tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-119432127285270393.post3304963777343188550..comments2023-11-05T03:00:39.045-06:00Comments on Mindful Coalescence: Flowerly LanguageNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10930095575688860988noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-119432127285270393.post-62296479837376070232007-11-26T19:59:00.000-06:002007-11-26T19:59:00.000-06:00Hahaha, I didn't even notice the misspelling. :)An...Hahaha, I didn't even notice the misspelling. :)<BR/><BR/>And yes, we do grow.Michael Farishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13238625481857584857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-119432127285270393.post-75380461139191098212007-11-26T18:40:00.000-06:002007-11-26T18:40:00.000-06:00A few comments:1. First, an apology for misspellin...A few comments:<BR/><BR/>1. First, an apology for misspelling "flowery"<BR/><BR/>2. Remember, I was arguing with Michael, and probably took the polar opposite point just ... because.<BR/><BR/>3. I, too, dislike passive voice and dry writing. But in a quick report (or even a longer one), concise language does NOT mean dry. E.B. White and Joan Didion are masters of the concise, perfect sentence, but nobody would accuse them of being less than literary.<BR/><BR/>4. We grow. That post was from 2004.Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16481236738736757288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-119432127285270393.post-74634040078310539652007-11-20T14:23:00.000-06:002007-11-20T14:23:00.000-06:00I agree with you in part, but I also disagree in p...I agree with you in part, but I also disagree in part. Where I agree is in writing that is meant for a more general audience, like the Scientific American articles: of course this writing is more accessible and it's more allowable to use first person.<BR/><BR/>Gould is largely correct in regards to brevity and modesty, but, at least in this excerpt, he seems to not discuss objectivity. For some stupid reason, scientists set up a code amongst themselves to pretend objectivity, and thus removed "I" and "we" from much discourse.<BR/><BR/>What I meant in my revision (the italics stuff) is that I agree that writing is always for an audience and that poetics isn't what's important. I see nothing wrong with writing a science journal article for just scientists. Certainly, the information should be made accessible at some point, but not necessarily in original article. There are certain discourses and conventions that discourse communities use to communicate with each other.<BR/><BR/>If we look at my field, terms like <I>pedagogy</I>, <I>subjectivity</I>, <I>interpellation</I>, <I>perlocuationary speech act</I>, etc., are very important terms that have a very strong and loaded history in the field. The knowledge of the field (or a similar term) is necessary to understand the terms. While I think people in my field should be writing for a general audience as well (that's why I blog, write letters to the editor, help with a newsletter on campus, etc.), we should also be writing amongst ourselves to help to develop knowledge.<BR/><BR/>So I see nothing wrong with scientists and engineers writing for an audience of scientists and engineers.<BR/><BR/>My example I referred to in the italics in the original post is actually this sentence:<BR/><BR/><I>"So concludes a group of prominent women scientists and administrators, including chancellors and provosts, in an analysis in the Aug. 19 issue of Science magainze."</I> (source unknown)<BR/><BR/>Which is just awful: it subordinates the authorship, it uses the tags "prominent," "chancellors and provosts" to give the "women" more authority. Not only is the sentence awful because it's dry, but it's (most importantly) awful because of what it says about gender in the sciences.<BR/><BR/>I have to completely disagree with your belief that: <I>Saying that it is meant for an audience of people who like sentences purely in the passive without the use of personal pronouns really misses the fact that the people who read these articles are human beings.</I><BR/><BR/>This is because it actually captures the fact that they're human beings. They're situated in a discourse that came before them. The conventions that have been built up over time <I>generally</I> call for passive voice because that is what these communities of scholars created. Using active or passive voice and understanding audience expectations doesn't have much do with viewing the audience as human or not. Audience expectations are built over time, related to genre, discourse community, and historical conventions.<BR/><BR/>I completely agree with you here that there is a <I>false dichotomy that something can either be concise and descriptive, or poetic and beautiful, but not both.</I><BR/><BR/>I think I was a bit rambly here. Hope some of it's coherent.Michael Farishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13238625481857584857noreply@blogger.com