Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
So there's that tweet floating around about bad academic writing in literature. I have thoughts. First: the text in question, I can almost guarantee, has never been assigned to an undergraduate. No one gets to lit-101 and opens up their book to that. 1/8
Blog readers will remember we had a discussion of How Your History Gets Made (https://acoup.blog/2020/07/09/collections-how-your-history-gets-made/ …) where we noted that some kinds of history is field-to-public and some kinds are field-to-field (meaning academics talking to each other). 2/8
This https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1373277502735585284 … is very clearly field-to-field communication. It's the literature equivalent of an experimental white paper in physics. (Also, pulling jargon-heavy passages like this out of context always renders them difficult to read) 3/8
Now I will say that I cordially dislike that style of academic writing. I very much prefer arguments that can be put in plain language (but then again, that's part of why I don't do a ton of narratology). 4/8
I tell my students never to use a long word when a short one will do and never to use a rare word when a common one will do (though that advice sits in uneasy tension with the advice to 'always pick the word that says exactly what you mean, no more and no less.') 5/8
So is this good academic writing? Probably not. I think this argument could be rendered into passably normal English without serious loss of meaning. Some of the jargon here (and in the book description also cited) is meaningful, but some of it is, pardon me, performative. 6/8
But poor writing (or performative obscurantism) is hardly unique to 1) academia or 2) the humanities. I have read economics, physics and political science papers where I understood the underlying theory which were nevertheless about as difficult to read as this. 7/8
But the main point of the tweet, the 'won't someone think of the students!' bit, is foolish and willfully dense. No one is assigning a book like this to undergrads, you read stuff like this in graduate school, when you are prepared for it. end/8pic.twitter.com/zXAx54zWwS
My 0.02$: the sentence is full of technical vocab, but it’s the piling on of it in a long sentence & its syntax that really make it hard to read. Lots of fields use the former (tho not this much), but not a lot the latter. I think that’s field-specific.
I suspect it's more author-specific than field-specific.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
