when the modus operandi of news is such that synchronic proxies for diachronic, and false linearity is deployed to demote comprehension, engage in constructive bricolage.
Like I would read that and think "ah, yes, synchronic... of course, but here, a proxy for diachronic", or "ahh, this linearity, so false, our only option is to bricolate".
I see you read the economist, please peruse http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=673899 especially rule #5
ah, thank god i am well-prepared for such criticism courtesy of one of my advisors who has been abusing his red pen all over my grant proposals for the last two weeks, writing comments like "pretentious. yuck!"
i read the economist for its sane british style of news analysis; while i appreciate the very dry humor that is occasionally dispensed by their "we" i do not aspire to mimic their style.
i write the way i do because i am quite passionate about finding the most precise and efficient term possible to denotate the predicament i am describing. hence, i find the rule # 5 stupid as a blanket prescription. certain words, even if they have a direct translation, have acquired contextual nuances because of how they have been used, historically. sure, instead of "bricolage" i could write "a mosaic" which would be a rough equivalent, but would not convey a) the multisource "here and there"-ness of the employed materials or b) the interpretive implications that are appended to the word at this point in time because of how Levi-Strauss used it in his analysis of culture. another example: the latin phrase "sine que non" is very useful, and when imported directly from Latin in quotation marks can be a predicate noun in a sentence "____ is a 'sine que non'" whereas the most literal way of getting at the same point in translation would be "______ without which nothing is..." and then i would have to elaborate on the ellipses as well.
as for synchronic and diachronic, they both have very specific connotations that their rough counterparts "in the moment" and "historical," respectively, do not possess. part of that nuance is, again, contextual, in the sense that they are metonymic for an institutionalized way of research and analysis, which works because when i write about news or politics on here i try to analyze the construction/production aspect as well as the information conveyed, and thus find vocabulary from disciplines that engage in that sort of critique with a variety of "texts" helpful to get my point across.
obviously you wouldn't read that and think that; you'd probably think something else, and phrase it in the language that is more familiar to you. if your theoretical formulation was one that i wouldn't have come up with myself, i would find it helpful and interesting. obviously you understand what i wrote as is evident from your reply; so what's the problem? is this some sort of advocacy for a more "accessible" proletariat style of writing in general? livejournal readership seems pretty self-selecting to me; people who find my political rants useful read it regularly; people who don't go find something else.
lastly, since i've had this journal for two and a half years now, sometimes in my entries i shortcut through concepts that i had elaborated on previously, like the the whole synchronic/diachronic thing, which to me seems to be a pretty consistent tactic of the Orwellian manipulation of information in the media today, the goal of which seems to be to minimize a consistent narrative of memory, which in turn cultivates a discourse with little or no accountability. if someone does not get what i mean, i am always happy to explain myself, but since this does not seem to be the case, i don't really understand what your issue with my writing style is.
Oh, I was hoping you would write this, eventually, anthro. First off, I don't think the comment was necessarily critical, or if it was, it was jokingly so. You seem like you have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to your writing style. I'll admit, that the way you write often baffles me. Not because you use theory, but that there's this huge implication of superiority ("the proletariat"? sheesh!). I've mentioned it to totalvirility before and he claims that the way you speak is a result of how you've learned English- ie: through critical texts. Which I guess I can understand, but now you claim that you write for- of all things- clarity.
Since you're already offended by me, I'll not bother with putting this mildly: Your prose is at times, passionless, pedantic and obtuse. I agree with a lot of what you say, but you couch your meanings in such haughty tones that it comes off as well, "pretentious". I have written in the past that I strongly believe in using the correct words for the correct situation, taking all their nuance into consideration, which you do, but slavishly. You write like a well-read computer with an attitude problem. For example:
You deride the commentor by calling his request for more accesible proletarian. In the next sentence you say that if they were to write your sentiment they would "phrase it in the language that is more familiar to you." Now, I'm sure you realize that the inference here is that the writer is a proletariat moron in overalls and that the language with which he is more familiar is filled with Bronx dipthongs and colloquialisms. This is not how to win friends and influence people, which I will accede is probably not your goal, but when you wrap yourself in the banner of 'clarity', it begs the question to whom. Your tone seems to be advocating an audience of one.
Language is supposed to be accesible. It is the very essence of its function. It should be the goal of every good writer to engage as well as inform their readers. I find myself always vaguely pissed off at your entries, which makes no sense on the surface- I too enjoy semiotic analysis of current events, I too have a fairly Chomskyian sense of the politcal apparatus, I too love analysis, but I think the problem is, you don't engage your readers- your writing is not a shared experience, but a one way conduit and this 'Voice from on high" works against your purpose. You make your readers uptight and defensive, when you should be winning them over to your way of thinking.
