authors must realize that views will express discontent when authors write articles with poor readability due to dysfunctional writing styles, bad research etc.
this would motivate them to write articles with higher readability

we dont have hours to decipher articles like the one above…

In order to engage this author, I would have to have both a lobotomy and a thesaurus handy, undoubtedely an impediment to a free and clear exchange of ideas.

Language is both the parent and child of ideas, Expression is a potent instrument to sway masses, stir rebellion, to inspire and to coerce. The piece above is both indecipherable to a reader who may be interested in these, and drowning in tortuous verbiage that lacks simplicity, clarity, cadence or idiom. It is a triumph of the mediocrity that pervades journalism today for it leaves nothing that has not evaporated in a few minutes but an acute migraine.

You only have to look to a bitter post-war Orwell for his attitudes on the state of the English language and its desperate state so apparent in British journalism at the time. This is not sentiment, it is not a fancy of antiquated learning; it is simply the responsibility that comes with taking pen to hand. Political ideology is shaped, and closely mirrors the natural evolution of language. It would be a sad lookout for all mankind if a complex thought could not be expressed with clarity—ask Mao.

An example of noble sentiments whose vessel is an ugly and imitative disguise:

“If ‘democracy’ prevails on this path where ‘devolution is a non-starter, a mere word in the South,’ it shall pass through deballatio first, with the blinding hubris of a Leviathan, polluted by the overt Orwellianism of an enlightened demagogy whose centralized thinking accelerates back to the future… ”

Noble, I repeat, sentiments of devolution and decentralization—ideas worth spreading, however repulsive in its form as an overreaching, convoluted monster of a paragraph. The use of astounding metaphor does nothing to convey an attitude or stance, or evoke a versatile image (blinding hubris of a leviathan? I have an issue with blinding hubris, it’s a dying metaphor anyway and the language police should really be on patrol), correct me if I’m wrong I haven’t read what I’m supposed to and I am just the way I am.

Gramatically, the author has relied on prosthetic limbs to join clauses that could otherwise be fluid in its structure and use of pretentious diction to load these with implications that would have otherwise been readable, examples:

“Atavistically regressing”
“linear trend of polarization” (makes my blood boil, this is not political science, it is faff.)

Here is an example of a completely meaningless jumble of redundant words, circular in its style and inextricable in its nonsense,:

“… Furthermore, the perception of SLA offensive dominance is self-reinforcing, semiaxiomatic of structural asymmetries inherent in the South-heavy media complex afflicted by censorship..”

Here is an example of a failed effort at rhythmic cadence that lacks both meter and rhyme:

“..playing to the Sinhala electorate, both necessary illusions for the administration’s presiding illusion of necessity, the military option…”

Prose cannot be constructed a la DIY coffee tables, our blond friends a continent away have fortunately not yet Ikea-ized and flat-packed, home-delivered speech. Writing must be relevant, it must be succinct and I’m afraid the author has mercilessly flaunted too many precious rules of oratory to appear meaningful or impactful, it is a parody of potential and by its very nature; this piece is made inaccessible and irrelevant to those it may wish to reach.

Best,

Ru.

We are all entitled to our opinion.

One of the goals of this site is to explore alternatives to and substantially critique the expression of ideas herein. One liners such as yours express nothing constructive and give little or no reason for the author to engage with you.

Please consider writing in with a more detailed account of what you disagree with here, that allows the author to respond to your alternate points of view.

Best,

Sanjana