Academia and Accessibility in The Meaning of Meaning

I have a bone to pick with I.A. Richards.

Earlier this semester we read Aristotle's On Rhetoric, in which Aristotle rails against those who would use flowery language and complicated words to obscure rhetoric. According to Aristotle, the best rhetoric is that which is easily understandable and based in common sense- in other words, accessible.

It seems to me that we've been reading a lot of theorists (cough, Locke, cough) who proclaim to follow in Aristotle's vein, then obscure their arguments with what I call 'academia-speech.' You know, using big words in long sentences that are impressive but totally convoluted to all but the most astute of readers. They produce theory that makes valuable points but has to be slogged through and deciphered and interpreted and translated before it can be understood.

In the Richards and Ogden piece we read for class tomorrow, it seems to me that Richards is revealed as a member of this class of theorists. Apparently his 'mission' is to "promote better understanding by criticizing impediments to understanding" (317). He seems to value simplicity and clarity in language; with Ogden, he writes, "Language if it is to be used must be a ready instrument" (322). It needn't, and shouldn't, be so hefty, so weighty, so overbearing. And I agreed with all of this, I agreed with Richards, I too hate it when good logic is masked by incommodious seven-syllable words on every side.

BUT THEN I GOT TO PAGE 326. And Richards said THIS: "The tacitly solipsistic presumption that this naive approach is in some way a necessity of method disqualifies the majority of philosophical and psychological discussions of Interpretation" (326).

THAT IS INACCESSIBLE, RICHARDS! That's what you're not supposed to like! Your mission is to destroy that sentence and sentences like it! ...Isn't it? Or did I miss the point of all this entirely?