Home » Archives » May 2006 » Some thoughts on writing
[Previous entry: "10 Albums"] [Next entry: "This incessant business"]
05/29/2006: "Some thoughts on writing"
I spent all weekend reading and writing. It was nice to be able to turn off my phone and just get down to business. No distractions, nothing but me and the empty page. I was productive, but this makes me think about writing.
I'm an academic writer. This is very different on all counts from what is typically known as "creative" writing, which rarely is so. Anyone with a pen and an axe to grind nowadays writes poetry, or at least since the death of poetic form and the advent of "free verse,"--which is synomymous in my mind with poorly written and poorly thought (take the scribblings on my bedroom wall, for instance). Academic writing requires precision. Every word must be toiled over, for you know that you may have to justify using one word rather than another. Especially so in philosophy, where sometimes semantic quibbles become full blown academic disputes. Strawson, for instance, took a bulk of the trouble with Russell's problem in "On Denoting" to be nothing more than confusion over misplaced indexicals.
In contrast to poetry, which is the most overused and underwhelming form of artistic expression, it takes quite a while to compose and polish a piece of academic writing. You can pump out five poems a day (especially ala William Carlos Williams), but you would have had a tremendous day if you write five coherent pages in my discipline. Further, while emotional turmoil is often a good motivator for writing creatively, it is nothing but a hindrance to real writing. Wittgenstein, it is reported, could not do serious work in philosophy during the time during and after WWI, which is part of the reason he initially left and refused to return to the flock at Cambridge.
I have been very unproductive over the past few months. I had 20 pages resulting from the period of January to May. In the past month I have added almost 20 more, ten of which have resulted from my research in the past week. Moreover, I'm thinking more clearly now. I'm starting to narrowing my topic, and have come to an understanding of the problem that early Analytic philosophy ignores and Wittgenstein seeks to amend with his Philosophical Investigations.
What's changed in the past few months? Well, a lot: but that's another whole post. What's important is that I'm back. I've re-gained my confidence in myself and my work, I have a fulfilling relationship with someone I can actually respect (for a change). I have now the freedom to explore my research without the financial worries or emotional abuse I have suffered previously. My overall change in attitude has done remarkable things for the quality and quantity of my writing. And so, here's to never letting anyone stand between me and my happiness again, because all it does is stop me from asking the questions that are important.
Replies: 13 comments
on Tuesday, May 30th, Christie said:
Yes, some things can really overload a person's mind, detracting from the more important stuff.
I'm really happy for you! 
on Thursday, June 1st, Nathan said:
The best writing can be enjoyed by all. Academic writing excludes the audience. If you can't say it simply, you ain't saying it right.
on Thursday, June 1st, hud said:
Man, I don't want to stick a needle in your confidence but I think you are conflating sophmoric poetry from actual, well-considered poetry. I think most poets would agree that if you are busting out 5 poems a day, you aren't really taking the appropriate amount of care and concern for the craft.
And, in response to Nathan, though I agree that it is possible to overcomplicate an issue to deny the value of academic writing is to hold to a different kind of elitism. Academic writing doesn't exclude an audience it aims at a more specialized audience. Some issues are complicated and require complicated answers, answers that will be unintelligible to a general audience that lacks the requisite preliminary foundational ideas. A "simple" statment of quantum physics may be possible today but would have been wholly impossible in the 1800's. To claim that those authors weren't doing it right is ignorant.
on Friday, June 2nd, Nathan said:
I love it. Hud admits that academic writing is elitist by saying that dismissing it is another form of elitism. So, if all you geniuses out there in Philosophy World know so much about writing and about your subject matter, why don’t you find a middle ground and eliminate the elitism altogether? After all, E. E. Cummings did it (and occasionally rhymed). Surely y’all can pull it off.
on Friday, June 2nd, Thena said:
Don't get on Hud's case, Nathan. He's one of the smartest people I know. He wasn't attacking you either. He was simply pointing out that there is a place for simplicity, creativity AND technicality.
[post edited to make it less of an asshole comment]
on Friday, June 2nd, faith said:
Norbert: Poetry, or literature in general, can be just as elitist. On this Hud is right. Remember that next time you hear someone use the term "Kafkaesque."
