As a writer who has worked the full range of jobs from academia to marketing, I would just add one point in addition to all the above. "Good writing" and "clear prose" are very often neither good nor clear; they may in fact be deliberately obscurantist. I know this from personal experience, because I am paid to write such sentences. When we say writing feels "good," I believe what we often mean is that it seduces us effectively into joining the narrative that the writer is creating. We nod along. We see the point. We skate past the cracks in the argument and forgive the generalizations. Whereas when I read, for instance, Judith Butler, or even some of the more challenging parts of the Dolly essay, I'm not being seduced. I'm not being asked to nod along. I'm encountering a writer with very clear ideas, who is challenging me to slow down and wrestle with those ideas and consider their implications for my own thinking. This is not good writing, it's great writing. And yes, okay, even there, maybe I'm being a little seduced! But only enough to get me to say, Okay, you got me--this is worth thinking about. This is worth doing the work. Whereas, at the other end of the spectrum, people who lash out on Twitter over some secure instance of over-complicated writing, are not looking to do the work. They're looking for just the opposite--a circle jerk of reassurance that they don't ever need to do the work, that they shouldn't be asked to do the work, that those who would ask it of them are laughable, ridiculous, and should probably be driven out of their underpaid university positions.
I am feeling this so much right now. Currently in grad school and working on my thesis and I cannot tell you how often I wondered/suspected that the “lack of clarity” in my writing was viewed as such because no one wanted to go on my journey when they were willing to go on other's. I know that I don’t always write clearly, and I am working on it, but does that always have to do with the fact that “English is not my first language”, as many love to point out? Can I have some space for learning the rigor of the topic, not just work on my assimilation? It seems that only some are given space of developing ideas, where my journey was often marked with a ball and chain of my circumstances. Somehow, it is never a positive. I tend to eventually turn in an essay or a research paper with high marks, and even a compliment, but no one has ever thought to credit my experience as a refugee and someone thinking in two languages. My experience with this essay is very specific, I realize, but it is literally putting words to thoughts that I had about myself and I just feel a bit less crazy this morning. Thank you!
Thank you for this piece. It's reminding me of your great contribution to the Open Source episode on "cancel culture" last summer, especially the parts about recognizing and supporting the people who are actually working in higher ed. (Here's the link for any of my fellow commenters who haven't heard it: https://radioopensource.org/a-public-conversation-gone-sour/).
That kind of disingenuous anti-elitism definitely does a lot of work. This may be random, but it reminds me of the way trans youth athletes are talked about. You would never know, based on how it is talked about, that only .6 of the population identifies as trans, only some of that number is made up of young people, and plenty of those kids probably hate gym class as much as I did and are not crushing anyone on the field.
I do love how clear your writing is, and I love the way it crackles and moves even more. Thanks for making this space!
Thank you so much for putting this into words. Have felt this about many arguments over academic writing. "There are value systems other than clarity" is exactly it. Also reminds me that so often when people give compliments they aren't just recognizing value of the person they are giving a compliment, but asserting an identity and ideology that invites the person receiving the compliment to accept. Too many compliments fit the mold of "you are good (in the way that I like) not bad like those other people (that I don't like)"
"Not unlike boners, however, my compulsion is my own." Eeeeepteeheehee. I'm pretty sure that's the exact laugh sound I made. I also think that this example of excellence they try to set on you is their surprise at your *lack* of expressed self-doubt, as it's no where to be seen in your writing. They think they're awarding you with something but you're not even playing their game.
I was thinking about this last night, about how no one complains about, say, equations in thermodynamics textbooks. My high school calculus teacher warned us that in college, we might find our textbooks difficult to understand--because they were written in the language of math, and it's a language that can feel difficult to grasp if you're not used to reading it. His advice was not to not read; his advice was to give us a list of abbreviations and terminology with explanations to help us become used to reading it.
(I once had someone briefly mock my use of the word "adumbrate" in an academic conference paper. I really do have clarity as my goal, but sometimes the specific definition of a word is what I intend to convey.)
Another great read! Makes me think of the grievance studies hoaxers/anti-CRT doomsdayers. These pearl-clutching scholars lack the ability to recognize the projection of their own behavior onto critical theorists (eg, engaging pseudo-intellectual attempts to "cancel" something that challenges their perspective).
