>If I have to look a word up in a dictionary that is often the fault of the writer, too.
And when should I freeze my vocabulary and declare that all the words I haven't yet memorized are worthless? At the age of seven? Perhaps twelve?
We have always been at war with David Foster Wallace.
Genius. My hat, Sir.
Good writing is about expressing and transferring ideas. It is not supposed to be intellectual masturbation, though some may treat it as such.
Not everything is a scientific paper. Good writing can also be art. There's a reason why Shakespeare wrote his 18th sonnet and not just "I think you're very beautiful".
I didn't say it was. I said that writing is about expressing transferring ideas.
>Good writing can also be art.
True. And good art is about... expressing and transferring ideas.
The idea a fiction text such as Shakespeare's works wants to express is (mainly) emotional.
The exact meaning of words is more important in the former case than the latter, though not unimportant in the latter.
Shakespeare is one of the biggest outliers when it comes to reach as a function of complexity of language, and I don't think that generalizing from that specific anecdote is useful, especially as pertains to modern writers. I wouldn't advise any new writers to imitate Shakespeare if they want to be published today.
It's very easy to get published today, I just got published and so did you.
But sure, your advice is probably good if you are concerned mainly with commercial success. I would venture to guess, though, that most great, enduring writing comes from something inside the writer that they feel they have to express, rather than from looking outside themselves for the right "product-market fit." Some writers find a simple, lapidary style, others prefer more ornate language. Both can be great and I don't think we should call one right and one wrong.
Of course they do. Unless you're suggesting that there's some kind of deep state conspiracy to alter the English language one word at a time.
>and using words that most people don't understand works against that goal
Most people don't speak much English at all. Should everyone stop using all but the most common thousand words? Most native speakers aren't experts in any particular field. Should all technical writing spend dozens of words to imprecisely replace each bit of specific jargon? Should no one ever coin a new term simply because it won't already be in wide use?
Not at all. There’s an entirely democratic process used to decide which words are commonly used an understood, everybody simply chooses for themselves what words are useful for them to include in their vocabulary.
> Most people don't speak much English at all.
I wasn’t specifically talking about English. My comments would apply to any non-dead language.
Regarding the rest of your comment, people modify languages all the time. They invent new words or bring old ones into use (or stop using old ones), and whether they survive depends entirely upon how popular they are within the culture. This isn’t specific to the broader English speaking culture either, subcultures have their own vocabularies whether they are technical subcultures, or some music subculture, or zoomer meme culture… they all invent vocabularies to suit their communication needs.
A better title for this page would be “a list of (mostly) discarded words that I (we?) like”. In regards to how effective these words are at facilitating communication, I see no argument presented here for why they get less recognition or use than they deserve. Because most English speakers wouldn’t understand most of these words, and using a word that somebody doesn’t understand is always going to be a less effective way of communicating with them than using a word that they do (and all of the words I saw on that list have actually widely understood alternatives).
> entirely democratic process
Yup. Language change theory. Via emergent consensus, the most democratic process.