro-Ghanaian Internet portals.” My question is this: Mr. Pryce, where are you going to find an audience who can make sense of these kinds of writings?

The problem with Pryce is that he sees nothing wrong with his prose, but everything wrong with his readers – he believes they are just lazy people. He writes, “I have seen too many intelligent and brilliant Ghanaians both in the U.S.A. and Ghana waste precious years doing little for them, when they could have improved themselves in so many ways.” In Pryce’s mind, the only way Ghanaians can improve their competitive skills in this global economic environment is to learn many big words and pack them all into one sentence. I find his comments disrespectful and arrogant to say the least.

I want all of Pryce’s readers who have been hurt by his verbal abuse to know that they are not responsible for making his prose clearer. The problem is with Pryce and only with Pryce. It is Pryce’s responsibility to use easily recognizable words to improve his prose and make it more readable. The article he wrote should have been written in a conversational tone to make it more persuasive. I will advise Mr. Pryce to consult some of the best writing books, such as “The Element of Style,” by William Strunk & E.B. white, and “Keys to Great Writings” by Stephen Wilbers to see the problem is his and only his. He should own the problem, and apologize to his readers for the manner in which he has treated them.

Email: ysophism@yahoo.com