the Greater Nomadic Council

Obfuscatory Utterances Rendering Epiphenomenal Traces of Castration Disavowal in Subject-Denizens of Academe

Long one of my pet peeves, poor academic writing persists. Critical Mass points out a nice article lambasting the worst offenders (a sample of whom may be found winning the 4th Bad Writing Contest). Clear prose often signals clear thoughts. The better mastery one has of any given subject matter, the more lucidly one should be able to express it. Conversely, jargon-laden (unfortunately some jargon cannot always be avoided), dense, and syntactically tortured prose marks confused thoughts and the author's desperate desire to appear intelligent.

The linked article's argument amounts to calling for clearer critical and theoretical writing so that the works might become socially relevant, but I really feel that misses the point. Good writing is an end in itself and a simple courtesy to one's readers. I am consistently amazed at the number of literature critics who cannot construct a decent sentence. It seems as if they have learned nothing from literature itself and too much from other critics, the parasites of art. While I do think critical work should strive for a more formal register than other works, that does not preclude comprehensibility. These certainly are all obvious points, but I enjoy making them so nyah.