― Ally (mlescaut), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 03:02 (twenty years ago) link
― daria g, Wednesday, 21 May 2003 04:16 (twenty years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 04:19 (twenty years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 04:36 (twenty years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 05:02 (twenty years ago) link
If academia has proven anything, it's that throwing a firework into a boring study hall always produces more boring study halls than it does fireworks. Did you really expect us all to say 'shit, he's right!', throw the A through K section of our bookshelves out into the street and never come back?
And Daria, isn't theory the development of ideas? How can you get rid of that in an academic environment?
(and someone please answer one more question: what thread sparked this one? i want to read it)
― Dave M. (rotten03), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 05:57 (twenty years ago) link
― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 13:21 (twenty years ago) link
YES. Do it, now.
― Ally (mlescaut), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 13:31 (twenty years ago) link
For instance, relying on jargon or buzzwords or theorists without taking the time to explain them to those who are not intimately acquainted with them. This doesn't mean writing for a 13-year-old: this simply means writing outside yourself. I'm looking forward to seeing Sterling's article on Jay-Z and Bakhtin -- but since I only have a cursory understanding of dialogism, I'm hoping that he'll elucidate Bakhtin's theories somewhat to get me more interested and involved in the piece. (It will also allow him to better support his argument.) There's also just plain bad writing that's dense or labored or whatever, and I think we all agree that Xgau, in his attempts to be pithy and allusive, sometimes fails to communicate his basic message.
Often this all comes across as elitist because readers think I-don't-get-it-I-guess-I'm-dumb, but too often it's just the critic's laziness (or unwillingess) to explicate. And if we are indeed talking primarily about journalism (instead of academic criticism that's explicitly written for an inside crowd), then this seems worthy of critique.
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 15:24 (twenty years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 15:28 (twenty years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 15:30 (twenty years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 15:34 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 15:40 (twenty years ago) link
― Ally (mlescaut), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:03 (twenty years ago) link
― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:07 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:17 (twenty years ago) link
― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:18 (twenty years ago) link
That's a whole new thread I don't even want to touch yet.
and why is it so important have a clear stance on that?
It depends on what your ultimate goal is. If you are an evaluative critic, the kind that gives points and letter grades, then it's important to let the reader know how and why you liked something, to give them some sense of where you're coming from so they can better predict if they'll like it or not.
If you're more of an analytical critic, I don't think it's as important to state your personal likes or dislikes. But I think it's still important to have a well-defined perspective or approach, so the reader knows whether you actually agree with Derrida's point and find it useful, or if you're just being gratuitous.
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:28 (twenty years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:30 (twenty years ago) link
the potential helpfulness of such a word — of any jargon word — is that it compacts all into one place a lot of apparently different activities/concepts not otherwise so gathered: and the gathering may be laborious and you don't want to do it all over again, so you use the word as a shortcut for "go see the work [x] did categorising/arguing this, which is very telling, and i wd only spoil it if i tried to summarise"
i am v.naughty when it comes to citing ppl as if it's obvious to all what they think and say: this is (partly) because i am pathologically bad at precis, and get in a terrible panic if i am asked to summarise a paragraph ("unless i read every word ever written in the english language, i do not truly understand this sentence and must let it stand for itself")
i am not in fact quite so naughty when it comes to words like "postmodernism", which i mainly think are failed attempts at genre-marketing and NOT handy codifications of related ideas
i think the shortcut is fair enough (explaining things everyone present already knows can be tedious and offputting — or just look silly cf "the popular beat combo supergrass"), but i think asking for the longer version is completely fair enough also
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:32 (twenty years ago) link
I suppose my only real worry these days is the (self-imposed) idea that everything is up for grabs and has to be listened to and talked about. (In terms of angle? Honestly, after dealing with theory for years, I don't want to think what I'm supposed to be doing on that front.)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:33 (twenty years ago) link
― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:38 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward, Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:39 (twenty years ago) link
mark is basically OTM. It goes, for me, as simple as this: yes, JBR, you're right, the onus of understanding shouldn't fall entirely on the writer as then everything written, ever, would resemble a Dick & Jane book. However, the reader, while choosing to enter the discourse, isn't the one choosing to start the discourse, or trying to explain a greater idea or point to anyone. Ergo, the writer has more of a responsibility to write in a fashion that is best suited towards those who they are trying to get their point across to; ie. write in a lucid, explicatory, engaging fashion otherwise you will lose your audience quickly.
