When it comes to 'dumbing down' of news media, I can understand the point in terms of getting factual information and possible repurcussions across to the general public. What is worrying about it is corporations *shakes fist* MURDOCH! dumbing down and directing their analysis in such a way as to emphasise excessively one specific bias, regardless of factual basis.
That aside, I'm intrigued by the rating given for ZP (and other columns) as I usually find them to be more cmprehensible than other supposedly lower rated pieces - but I think that comes down to the standard of English used. A fluidly written work will always read more effectively than anything that causes the reader to stop and start - this is why physics papers use citation marks and flowing prose rather than constantly interrupt an already complex text. Infact, many scientific texts are written to a level that, aside from jargon, reads very easily to any audience. ZP seems to be analogous, in that provided you understand the jargon, or context, of the 'higher grade' jokes then you will get them. By comparison, I know a few 'student comics' that most would find boring and of no humourous value, yet with the right audience are hilarious - they use very complex language forms, but their delivery of them is poor as it stops and starts, meaning that even when they spell out where the joke is coming from (i.e. it's a pun of a peculiar terming) those without a prior knowledge will struggle to laugh.
My point? Well, what is it that seperates ZP, scientific articles and my student friends from each other? Aside from scientific journal articles usually being of a definite, non-comic value*, they and ZP effectively communicate an idea, whereas those students cutting their stand-up teeth are finding out how poorly they communicate their ideas. So really, shouldn't the grading system be based around the fluidity and function of the language used, rather than the expanse, or lack thereof, of flowery, thesaurus-trawling pompousity found in a piece? As far as I was aware, it is your ability to communicate that is measured in the classroom, not your ability to quickly look up a synonym.
Incidentally, I suppose I have yet to post any actual opinion on why ZP works, and what I think of the site and my own ability to understand it.
I like ZP. It's why I'm on the Escapist. I also like Yahtzee's occassional changes in style that seem to so rile the comment boards after - if he didn't bother, then the show would be far too formulaic and repetitive to have any longevity. Admittedly, I don't always understand the jokes but it encourages me to look up whatever was referenced - once I have the context, I get a good chuckle out of it. I'm not sure I understand what others have called 'laughing at his Britishness' but I suppose I shouldn't being his kin. That said, it certainly seems to help me avoid the bileful hate spilled out by those offended or angered by one small phrase here or there, as well as further appreciate the colloquial jokes^ so often used. Beyond that, Yahtzee certainly uses accessible comedy, everyone loves a knob gag after all, but thankfully doesn't rely on it and build comedy out of convoluted and excessive similie and metaphor to insult and degrade its subject matter, which is incidentally a rather Shakespearian comedy form.
As for the rest of the site, I enjoy reading the articles, despite rarely having a full interest in the games being reviewed or even the politics being discussed, so I can only assume that this is down to what is so vaguely termed 'good writing'.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*although if you've heard of the Ig-Nobel awards you might think otherwise
^Ah, the wonders of the Branston Pickle gags
