Do I really have to write for 8th graders?

[KenJames]

Harold, that does not make sense to me. I can understand writing at certain levels for young children still learning to read (e.g., developing their vocabularies), but after a certain age (or grade), one is writing "down" if one writes "below" their own level, it seems to me. If I wrote so that a certain grade of reader would not need to work to understand my message I would be writing down to them and below myself.

Perdita

I don't quite follow your reasoning.

I'm a college graduate, so my writing level should be around grade 16. Are you saying if I write under grade 16, I'm writing down to potential readers and below myself?

Grade 16 writing is incomprehensible to most humans. What's the point of writing if no one understands you?

 

[Guest]

I'm a college graduate, so my writing level should be around grade 16. Are you saying if I write under grade 16, I'm writing down to potential readers and below myself?

Yes, I am.

Grade 16 writing is incomprehensible to most humans. What's the point of writing if no one understands you?

I don't write for a market, not even a free-one like Lit. If the great writers of our time thought along the lines of this last question we'd be reduced to newspapers and comic books.

Perdita

Edited to reduce unintentional harshness. I am only trying to be plainly understood, nothing personal.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

"What's the point of writing if no one understands you?" KenJames

"I don't write for a market, not even a free-one like Lit. If the great writers of our time thought along the lines of this last question we'd be reduced to newspapers and comic books." Perdita

Perdita,

That is, of course, with the exception of writers such as Shakespeare, Tn. Williams, Dickens, Twain, K Vonogut, and S. King who all wrote/write for a living.

Ken, the grade level deal is just a tool. If it bugs you, let it be. But first, use it to check on the grade levels of some best sellers and classics.

Submitted for your approval, or not.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Weird Harold]

I have a very low opinion of bureaucrats, because they tend to not think when they are working.
...
As another aside: Weird Harold, did you take your name from the "Fat Albert" series?

Grade Level ratings are only of specific interest to social scientists, editors, and (hopefully) writers. Very few bureaucrats ever get involved with checking them.

I got the nickname mostly because my friends kept telling me, "Harold, you're weird." This was at the time that Bill Cosby was primarily known for his "sit-down" comedy routines and long before the animated TV series, but yes, there is some of that character in the nickname, too.

Perdita said:
... one is writing "down" if one writes "below" their own level, it seems to me. If I wrote so that a certain grade of reader would not need to work to understand my message I would be writing down to them and below myself.

The whole point of writing anything is to communicate -- if only with yourself by organizing your thoughts. In order to communicate best, things should be worded in the simplest manner that will make the point.

For example, I can (and sometimes do) write things that the simplest way of saying them is rated at 12+grade reading level, but my normal writing style is more short, terse, and easily understood.

Intentionally writing sentences that complex is almost as much work as reading them is. Accidentally writing them is often a sign of a lack of ability to communicate effectively.

Again, Reading Levels and Writing levels are NOT the same.

Just because you have the ability to read, and assimilate the intended meaning of, excessively vebose, complex, and obtuse sentences filled with multidinous polysyllabic language symbols does not necessitate that you should habitually write them.

The higher your "writing level" the lower the reading level of your work will naturally be.

 

[snooper]

Just because you have the ability to read, and assimilate the intended meaning of, excessively vebose, complex, and obtuse sentences filled with multidinous polysyllabic language symbols does not necessitate that you should habitually write them.

I am reminded of a famous Welsh rugby player who went with the British Lions some years ago to tour Australia.
He had left school at the first possible opportunity, while most of his team-mates were graduates, lawyers, doctors and so forth.
A journalist asked him how he got on with them, citing the educational rift.
"Man, it's terrible," he said, "They keep using all these long words I don't understand ... like marmalade."

 

[KenJames]

The whole point of writing anything is to communicate -- if only with yourself by organizing your thoughts. In order to communicate best, things should be worded in the simplest manner that will make the point.

. . .

Again, Reading Levels and Writing levels are NOT the same.

. . .

Just because you have the ability to read, and assimilate the intended meaning of, excessively vebose, complex, and obtuse sentences filled with multidinous polysyllabic language symbols does not necessitate that you should habitually write them.

Well said! I'm writing to communicate, not to display my erudition.

 

[Black Tulip]

The whole point of writing anything is to communicate -- if only with yourself by organizing your thoughts. In order to communicate best, things should be worded in the simplest manner that will make the point.

For example, I can (and sometimes do) write things that the simplest way of saying them is rated at 12+grade reading level, but my normal writing style is more short, terse, and easily understood.

