What Grade is Your Content Comprehension?

[new_age_reject]

I pride myself on being able to read The Odyssey (Lattimore's translation), watch Carlos Reygada's films (and enjoy them) and listen to Steve Reich (and tell you which bits I like best and which are coming next).
If this makes me a snob, then so be it!

 

[Pantherman]

I guess that makes me a music snob. I prefer the sounds of the 17 piece Big Bands over modern music any day, seems so much more elaborate than Korn or MegaDeath and therefore beautiful in it's complexity.

However my grandfather was leagues ahead of me in the reading snob category, wrote a book on debate and the "rules" that guide it back in the 70's. Goes WAY over my head.
Pantherman

 

[Smokescreen]

So let's start with the first problem:
For being an article that wants to talk about content comprehension, the author then tries to re-purpose the definition of a word. Snob, definition, Mirram-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snob

That strike anyone as a little weird that he didn't find a more precise term? Maybe even ironic?

Then there's what seems to be a backhanded strike at Kotaku, or at least that writer, on a game that can't and won't ever strike the upper echelon of gaming. Just a little unfair, that.

Look I have no problem with suggesting that people have different tastes and that there is an intellectual comprehension that comes with appreciation. The idea that you (or I) might have more sophisticated tastes which has us leaving behind objects of lesser quality is the kind of thing that isn't new-but ought to be promoted and encouraged.

You know why we get shit like Transformers 2? Because enough people are willing to say: But I just wanna see shit blow up! I don't care if everything else sucks! Even though there are a ton of action movies out there that do things better in every other department.

The flipside of this is; old Warner Bros cartoons endure because you can see them as a child and they're hilarious. Then you can see them as an adult and they are /even funnier/. They're beloved and will be for decades to come because of their ability to appeal to such a broad audience and much of Zero Punctuation mines a similar vein (although instead of child I'd say teenager as its starting point.)

However, I don't think the author's case is forwarded very well in this article. His language is imprecise and it shouldn't be, his tone is condescending "What an enigma (or mystery, to you 4th grade readers)!" and there's no reason for it, there's no call to action, that is; no suggestion that we ought to 1) demand more 2) teach others 3) engage ourselves at higher levels, and the article ends on these loaded questions, "Do you consider yourself game snobs? Web snobs? Am I right that ZP is funny on multiple levels.... Or is it really just all about the codpiece?"

Given the article I just read, isn't answering "It's about the codpiece" just the kind of thing that opens me up to ridicule? Why the fuck would I say; yup, I'm in it for the dick jokes.

The other side of this is that sometimes, EVERYBODY is in it for the dick joke. I read Daredevil, not Maus, I like Andrew WK not the Decemberists, and I loved Resident Evil 4 but am in no hurry to play Heavy Rain.

Let's push it even further; I don't know the first thing about cars. I can change a tire. I know what looks cool and that's about it. Anyone who does know about cars can do one of two things; be a snob-which /by definition/ means they're looking down on me because I'm inferior since I don't know what they do, or educate me about something their passionate about. Which would you rather have?

TL:dr-I like the concept but the finale didn't work due to the use of language that should've been better than it was.

But that's just my opinion, man.

 

[Archon]

Thank you for your exceptionally kind words on the article. I concur completely that the direction they steered I am Legend ruined the profoundity of the story. Now on to whether you're a snob...

I'm going to contest this. By your very own definition I would seemingly be a snob. I'm easily able to read and interpret everything you wrote, and in fact regularly read scientific articles for college. I love Bach, Pachelbel, Mozart, Carl Maria von Weber, and many more themed "classical" artists. Yet I'm not entirely restricted to those things.

Then by my definition you are NOT a snob, since my definition was "to be a consumer only willing to consume content created at a high comprehension level." I didn't say "to be a consumer CAPABLE of consuming content created at a high comprehension level."

For instance, I am capable of reading War & Peace, but mostly I read R.A. Salvatore. That may make me a dweeb, but not a snob!

At the risk of sounding like a snob (or a prick), I'll admit I seem to have higher standards than most people, but I don't subscribe to the idea that just because I like what you'd consider "higher comprehension level" media, that I'm limited to it.

