|
On January 28 2013 07:51 sam!zdat wrote:Academic writing has a different problem, which is "publish or perish." Whereas fiction has the problem of "changing the writing to fit the needs of publishing", academic writing has the problem of "you just need to publish stuff, so who cares if it's nothing but mediocre obscurantism"
It's not obscure for the sake of being obscure though. I believe that most (non-hackish) academics at heart are concerned primarily with the truth factor of what they are saying. It is just that they don't really give any thought to their readers.
It is an interesting problem, because most academics (and a lot of non-academics too) use the writing process to think about the world. This has a huge effect on how they write and often renders articles difficult to read, if not nearly incomprehensible. When you read an academic article, nine times out of ten you are just reading sentences that are mainly stream of consciousness. Sure, it's organized (or vaguely organized), but you are basically reading thought vomit on the page, and it's difficult for all readers, even other academics, to sift through it. They care about thoughts, not readers.
Of course, most of them will say, "If my readers have to slow down to understand what I'm saying, then that's good! They will spend more time thinking about my ideas!" No. Nobody wants to waste more time trying to figure out what an author is saying, not even other academics, lol.
(This is why most philosophers invariably suck at writing btw and why Ayn Rand gets props for her writing even if her "philosophy" is shit.)
---
Anyways, all writing is persuasive in some way. You have a world in your head. You are trying to make the readers see that world. How do you do it? That's the main question. You don't "change" readers, you convince them.
|
Wow, great point babylon. It IS very stream-of-consciousness. I guess it's kind of like showing your work in math? They want to write out their entire train of thought so other professors, etc can follow their theory? It really does make for some horribly dry prose though, and confusing as hell. Their punctuation is usually bad too and their paragraphs are just monstrous in size. I've seen a paragraph that covers over a page and a half. Just obscene lol.
And yup, it's about connecting and persuading. You can't change the reader if they don't like your writing, cause they'll just shut their minds down and put your book away.
|
Also, writing is not like blacksmithing or baking or other sorts of mechanical crafts. It doesn't operate in quite the same way because writing comes from an intensely personal place. Now you CAN be a very mechanical, volume-driven writer and that's what they call a hack, but it won't do you or your craft any good.
not really sure im understanding this.
what is a mechanical, volume-driven writer?
|
On January 28 2013 08:42 AiurZ wrote:Show nested quote +Also, writing is not like blacksmithing or baking or other sorts of mechanical crafts. It doesn't operate in quite the same way because writing comes from an intensely personal place. Now you CAN be a very mechanical, volume-driven writer and that's what they call a hack, but it won't do you or your craft any good. not really sure im understanding this. what is a mechanical, volume-driven writer?
Someone who writes in a formulaic way to churn out pages. AKA pulp fiction writers.
|
Your brother's show is pretty cool
|
On January 28 2013 08:06 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 07:51 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 07:47 babylon wrote:
except maybe academic writing Academic writing has a different problem, which is "publish or perish." Whereas fiction has the problem of "changing the writing to fit the needs of publishing", academic writing has the problem of "you just need to publish stuff, so who cares if it's nothing but mediocre obscurantism" It's not obscure for the sake of being obscure though. I believe that most (non-hackish) academics at heart are concerned primarily with the truth factor of what they are saying. It is just that they don't really give any thought to their readers.
Yes, but they're equally concerned with adding papers to their C.V.s, I promise.
It is an interesting problem, because most academics (and a lot of non-academics too) use the writing process to think about the world. This has a huge effect on how they write and often renders articles difficult to read, if not nearly incomprehensible. When you read an academic article, nine times out of ten you are just reading sentences that are mainly stream of consciousness. Sure, it's organized (or vaguely organized), but you are basically reading thought vomit on the page, and it's difficult for all readers, even other academics, to sift through it. They care about thoughts, not readers.
I'm with you totally. That's my basic mode of operation. But some writers are better at making themselves understood, and some of them, especially French ones, do deliberately write things that are hard to understand for no other reason than just that. I can tell the difference between somebody struggling to express themselves and somebody who is an obscurantist.
Anyways, all writing is persuasive in some way. You have a world in your head. You are trying to make the readers see that world. How do you do it? That's the main question. You don't "change" readers, you convince them.
