Re: RRE: Academic Pomposity

Subject: Re: RRE: Academic Pomposity
From: Dawn Langley <CDLangley -at- AOL -dot- COM>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 18:44:31 -0500

In a message dated 97-02-28 22:38:25 EST, dewise -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM writes:

<< This was one of the stuffiest and most pompous journals I have ever seen.
I queried the editor and was told something to the effect that this style
was "expected" in scholarly journals....This volume was a better sleeping
pill than David Copperfield or The Dead Sea Scrolls. >>

If the audience expected a "pompous" and "arrogant" writing style and got it,
then the editor knows what he's doing. Giving the audience what they want is
one of the ten commandments of tech writing (don't ask me what the other nine
are). As for academic pretention, it's a cycle. Young writers attempt to
emulate what they read to please their profs and boost their grades. The
result can be a hideous amalgamation of
highfalutincircumlocutorypontification and good intentions. It wasn't until I
entered the tech writing program for my grad degree that this style of
writing was discouraged -- at least for me.

Dawn

TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html


Previous by Author: Which one?
Next by Author: Re: Abbreviation Embarrassment
Previous by Thread: Which one?
Next by Thread: Toronto: Tech Writers & Employers!


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads