I agree 100%. I usually stop reading something if the narrator is using a lot of "big words," because i like narrators who are realistic. Basically i like a narrator who would describe something in a way i would describe something to my friends and family.
There's a difference between using flowing prose, and describing what you want to say, and someone needing to consult mirriam-webster online. I can sit here, write a long, flowing paragraph to describe something, or carry out action and keep the words simple. I'm still a firm believer on using the first word that comes to mind, like King says do. I'm editing/revising my first novel and have, only on a handful of occasions so far, actually needed to change that word-even if it's a f-bomb. Sometimes if it feels right do it fits into writing. An unfortunate fact, even with people who read a lot in the younger generations, reading comprehension has dropped, particularly in the US, and I'm not going to get into why because it's another can of worms for another board. However, we as authors, would be remiss to not keep that in mind when writing.
I rarely pay attention to statistics. Just because overall reading comprehension has supposedly dropped does not mean I should assume my readers can't understand what I'm writing, or that I should worry about them occasionally having to reach for the dictionary. I have a very high reading comprehension and vocabulary and I still have to check out words while reading. So I stand by my statement - use the best word.
We shouldn't be talking about long vs. short words. The length of the word isn't the issue; the issue is whether or not it's the right word. That depends not only on the meaning of the word, but on the tone of the narrative, the rhythm of the prose, and, potentially, on many other facets of writing. If we always used the shortest word, all our work would look like a first-grade reader. Orwell understood that - that's why he gave himself an out in the last of his rules of writing: "Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous." BTW, maybe reading comprehension has dropped because writers keep using short words and simple sentence structures. I have a kind of knee-jerk reaction against Orwell's short-words rule because I don't like being told what words to use, and I especially do not like the idea of the stupidest and most ignorant readers determining how I'm going to write. I guess I don't write for those readers. As I've said before, I write for readers like me. If I had to follow these short-words, simple-sentences, no-semicolons rules, I probably wouldn't write at all. (Some may prefer that I don't, anyway ...)
Words are a writer's bread and butter. It seems silly to place restrictions on an artist's use of any tool, unless agreed upon beforehand. There is much more than communication at stake when choosing between or among words. Flow, rhythm, texture, context, etc. are all important considerations. Readers will generally forgive a "tripping" word and just gloss over it, provided it isn't out of character and doesn't otherwise impede the value or experience of the text.
Literacy is not the topic. Therefore, I am stopping that part of the discussion here and now. I agree that word length is not really the issue, but I would assume that everyone understands we are really talking about how common and simple the word is, as opposed to obscure or fancy. I think it's somewhat pedantic to drag out short obscure words to ridicule the thesis. The real point is plain language vs words pulled from the dusty back corners of the language. Let's stick to that, and not muddy the waters with nitpicking over exactly what kinds of words fall into each category. If you're here to argue for the sake of arguing, it stops here.
I think it really depends. Theoretically it is a good idea to do. In the end it really depends on what you are writing. If a character is a very snobby upper class person then big words might make more sense to use verses a poor uneducated character. It's all about the feel you are looking for. However, you should never use a word that you don't know i.e. don't go through the dictionary, find a word that looks cool, and toss it into a sentence just because you can.
You always want to use as few words as possible. Good 'word economy,' I think it's called. But, say your character is this nerdy guy that speaks with long sentences and words, that's an exception. I'm sure there are many exceptions.
I'd say that there is no inherent value in a more obscure word--that you should start with the clearer, more direct word, and any change to something more obscure should be for a good reason. What reasons? - the word is in dialogue or in a narrative voice that wouldn't use the more direct word. - the more obscure word communicates meaning or nuances that the more direct word doesn't - the more obscure word allows simpler or stronger or otherwise more effective structuring of the sentence or paragraph, and that improvement outweighs the cost of the obscurity of the word No doubt there are a dozen more as well. But reasons like "it sounds fancier/more literary/more impressive" are not good reasons.
The key to Orwell's statement hinges on "will do." If the shorter word would have forced him to compromise nuance, or sacrifice precision, or disrupt the voice of the character using it, it would never have "done." Orwell was a precise writer. So I must give my answer in the only word that will do: "Yes."