I don't know what is the difference between changing and convincing. And I think generally it's more about unconvincing them of the things about which they are already convinced than about convincing them of something positive.
On January 28 2013 08:22 SamsungStar wrote:
It IS very stream-of-consciousness. I guess it's kind of like showing your work in math? They want to write out their entire train of thought so other professors, etc can follow their theory? It really does make for some horribly dry prose though, and confusing as hell.
But unlike math, the answer can't even be stated independently of the work. I don't know what you've been reading, but academic writing gets a lot more interesting once you get used to it and can read it more naturally. Takes a while to get to that point, however.
|
I've enjoyed reading this, and I will resist the temptation to challenge Babylon's statement that "Ayn Rand gets props for her writing..."  I will add that if one peruses JSTOR and similar article databases with enough frequency, something I do on a daily basis as part of my research, it becomes woefully apparent that a large portion of academic writers have absolutely nothing good to say, and the veneer of academic writing is perhaps one of the best ways to cover that up. Don't get me wrong, there are practically an infinite number of useful and intelligent articles out there, waiting to be stumbled upon and read, but I would not go so far as to say that "truth" is the primary motivator in academic writing; instead, it appears to this reader as more of a focus on avoiding the "untruth", whether that take the form of overly narrow subject matter, obscurant language, or ulterior agenda (I'm looking at you here, identity studies).
I'll end with an exhortation that one considers the usefulness of pedantic and obscurant language before shrugging off some of the more nonsensical writers. In some cases, especially in regards to the likes of Deleuze and Derrida, that intense feeling of anger a reader can get after reading a particular silly sounding line of overly wrought words can lead one down some very intriguing paths, but only if one lightens up a bit, so to speak. The difference between an egotistical, overly self-indulgent postmodern proselytizer and a mischievous fellow who simply wants to play a game with words can be all in the reader's head.
|
On January 28 2013 09:14 Grettin wrote:
Your brother's show is pretty cool
Haha yeah, I really like it. Next season's gonna be even better :D
|
On January 28 2013 09:58 farvacola wrote:I've enjoyed reading this, and I will resist the temptation to challenge Babylon's statement that "Ayn Rand gets props for her writing..." I will add that if one peruses JSTOR and similar article databases with enough frequency, something I do on a daily basis as part of my research, it becomes woefully apparent that a large portion of academic writers have absolutely nothing good to say, and the veneer of academic writing is perhaps one of the best ways to cover that up. Don't get me wrong, there are practically an infinite number of useful and intelligent articles out there, waiting to be stumbled upon and read, but I would not go so far as to say that "truth" is the primary motivator in academic writing; instead, it appears to this reader as more of a focus on avoiding the "untruth", whether that take the form of overly narrow subject matter, obscurant language, or ulterior agenda (I'm looking at you here, identity studies). I'll end with an exhortation that one considers the usefulness of pedantic and obscurant language before shrugging off some of the more nonsensical writers. In some cases, especially in regards to the likes of Deleuze and Derrida, that intense feeling of anger a reader can get after reading a particular silly sounding line of overly wrought words can lead one down some very intriguing paths, but only if one lightens up a bit, so to speak. The difference between an egotistical, overly self-indulgent postmodern proselytizer and a mischievous fellow who simply wants to play a game with words can be all in the reader's head.
LOL epic post. And LOL at Derrida. God, I hated reading him. Although the whole semiotics field is pretty cool to think about from time to time. As a fiction writer though, I find my use of language to be much more instinctual and nothing at all like how semiotics breaks it down. Ofc beneath that, there is probably the fundamentals of semiotics at work.
But yeah, I agree with farva 100% about academic articles.
|
Criticize Ayn Rand for her ideas, but there's a reason why everyone, even high school students, understand her philosophy. It's not just that her philosophy is incredibly simple; it's that her writing is clear, and she unashamedly pushes them in her writing. I personally don't like her style, and I don't like her ideas, but I can't deny that she is easier to read than most philosophers. 
I'll clarify on some of my points though:
1.) Yes, academics are concerned with adding papers to their CV. However, they will typically not add a badly supported paper to their CV if they can help it. A lot of the times, however, they simply can't, which is why you have so many "empty articles" floating around that never add anything to the discussion; all these articles do is rehash older arguments while trying to pretend that they are saying something new. (Also, you have a horde of graduate students just trying to get published, and a horde of assistant profs trying to get tenured, etc.)
