Comments on: Pseud’s Corner

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:44:39 +0000

“Or do they use a deliberately obfuscatory style to try and disguise the fact that they don’t really have anything profound to say?”

There is some research on this, which I’ll try and dig out, where academics are shown various texts all saying pretty much the same thing with half in normal English and some written as above. They all think that the badly written stuff has a better argument. Many of my University colleagues are just the same. I think that the weaker the argument the more obfuscation.

By: Serdar

Serdar — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:04:29 +0000

His punishment is to read Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” over and over until he either turns out something readable or gets a job better suited to his talents — like, say, editing grocery-store circulars.

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:24:50 +0000

I think you’re being too charitable – you’re completely right that it lacks any kind of focus, and doesn’t seem have any central argument at all.

But I’d say the actual writing is pretty much indigestible for educated broadsheet readers, and I cannot understand why academics always write like that rather than express their arguments in straightforward English. I’d characterise it as seriously bad writing, in the same way as early Steven R. Donaldson was a very bad writing.

By: NRT

NRT — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:47:41 +0000

I didn't have trouble following it (very slowly...), but I agree it's not entirely suitable for a mainstream newspaper, and lacks focus. It's worth remembering, though, that Crowther is an academic, not a journalist, and he was invited to contribute by Jenkinson, himself not a journalist. It was misjudged, but I suspect Crowther provided precisely what was requested. "They privilege also the reception of artifacts over the significance of how they are created." Is a very good point.