So then you are not a snob under my definition.

Partially because I don't believe something requires a high comprehension level to be good...

And you are therefore not a snob under my definition.

So that said, do you disagree with my definition of snob because you think you ARE a snob? Or did you misunderstand my definition of snob, and we agree that are you not...

 

[AquaAscension]

The only problem that I have with this article is that it failed to give a good understanding of what, exactly, the Flesch-Kincaid reading numbers are/what they do. I took a class here at my university which explained it, and I found this wikipedia article that helps to explain what the numbers mean:

Spoiler

These readability tests are used extensively in the field of education. The "Flesch?Kincaid Grade Level Formula" translates the 0?100 score to a U.S. grade level, making it easier for teachers, parents, librarians, and others to judge the readability level of various books and texts. It can also mean the number of years of education generally required to understand this text, relevant when the formula results in a number greater than 12. The grade level is calculated with the following formula:

FKRA = (0.39 x ASL) + (11.8 x ASW) - 15.59

Where,

FKRA = Flesch-Kincaid Reading Age

ASL = Average Sentence Length (i.e., the number of words divided by the number of sentences)

ASW = Average number of Syllables per Word (i.e., the number of syllables divided by the number of words)

The result is a number that corresponds with a grade level. For example, a score of 8.2 would indicate that the text is expected to be understandable by an average student in 8th grade (usually around ages 13?14 in the United States of America). This page has the score of 12.5.

The lowest grade level score in theory is -3.40, but there are few real passages where every sentence consists of a single one-syllable word. Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss comes close, averaging 5.7 words per sentence and 1.02 syllables per word, with a grade level of -1.3. (Most of the 50 used words are monosyllabic; "anywhere", which occurs 8 times, is an exception.)

So, yes, the scale may be somewhat misleading at times.

OT: Agreed that ZP has multiple levels of comprehension. I think what this scale doesn't take into consideration, though, is that there are certain allusions that would not be accessible to people. The most recent example I can think of is a scene in Iron Man 2 in which Justin Hammer is talking about a small bullet-looking weapon that is so smart "it would make Ulysses look like it was written in crayon" or something to that effect. Having read Ulysses and struggled with it (the footnotes took up half the page), I began laughing quite hardily at this comment; my other non-English-major friends didn't quite understand. I'm not sure if that's an actual grade level thing or just a snobbery type thing though.

 

[Daveman]

As my Drama teacher used to say "If you run out of ways to make a scene funny, use a knob gag. If that doesn't work, use ten." Everyone can appreciate a knob gag but it's nice to add other levels of comedy as well.

 

[Caliostro]

Thank you for your exceptionally kind words on the article. I concur completely that the direction they steered I am Legend ruined the profoundity of the story. Now on to whether you're a snob...


Then by my definition you are NOT a snob, since my definition was "to be a consumer only willing to consume content created at a high comprehension level." I didn't say "to be a consumer CAPABLE of consuming content created at a high comprehension level."

For instance, I am capable of reading War & Peace, but mostly I read R.A. Salvatore. That may make me a dweeb, but not a snob!


So then you are not a snob under my definition.

And you are therefore not a snob under my definition.

So that said, do you disagree with my definition of snob because you think you ARE a snob? Or did you misunderstand my definition of snob, and we agree that are you not...

Misunderstood your definition. It seemed like you were implying that to be able to enjoy high comprehension level material one was inherently self-limited to it (i.e.: If you're the kind of person that likes Bach, then you're not the kind of person that likes anything "lower level", like pop music).

Cheers.

 

[Anacortian]

Let the groundlings like what they like. I began visiting the Escapist strictly because it stood virtually alone in its willingness to apologetically use the English language well. I really am not much of a gamer, but I enjoy intelligence wherever I can find it.

 

[Outright Villainy]

I would most definitely be a musical snob, I have very progressive tastes, and have disdain for just about anything I hear on the radio. Then again, I've been playing guitar since I was 16, being so immersed in one particular avenue, and you're obviously only going to accept only the best, the most nuanced and intricate. I'm sure everyone has something they understand much better than the average joe, even if they don't know it. I don't really "get" poetry, say. Sure, I can recognise iambic pentameter or other forms, but when people talk about it like how I describe music, ebbing and flowing, or evoking an emotional response, I know a lot is lost on me.

