5 ms·
Okay. Here's something that may or may not be relevant. I'm a non-native English speaker who have been learning and speaking English professionally for 8 years
by paradite 9y ago
Okay. Here's something that may or may not be relevant.
I'm a non-native English speaker who have been learning and speaking English professionally for 8 years and I had no problems reading BBC or CNN. However, this article was just beyond me. I struggle to understand many long and convoluted sentence with words that I had never seen before.
I don't know if this is a pattern associated with this particular press or not, but I really couldn't bother reading this beyond the first few paragraphs.
- owebmaster 9y agoI heard these days that New Yorker is the magazine of the "illuminated" liberal Americans. I guess this image caption proves it: "Texas is as politically divided as the rest of the U.S., but a recurrent crop of crackpots and ideologues has fed its reputation for proud know-nothingism and retrograde thinking."
- vinhboy 9y agoLOL... yup, that's typical New Yorker writing. I am college educated and I have a hard time reading it, so it's not just you.
- Kluny 9y agoNo, you're not alone. The New Yorker is famous for using big words to try to sound smart. These two sentences, for example: > Fairly considered, the Texas legislature is more functional than the United States Congress, and more genteel than the House of Commons. But a recurrent crop of crackpots and ideologues has fed the state’s reputation for aggressive know-nothingism and proudly retrograde politics. As far as I can tell, even though they are in the same paragraph and nominally about the same topic, and joined together with that "But", they have nothing to do with each other. To me it looks incoherent.
- jacobolus 9y agoThe sentences fit together just fine, but you need to read the whole paragraph. Frederick Law Olmsted wrote in 1853 that he thought that the Texas Legislature was more respectable (for its “manly dignity and trustworthiness”) than Parliament or Congress. Lawrence Wright is agreeing that if we examine the three bodies impartially, the Texas legislature is more “functional” than the US Congress and more “genteel” than the House of Commons, but that still Olmsted’s characterization is unusual because the Texas legislature has historically been known for its crackpots and ideologues and proud anti-intellectualism. The “but” is contrasting Wright’s caveat (that if we consider it “fairly” the Texas legislature isn’t as dysfunctional as Congress) with his main point about the Texas legislature’s long-standing negative reputation.
- Kluny 9y agoI'm also not clear on whether "functional" and "genteel" in this context are literally talking about the facade on the buildings, or their collective temperament?
- jacobolus 9y agoNo he’s saying that the US Congress is literally less functional: has more internal strife, gets gridlocked, fails to pass essential legislation, gets sucked up in scandals, etc. And the House of Commons is less genteel: people shout at each other, interrupt each-other, call each-other names, etc., rather than acting like polite and formal “gentlemen”.
- malcolmgreaves 9y agoIt's talking about the people in the legislature and how it, as an organization, functions.
- rndmize 9y ago"Genteel" is always used to describe people (similar to polite or well-mannered).
- ohmygodel 9y agoThis is a pretty uncharitable comment. A nicer (and, in my opinion, more correct) take would be that their articles are written for people that enjoy reading and language. And the sentences you cite make perfect sense to me: the legislature may be relatively functional and courteous, but it still has many irrational members who are ignorant and backwards.
- greeneggs 9y agoHonestly, to me it makes complete sense in context. I'm sorry you were confused. It is funny that in your example of "using big words to try to sound smart," the biggest word used is "know-nothingism." But seriously, is it bad that a non-native speaker who is comfortable reading CNN has trouble with the New Yorker? I'd never heard the too-many-big-words criticism of the New Yorker before, but CNN is certainly the direct opposite.
- cholantesh 9y agoAnd 'know-nothingism' has a specific historical meaning, one that makes perfect sense in this context. >is it bad that a non-native speaker who is comfortable reading CNN has trouble with the New Yorker Not especially - they have different audiences: CNN targets a wide demographic and the NYer targets older, affluent liberals, who tend to have advanced levels of education. And I'd argue that even their readership might find some of the stylistic choices made in the NYer annoying - eg: spelling out numerical amounts rather than using Arabic numbers.
- Pxtl 9y agoI don't see how those don't fit together perfectly well. The first sentence describes the smooth operations of the Texas legislature, and the second sentence describes the group that threatens this efficiency, and embarrass an otherwise-well-run state. You may disagree with the thesis and the choice of flowery language, but I dont' see anything incoherent about it.
- jtraffic 9y agoThe New Yorker is well-known for this, and its tradition for using obscure words is long-running. It goes at least as far back as 1969, when "Business Adventures" was written by John Brooks, a long-time New Yorker author. I had to read that book with a dictionary, and used it every couple of pages. I still remember learning the word 'eleemosynary' from it.
- jacobolus 9y agoBBC and CNN are both intentionally written with an accessible and simple style, sticking to common words and simple grammar. Motivated 10-year-olds should be able to read them without much trouble, or a busy adult should be able to skim their stories while doing something else. The New Yorker is written for a much more literate audience and the goal of its essays is to be engaging to that audience, not just share the daily news. (Note: there’s nothing inherently bad about either of these editorial choices.)
- paradite 9y agoThanks for the reply. Clearly I am not the intended audience for this piece of essay. Just out of curiosity, can you gauge how many percent of the US population would find such essays engaging? Not to start a flamewar, but I am genuinely curious.
- jacobolus 9y agoThe New Yorker has a circulation of about 1 million, which is about half a percent of US adults. The potential audience they’re aiming at is maybe more like 5–10% of the population. The archetypal New Yorker subscriber is a professional with a postgraduate degree who reads high-brow fiction as a hobby.
- brianwawok 9y agoYou can push a button in word and it will tell you the grade level of reading to understand a piece. I think there are a few differnent algos for this. Different news orgs tend to have different grade levels of writing. You tend to write towards your target demiograph. The new yorker is aimed at college educated white peopoe I suspect, so would be at a higher level than a paper aimed to the masses.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- princeb 9y agothe writing actually runs pretty straight. the sentence structures employed are simple and the choice of words are idiomatic in contemporary English. i wouldn't consider it long or convoluted. if you want to see what convoluted American writing is, try 19th century literature - HDT, Herman Melville, etc.
- pmoriarty 9y agoEnglish is not my native language either, and when I was learning it, I'd challenge myself to read more and more complicated writing, and eventually things considered "hard" by most native English speakers. I learned a lot more that way than I would have had I stuck to reading only what I found easy. I encourage you to persevere.
- Pxtl 9y agoI always say: English-speaking countries tend to be monolingual... so because Anglophones aren't learning many other languages, we instead invent more and more English to learn.