in conversation. The type of article that has a very detailed, capillary analysis of something, some lofty theory, but nothing in between to bridge the gap. [This was from our colleague from AZ]
***
Guessing about who the article is by (in peer review) and being wrong... or sometimes being right.
***
We were also talking about how writing should get easier with time and experience (this was me talking). Everything in life improves with practiced intention. Why should writing be different??
But, said someone else, you have to know who you are writing for, and how to negotiate your own identity as a scholar.
2 comments:
"The type of article that has a very detailed, capillary analysis of something, some lofty theory, but nothing in between to bridge the gap.”
This is something I associate with German scholars: a long “theory” section followed by a (usually) shorter close reading that never mentions anything discussed in the theory section. For example, Karlheinz Stierle on negation, with the theory being about Freud and the close reading being about Kleist, but no mention of Kleist in the Freud part and no mention of Freud in the Kleist part. (And no bridge between them in a conclusion.)
In writing, new topics and forms are harder.
Post a Comment