Bobbie’s got a point

When I read JL Cranfield’s response to Bobbie Campbell’s criticisms I did think: come on JL, you testy bastard, you are a bit pretentious – you’d do better to take the advice!

I mean, it’s not that there’s anything wrong with using a long word per se. But, if it’s not in everyday use, you have to use it carefully so as not to jar. In JL’s smoking piece, for example, “the aforementioned” in paragraph 8 could safely have been written as “these” with gains to readability and no loss of quality. As for the thing about “drinking in the majestic splendour of Kent’s calcium-rich water table”… well Bobby’s right – that did sound a bit silly!

It is understandable that someone of JL’s age (20?), intelligence (high) and situation (undergraduate at second-rate university) should seek to differentiate himself from his illiterate peers by writing about them in terms he can be satisfied they will not understand (viz Butt-Phillip goes to university). That he does so in such a funny way is to the benefit of all.

However, in terms of his literary development, he is still more Arthur than Evelyn. Thusly, when criticised he should not be offended; rather he should be flattered that someone has taken the time to read him.

By Jimothy

Note from the editors: This has been an excellent debate on the virtues and pitfalls of verbosity, however we feel that it is now preferable to draw a line under this particular argument. Further articles discussing the subject in itself are always welcome, but responses to either J.L. Cranfield or Bobbie Campbell should perhaps stop here. Thank you to J.L. Cranfield, Bobbie Campbell, D. Diedrich and Jimothy for your input.


Copyright October 2005