And conclusions always feel wishy-washy, unless you do that awful thing (that cultural studies/ critical theory people do, esp. if BOYS*) of going 'Thus we see that THE REVOLUTION WILL COME ABOUT IF WE JUST READ Being John Malkovitch IN THE LIGHT OF GILLES DELEUZE!!1!!' Can you think of yourself as 'nuanced'?
It sounds as though you are thinking about the writing really well/clearly - like you know what you're doing, and why, and how, and why it's difficult - which makes me envious. But of course doesn't make it less difficult.
*in the pejorative sense, not in the broader gender-identity sense
I'm thinking on my feet - I wouldn't say there's anything to be envious about!
'Nuanced' would be good, but... well. I think I'm more at the stage of saying 'well, I *think* this, but of course there is also this possibility, and this one, and this one, and we ought to bear this in mind, and my dataset is too small...' and then of course all sense of the line of argument is lost under a great big splodge of insecurity. Sort of the opposite of BOY.
a bit like starting with Batman socking people on a rooftop, and then something sinister happening with the Joker. Then you do the methodology etc., which is the part where we go back to Bruce Wayne's parents being killed in an alley
I have nothing useful to add, I hate writing (except for the very rare occasions of getting into flow) and often it makes me cry. I think though this is academic writing - I seem to be getting better at the non-academic stuff.
I often get upset too, and start wailing 'I can't *do* this' - I think it's because one feels as if one _has to get it right_ or be drummed out of town (instead of what would actually happen, which would be a one-time rejection at worst). So much self-worth is tied up in it that one can't - or I can't - just have a punt at it, which is daft when you think about it - who says that early-career people types ought to be able to write perfectly straight away? Especially when you read some of the guff that senior people throw out.
Is there a peak point then when we are actually capable of decent writing? ie.
EARLY CAREER: unpolished toss. PEAK: perfection LATE CAREER: knows that they will get published whatever, churns out any old guff.
There really only are a few academics who write well, now I think about it: lots who produce good material/data, but not so many that can actually write about it well. Hmm...
It probably varies according to discipline... I'd say.. hmm..
EARLY CAREER: not toss or unpolished, but slightly hesitant or too bullish PEAK: still aiming to do it well, better command of material, voice, etc. OFF-PEAK: bit distant from the material cos you have an army of researchers who actually collate most of the material OR completely baroque (JGA P*c*ck) OR any old guff (Sir R*y Str*ng)
I suppose I was thinking that one must surely get more familiar with the process of writing an article - after the 20th one or whatever - so that it becomes less of a struggle, cos you'd have a better idea of what you needed to do where, how many words you could spend on each section. So that you'd be more able to concentrate on dealing with the material itself. Perhaps this is cobblers though, and it'll always be awful.
Comments 9
And conclusions always feel wishy-washy, unless you do that awful thing (that cultural studies/ critical theory people do, esp. if BOYS*) of going 'Thus we see that THE REVOLUTION WILL COME ABOUT IF WE JUST READ Being John Malkovitch IN THE LIGHT OF GILLES DELEUZE!!1!!' Can you think of yourself as 'nuanced'?
It sounds as though you are thinking about the writing really well/clearly - like you know what you're doing, and why, and how, and why it's difficult - which makes me envious. But of course doesn't make it less difficult.
*in the pejorative sense, not in the broader gender-identity sense
Reply
'Nuanced' would be good, but... well. I think I'm more at the stage of saying 'well, I *think* this, but of course there is also this possibility, and this one, and this one, and we ought to bear this in mind, and my dataset is too small...' and then of course all sense of the line of argument is lost under a great big splodge of insecurity. Sort of the opposite of BOY.
Reply
Analogy WIN.
Reply
Reply
Reply
EARLY CAREER: unpolished toss.
PEAK: perfection
LATE CAREER: knows that they will get published whatever, churns out any old guff.
There really only are a few academics who write well, now I think about it: lots who produce good material/data, but not so many that can actually write about it well. Hmm...
Reply
EARLY CAREER: not toss or unpolished, but slightly hesitant or too bullish
PEAK: still aiming to do it well, better command of material, voice, etc.
OFF-PEAK: bit distant from the material cos you have an army of researchers who actually collate most of the material OR completely baroque (JGA P*c*ck) OR any old guff (Sir R*y Str*ng)
I suppose I was thinking that one must surely get more familiar with the process of writing an article - after the 20th one or whatever - so that it becomes less of a struggle, cos you'd have a better idea of what you needed to do where, how many words you could spend on each section. So that you'd be more able to concentrate on dealing with the material itself. Perhaps this is cobblers though, and it'll always be awful.
Reply
Leave a comment