Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:30:33 -0500 From: Bob <suannschafer-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Bad Writing? >Thanks for this response. I think you're being entirely sensible here, and I >guess my response to the Bad Writing mail was perhaps overly polemical. But >it does make me annoyed. The implicit assumption of those who judge this is >that this thought SHOULD be readily understood. Clearly the proposer of >Bhabha didn't know his Foucault: whose fault is that? Is it Bhabha's? Did >the reader of Butler understand Althusser, Gramsci and their critique? I don't imagine the problem is with a lack of background, but rather what many regard as the prolix and turgid character of much of this prose. >Should writers have to clarify everything they write about before pushing >forward? Of course not. But they should strive to write clearly and accessibly in the structure of their prose. >Why waste valuable words on something that many people will fast >forward through to get to the heart of the original thought? Perhaps that's the problem. Not enough "valuable words" WERE indeed wasted. >But, that doesn't mean it needs to be willfully obscure. I hope that my work >is comprehensible to those prepared to make a little effort. I think that many who read the work of these writers are "prepared to make a little effort," as I imagine that the work of most of these writers is read in many of our elite institutions; however, I'm not sure they're "prepared to make a little effort" to read what many regard as the prolix and turgid character of much of this prose.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005