[lit-ideas] the quote is not from a philospher, indeed as it has been pointed it omes from professor of english at harvard

From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 10:26:16 +0000

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of John Wager
Sent: 22 December 2012 07:12 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: why can't the english (professors) learn how to speak?

Donal McEvoy wrote:
Of course, the question is itself badly phrased: they have learnt how to speak. 
What the "quote" shows is not an inability to speak but some alleged defect in 
their writing. So the question would be clearer if phrased as 'Why can't 
English professors write better English (than what they sometimes do)?" Not 
being an English professor, I not only bow to Lacan who bows to Freud who bows 
to the Greeks, but bow out here.

Donal

There may be some very obvious reasons why philosophers write so poorly.

       1.  When writing a paper for a seminar or course, even if that paper is 
to be read to the class for discussion, the "audience" for the paper is 
generally understood to be the professor.  As long as it has the required 
technical vocabulary set by the professor, it will be admitted as a possibly 
serious paper. If the writer shows little appreciation of the technical 
vocabulary of the professor's (often small) world, it's already got a strike 
against it before the professor even considers the content and argument.

    2.  What goes for papers in a seminar goes even triple in a dissertation.  
The audience for that is even more limited; my own panel of 3 readers was 
harmed by the fact that my advisor knew everything about the topic, but the 
other two readers agreed to serve because, well, I needed two other readers and 
they liked me well enough. So I was really writing for only my advisor, and 
what I said often determined how strongly he would advertise me as a good job 
candidate to others. This is not a good time to try to make vocabulary and 
technical language simpler; it's a good time to show mastery over a convoluted 
and complex way of writing that speaks only to the initiate.

    3.  The lack of interest in giving much weight to teaching in job 
evaluation means students are largely left out of consideration in how the new 
Ph.D. communicates to a general public.  All the new Ph.D.'s writing is still 
addressed to the few initiates who will get a paper published in a narrow area 
perhaps devoid of any student interest at all.

Having said all of that, I must say I'm impressed by quite a few British books 
being written for a general public in which fairly dry subjects are written 
about in intelligent and engaging ways.

But these seem to all be written by slightly more senior faculty, whose 
reputations with jargon is already well-established.  Heaven forbid someone 
attempt a popular book before one's reputation is made in "serious" journals or 
books.

In my own case, what drew me to my advisor for the dissertation was partly the 
"style" of his own writing;  it was elegant and effective.  He actually 
despised the "jargonistic" approach to philosophy, so much so that he had 
stopped attending APA meetings, which also meant he was of very little use to 
me in making connections for my first job.  Ah, well.

======= Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: 
http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer =======

[lit-ideas] the quote is not from a philospher, indeed as it has been pointed it omes from professor of english at harvard

Other related posts: