On bad writing in the humanities

[traductio]

Hi Forafolks --

I'm sitting in my basement thinking about next fall, when I'll be teaching two sections of my department's MA-level seminar in communication theory. I want to talk about the art of writing, among other things, and I've begun collecting essays (mostly op-ed type pieces) about bad writing in the humanities. You know the genre -- thinly disguised accusations of bad faith by authors who think jargon is really some form of magical incantation meant to make the scholar (or "scholar") look smart. The Bad Writing Contest (http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm) is a good example.

Anyway, my collection of articles is a bit haphazard, so I was wondering whether you have any suggestions. What are your favorite screeds against bad writing?

Thanks!

(Oh, and I've just noticed -- this is my 100th post on the new fora. Seems like I post more often than on the old fora. I think it's because to read the fora, I have to be logged in, which makes posting less of a hassle.)

[Katrina Gulliver]

Not related to academic writing, but the Literary Review's Bad Sex in Fiction award brings up some gems
https://literaryreview.co.uk/bad-sex-in-fiction-award

Likewise the sub Reddit "Men Writing Women"

[traductio]

Not related to academic writing, but the Literary Review's Bad Sex in Fiction award brings up some gems
https://literaryreview.co.uk/bad-sex-in-fiction-award

Likewise the sub Reddit "Men Writing Women"

Wow on both counts.

[Wahoo Redux]

There were a series of hoax-papers which made the humanities look bad.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-real-fake-hoodwinks-journals.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Not sure if this is what you are looking for but does point out the ridiculousness of certain types of scholarly writing.

[traductio]

The Sokal affair is inescapable, although for some reason, I hadn't thought of it in this context. It seems obvious, now that you point it out.

[ergative]

I just gave a student a D+ on an essay that had about C content because they were clearly idolizing this sort of writing. For example, at one point in a discussion of nature vs. nurture they talked about 'dilatory' genetic changes during evolution. Then they complained to the course convenor, because 'I only use words that I feel are apt in the context of the argument I am making'. Uh-huh. Your feelings don't make it so.

[traductio]

I just gave a student a D+ on an essay that had about C content because they were clearly idolizing this sort of writing. For example, at one point in a discussion of nature vs. nurture they talked about 'dilatory' genetic changes during evolution. Then they complained to the course convenor, because 'I only use words that I feel are apt in the context of the argument I am making'. Uh-huh. Your feelings don't make it so.

I'm finding it's fine line to walk. On the one hand, I want my students to be able to decipher the authors who adopt this style (many of whom do so for specific reasons). In effect, I plan to defend the style but, at the same time, tell my students to avoid it!

I'm with you on the student you describe here, though. I, also, use only words I feel are apt in the context of the argument. The trick is knowing which words are, in fact, apt.

[Parasaurolophus]

Some CanCon (although he's also supposed to be a social scientist, but, well.): Jordan Peterson. You could pair a few passages (if anyone's at all mathematically inclined, the things he says about Gödel's incompleteness proofs are... just... so, so, so wrong; but otherwise, it's all from the humanities' erstwhile dabbling with Freud, Jung, and Campbell) with this fantastic takedown from Current Affairs.

Some great things have been written on the analytic-continental divide in philosophy, which mostly just tracks writing style (both of which are perfectly legitimate, although one is the kind that's characteristic of the "humanities", and one is not). And, to be clear, the writing style is completely different (comparing contemporary excerpts would probably be a very fun exercise for Master's students). There's lots out there, and I'm sure there's better stuff than what I'm about to link to, but some places to start might be: Gary Gutting in the NYT, Brian Leiter on the PhilosophyBites podcast, Leiter and commentators on his blog back in 2005, and William Blattner responding to Leiter.

[traductio]

Some CanCon (although he's also supposed to be a social scientist, but, well.): Jordan Peterson. You could pair a few passages (if anyone's at all mathematically inclined, the things he says about Gödel's incompleteness proofs are... just... so, so, so wrong; but otherwise, it's all from the humanities' erstwhile dabbling with Freud, Jung, and Campbell) with this fantastic takedown from Current Affairs.

Shudder. (I'm curious about the Gödel, though. I absolutely devoured Gödel, Escher, and Bach in high school, which likely means I missed some of the subtler points.) I'm not sure I have the stomach for Peterson, though.

