[float4]

Shakespeare had an exceptionally large vocabulary. He constantly used words his audience / readers didn't understand. And that's okay with you, because he was "expressing and transferring ideas". Except that it's not okay with you, because he didn't "use the words that [his] readers will understand and that express [his] ideas the clearest".

[_Algernon_]

The idea a non-fiction text such as a scientific paper wants to express is (mainly) empirical.

The idea a fiction text such as Shakespeare's works wants to express is (mainly) emotional.

The exact meaning of words is more important in the former case than the latter, though not unimportant in the latter.

Shakespeare is one of the biggest outliers when it comes to reach as a function of complexity of language, and I don't think that generalizing from that specific anecdote is useful, especially as pertains to modern writers. I wouldn't advise any new writers to imitate Shakespeare if they want to be published today.

[allturtles]

> I wouldn't advise any new writers to imitate Shakespeare if they want to be published today.

It's very easy to get published today, I just got published and so did you.

But sure, your advice is probably good if you are concerned mainly with commercial success. I would venture to guess, though, that most great, enduring writing comes from something inside the writer that they feel they have to express, rather than from looking outside themselves for the right "product-market fit." Some writers find a simple, lapidary style, others prefer more ornate language. Both can be great and I don't think we should call one right and one wrong.