1. Overspecialization. We are so focussed on very narrow questions, that the big picture often disappears from view. The overspecialized writer knows so much about the subject matter that it becomes impossible to tell what the audience knows or doesn't. He or she doesn't put himself in the position of the reader. (Pinker on the "Curse of Knowledge.")
2. Low Information. There will often be a small amount of actually significant information per page. All the findings are there, however insignificant. The same points will be repeated endlessly, using similar language. I often start reading a book on page 101. By then the writer has to have gotten into the subject matter.
3. Low stylistic intensity. Writing is dogged, perfunctory, lacking in energy.
11 comments:
Professors teach others to do this. The original version of my dissertation did not have all of those repetitions. FM insisted I put them in. "It reads like a book, which is amazing, but in academic writing you must lead the reader." Meaning: reader does not respect you enough to actually read, or is just skimming for nuggets.
Also my article, the one with the 151 footnotes, does this for other reasons. Topic is controversial and I was defending against every objection, and the people I was citing had also done that, so there are layers upon layers of it. The mss. in the end is like an archive. It's a garden of forking paths. The Aleph for that topic.
This explains why I have had brilliant students who went on to write boring dissertations (with other advisors, not with me). They are writing down to the expectations of the form. Boringness is safety, defensiveness.
My father, who has a nice prose style, always said you had to write very tame things to keep your job. You couldn't publish your actual ideas. He was very adamant about this.
I have some strong opinions about this topic. I think scholars should love academic writing (and reading) or leave the game to people who do.
No one should be taught to write deliberately badly.
There are many different ways to write well; many different readers who appreciate many different qualities in writing. Find peers you like and enjoy their company. "Go to your nation and strive," as I think Barrett Watten once said.
The rest is dross.
Yes, so why is the other opinion so popular? That we ought to hate writing and have unhealthy relation to our own?
That is a very good question. Why do people who hate writing (and reading) academic texts pursue academic careers?
Maybe they see it as the price of being allowed to read (and teach) the literature they love? (In the social sciences, it would be the price of being allowed to devote their attention to political causes they think are important or interesting.)
I always come back to Pound's cure for bad writing: the application of banknotes. If there was a basic income, would lovers of literature who hate academia seek employment in universities?
Maybe the allure of having students would still draw some people. Maybe teaching them is so enjoyable that the pain of grading their writing is worth it?
Maybe the extra salary (even with a basic income) will always be enough to incentivize people to read and write things they hate.
Maybe people don't actually hate it as much as they say?
My friend in Classics did his whole career as a translator. It worked for him because he was oriented toward that kind of thinking. I'm a translator but haven't managed to publish a book of translations, whereas he's done Homer, Virgil, Dante, Ovid, etc...
without ever publishing an article
But presumably not without reading one? I wonder if he enjoyed it when he did.
They don't dislike it. They struggle because they are worried about Reviewer 2 and not quite in control of Theory. I once reviewed the first book of this guy who was clearly a hard worker but clearly didn't quite grasp all of the stuff and was straining. Recently I read some work of his, now that he has several books and he still has the same problem. He's trying to cover every possible objection, has obviously presented this work a lot and had people object, so has fit in his responses, but might have better either left all of that out and said what he had to say, or if he cared about the responses, rethink the project. It's not writing and it's not even academia, it's the gotcha mentality combined with produce now.
Post a Comment