Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:57:58 -0700
From: "i. khan" <ikhan-AT-etc.bc.ca>
Subject: academic-speak


i wonder if academic lang. is so convoluted because it uses such specific
terminology. just like the word "convoluted" in the last sentence- if you
don't know what it means, it will detract from your ability to read the
sentence. the problem with criticism is that it uses words which have
ridiculously rich meanings and connotations. if i say "modernism", what
does that mean to you? words, especially in criticism, are loaded canons.
it makes looking words up in the dictionary, like all our teachers told us
to do, a huge pain in the ass (now wheres volume 3 of the OED and my six
volume set of literary terms??).

its seems though that this terminology is necessary. if critics were to
spell everything out, they would say things in even MORE space than they
already use, since the words they use are so rich in meaning.

i agree that i hate critical articles because i spend half the time trying
to remember, for example, what exactly 'hegellian-disynchronism' is (i
*hope* that's not a real word, for all of our sakes).

i.k

responding to:____________________________________________________________

I couldn't agree more with Tina Hitckcock about the convoluted language
used in lit crit articles. I recently read Spivak's article and came to
the conclusion that her 40 page academic-speak on "subaltern" could have 
been reduced to 2o without losing a thing.

why is academic-speak so inundated with convolutions, while we love
fiction that is crisp and clear?

any takers...

Amit Ghosh

MFA Student

UTEP 



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---