I don't really care if you take my advice or not, Anthro, but I think you could easily keep your high-fallutin vocabulary and syntax AND lose the label of pretentiousness if you just wrote a bit more discurssively and a lot less didacticlly.
I should add that most of my comments are directed at your own comments, not at your original statement, which I agree with Baxtie, is pretty damn funny, even if you didn't intend it to be. You're an anarchic ENIAC, anthro, that's what you are.
Hey! Your writing almost never uses analogy or metaphor! That's the problem! People like to imagine things in some kind of sensory way and all you offer them is pure language. Ha!
Also, your post is a little unfair to The Powers That Be. All history is the assemblage of non-related events into a cohesive narrative. It's not right, but everyone does it, not just the state-media.
um, ok. i think it's really weird that you would devote so much time and venom to attacking my writing, but i guess that's your prerogative. i don't really feel the need to reply to it except to say that just because my style doesn't appeal to you, it does not mean that it alienates all of my readers, so you should be careful when you speak for the imaginary plural readers. i am not interested in criticism, unless you have a legitimate issue with what i say; as far as how i say it--this is my journal and i convey my ideas the way that i see fit; if you don't like how i write or find yourself "vaguely pissed off" then the solution is really simple: don't read it. nobody is forcing you to. from what you wrote, it sounds like the only thing you get out of reading it is that it affords you an subject and a forum to compose long attacking unsolicited critiques to communiques that are not addressed to or directed at you. don't you have anything better to do with your time?
I'm sorry. I really should use my time better. Please accept my apologies. I've realized that not everyone looks for criticim the way I do and I've decided to stop. Please understand that Im not just getting my jollies off by writing about your writing style. I seriously was trying to figure out what it was that was making me irritated at writing that, content-wise, I agreed with. When you pointed out that both your advisor and some of your readers had the same problem, I wrong-headedly decided to solicit my opinion. Won't do it anymore.
Why the hell are you apologizing to this hypocrite? "You can judge what I say, but not HOW I say it?" Are you telling me this theory nerd has never heard of Marshall McLuhan? For someone who thinks she's intellectual a statement like that just goes to how clueless her bullshit really is.
noooo, what i said what that i am not interested in criticism of how i say things. seeing as this is my journal, that is my prerogative. people can and will judge whatever they want to judge.
what i find really weird is how pissed-off and venomous your statement is; you sound like you are about to have a seizure. i am writing for people who are interested in what i have to say; if you are not, go find something that will hold your interest.
really, it just boggles my mind; don't you people have anything better/more constructive to do with your time?
also, while it's a common practice to leave hateful "anonymous" replies on LJ, that does not make it any less cowardly. am i supposed to take ad hominems from a cyber-phantom to heart?
if you don't like what or how anthrochica writes, then why the hell do you spend so much time reading her? if you're so earnest to find fault in something she says, just so you can feel better about yourself by pointing it out to all (in an attempt to throw something in her face), then you need a life. that's what this all seems like to me. pathetic.
it reminds me of the howard stern haters - they listen for things to complain about.
i'm not trying to speak for her. she obviously does that well enough for herself. but as a reader of anthrochica that enjoys her journal, i don't need someone else telling me that i'm supposed to feel "derided" or anything else. if it makes you feel bad, don't read it. sounds simple, i know. but it just might work.
go take your holier-than-thou comments to someone who cares. i find it very hypocritical of you to chide someone else for trying to act "superior" to others. especially when that's hardly the case.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-10-16 08:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-16 09:04 am (UTC)I see you read the economist, please peruse http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=673899
especially rule #5
no subject
Date: 2003-10-16 04:11 pm (UTC)i read the economist for its sane british style of news analysis; while i appreciate the very dry humor that is occasionally dispensed by their "we" i do not aspire to mimic their style.
i write the way i do because i am quite passionate about finding the most precise and efficient term possible to denotate the predicament i am describing. hence, i find the rule # 5 stupid as a blanket prescription. certain words, even if they have a direct translation, have acquired contextual nuances because of how they have been used, historically. sure, instead of "bricolage" i could write "a mosaic" which would be a rough equivalent, but would not convey a) the multisource "here and there"-ness of the employed materials or b) the interpretive implications that are appended to the word at this point in time because of how Levi-Strauss used it in his analysis of culture. another example: the latin phrase "sine que non" is very useful, and when imported directly from Latin in quotation marks can be a predicate noun in a sentence "____ is a 'sine que non'" whereas the most literal way of getting at the same point in translation would be "______ without which nothing is..." and then i would have to elaborate on the ellipses as well.
