(Untitled)

[kaffeesuchtig]

While extremely guilty of attempting to write this way myself, I am getting sick of reading the style of writing so common in the academic texts of cultural and queer studies. Two examples from the article before me: "Inasmuch as literary criticism investigates queer literature (or que[e]ries literary representation), it tends to rely on queer

Comments

[mattscientist]

Nein, Violinen essen nicht Häuser.

Dianne Chisholm has clearly been led to believe that if a little cleverness like "que[e]ries" is good, then a lot of cleverness must be better. The parentheses and dashes aren't the problem-they're just decoration for the "I'm too sexy for linear language" phenomenon. You did not want to read "... transgress the boundaries and grids of urban context, architext, and architecture."

Either that, or she actually has nothing to say (or is an elaborate prank), but does it with such pomp and bluster that no one has figured out how to disagree with her. That's a perfectly cromulent approach to academia.

Also, I wanna be a flâneur when I grow up.

[kaffeesuchtig]

Yes, it's the sheer mass of cleverness that is overwhelming. I was just joking about the punctuation. It's just the hallmark of that style of writing.
I enjoyed looking at that link. The sample papers were hilarious.
I do not know what cromulent means, nor does Merriam-Webster Unabridged. Will you please enlighten me?
And I think we all wanna be flâneurs when we grow up.

[kaffeesuchtig]

thank you! j.c., references to the simpsons are usually some of the only pop cultural ones i do get. i guess i missed that episode. sadly.

[mattscientist]

The Simpsons is so important to modern culture, there's actually a list of neologisms.

Google also has a feature where you can search for "define:cromulent" (or "define:{whatever}") and it'll search for definitions.

[kaffeesuchtig]

thanks for the references. i'm so glad you comment in my journal.