There is the poetry you 'should' like (Dickenson, Shakespeare, Shelley) and you just don't 'get it' if you do not. Quite frankly, I could live a fulfilled life never again hearing Emily Dickinson's whiny yet chirpy iambic pentameter.
And, only bad academic writing "excludes the audience." The ability to relay complex information to a wide audience is a skill (your "middle ground?"), which exceeds the 'anything goes' standard (or lack thereof) which is characteristic of creative writing. One need not sacrifice depth at the expense of breadth.
Hud: There is good poetry (e.g., Walt Whitman, T.S. Eliot and e. e. cummings) but most ends up just being literary masturbation.
Thena: if you continue to be a bitch on my site, I will continue to delete your posts and ban any and all IP addresses you use to access it. If you can't say anything nice, then shut the fuck up.
Nay, on second thought: no conditional. Just shut the fuck up entirely.
on Saturday, June 3rd, Opehlia said:
A male, intellectual "pissing contest" of sorts. Very Hot!
on Monday, June 5th, Nathan DeGraaf said:
"In contrast to poetry, which is the most overused and underwhelming form of artistic expression..."
Faith
"Poetry, or literature in general, can be just as elitist."
Faith
Anyone notice a contradiction?
Please, argue a lot.
on Tuesday, June 6th, faith said:
Norbert:
"Contradiction" is not the right word here (a contradiction of a given statement 'p,' formally is the negation of the entire statement. e.g., the proposition 'It is raining' and the proposition 'It is not raining'). The word you want is "inconsistency"--
It seems that you're trying to say that I'm being elitist by dismissing poetry in the first statement which falsifies, or makes absurd, the second statement (a so-called 'performative contradiction.')
But the former was a statement of opinion about the overuse of poetic expression by novices and the latter was a statement was a statement concerning the status of literary studies in general (I know you reject the thesis that 'judgment implies expertise'--so you should agree with me here).
If they do sound funny next to each other, it's most likely because the statements are removed from context. I do, however, believe both of these statements to be true.
on Tuesday, June 6th, Jason. said:
Shit. I was over there thinking about jazz when I should have been over here pissing on poetics.
Tom states that "[a]cademic writing requires precision. Every word must be toiled over, for you know that you may have to justify using one word rather than another." Which raises the question of how often precision is acheived in writing. Or language, to begin with. (I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that, for lit scholars, the current crop of tenured academics is a pretty sorry lot. Not that my generation's any better.)
I've dithered a bit these past few weeks writing final papers, thinking about this word over that, but in general I give up. It doesn't matter because I'm writing for what seems to be an unappreciative audience, on matters at varying distances from what's important, and, most significantly, according to an extremely compressed timeline.
Given these conditions, the important thing, the only thing, becomes writing on, regardless of quality. Fix problems during revisions or before presentations. Just get it out and get on with it.
on Thursday, June 8th, AerynSun said:
I find it fascinating that it is politically correct to belittle scholars. Apparently US and my little socialist utopia where polarbears freely roam the streets are similar in that matter.
I wonder what people would think if someone dismissed the entire field of, say carpenters?
It's always easier to make fun of things one do not understand instead of admitting one's own lack of knowledge.
on Friday, June 9th, faith said:
Aeryn: Anti-intellectualism is alive and well here. just look at who 51% of the voting populace sought fit to lead this country. And we get neither polar bears nor socialism. I guess you win.
I often think about becoming a carpenter. You know, do the reverse Jesus: from philosopher to carpenter.
jason: There does come a time when precision requires too much patience. That time was last Wednesday, methinks.
Don't get it right, get it written, eh? Good advice.
on Monday, June 12th, Jason. said:
The idea that it's PC to belittle scholars is a strictly ignorant American thing. Yet another thing that's wrong with my fucking country, right?
Doesn't matter. This is our new opportunity. Work with your communities and your affinity groups.
You can't get anyone to listen to you? Scream on the street corner.
No one reads your article? Run off copies at your local shop and leave them in coffee shops. In the leaves of the campus rag. Post fliers in public.
Humanities academics in the US are insular? There's a protest every day in this country. I'll see you there. If you can't get people out, hook up with your local branch of the IWW.
It goes beyond writing. Get out, get things done, go on.
