> I'd also argue the study mentioned in the article is unfair. Not understanding English from the early 1800's doesn't make you an idiot... ...than old Englis

> I'd also argue the study mentioned in the article is unfair. Not understanding English from the early 1800's doesn't make you an idiot... ...than old English. Disagree. The subjects were "Students of literature at two American universities". They are supposed to be quite used to reading and explaining flowery, metaphorical, and older language. This is comparable to a supposed PHP programmer being flummoxed by a few hundred lines of messy PHP 5 code. Or an American History teacher who doesn't know Lee from Grant. Pedantic Notes: - For those unfamiliar, "Old English" is a specific thing. It fell out of use around 1150, and is seriously unreadable if you only know Modern English - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English#The_Lord's_Prayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English#The_Lord's_Prayer Vs. "Modern English" was used from (roughly) 1650 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English Shakespeare wrote from 1585 to 1613, and is still quite understandable. - "Bleak House" was written in the early 1850's. EDIT: But I definitely agree with you about far too many books being stuffed with filler fluff. And that it's for commercial reasons - what market is there, these days, for 25 to 50 page works? Outside of recommendations for a very short list of people, I just don't buy books without spending a half hour skimming and reading them.