2.) Yes, academics do obscure certain facts in an attempt to build a better argument. But it is a rhetorical strategy, and one that many academics do not use well, because their entire article is badly written anyways, so everything is obscure! As you say, farva, there is value to obscurant and pedantic language, but I think that value lies in how that language is employed. (And, naturally, the readers' perception of how and why that language is being used.)
3.) I can go on and on about the flat-out technical details that make some papers more difficult to read, some easier to read. It's not even about the content and the ideas; it's just how the papers are written. Even at the most microscopic level of basic sentence construction and word choice, many articles do not efficiently communicate ideas, even to other academics who understand the jargon.
4.) Sam, I don't think academic writing gets better. It just gets more tolerable, which is not the same as "better." I think the more you (general "you") convince yourself that it gets "better," the more you end up writing like them, because you think that it's "okay." And, well ... yes, it's okay, if you're okay with people a.) ignoring you, because they can't understand what you're saying, b.) misunderstanding you, because they can't understand what you're saying, and c.) misrepresenting you, because they can't understand what you're saying.
---
Sam, re: change vs. convince, I'll just quote what you said back at you:
My philosophy is that you don't change your story so that people like it, you change people so that they like your story
I phrased it the way I did, because I disliked your initial usage of "change." You can't change people so that they like your story when they dislike your story to begin with and don't even continue reading it because they think it has no value. There's no way you can change anything if you can't convince them to keep reading in the first place. Sure, maybe "changing" people is your end goal, but at the most basic level, you just need to convince people that what you have to say is interesting. After that, maybe you can work your magic.
---
Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with hack writing, so long as you realize that you may be forgotten after your death. Except for the lucky few, like Alexandre Dumas (who was paid by the word). In the end, though, it depends on your goal, I think; some people write just to tell stories and don't really care about the words themselves except as a medium of communication, and I think that is perfectly fine.
There are also some people who call themselves hack writers even though they (in my opinion) have good control over the English language ... I think a lot of people just use the term "hack" to emphasize that they're not out to write highbrow "literary fiction."
|
I thought that people who enjoy absurdism would appreciate the French pseudo thinkers. I'm surprised. I mean they should be funny with all their complicated and nonsensical words right ?
|
On January 28 2013 10:44 Boblion wrote:
I thought that people who enjoy absurdism would appreciate the French pseudo thinkers. I'm surprised. I mean they should be funny with all their complicated and nonsensical words right ?
No, you're conflating things. But if you are going to get anything out of Derrida (e.g. because he's the most obvious) the only way to do it is to get in on his joke.
@farv btw do you like Barthelme? Have we talked about this?
On January 28 2013 10:32 SamsungStar wrote:
I find my use of language to be much more instinctual and nothing at all like how semiotics breaks it down. Ofc beneath that, there is probably the fundamentals of semiotics at work.
Yeah, luckily it's up to me to tell you what you meant and not up to you to tell me what you meant :D This is a false dichotomy between "instinctual" and "semiotic" use of language. You cannot escape my critical clutches, don't worry.
On January 28 2013 10:39 babylon wrote:
4.) Sam, I don't think academic writing gets better. It just gets more tolerable, which is not the same as "better." I think the more you (general "you") convince yourself that it gets "better," the more you end up writing like them, because you think that it's "okay." And, well ... yes, it's okay, if you're okay with people a.) ignoring you, because they can't understand what you're saying, b.) misunderstanding you, because they can't understand what you're saying, and c.) misrepresenting you, because they can't understand what you're saying.
Nah, you just haven't broken through yet  A lot of stuff that most people would think was nonsense makes total sense to me, and is really interesting. But I've got a lot of theory under my belt. I actively enjoy reading it.
Sam, re: change vs. convince, I'll just quote what you said back at you: Show nested quote +My philosophy is that you don't change your story so that people like it, you change people so that they like your story I phrased it the way I did, because I disliked your initial usage of "change." You can't change people so that they like your story when they dislike your story to begin with and don't even continue reading it because they think it has no value. There's no way you can change anything if you can't convince them to keep reading in the first place. Sure, maybe "changing" people is your end goal, but at the most basic level, you just need to convince people that what you have to say is interesting. After that, maybe you can work your magic.
