Oops. I shouldn't be doing email at work I guess. LOL.
Carrol writes:
>What the snipers your post don't realize (or perhaps can't
realize) is that much of the writing they _do_ admire is done
by writers/scholars who owe a good deal to the "difficult"
writers the snipers get so upset with.
I have no problem wih difficult writers. I have problems with gobbledy-gook. Buddhism teaching is often crystal clear, but still difficult. What has happened is that obscure, jargon-ridden prose has become accepted as a marker of difficulty/depth. This type of writing has also become a commodity that is produced in order to secure advancement. Academics have a vested interest in perpetuating obscurantism since their capacity to produce it is directly proportional to their ascent in academia.
It is also interesting to note that as of yet, no one has explained (or perhaps can't) what the phrase I pointed out means. Even the poster retreated from the question. LOL.
> Behind every triumphantly clear and persuasive work is a huge pile
of dull, often wrongheaded, "difficult" writing.
And? Again, I have nothing against dull and difficult writing. It is nonsense, in both prose and verse, that I have little patience for.
> You can't have the former without the latter.
According to whom? All thought must appear first in a difficult iteration and then be clarified? Sounds like an after-the-fact theoretical justification to me. I know that a lot of thinking and analysis goes into thought production, but it is a personal choice whether to communicate clearly or obscurely.
> The complaints at difficult writing resemble someone who loves
beefsteak complaining about the acreage devoted to the raising of
corn and soybeans.
Huh? Again you are assuming that I am equating the difficult with he obscure. I am not.
Joanna writes:
> The verbiage/obfuscation that has come out of academia in the last
thirty years has depressed the level of writing (and intelligence) and
removed the ideal of a common public discourse from our consciousness.
Exactly. I would argue that to create social change there needs to be a vital public discourse. But obscurantism and jargon work against establishing such a discourse. It is a form of academic capitalism. The capital -- jargon, obscure terms -- are in the hands of an elite and used by them to increase their wealth/status. The workers (everyday people who do not speak in jargon) support this elite (through tuition and book/magazine purchases). In turn, the elite produces more and more jargon to keep the revenue stream flowing.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister
"There is nothing in philosophy which could not be said in everyday language."
-- Henri Bergson