I don't really know what the point of that rambling was; I guess my prose comprehension is pretty low too.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

This is something that is happening in all languages, trust me, some spanish newspapers in my country are totally sad. When I left the primary school I was able to read "El Quixote" now a 7th grade kid can't read a comic.

 

[Archon]

So let's start with the first problem:
For being an article that wants to talk about content comprehension, the author then tries to re-purpose the definition of a word. Snob, definition, Mirram-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snob
That strike anyone as a little weird that he didn't find a more precise term? Maybe even ironic?

Is there a word that I ought to have used that would have better expressed my point? Everyone else here seems to have understood what I meant.

Then there's what seems to be a backhanded strike at Kotaku, or at least that writer, on a game that can't and won't ever strike the upper echelon of gaming. Just a little unfair, that.

Kotaku's article was, in fact, written at the 4th grade level. I verfied this with an online measurement of the Gunning Fog score. If you have an issue with it, take it up with the writer and/or blog. Incidentally, as the rest of the article pointed out, having a low reading level is also the same thing as having a high readability. Romance novels and newspapers AIM to have the highest possible readability on purpose. I suspect Kotaku, if it bothered to measure its grade level, would wear its score with pride. If they are, in fact, offended, all they have to do is use bigger words. Either way, it's not my problem.

Look I have no problem with suggesting that people have different tastes and that there is an intellectual comprehension that comes with appreciation. The idea that you (or I) might have more sophisticated tastes which has us leaving behind objects of lesser quality is the kind of thing that isn't new-but ought to be promoted and encouraged.

If this is your encouragement, I hate to see how you write when you want to discourage people!

However, I don't think the author's case is forwarded very well in this article. His language is imprecise and it shouldn't be, his tone is condescending "What an enigma (or mystery, to you 4th grade readers)!" and there's no reason for it, there's no call to action, that is; no suggestion that we ought to 1) demand more 2) teach others 3) engage ourselves at higher levels, and the article ends on these loaded questions, "Do you consider yourself game snobs? Web snobs? Am I right that ZP is funny on multiple levels.... Or is it really just all about the codpiece?"

There's no suggestion that we should demand more because the point is that people can't handle "more". In fact, people who've studied the matter have concluded the solution is "write for a less-educated audience". My conclusion was that you could try and have your cake and eat it too with densely packed writing.

Let's push it even further; I don't know the first thing about cars. I can change a tire. I know what looks cool and that's about it. Anyone who does know about cars can do one of two things; be a snob-which /by definition/ means they're looking down on me because I'm inferior since I don't know what they do, or educate me about something their passionate about. Which would you rather have?

I think the underlying message of the article is that success doesn't necessarily go to the guy with the highest grade level of writing, and that we have to dig past snobbery to understand why some things work and some don't.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

It is, however, notable that the Gunning-Fog index does not take into account the content of the media it covers, merely the ease with which it is understandable.
It is also astounding how easily an article like this one really brings out the more obscure parts of escapists' vocabulary.

Or, basically, how we all start using less common words coupled with a more complex sentence structure in a bid to appear more intelligent, or possibly merely to show off.

Heh, force-feedback codpiece...

 

[RvLeshrac]

I had to read that about four times to understand what the hell you were on about. Essentially all you are saying is that rules dictate how the choices which the players make will effect the game, covered over with several layers of jargon. It just seems like you were using a higher "grade" then necessary to convey your point.

You missed the subtext: The rules additionally affect the player's interactions, they don't simply define the effects. (c wut i did thar?)

 

[Outright Villainy]

It is, however, notable that the Gunning-Fog index does not take into account the content of the media it covers, merely the ease with which it is understandable.
It is also astounding how easily an article like this one really brings out the more obscure parts of escapists' vocabulary.

Or, basically, how we all start using less common words coupled with a more complex sentence structure in a bid to appear more intelligent, or possibly merely to show off.