Some great things have been written on the analytic-continental divide in philosophy, which mostly just tracks writing style (both of which are perfectly legitimate, although one is the kind that's characteristic of the "humanities", and one is not). And, to be clear, the writing style is completely different (comparing contemporary excerpts would probably be a very fun exercise for Master's students). There's lots out there, and I'm sure there's better stuff than what I'm about to link to, but some places to start might be: Gary Gutting in the NYT, Brian Leiter on the PhilosophyBites podcast, Leiter and commentators on his blog back in 2005, and William Blattner responding to Leiter.

That's an angle I hadn't thought of, although it makes sense. I read a lot of continental philosophy (my background is in cultural studies, but going back further, literature) and can tell the BS from the not-BS. Well, some of the time, if it's an area I'm well read in (phenomenology, philosophy of language, hermeneutics). The difference in style with respect to analytical philosophy is useful for what it demonstrates about epistemology, evidence, claims, warrants, etc., in addition to readability.

[zuzu_]

http://bocktherobber.com/2010/05/post-modernism-generator/

[Parasaurolophus]

Shudder. (I'm curious about the Gödel, though. I absolutely devoured Gödel, Escher, and Bach in high school, which likely means I missed some of the subtler points.) I'm not sure I have the stomach for Peterson, though.

Just for funsies:

A moral system – a system of culture – necessarily shares features in common with other systems. The most fundamental of the shared features of systems was identified by Kurt Godel. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that any internally consistent and logical system of propositions must necessarily be predicated upon assumptions that cannot be proved from within the confines of that system. The philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn – specifically discussing the progress of science – described similar implicit-presumption-ridden systems as paradigmatic. Explicitly scientific paradigmatic systems – the focus of Kuhn's attention – are concerned with the prediction and control of events whose existence can be verified, in a particular formal manner, and offer "model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners."376 Pre-experimental thinking – which primarily means moral thinking [ thinking about the meaning or significance of events (objects and behaviors)] – also appears necessarily characterized by paradigmatic structure.

Also for funsies, from his Twitter feed (apparently; I don't do the twittering):

Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof.

[marshwiggle]

The Sokal affair is inescapable, although for some reason, I hadn't thought of it in this context. It seems obvious, now that you point it out.

The Sokal affair and the "grievance studies" affair illustrate the fact that this kind of writing is actually rewarded in certain fields. (The number of articles that got accepted in the latter indicates how widely accepted it is.)

[dismalist]

I don't think Sokal's paper is an example of bad writing. It's an example of satire, where the satire looks just like the non-satire, so that it's impossible to tell the difference.

[marshwiggle]

I don't think Sokal's paper is an example of bad writing. It's an example of satire, where the satire looks just like the non-satire, so that it's impossible to tell the difference.

If the satire and the original can't be distinguished, then the original is bad writing. Think of the Onion pieces that people have passed on thinking they were real. It happens becuase the sources being parodied are doing things like over-dramatising or over-simplifying. A thoughtful, balanced presentation wouldn't be fodder for parody.

[Parasaurolophus]

If the satire and the original can't be distinguished, then the original is bad writing. Think of the Onion pieces that people have passed on thinking they were real. It happens becuase the sources being parodied are doing things like over-dramatising or over-simplifying. A thoughtful, balanced presentation wouldn't be fodder for parody.

That doesn't seem right. There are a few different lessons you could draw from being unable to determine which of two texts is the satire, and which not (I'm assuming they're distinguishable, since otherwise they're identical, and that's a whole other kettle of fish). I'll grant that one plausible conclusion is that the original is poorly written. Another is that the satire is poorly written. Yet another is that the satire accidentally or incidentally says something of genuine value (and, thus, is rather a bad satire).

There are different things someone might mean by 'is good writing'. Here are at least two of them: (1) you might mean that the quality of the prose, considered by itself, is high (or low, for 'bad' writing), or (2) you might mean that the argument being advanced is compelling or of high quality, the story engaging, etc. Those two things can come apart. Indeed, they often do in student writing--hell, they often do in professional articles, too. Most of the arguments I read in my field are compelling, but the quality of writing is variable and sometimes pretty poor.

More generally, I'm not convinced that satire reliably tracks quality of writing. I'm not sure it reliably tracks quality of argumentation, either, but that case seems more plausible to me. And that's just because it seems to me that satire can shine an improving light on just about any vice, not just poor writing. Consider Austen's Northanger Abbey, which just about everyone agrees is a satire of the Gothic novel. But Gothic novels aren't necessarily bad pieces of writing (nor, indeed, are they necessarily bad novels!). To satirize something you need to be able to find fault in it, but that doesn't entail that your criticism is fair or true, or that the original source is bunkum.