On bad writing in the humanities

[marshwiggle]

Anyone not a physicist have any idea what "Let a system of plane waves of light, referred to the coordinate system (r, y, z), possess the energy £; let the direction of the ray angle a with the x-axis. Now suppose that the labelled wavefront reached A at an instant of time t and let OA = r" means?

Philosophers write like this all the time. It's normal for us because of our background in formal logic, and because journals and referees reward logic-chopping. So, even if you aren't formalizing stuff, it's often pragmatically useful to give the appearance of formal structure. Grad students are often taught to model their writing this way. The advantage is that it's not hard to see what's being done by such sentences at a meta-level, even if the actual content eludes you.

On the other hand, it's mostly unnecessary (for us, anyway) and it makes for tedious reading. The really great writers in the field don't usually resort to it unless they're doing properly formal work, and even then, they'll do a great job of guiding you through verbally. But plenty of people in the field are brill, but horrid writers; they tend to resort to this sort of thing a lot.

(Logic and logicians are a little different. I don't begrudge them their formalisms or dull sentences; I'm too busy struggling to follow along!)

I used to be fascinated by the bridge column in the newspaper. (I don't play bridge.) Grammatically correct sentences of common English words, but that are utterly meaningless to people like me who don't play bridge. Seriously, if I were a spy having pass on secret information through public channels that's how I'd do it. Maybe that's what it is now. I don't actually know if anyone reads those columns......

[spork]

Does Thomas Friedman count as humanities?

The "I was speaking to my cab driver the other day in Addis Ababa...." genre?

Yes. Amazing critique at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090221090340/http:/nypress.com/article-11419-flathead.html.

[traductio]

Anyone not a physicist have any idea what "Let a system of plane waves of light, referred to the coordinate system (r, y, z), possess the energy £; let the direction of the ray angle a with the x-axis. Now suppose that the labelled wavefront reached A at an instant of time t and let OA = r" means?

Philosophers write like this all the time. It's normal for us because of our background in formal logic, and because journals and referees reward logic-chopping. So, even if you aren't formalizing stuff, it's often pragmatically useful to give the appearance of formal structure. Grad students are often taught to model their writing this way. The advantage is that it's not hard to see what's being done by such sentences at a meta-level, even if the actual content eludes you.

On the other hand, it's mostly unnecessary (for us, anyway) and it makes for tedious reading. The really great writers in the field don't usually resort to it unless they're doing properly formal work, and even then, they'll do a great job of guiding you through verbally. But plenty of people in the field are brill, but horrid writers; they tend to resort to this sort of thing a lot.

(Logic and logicians are a little different. I don't begrudge them their formalisms or dull sentences; I'm too busy struggling to follow along!)

I used to be fascinated by the bridge column in the newspaper. (I don't play bridge.) Grammatically correct sentences of common English words, but that are utterly meaningless to people like me who don't play bridge. Seriously, if I were a spy having pass on secret information through public channels that's how I'd do it. Maybe that's what it is now. I don't actually know if anyone reads those columns......

I used to read the fashion section of the Toronto Star (I lived in Toronto) for the exact seem reason. Take any three words in a row, and I understood them. But 10? No way. Plus, I loved the way the pictures seemed loaded with forms of signification I simply couldn't grasp.

[larryc]

Though I have an ax to grind with the author on account of that time she walked over to my table and took the bottle of wine without saying a word, this piece is excellent: https://observer.com/2015/11/dancing-with-professors-the-trouble-with-academic-prose/

That one wins extra points for the Lewis Carroll references.

(On a completely unrelated note, LarryC, I dreamt a few nights ago that we met. You were a Sesame Street muppet with a very large C pinned to your shirt.)

Lewis Carrol reference? She actually did take my wine!

And I only dress that way for special occasions like when Bacardi and Lime comes to town.

[apl68]

When I was in grad school most of the profs in our department (history) didn't stand for thuddingly "academic" prose.  They encouraged us to write clearly.  We were told to avoid "clanking machinery" in our writing. 

Many years later, when I was going for my professional MA as a librarian, I was actually admonished to make my machinery clank.  So I did.  I guess there can be such a thing as writing too well in some fields.

[ergative]

When I was in grad school most of the profs in our department (history) didn't stand for thuddingly "academic" prose.  They encouraged us to write clearly.  We were told to avoid "clanking machinery" in our writing. 

Many years later, when I was going for my professional MA as a librarian, I was actually admonished to make my machinery clank.  So I did.  I guess there can be such a thing as writing too well in some fields.

I struggle with this when grading student essays. Sometimes I come across students whose writing is well on the way to incomprehensible sludge that the Journal of Postmodern Hermeneutical Applied Ethical Structuralism would be hard-put to wade through--and how am I supposed to grade that? It seems unfair to mark it down for unclarity in the same way that genuinely unskilled writing is marked down for, but on the other hand it is equally far away from the type of writing I'm trying to teach.

[Hibush]

I struggle with this when grading student essays. Sometimes I come across students whose writing is well on the way to incomprehensible sludge that the Journal of Postmodern Hermeneutical Applied Ethical Structuralism would be hard-put to wade through--and how am I supposed to grade that?

With great clarity, for one thing. Just because they have chosen a socially acceptable way to be unclear, they are still unclear and should learn not to do that.

[traductio]

I struggle with this when grading student essays. Sometimes I come across students whose writing is well on the way to incomprehensible sludge that the Journal of Postmodern Hermeneutical Applied Ethical Structuralism would be hard-put to wade through--and how am I supposed to grade that?

With great clarity, for one thing. Just because they have chosen a socially acceptable way to be unclear, they are still unclear and should learn not to do that.

I agree. When I can't make heads or tales of a student's paper, I usually give them a chance to rewrite. (I give lots of second chances in my classes, especially if they serve a pedagogical purpose -- learning to write better is one such purpose.) If it comes back gibberish, though, then I treat it as such. John Cage can get away with that (have you seen his poetry?), but my students are not John Cage.

the Journal of Postmodern Hermeneutical Applied Ethical Structuralism

That made my head hurt. (I've been reading a lot of Paul Ricoeur lately, for whom hermeneutics and structuralism are oil and water. I like the "applied ethics" part, but the "postmodern" muddies it a bit.)