This is why you have to trick them, by pretending to write "just a story," but actually by the time they finish reading "just a story," they have been changed, and after they have been changed, then they "like your story," i.e. the actual story. I like Freud's notion that Art is about making one's own fantasies, which are abhorrent to the Other, able to be communicated in the light of day.
|
Nah, you just haven't broken through yet A lot of stuff that most people would think was nonsense makes total sense to me, and is really interesting. But I've got a lot of theory under my belt. I actively enjoy reading it.
I haven't been very clear, apparently. I'm not talking about ideas or theories. I have stated before that I don't care about content. What I'm talking about is the English text and how readers interact with that text. Words on the page, sentences on the page, what is the subject, can your readers conceive of that subject as an active participant in the "action," where is the verb, does your verb describe meaningful action, where is the old information, where is the new information, how does that information flow, and does that information flow in a productive manner? Readers do not read text the same way writers write text. Readers will miss cues, they will miss signals, and they will just flat-out miss or misinterpret information that you, as a writer, want to communicate. When readers encounter reams of badly written sentences, they will become confused, they will slow down, they will become annoyed, and eventually, they will just stop reading.
I pick on academics, because they are notoriously concerned with ideas and unconcerned with their readers. That's absolutely fine. They place more value on the ideas. They are, after all, primarily academics, not writers.
This is why you have to trick them, by pretending to write "just a story," but actually by the time they finish reading "just a story," they have been changed, and after they have been changed, then they "like your story," i.e. the actual story. I like Freud's notion that Art is about making one's own fantasies, which are abhorrent to the Other, able to be communicated in the light of day.
Which is as I said. You can't change readers if you can't convince them to read past the first page of your writing in the first place. Only after convincing them to keep reading can you "change" them, if you want to, if you care to.
|
maybe readers should get better at it
|
Why should they? It's not their job to hack through bad writing to get at the "good stuff." In fact, they're not even obligated to look at an article or a book or a blog or a newspaper. The fact that they do is, in my opinion, blessing enough.
|
but if you're a bad reader, you can't tell the difference between writing that is bad and writing that is merely hard.
|
On January 28 2013 05:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2013 22:26 SamsungStar wrote:"the only winning move is not to play." Show nested quote +
Huizi said to Zhuangzi, "This old tree is so crooked and rough that it is useless for lumber. In the same way, your teachings have no practical use."
Zhuangzi replied, "This tree may be useless as lumber, but you could rest in the gentle shade of its big branches or admire its rustic character. It only seems useless to you because you want to turn it into something else and don't know how to appreciate it for what it is. My teachings are like this."
That's beautiful, as well as very hard to misinterpret. It's about a general truth, samsungstar, not about you. This ancient chinese dude was not trying to provide insight about your specific situation.
|
On January 28 2013 13:00 sam!zdat wrote:
but if you're a bad reader, you can't tell the difference between writing that is bad and writing that is merely hard.
Bad readers will be bad readers. Bad readers can choose to read whatever they want to read. They're not my concern.
Generally, you don't actually write for the lowest common denominator. You choose a subset of readers you want to address and target your writing towards them. In academia, that's usually other academics (which is why you can get away with using field-specific jargon); in fantasy, that's usually fantasy readers who are familiar with the genre (letting you subvert some very common fantasy tropes); for YA lit, that's usually children and teens (who generally have shorter attention spans, which means you will probably need to be very careful with how you pace the story so they don't get too bored).
I mean, there are certainly ways to layer your writing so that a bad reader can still follow the main plot but a better reader will get more out of the book.
|
Re: "bad readers" again -- as an example, think about historical pastiches and ask, "Who is the writer writing for?" and "What readers will actually enjoy reading these books?"
About layering stories so that there are different levels of interpretation, you should read up on Umberto Eco.
I really don't think academics have much of an excuse to write nigh-on incomprehensible papers/books though. (At least historical fiction writers can say, "We're being historically accurate!") If another expert in your field is having difficult reading something you've written and comprehending it, then you've got a problem, lol.
|
ok, well, I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