Heh, force-feedback codpiece...

Heh, that rings a little true. I was writing a sentence with a comma, but then said to myself "No! No, now it's time for Mr. semi-colon!"

 

[SavingPrincess]

If you're comprehending this, you may just be a snob.

This article is so filled with brilliance from start to finish that I'm still basking in it as we speak.

To be a snob is to be a consumer only willing to consume content created at a high comprehension level.

I honestly cannot think of a more perfectly worded, truer sentence I have read in my lifetime. You, sir, are quickly becoming my new favorite person to read. It truly is a shame you don't write more often than you do.

 

[Sebenko]

yeah, stop big words now.

ZP make learn words good!

Alright, I'll stop that now and revert to my standard speech patter... wait what? The density of higher grade words in this communicative text is far higher than the average!

But yeah, I've learned things from ZP. Like Callipidgean. Callipidgeon. Callipygian. I know what that means now, even if I can't spell it.

 

[Archon]

I had to read that about four times to understand what the hell you were on about. Essentially all you are saying is that rules dictate how the choices which the players make will effect the game, covered over with several layers of jargon. It just seems like you were using a higher "grade" then necessary to convey your point.

You missed the subtext: The rules additionally affect the player's interactions, they don't simply define the effects. (c wut i did thar?)

Right. That is, by trying to paraphrase what I said, Nimbus didn't actually say what I meant.

That said, Nimbus is correct that I tend to be over-complicated. No one could ever accuse me of writing with too much simple clarity. I once had a Harvard Law professor tell me I needed to dumb my writing down.... doh.

 

[Archon]

I honestly cannot think of a more perfectly worded, truer sentence I have read in my lifetime. You, sir, are quickly becoming my new favorite person to read. It truly is a shame you don't write more often than you do.

Thank you very much! I also do a column on tabletop games, in addition to the publisher's note, but that's all I can handle right now...

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

What this makes me think of is my problem with a lot of academic writing. If something is complex and can only be discussed easily/accurately/at all in a way that not everyone can understand, that's one thing, but a lot of the time it feels like people go out of their way to add unnecessary complexity to their writing, whether it's to sound more important than they are or to exclude outsiders or just out of habit because everyone else does it.

I remember when one of my friends was at Brown and every final paper turned in for one of her classes had at least one use of the word "problematize", which you will almost never see outside of academic writing, and I don't think a single one of them was necessary or helped get their points across better. For the most part, it made their papers more awkward to read, but they seemed to all be used to seeing and reading things like that in the source material used for the class, so it didn't seem weird to them until I, as an outsider, pointed it out.

If you want a particularly awful example of that, try reading most articles on Wikipedia about math or hard science. Sure, being specific and using the correct terms for the in-depth sections makes sense, but a lot of the time even the summaries (above the table of contents) are nearly incomprehensible even to students majoring in that field or people who have already completed degrees in related fields.

Anyone who's written something like that should be ashamed of themselves for being completely unable to communicate ideas clearly to people. It's nice that the language allows for complex concepts to be expressed, but abusing it when it's not needed is often a failure on the part of the speaker/writer. If you can't explain things in a way that people can understand, you're doing something wrong (i.e. ENGLISH, ************! DO YOU SPEAK IT?).

Ok. I'll stop bitching now. I just get a little cranky about that, despite at the same time being depressed by the dismal quality of writing I see all over the place on a regular basis. I'll refrain from getting into examples (like the episode of V I watched last night to see if it still sucked, only to discover that it must've been written by some illiterate hack who never finished middle school...), or I could rant for the rest of the day. Heh.

 

[Zedzero]

well, my reading level has been tested at around 20.7, so very little goes over my head when it comes to comprehension. doesn't mean i don't enjoy some of the lower-level stuff. sometimes i just don't feel like thinking that hard, which is something i don't think your researchers take into account.

also, ZP owns at smart and dumb humor!

-looks at your Grammar-...20.7 eh....

My writing varies my word basically tells me the level it is written at it varies around grade 9-11, even though I'm grade 12 so meh, I still get 80s so why should I care?