I had a friend who wrote an extraordinarly clear essay on Pound's Malatesta cantos. This was rejected by the MLA mag for being too simple and clear. These were pretty much the words they used; I remember reading the rejection letter. He published them elsewhere, but the point is/remains that there is a lot of writing that is unnecessarily foggy/jargon-laden/forbidding, and that we should be justly suspicious of this phenomenon.
Joanna
Miles Jackson wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Jon Johanning wrote:
>
>
>
>>In the university where my wife
>>teaches, a friend of hers, a physics professor who is tenured and
>>therefore doesn't have to worry about bulking up his list of purely
>>academic publications, was apparently recently subjected to some
>>negative comments in his absence by colleagues for writing -- in quite
>>simple, clear language for the subject -- a series of books
>>popularizing various topics in physics.)
>>
>>
>
>Be fair, now: if you're a theoretical physicist, it's
>a diversion from your "real" work to write popular books for
>nonprofessionals. It's a noble career, granted, but if all
>physicists took the time to be popular writers, nobody would
>have time to do "serious" work in physics.
>
>Specialization will necessarily create people with specialized
>knowledge and language. Outsiders won't get it. This is
>true of any discipline. Upside: in-depth analysis, people
>less likely to get sucked in by dubious, common-sense
>arguments. Downside: elitism, faked profundity possible.
>
>Miles
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>