Intentionally writing sentences that complex is almost as much work as reading them is. Accidentally writing them is often a sign of a lack of ability to communicate effectively.

Again, Reading Levels and Writing levels are NOT the same.

Just because you have the ability to read, and assimilate the intended meaning of, excessively vebose, complex, and obtuse sentences filled with multidinous polysyllabic language symbols does not necessitate that you should habitually write them.

The higher your "writing level" the lower the reading level of your work will naturally be.

I like to add: writing complex thoughts is best done in simple sentences.

It's not what you write but the way you do it that has to be easy to understand.

 

[Guest]

The whole point of writing anything is to communicate -- if only with yourself by organizing your thoughts. In order to communicate best, things should be worded in the simplest manner that will make the point.

I agree with the first sentence here but only because you added the 'if only'. I do not agree with the second sentence as it would exclude much of the poetry ever written.

I truly do not write to communicate with anyone but myself, and so have no need to display my erudition. Whatever anyone may construe of erudition or multidinous polysyllabic language symbols makes no difference to my personally, but it still upsets me that so many writers on Lit. are backlash-type snobs about fine writing.

Perdita

 

[KenJames]

I truly do not write to communicate with anyone but myself, and so have no need to display my erudition. Whatever anyone may construe of erudition or multidinous polysyllabic language symbols makes no difference to my personally, but it still upsets me that so many writers on Lit. are backlash-type snobs about fine writing.

Perdita

Writing for yourself and nobody else is perfectly valid. However, if someone is writing to communicate with others, that communication is more effective if the writing is comprehensible.

I hope this doesn't make me a backlash snob, but I respectfully disagree with the concept of fine writing and clear writing being mutually exclusive.

Joyce was a fine complicated writer. Hemmingway was a fine clear writer ("clear" does not mean "unsophisticated"). Both produced great art.

 

[Weird Harold]

In order to communicate best, things should be worded in the simplest manner that will make the point.

I agree with the first sentence here but only because you added the 'if only'. I do not agree with the second sentence as it would exclude much of the poetry ever written.

"... the simplest manner that will make the point," does NOT exclude ANY poetry!

Poetry "makes the point" through rhyme and rythm as much as it does with grammatical or readable sentence structures. Poetry that is "too simple" often doesn't make it's point, but poetry that is more complex than it needs to be doesn't make it's point either.

I truly do not write to communicate with anyone but myself, and so have no need to display my erudition. Whatever anyone may construe of erudition or multidinous polysyllabic language symbols makes no difference to my personally, but it still upsets me that so many writers on Lit. are backlash-type snobs about fine writing.

I'm not sure what you mean about "backlash snobs about fine writing." This thread started with question about a rule of thumb for 'fine writing' --"Do I really have to write for eighth-graders?"

The answer to that question is, "NO, you don't. But it's a good idea to do it anyway."

The rule of thumb about writing to an eighth-grade reading level applies only to writers with a "target audience" of "mass appeal" or "general readership" and it only applies to subject mater that can be adequately expressed at that level of readability.

It's a specific example of the general rule of thumb, "know your intended audience" -- if your intended audience is YOU, then write for YOU and damn all of the others. On theother hand, if you want others to read and enjoy your writing -- and VOTE high and send FEEDBACK on it -- then writing simply is ONE way to accomplish that goal.

This forum and this thread are about how to "write better" -- get closer to "fine writing" -- and it's not "snobbish" to offer the requested advice and information.

I sometimes post "rants" about things I see in stories that make reading them less than pleasurable for me as a means of offering advice on how to write better for those who care about such things -- which I assume that the people who hang out here in the Author's Hangout do care about. For the most part, my rants are a way of avoiding writing comments to many different authors that all say the same thing.

 

[Guest]

Harold, your points about poetry made me think immediately of Shakespeare (the plays and the formal poetry) and Emily Dickinson.

Sh're needs study and close reading, the simplest being translating Elizabethan English, then learning something of the culture, or even the history of British monarchs. Then there's Milton, Spenser, Donne, Eliot, Pound, etc. It has always been too common for uneducated readers to dismiss the complexity of the language. Now there are many contemporary poets who do not get read simply because the average reader is ill equipped to appreciate them.

There is plenty of Dickinson that appears simple but more that is dismissed as too simple verging on the complex.

I apologize for getting off track on the thread. My metaphorical ears prick up though when I read too simplistic statements about communicating "simply". Call me a snob or what have you, but the higher standards we hold the better writing, whatever our intents.

