[Irenicus]

I knew someone was going to bring Orwell in eventually.

But see, Saintess, even I have to admit sometimes I find it hard to see where you're going with your post. It's not exactly a problem of comprehending the language itself, at least in my case, but in trying to trace your thoughts from, say, a post you quoted and how your response relates to it. Something like that can give pauses from time to time.

Take for example your specific scenario here:

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I am talking about the people who say "What has Iran got to do with petrol prices", "What has oil prices got to do with food prices", "How does the way Wall Street work affect our investments" and "Why are you bringing up rate of fuel consumption when we are talking about buying cars", and when I use economics and science to explain it to them, the blank stare stays.

...in which case, and contravening slightly the advice of such an authority as Orwell and our resident journalist TRL, I'd say you would in fact benefit from an analogy or two to help clarify your explanations. At least don't be shy about simplifying first, even if it's not completely right, then explaining in detail more.

Also remember that verbal communication involves much more than the words themselves. The most important thing is probably to gauge your conversation partner's interest; people generally do not respond well to detailed explanations out of the door. They need to be cued into "complex discussion" mode, so to speak. Often the setting itself helps -- a private, thoughtful conversation between two people, a seminar or a classroom discussion, etc.

It is also probably helpful if you divide your explanations step by step, gauging your audience's comprehension along the way. Say, about the relation between food prices and oil prices. Mention first the idea that food is transported around, then add that the price of oil affects the cost of transport. Bring the conclusion in ("So when oil prices go up, food prices follow because of the transport cost"). Use cues and prompts along the way, so as to prevent a conversation from being one-sided (an easy keyword: "Right?"). Once your audience starts to get where you're going and shows understanding, then you can start bringing in some more complex ideas. You can start by saying how many, many goods all have to be transported, all of which use oil, then introduce the concept of commodity prices and how they affect each other, and so on.

The key, I'd say, is to divide the exposition into small mental steps. It is also important to maintain your audience's interest and show your interest in them. Slow down, if you must. It is harder to organize one's thoughts in a verbal environment than in text. Oh, and make sure you know where you just came from, and that they know where you're going when you start. Again, people don't take in long explanations very well, even when divided in steps, even when they would have comprehended your points otherwise, if they weren't expecting one.

And yes, use simple words. Avoid jargon, unless you have good cause to expect the other person to know the jargon very well indeed (economic students for economic terms; traders for stock market terms).


Unrelated to that...

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Then it brings forward the issue of "being cruel on the reader". Orwell has exercised those rules greatly in his writings, and even after authoring Animal Farm, the British Foreign Office (if I remember correctly) stopped the publication of the book so as not to jeopardise the alliance between the Russians and British/US in defeating Nazi Germany.

The problem with Animal Farm is not so much the clarity of language as it is the clarity of sentiment. The whole book is, after all, a giant, extended metaphor. Really, the one argument related to his famous precepts is that perhaps he had indeed been too clear, too open with his metaphor, so that there is no doubt what he was really trying to say.

Many subversive literary materials are much less direct in their analogies and their intentions compared to Animal Farm and left room for debate -- take for example The Wizard of Oz -- though admittedly some were made so by the entropy of time.


____________________________

Originally Posted by Tempester

Which is why, even though I believe that original material is generally better than adaptations, I still plan to watch the Les Miserables anime before reading the book, because I'm simply not mentally ready to read the book. I do believe that reading Hugo as a beginner to literature was a bad idea in retrospect. I'm attempting some easier fiction instead, with better results. The great classics can wait for now.

Many other classics are remarkably accessible though. Dickens aged very well, and Miss Austen is as fresh a young lady as she ever was. In fact, she is easily one of the freshest and most accessible authors to have ever written in the English language, a true delight. The verbosity of a Victor Hugo novel in any language can be blamed squarely on Victor Hugo.

How difficult a work of classic literature depends on many factors, of course. The older it is, the less accessible overall -- excepting such remarkable prodigies as Jane Austen. The date and quality of the translation matters, as well; a modern translation of a modern work tends to be the most accessible. And some authors just have a difficult style, for whatever reason.

Finally, and this is probably the closest to your original lament, some are just that hard intentionally. They may be large, long to the point of unreasonable, like one of those Russian epics. They may demand undivided attention from the reader to follow closely the syntax, the word, the very structure of the language being used as if the reader is reading a poem. They may in fact contain unusual syntax. Or they may, like the infamous Ulysses by James Joyce, be written to imitate certain unstable modes of mind, aiming for qualities far different from ordinary prose. If such is the case then literally *everybody* will stumble, and the enjoyment one gets out of it will depend on how much one cares for the art of figuring out a literary puzzle.

Even that is a case-by-case basis. I'm willing any day of the week to puzzle out a Borges short story, but I'll only accept a guaranteed tenure position at a minimum if you want me to ever read Proust and his damned madeleine.