as for synchronic and diachronic, they both have very specific connotations that their rough counterparts "in the moment" and "historical," respectively, do not possess. part of that nuance is, again, contextual, in the sense that they are metonymic for an institutionalized way of research and analysis, which works because when i write about news or politics on here i try to analyze the construction/production aspect as well as the information conveyed, and thus find vocabulary from disciplines that engage in that sort of critique with a variety of "texts" helpful to get my point across.
obviously you wouldn't read that and think that; you'd probably think something else, and phrase it in the language that is more familiar to you. if your theoretical formulation was one that i wouldn't have come up with myself, i would find it helpful and interesting. obviously you understand what i wrote as is evident from your reply; so what's the problem? is this some sort of advocacy for a more "accessible" proletariat style of writing in general? livejournal readership seems pretty self-selecting to me; people who find my political rants useful read it regularly; people who don't go find something else.
lastly, since i've had this journal for two and a half years now, sometimes in my entries i shortcut through concepts that i had elaborated on previously, like the the whole synchronic/diachronic thing, which to me seems to be a pretty consistent tactic of the Orwellian manipulation of information in the media today, the goal of which seems to be to minimize a consistent narrative of memory, which in turn cultivates a discourse with little or no accountability. if someone does not get what i mean, i am always happy to explain myself, but since this does not seem to be the case, i don't really understand what your issue with my writing style is.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-16 07:32 pm (UTC)Since you're already offended by me, I'll not bother with putting this mildly: Your prose is at times, passionless, pedantic and obtuse. I agree with a lot of what you say, but you couch your meanings in such haughty tones that it comes off as well, "pretentious". I have written in the past that I strongly believe in using the correct words for the correct situation, taking all their nuance into consideration, which you do, but slavishly. You write like a well-read computer with an attitude problem. For example:
You deride the commentor by calling his request for more accesible proletarian. In the next sentence you say that if they were to write your sentiment they would "phrase it in the language that is more familiar to you." Now, I'm sure you realize that the inference here is that the writer is a proletariat moron in overalls and that the language with which he is more familiar is filled with Bronx dipthongs and colloquialisms. This is not how to win friends and influence people, which I will accede is probably not your goal, but when you wrap yourself in the banner of 'clarity', it begs the question to whom. Your tone seems to be advocating an audience of one.
Language is supposed to be accesible. It is the very essence of its function. It should be the goal of every good writer to engage as well as inform their readers. I find myself always vaguely pissed off at your entries, which makes no sense on the surface- I too enjoy semiotic analysis of current events, I too have a fairly Chomskyian sense of the politcal apparatus, I too love analysis, but I think the problem is, you don't engage your readers- your writing is not a shared experience, but a one way conduit and this 'Voice from on high" works against your purpose. You make your readers uptight and defensive, when you should be winning them over to your way of thinking.
I don't really care if you take my advice or not, Anthro, but I think you could easily keep your high-fallutin vocabulary and syntax AND lose the label of pretentiousness if you just wrote a bit more discurssively and a lot less didacticlly.
- Horace
no subject
Date: 2003-10-16 08:19 pm (UTC)Hey! Your writing almost never uses analogy or metaphor! That's the problem! People like to imagine things in some kind of sensory way and all you offer them is pure language. Ha!
Also, your post is a little unfair to The Powers That Be. All history is the assemblage of non-related events into a cohesive narrative. It's not right, but everyone does it, not just the state-media.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-17 08:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-17 02:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-20 03:26 pm (UTC)Why the hell are you apologizing to this hypocrite? "You can judge what I say, but not HOW I say it?" Are you telling me this theory nerd has never heard of Marshall McLuhan? For someone who thinks she's intellectual a statement like that just goes to how clueless her bullshit really is.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-20 09:06 pm (UTC)what i find really weird is how pissed-off and venomous your statement is; you sound like you are about to have a seizure. i am writing for people who are interested in what i have to say; if you are not, go find something that will hold your interest.
really, it just boggles my mind; don't you people have anything better/more constructive to do with your time?
also, while it's a common practice to leave hateful "anonymous" replies on LJ, that does not make it any less cowardly. am i supposed to take ad hominems from a cyber-phantom to heart?
hello kettle? pot here...
Date: 2003-10-20 08:17 pm (UTC)it reminds me of the howard stern haters - they listen for things to complain about.
i'm not trying to speak for her. she obviously does that well enough for herself. but as a reader of anthrochica that enjoys her journal, i don't need someone else telling me that i'm supposed to feel "derided" or anything else. if it makes you feel bad, don't read it. sounds simple, i know. but it just might work.
go take your holier-than-thou comments to someone who cares. i find it very hypocritical of you to chide someone else for trying to act "superior" to others. especially when that's hardly the case.
clueless bullshit, indeed.
seltix
Re: hello kettle? pot here...
Date: 2003-10-20 09:08 pm (UTC)