4 ms·

Sentences like this are kind of the New Yorker's erudite (you could argue pretentious) style. It works better on the the printed page than on the web. If you re

by mjrpes 12y ago

Sentences like this are kind of the New Yorker's erudite (you could argue pretentious) style. It works better on the the printed page than on the web. If you read the New Yorker often enough your mind gets used to it and it isn't too much of a bother. Granted, this sentence would have been better off with a period in there somewhere.... it's a bit overkill.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago
The problem is that, in this case, "erudite" means "directly serializing the writer's complex and nuanced thoughts without being able to serialize the writer's previous context that allowed him/her to hold all those thoughts in a single structure." We tend to break things down further when trying to communicate because we no longer assume a precise educational background common to All Educated People, but instead a diverse range of backgrounds. We still know the reader can handle complex, nuanced thoughts, but we need to break them down into smaller pieces that the reader can assemble according to their own framework of previous knowledge.
- mercer 12y ago
  I'd argue that you just described the point where 'erudite' becomes 'pretentious'. I'm a voracious reader and a huge fan of 'unusual' words, for some reason (perhaps because I learned English through books).My general approach to language is sometimes judged to be 'pretentious' or at least 'bookish' by people who don't know me well. Once they do, though, they realize that I just love playing with words and language. While I don't shy away from using words that aren't too common, I always try to make sure to avoid needless complications, and I regularly rewrite sentences to make them easier to understand (while still using 'big' words because I just like them, or they best describe what I'm trying to convey). The New Yorker often seems to cross the line between enjoying the richness of the English language and deliberately overcomplicating things. I don't really understand why, unless the goal is to be pretentious.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    I actually write a lot like that if I'm not deliberately trying to be clear and simple. I imagine the New Yorker's journalists have the same problem, but aren't trying to solve it.

by mjrpes 12y ago

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

The problem is that, in this case, "erudite" means "directly serializing the writer's complex and nuanced thoughts without being able to serialize the writer's previous context that allowed him/her to hold all those thoughts in a single structure." We tend to break things down further when trying to communicate because we no longer assume a precise educational background common to All Educated People, but instead a diverse range of backgrounds. We still know the reader can handle complex, nuanced thoughts, but we need to break them down into smaller pieces that the reader can assemble according to their own framework of previous knowledge.

mercer 12y ago
I'd argue that you just described the point where 'erudite' becomes 'pretentious'. I'm a voracious reader and a huge fan of 'unusual' words, for some reason (perhaps because I learned English through books).My general approach to language is sometimes judged to be 'pretentious' or at least 'bookish' by people who don't know me well. Once they do, though, they realize that I just love playing with words and language. While I don't shy away from using words that aren't too common, I always try to make sure to avoid needless complications, and I regularly rewrite sentences to make them easier to understand (while still using 'big' words because I just like them, or they best describe what I'm trying to convey). The New Yorker often seems to cross the line between enjoying the richness of the English language and deliberately overcomplicating things. I don't really understand why, unless the goal is to be pretentious.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  I actually write a lot like that if I'm not deliberately trying to be clear and simple. I imagine the New Yorker's journalists have the same problem, but aren't trying to solve it.