From: bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Vicki Hearne, another article
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:48:45 GMT
Reply-To: bws20@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article: <Bv32FB.96C@iat.holonet.net>, Robert Hooper wrote

>Reading Vicki's works alwaysmakes me feel stupid and wonder why her prose
>is so convoluted. I agree,her ideas are interesting, but her syntax makes
>me wonder... Is Yale producing writers of her stripe? <g>

Hearne doesn't make me feel stupid, just highly irritated.  When I started
reading "Adam's Task" I was really excited about her ideas, and I still
think they are worth contemplation.  Her language, however, gets in the
way of her message.  Halfway through the book, I declared I would scream
if she used the word "trope" again.  Rash promise--I hurt my throat by
the time I finished the book.

It seems to me that Hearne wants to be recognized and accepted by the
philosophers just a bit too much; I think she tries too hard.I believe
she is actually a professor of English and her writing style certainly
reflects this.

  I don't mean to offend any net.readers who happen to be
academic types, but Hearne's writing is so typical of professors who
write to impress others, and to impress themselves.  I will be extreme
(and vulgar) here, and say that her writing (as exemplified by "Adam's
Task") is self-gratifying in a carnal sense:  It amounts largely to
intellectual masturbation.  I have read all too many academics who
dally this way.

Writing does not have to be convoluted and tortuous (or torturous, either!
) to be intellectually satisfying.  It does not have to be obscure and
full of arcane references. I find it ironic that English scholars seem
to be so unaware of how to communicate effectively.  In the last several
years I have done a bit of reading in a variety of scholarly English
journals, many having to do with rhetoric and writing.  The turgid,
obfuscatory prose was frightening.

You don't have to go to the other extreme from Hearne to produce good
writing.  Effective writing does not have to be
constructed of two-syllable words and very short paragraphs. It does not
have to be dry; it is okay if the writer makes the readers stretch their
brains a bit.  I don't mind grabbing the dictionary or looking up an
unfamiliar name or theory in the library.

  Do not misunderstand me:  I love language and I do recognize
 that too much writing these days demonstrates an impoverishment
of ideas and abilities.  I just think that Hearne, and indeed
 anyone else who writes as she does, would benefit greatly
 from taking some serious courses in technical writing.  Perhaps
a better option would be to read and study some effective writers, people
like John McPhee or Lewis Thomas, writers who can take any topic and
make it approachable by the reader.

I am not sure Hearne has a clear concept of who her audience is, or who
it could be.  Maybe she doesn't care, but her publisher certainly
should.  She has some very interesting ideas and she obviously has
high intellectual credentials.  She is well worth reading even if you
disagree with her conclusions.  I just wish she would spend a bit more
time learning effective communication.

bws

--
**************************************************************************
bws20@amail.amdahl.com      the human heart holds hidden treasures,
brian wesley simmons          in secret kept, in silence sealed
**************************************************************************