If your audience is other rock critics, then who gives a fuck? If your audience is the general public of, just for example, Spin magazine*, then I think you should give a fuck about things like angle or clearness. It entirely depends on who you are writing for--I think that the style of writing Miccio is specifically talking about is better suited towards books than for the Village Voice.
* Note that using this as an example is not remotely an endorsement of the idea that Spin is in some way a bastion of intellectualism; merely that this was the first popular publication that came to mind!
― Ally (mlescaut), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:40 (twenty years ago) link
everything is up for grabs and has to be listened to and talked about
Change "has" to "can" and I'm with you, Ned.
― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:41 (twenty years ago) link
The only thing that has made me scratch my head is that I can't think one bit of currently popular culture in movies, music, whatever that Sterling dislikes.
Rah.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:42 (twenty years ago) link
(note to self: one day get to page two of being and time maybe you big faker)
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:44 (twenty years ago) link
Yeah...this is kind of what Miccio was saying (I hope he doesn't mind me putting words in his mouth). Not specifically about Sterling for me, but that phenomenon--that writing like this is somehow an achievement. It's like the difference between having a conversation with Chuck Eddy and a number of Eddy/Xgau/Whomever wannabes: You talk to Chuck and he might say something completely inexplicable, but when you say, "WHAT?" he will explain it in an enthusiastic, engaging manner and work the listener into what he's trying to express. You talk to certain other folx and the same thing occurs, but they don't go on to explain in an engaging, friendly fashion--they kind of smirk, like, "Figured you wouldn't know what I meant." Which is just kind of dumb: why bother attempting to put forth ideas at all if you only want to share them with other people who have the same experience and knowledge as you?
― Ally (mlescaut), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:45 (twenty years ago) link
Writing is for making points, not scoring them.
― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:47 (twenty years ago) link
― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:48 (twenty years ago) link
― scott seward, Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:49 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:49 (twenty years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:53 (twenty years ago) link
― Ally (mlescaut), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:57 (twenty years ago) link
― Ally (mlescaut), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 16:59 (twenty years ago) link
if there's NOTHING for the reader to do, then brains will not get engaged (however an awful lot of academic discourse is actually extremely stylised, mannered and samey: its difficulty entirely superficial, like haxorspeak)
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 17:00 (twenty years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 17:12 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 17:36 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 17:37 (twenty years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:01 (twenty years ago) link
― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:06 (twenty years ago) link
(it's sunny out and i'm sick.)
― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:07 (twenty years ago) link
Not acceptable.Think of the carpet cleaning bills.
― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:08 (twenty years ago) link
― sundar subramanian (sundar), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:11 (twenty years ago) link
― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:16 (twenty years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:17 (twenty years ago) link
Yeah, but would you yell at him from a car? I would!
― Ally (mlescaut), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:25 (twenty years ago) link
― sundar subramanian (sundar), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:38 (twenty years ago) link
When you read stuff at college, you sometimes get bright text full of ideas and well written. More of the time though, you get some small ideas appallingly written. Very frequently, it's worse: cliche rewritten as gibberish.
So, it's natural to distrust stuff that seems "academic".
Most people, especially here, can take a bit of braininess.
Some people, especially here, can detect faux-braininess, yes?
Without any examples (and I didn't spot any as I skim-read), this thread gets nowhere. That's where it is. Where is the end?
― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 21:33 (twenty years ago) link
People tend to yell Miccioooooo from cars at me, so ya know. And I'd think right now it would neither positively or negatively affect the world much if I got trampled to death at a Bizkit concert. Plus there's always my legacy to worry about...
The End Is The Beginning Is The The End
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 21 May 2003 21:40 (twenty years ago) link