Let us not forget penny sports metaphors in a story that is wholly unrelated to the sport or any sport for that matter.

In this modern electronic world we live in, it is easier than ever to merely highlight a word and touch define on a pad or copy and paste on a computer and one has a definition without a mountain of effort. It also doesn't hurt to know some fifty cent words and their meanings either.

I do understand what is being said but on the other hand, words are fun and one can have fun playing with them in their writing. Context alone often provides enough clue to an unfamiliar word that one does not have to stop the flow of the story to look it up to get the gist. When it does not and the writing is good, I don't personally mind looking a word up. When a story is not extraordinary in its content, then I can choose to gloss over the odd word and not miss a beat.

At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong about playing to your strengths and the audience that you have or want.

*high fives for the lion-lady*

Cheap words rock. Expensive ones are nice too. i like words which sound cool when you say them. I had a whole conversation today with a student about the way "Connecticut" sounds when you say it.

I'd like to believe it's all about balance. Two many flowery words and you come off as trying to be too intellectual and turn off your readers. Some here and there and they can add unique character to your style while still conveying your story. But clean and simple can be just as effective.

While its true that in the electronic age, touching a word for its definition is easy, I would prefer not to disrupt the flow of the story more often than necessary. I like to keep everyone in their headspace and hopefully immersed in the tale.

To me - it isn't about the nickle words vs the fifty centers. Its about how well the author draws pictures with those words. When well written, I tend to sink into the story and "see" it rather than just read it. While I have no objection to adding words to my vocabulary, if I find the text too filled with huge words put there just to be impressive the story loses my interest. If the author makes a habit of sitting with a thesaurus while writing, I tend not to revisit their works.

In modern times it's far too easy to right click on the mouse and see the magical long list of fancy words appear courtesy of MS Word's thesaurus.

 Do that to a few words in a sentence and you can up with some nonsensical rubbish like:

The natural satellite elevated beyond the perspective and stood out on the abundant turf

When what you actually meant was:

The moon rose above the horizon and shone on the lush meadow

Ooh!, sentence play. Me too, me too:

The moon rose over the edge of the earth, causing shadow to reach out; to clutch and extinguish in darkness those in the meadow not yet reached by her light.

Disclaimer: No words were harmed in the above sentence by a thesaurus. Imagination was all the havoc required.

The other thing about using expensive words is that it makes the story inaccessible for people who don't have a good level of English (like people whose mother language is not English, or people with learning difficulties).

And it's fine to say that it's an electronic age and lots of people have access to ebooks and ipads and internet and all that - but there is a whole world out there who doesn't have access to those things. Even if they manage to get in a computer to read stories online, we can't just assume they will know how to look up words of even if they will want to - maybe they have a very limited time in the internet (I'm thinking internet caffes, for example), or the connection is not good and it takes a long time to load pages...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because most of you here seem to be native English speakers with easy means to access modern technology, don't assume everyone is like you.

So, if "broad accessibility" is something you think worth going for, it might be worth using less of those expensive words and, just like Cia said, go for simpler descriptions that still create powerful pictures in people's heads.

(That said, if that's not something you're interested in, feel free to dump a thesarus in your work. There are people who like to read that and value this kind of thing. So there, everyone can be happy in whatever style they work with) 

Well, I can tell all of you.  I'm a very cheap writer:P

Yeah, I'm going to be odd one out here.  I'm not one for invisible prose. I read authors less and less for story these days , but because I enjoy the way they write.

The problem for me isn't hard words per se but hard words that don't suit the level of diction the prose suggests, or hard words and a prose style that doesn't sing so to say. There are plenty of writers who rock hard words, but readers don't complain because it all so fits e.g. Cormac McCarthy, Will Self.

It's also a matter of audience. For every reader who complain Blood Meridian is a pretentious tome, there are others who enjoy its paragraph long sentences and 50 dollar words galore. Mind you this special group isn't especially obscure. 

Goals, audience and artistic inclinations are what matters.  If reader entertainment is what you care for the most then simple is best. Go for a conversational style.  I'd advise writers that readers as a whole care lot more for story than prose, so really simplicity should be the default.

But if you long to use your vast bank of big words, you should be resigned to a smaller slice of readers.  Also you should be ready to work twice to hard to make the prose work. With big words, come big expectations. I get excited over the prospect of reading interesting imageries or allusions, or well crafted sentences and the like. It's disappointing to come across prose full of big words, but with a decidedly adolescent workmanship. If I'm going to be patient with your writing, you had better offer me something magical.

The simple fact is, it is lot easier to disappoint a reader with a mannered style than with a simple style.   To get to the level where your mannered style is readable, takes hours of fussing and obsessing over sentences, years definitely of practice.  You don't just make a go at it.  Even with all the practice and polish, you'd still get readers that smatter about you being pretentious and all what not.  

But hell, if that's what you want to do, then go for it.  The shelves are replete with books with invisible prose, so I'm quite happy Cormac McCarthy didn't listen to those who told him to stick to simple.