http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/complex-academic-writing/412255
As a long-time writer and editor I am occasionally horrified by academic writing -not because it is long but because it is needlessly long, not because it presents complex ideas but because they are made unnecessarily convoluted, and because the authors overlook the one overarching rule of writing: writing is communication and to communicate, you have to be understood.
The Atlantic excerpts a book, Flaubert Postsecular: Modernity Crossed Out, which is so dense as to be ridiculous. It is nearly incomprehensible. Of course among some academics, not being understood seems a state to be aspired to, that is, not being understood except by those who belong to the circle. That may guarantee sales to one another, but it will not spread one's ideas very far, at least, outside that circle.
Then do their books contain the arcane creeds of a religion to be understood only by its adherents? are they meant only for other academics to translate (mildly) into concepts to be shared only with the acolytes (i.e. students)?
I am curious. Do you think it is not possible to communicate complex thoughts or speculations in straightforward language? Would you be caught dead having written - never mind published - a text as arcane and deadening as the excerpted work?
Thank you for your comments. Yes, there is a degree of jargon - particularly in some areas. But clear writing is better than murk - if one wants mud, one might just look into one's coffee cup.
I agree with you Morant as well as with jonathan. There are scholars who on purpose use their utmost best dictionary jargon within the social sciences and philosophy fields (as I observed) that you may stand there solid and say Wow, what the heck you want to say... In many of those cases, I made it my quest to ask other people who are as great in selecting the words to explain to me what has been said, There you say, well this can be put in easier manner and reachable to the common (like me). 100% I agree that communication is making others get the message in the most simple form to create a discussion and to get the benefit of the written work.
Thanks for your input, Hussin and Ivo - yes, it is understood that there are endeavours that are - and will remain - complex and difficult to express in "normal" vocabulary. Those one shouldn't argue with because there is no alternative - the subject demands the language used.
But - as you have specifically mentioned - in areas such as social science, a dense writing style is fairly common and irksome. In my experience there is no need for such but - as you point out, Ivo - there is an entire layer of such verbiage-producing authors.
And, obviously, approaching Kant one is prepared for intellectual stimulation, whereas Flaubert Postsecular strikes me as ridiculously, deliberately obfuscating.
Daisy
And here's another relevant link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.1178/abstract
Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: problems with using long words needlessly
Daniel M. Oppenheimer
from Applied Cognitive Psychology
Volume 20, Issue 2, pages 139–156, March 2006
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing