> > the stylistics are complete-
> > ly inexcusable,
>
> If we are going to quibble about style it is best not to make errors
> of diction. "Stylistics" is a special sub-division of literary studies (one
> which some literary theorists deny the possibility of, while others
> claim it makes up the whole of literary studies). What you are talking
> about is *style*. The inaccourate insertion of a technical term when
> an ordinary term would do is, I suppose, what you are complaining
> about in current academic style.
sorry: 'style' is *far* too neutral to capture the n-dimensional contortions an awful lot of academic prose is bent into. and the word i used has the added bonus that the level of formalism that it implies can't be confused with actually *having style*, as in, 'she's got style.' and FURTHERMORE 'stylistics' in not exclusive- ly what you claim at all, any more than a 'sign' is *exclusively* what a semiotician claims it is.
if you'd like, i can complain about pedantry as well. for now it seems more salient to point out that 'quibble' is an awfully lit- tle word for grousing about the fact that torrents of wankademic writing are very self-consciously crafted to be as 'impenetrable' as possible--the theory demands it, after all. the readers don't, but the theory does. and that right there says a *lot* about the skewed values underpinning much of the writing in question.
> Incidentally, to cure yourself of nostalgia (a vicious ailment) I
that's rich. clarity, salience, efficiency and accessibility are 'nostalgic' values, are they? granted, the future is ten+ months pregnant with obfuscation, but i'm not sure that the english dep- artments of american universities are in the vanguard of that un- fortunate trend.
cheers, t