This has been niggling at me for awhile. There is too much emphasis on writing impressively rather than writing clearly. People are blown away by dead metaphors, long words, and stuffy tone, while forgetting the purpose of the written word in the first place. I was reading a writing guide by The Economist (and they would do well to follow their own advice), and decided that the education system has instilled bombasticism over elegance.

An example: Use short words, like about, instead of approximately. These shorter words are natives of the English language, with Anglo-Saxon origin, rather than longer, Latin or German based vocabulary. The word vocabulary itself comes from the French "vocabulaire", which in turn comes from the Medieval Latin "vocabularium". Although English is a bastard language, it has evolved into a separate linguistic entity, and it has words for most things. Therefore there is no excuse to use "per annum" when one can use "per year" or "beyond one's authority", not "ultra vires".

I recognise that style is a crucial part of writing, and sometimes tone or individuality call for sesquipedalians, but they should be exceptions rather than the norm. Simple words don't make you sound like a moron. They are powerful. For instance "To be or not to be, that is the question." , "We are such stuff as dreams are made of", or in a modern context "You cocky little shit." Besides, writing is always more accessible when it reads like normal, grammatical speech.

I change my mind. I've just read the whole article, and it has excluded about half my vocabulary. Not everyone can write like Economist journalists, and even they make mistakes. So as long as I don't have to strain to understand it, and it doesn't make me cringe, it's fine with me.

Go here, if you can be bothered. http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=673913