I don’t follow Eduwonk that closely, so I don’t know exactly if I would agree or not. But it really depends on the designated audience.

But the little blurb is perfect for a sidebar. At least that is the type of thing I like to put in mine!

Thanks for the comment. I’ll try to address the issues you’ve raised. If I miss something or don’t address it adequately, feel free to remind me.

By referring to Eduwonk as “bewildering,” Ginger says that she doesn’t understand it – that is, unless she’s taken it upon herself to speak for all who read Eduwonk. When an individual makes a comment, it is reasonable to think that their personal experience drives their stance unless they point out that they are speaking generally or for a group. Ginger’s repeated use of “I” led me to believe that she was speaking about herself only.

You’re right – the education field has plenty of jargon. Don’t forget that “jargon” has two meanings: 1) language unique to a field; 2) meaningless tripe. There’s nothing wrong with #1 and many times it can’t [or shouldn't] be avoided, but #2 is a problem. Eduwonk’s blog often makes witty use of this jargon which might elevate the bewilderment factor in some cases. I would assume that many education professionals find it refreshing.

As I wrote in the comment above this one, the decision regarding how broadly we communicate depends on the purposes of the communication. I know why I write the way I do, but I can’t speak for Eduwonk. If I had to guess, Eduwonk’s readership has more researchers and policy wonks than mine. They’re familiar with the lexicon and understand when those words are being played with. Regarding Eduwonk’s supposed lack of appeal to the common person who, in your view, ought to be more interested in public education, I would say that particular branding doesn’t seem to be aligned with Eduwonk’s mission. A quick look at EdSector’s site will give you a better idea about their branding.

Some sites are high-performance race cars, others are stationwagons [and, of course, there's everything in-between] – they appeal to and serve different markets. Since there are many markets that need to be served, I don’t fault anyone for their particular branding, as long as they are comfortable with the consequences.

My words about Ginger aren’t an attack in the slightest – she admitted herself, as I wrote in this comment, that she was bewildered [confused, befuddled, puzzled, etc.] by Eduwonk and I found her interpretation noteworthy. That is, unless she decided to speak for the internet community as a whole. I didn’t take her for that type. It has nothing to do with my being clever or [im?]mature – I used what she said to make a point. I prefer to engage in real commentary rather than pointing out obvious typos to well-established writers; I find little value in the nits.

And you’re right about me not being a Mark Twain. My fiction is horrible, I do enjoy Cooper, and I look absolutely wretched with a mustache. I am far more attractive with a full beard or clean-shaven.

Matthew

You’re most welcome regarding the DWT referral. And, the thanks go to you and the others at DWT – it’s a great resource that I recommend frequently. Most people want to write better, but they don’t want to sit in front of a pile of books and figure it out. DWT gives them 300-word bursts about important elements of writing, one small piece at a time. It is an invaluable resource and I look forward to DWT’s growth.

I was hesitant to address communication style in this post because it is such a large, complex issue – I knew I couldn’t do justice to it in 500 words. But I suppose that also gives an opportunity for fleshing out in the comments.

The next level of this argument – something we both failed to point out – is the marketing side. We can use DWT and my site as examples. DWT’s readership is broad; there are writers of all levels, I assume. They are also motivated to learn about writing – otherwise they would have little interest in DWT. Because you are dealing with a readership that forms a broad spectrum of knowledge and abilities, you can’t guarantee the richness of their vocabulary [however, you could use a few uncommon words with this demographic, because they are far more likely to be interested in looking them up/learning them than on another site].

My site’s readership is, generally, older [sorry, guys and gals - 'tis the truth]. They also tend to have 4-year degrees [or higher] or are in the middle of getting them. And since this is essentially a site that covers a niche market, I can get away with some jargon common to the education world because, well, that’s where most of the readers come from.

I recognize that committing to this style keeps me from gaining everyday readers at the same pace as most sites – just like using more complex language on DWT would defeat the purpose of the site. I think the main issue is whether we as writers are choosing a style that fits reasonably with our goals and generates consequences that we are comfortable accepting.

I agree that our “fast-paced, information-based society” [very well put] tends to be burdened by complex language. I suppose the way we write depends on our answer to the question, “So what?”

Matthew

Why shouldn’t the blog attempt to communicate more widely, especially considering the importance of education and education policy to the average person? There’s a difference between elevated, literary language that a writer such as Mark Twain would employ and jargon. I’ll defend the former in most cases; the latter is rarely worth defending.

Also, you just sound petty when you attack the blogger by saying she doesn’t understand Eduwonk. That’s neither very clever nor very mature on your part, but, then again, you’re probably no Mark Twain.

While I agree with your argument, I think it does not conflict with the post you mentioned. Mainly because, as you explained, it depends on the context.

“If you’re writing an instruction manual for assembling an entertainment center, then I’d lean toward simple, accessible language. If not, you might choose to say exactly what you mean to say without being burdened by the consequences of a reader’s ignorance.”

True. But don’t you agree that in our fast-paced, information based society people are more likely to be burdened by the consequences of a reader’s ignorance, as you say?