As a writer who has worked the full range of jobs from academia to marketing, I would just add one point in addition to all the above. "Good writing" and "clear prose" are very often neither good nor clear; they may in fact be deliberately obscurantist. I know this from personal experience, because I am paid to write such sentences. When we say writing feels "good," I believe what we often mean is that it seduces us effectively into joining the narrative that the writer is creating. We nod along. We see the point. We skate past the cracks in the argument and forgive the generalizations. Whereas when I read, for instance, Judith Butler, or even some of the more challenging parts of the Dolly essay, I'm not being seduced. I'm not being asked to nod along. I'm encountering a writer with very clear ideas, who is challenging me to slow down and wrestle with those ideas and consider their implications for my own thinking. This is not good writing, it's great writing. And yes, okay, even there, maybe I'm being a little seduced! But only enough to get me to say, Okay, you got me--this is worth thinking about. This is worth doing the work. Whereas, at the other end of the spectrum, people who lash out on Twitter over some secure instance of over-complicated writing, are not looking to do the work. They're looking for just the opposite--a circle jerk of reassurance that they don't ever need to do the work, that they shouldn't be asked to do the work, that those who would ask it of them are laughable, ridiculous, and should probably be driven out of their underpaid university positions.
I am feeling this so much right now. Currently in grad school and working on my thesis and I cannot tell you how often I wondered/suspected that the “lack of clarity” in my writing was viewed as such because no one wanted to go on my journey when they were willing to go on other's. I know that I don’t always write clearly, and I am working on it, but does that always have to do with the fact that “English is not my first language”, as many love to point out? Can I have some space for learning the rigor of the topic, not just work on my assimilation? It seems that only some are given space of developing ideas, where my journey was often marked with a ball and chain of my circumstances. Somehow, it is never a positive. I tend to eventually turn in an essay or a research paper with high marks, and even a compliment, but no one has ever thought to credit my experience as a refugee and someone thinking in two languages. My experience with this essay is very specific, I realize, but it is literally putting words to thoughts that I had about myself and I just feel a bit less crazy this morning. Thank you!
“I am an introvert who learned to be an extrovert because the tools of extroversion — communication — came easily to me.”
I didn’t even know this was me until I read it.
The only profound thinking I’ve come across that includes the phrase “not unlike boners”. Thank you for educating me and making me laugh.
Thank you for this piece. It's reminding me of your great contribution to the Open Source episode on "cancel culture" last summer, especially the parts about recognizing and supporting the people who are actually working in higher ed. (Here's the link for any of my fellow commenters who haven't heard it: https://radioopensource.org/a-public-conversation-gone-sour/).
That kind of disingenuous anti-elitism definitely does a lot of work. This may be random, but it reminds me of the way trans youth athletes are talked about. You would never know, based on how it is talked about, that only .6 of the population identifies as trans, only some of that number is made up of young people, and plenty of those kids probably hate gym class as much as I did and are not crushing anyone on the field.
I do love how clear your writing is, and I love the way it crackles and moves even more. Thanks for making this space!
Thank you so much for putting this into words. Have felt this about many arguments over academic writing. "There are value systems other than clarity" is exactly it. Also reminds me that so often when people give compliments they aren't just recognizing value of the person they are giving a compliment, but asserting an identity and ideology that invites the person receiving the compliment to accept. Too many compliments fit the mold of "you are good (in the way that I like) not bad like those other people (that I don't like)"
"Not unlike boners, however, my compulsion is my own." Eeeeepteeheehee. I'm pretty sure that's the exact laugh sound I made. I also think that this example of excellence they try to set on you is their surprise at your *lack* of expressed self-doubt, as it's no where to be seen in your writing. They think they're awarding you with something but you're not even playing their game.
I was thinking about this last night, about how no one complains about, say, equations in thermodynamics textbooks. My high school calculus teacher warned us that in college, we might find our textbooks difficult to understand--because they were written in the language of math, and it's a language that can feel difficult to grasp if you're not used to reading it. His advice was not to not read; his advice was to give us a list of abbreviations and terminology with explanations to help us become used to reading it.
(I once had someone briefly mock my use of the word "adumbrate" in an academic conference paper. I really do have clarity as my goal, but sometimes the specific definition of a word is what I intend to convey.)
Another great read! Makes me think of the grievance studies hoaxers/anti-CRT doomsdayers. These pearl-clutching scholars lack the ability to recognize the projection of their own behavior onto critical theorists (eg, engaging pseudo-intellectual attempts to "cancel" something that challenges their perspective).