I've decided, or rather I've known for some time now, that I'm a big fan of getting to the point in my writing. One of the consequences of this is my tendency to say things, quite simply, in terms of the question I'm answering. For example, if I must (and I must) always ask myself "What is at stake in my project?" then I see nothing wrong with writing, "At stake in this paper is x, y, and z." To me, this seems clear and concise. So why does it feel amatuerish when I actually type these words?
What say you? Are you a fan of a writer telling you exactly what the argument will be? What the "so what" factors are? If not a fan, why?
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am terribly long-winded. I spend lots of time explaining what it is that is missing from existing criticism and how my project tries to compensate for that and in trying to prove that I know the critical history. I, too, feel that I this only makes me sound immature as a writer/scholar. I guess, though, I am learning to weed that out as my adviser always beats me about the head, figuratively speaking, with my drafts when I do it.
A fan, definitively. Being an up-front kinda writer does not mean that you sound less intellectual - it means that I'll be able (as a reader) to follow your intelligent train of thought, step by step.
Kristine (of Serendipities)
Post a Comment