At least hard to me! I'm busy reading an Economist account of a new book about the Romanovs and as is usual they have used three words that I had to look up because they were unfamiliar to me. The Economist writers are very pushy about words and I try not to succumb. Some of the writers don't use an easy word when a hard word will do. I often don't bother to look up these sort of words: A) because if I used them in conversation people who know me would think I was having a problem and B) I'm almost 82 so I don't think I really need them. On the other hand I did look them up today and they are interesting and what is more almost self-revelatory if you think about it. I could have skimmed them by as I usually do. First: Effulgent meaning shining or radiant, used here as "effulgent majesty". Second: Lubricious meaning slippery or sexual, here as in "startlingly lubricious and gory". Thirdly: Entrepot meaning a commercial port city, used here as in an "entrepot of power." On the other hand again, what is wrong with knowing something for its own sake, where there is little or no advantage for doing so, no money to be made, no one to impress, no one to initiate envy in, just a Google away from my private moment? I am going to make it a habit I think to read the Economist in front of the screen and learn hard words for no good reason. It's OK to succumb if you choose to do it. Choice means you have continued to maintain self control over the pushy.
For Jim's past posts, check out his old blog here: