(Untitled)

[kaffeesuchtig]

While extremely guilty of attempting to write this way myself, I am getting sick of reading the style of writing so common in the academic texts of cultural and queer studies. Two examples from the article before me: "Inasmuch as literary criticism investigates queer literature (or que[e]ries literary representation), it tends to rely on queer

Comments

[lizsybarite]

W. T. F???

I can't even pretend to follow something that convoluted.

P.S., speaking of slashes and brackets and que[e]ring everything, congrats on your A+ in TransInterPostSexualitat!

[kaffeesuchtig]

It just goes on and on like that for 61 pages. Another gem that I just read, "'Constellation' is a key concept of Benjamin's critical practice (and a key practice of critical conceptualization) that I use to read queer fictions of late metropolitan modernity."
Your Lola icon is so appropriate (but not appropriative, jk). I'm having many Lola moments in which I burst out yelling, "Goddammit! Would you just stop writing like that?! Aaaaah!"
And thanks for the happy thought. :)

[sparkle_shortz]

You have to read Donna Haraway if you haven't. Both because she's brilliant and because she is so out of her tree obtuse that she tosses in phrases like "the breeding hen to the permanent chickens of history" with no explanation.

I also love things like Barthes when the translator is basically guessing at WTF the writer was talking about so you end up with a sentence like "The lung is a stupid organ (lights for cats!)--it swells but gets no erection." It makes me wonder if Barthes actually passed off the same critical idea as six different things in his actual career, or if his translators just went with whatever they could think of at the time.

[kaffeesuchtig]

I've read some excerpts from Donna Haraway, though they did not include "the breeding hen to the permanent chickens of history." I rather like that metaphor for its sheer oddity. I want to read more of her stuff.
I have not read any Barthes. Speaking as a translator, your assessment of the translators' method is probably more accurate than we'd like to think.

[mattscientist]

Nein, Violinen essen nicht Häuser.

Dianne Chisholm has clearly been led to believe that if a little cleverness like "que[e]ries" is good, then a lot of cleverness must be better. The parentheses and dashes aren't the problem-they're just decoration for the "I'm too sexy for linear language" phenomenon. You did not want to read "... transgress the boundaries and grids of urban context, architext, and architecture."

Either that, or she actually has nothing to say (or is an elaborate prank), but does it with such pomp and bluster that no one has figured out how to disagree with her. That's a perfectly cromulent approach to academia.

Also, I wanna be a flâneur when I grow up.

[kaffeesuchtig]

Yes, it's the sheer mass of cleverness that is overwhelming. I was just joking about the punctuation. It's just the hallmark of that style of writing.
I enjoyed looking at that link. The sample papers were hilarious.
I do not know what cromulent means, nor does Merriam-Webster Unabridged. Will you please enlighten me?
And I think we all wanna be flâneurs when we grow up.

[kaffeesuchtig]

thank you! j.c., references to the simpsons are usually some of the only pop cultural ones i do get. i guess i missed that episode. sadly.

[kaffeesuchtig]

I think you and I should have a long discussion about this sometime. I can, with effort, also follow the text. What annoys me especially about this one is that she is playing with textual reconfigurations and made-up terms in nearly EVERY SENTENCE. It's just overkill and consequently takes a really long time to read.
Academic texts are very coded. At first it's really frustrating, but once you figure out the code, it can be quite fun and rewarding. Nonetheless, I also agree with the critique of the elitism of the jargon, but, as I wrote in response to jillbertini, and as you point out, it's necessary scaffolding that serves multiple purposes