That's really all from me,

Perdita

 

[Boxlicker101]

Harold, your points about poetry made me think immediately of Shakespeare (the plays and the formal poetry) and Emily Dickinson.

Sh're needs study and close reading, the simplest being translating Elizabethan English, then learning something of the culture, or even the history of British monarchs. Then there's Milton, Spenser, Donne, Eliot, Pound, etc. It has always been too common for uneducated readers to dismiss the complexity of the language. Now there are many contemporary poets who do not get read simply because the average reader is ill equipped to appreciate them.

There is plenty of Dickinson that appears simple but more that is dismissed as too simple verging on the complex.

I apologize for getting off track on the thread. My metaphorical ears prick up though when I read too simplistic statements about communicating "simply". Call me a snob or what have you, but the higher standards we hold the better writing, whatever our intents.

That's really all from me,

Perdita

Dita, I have to agree with you. Please don't get pissed off at me, I said I agree with you. When I was much, much younger than I am now, I was good at writing things on a piece of paper that rhymed and scanned. Included in my writing is an erotic poem that is an example, except that I used to write about Christmas and other holidays and vanilla type subjects. I never wrote poems about girls because by the time I was taking a strong interest in girls, I was too cynical to write poems. I wrote that for the survivor contest last year and I will write another one this year, and probably a non-erotic poem too. I think of myself as a writer but I will never think of myself as a poet. You can call me a versifier.

 

[KenJames]

I apologize for getting off track on the thread. My metaphorical ears prick up though when I read too simplistic statements about communicating "simply". Call me a snob or what have you, but the higher standards we hold the better writing, whatever our intents.

"The woods are lovely, dark and deep / but I have promises to keep / and miles to go before I sleep."

These lines are very clear. Are they simple? Of course not. Their apparent simplicity hides immense depth and emotional complexity.

I don't think the people on this thread have been making simplistic statements about communicating "simply." Being clear is not the same as being simple. Clear writing is hard work. It's much easier to be obtuse.

Incidentally, I've read several of your stories and enjoyed them. You are a clear writer, but your work isn't simple. That's good. Simplistic stuff bores me.

You have high standards, but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't.

 

[Weird Harold]

My metaphorical ears prick up though when I read too simplistic statements about communicating "simply".

I can't speak for others, but I've tried to use "simple" as the opposite of "complex." i.e. use simple sentences instead of complex sentences when you can to reduce the reading grade level of your work.

The whole point I've been trying to make here is that "writing to a grade level" is not about the content, but about the structure of your writing and it is NOT related to the author's Writing level.

As KenJames says so well, "Clear writing is hard work. It's much easier to be obtuse."

 

[KenJames]

Ken, the grade level deal is just a tool. If it bugs you, let it be.

I'm not bothered by the grade levels. They're a useful analytical tool but, like all tools, they have to be applied intelligently.

My stories have an average grade level around 6.0, but that doesn't mean a sixth grader would appreciate or even understand them. It just means that my writing isn't an obsticle to the typical Literotica reader.

I don't intentional write at that level and I generally keep the grammer checker and readability statistics turned off. I do work very hard to write clearly, probably because of my journalistic background.

writing complex thoughts is best done in simple sentences.

It's not what you write but the way you do it that has to be easy to understand.

Thank you, Black Tulip. That's exactly the point I've been trying to make.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I can't speak for others, but I've tried to use "simple" as the opposite of "complex." i.e. use simple sentences instead of complex sentences when you can to reduce the reading grade level of your work.

The whole point I've been trying to make here is that "writing to a grade level" is not about the content, but about the structure of your writing and it is NOT related to the author's Writing level.

As KenJames says so well, "Clear writing is hard work. It's much easier to be obtuse."

I have been doing a lot of editing of previously written stories, and as I do it, I use the Word program to see what the grade level is, and what causes it to be at that grade level. Most stories are between 8 and 9. This seems about right to me. This is based on the size of the words and the length of the sentences and if I average 18 words to a sentence, assuming that the length of my words remains between four and five, I will reach my goal. 18 words is long for a simple sentence. Do you mean "simple" in the usual way or "simple" as opposed to compound and complex, "compound meaning" having at least two independent clauses connected with conjunctions and "complex" meaning having at least one independent clause and one dependent clause, although a sentence can have more than two independent clauses and still have dependent clauses, such as this one, and would that make it a compound sentence or a complex one? Anyhow, I would hate to write stories the way I am writing this post.