American academic prose (1950- ) is the writing style used by professors and others who teach and study at American universities. It has had a huge effect on American writing and thought since about 1950. Mostly for the worse. It has made English into something Shakespeare would no longer understand.
Here is an example I picked out without trying too hard: the second paragraph on page 94 of “What Uncle Sam Really Wants” by Noam Chomsky. He is talking about the press serving the powerful. It is hardly the worst example I could have found:
The outcome is not, of course, entirely uniform. To serve the interests of the powerful, the media must present a tolerably realistic picture of the world. And professional integrity and honesty sometimes interfere with the overriding mission. The best journalists are, typically, quite aware of the factors that shape the media product, and seek to use such openings as are provided. The result is that one can learn a lot by a critical and skeptical reading of what the media produce.
No one talks like that.
Think about it: how would you tell your mother the same thing? Maybe like this:
Not everything you read in the newspaper is a lie. The press cannot help the powerful unless what it prints is generally true. And there are some good, honest reporters who write the truth no matter what. The best ones know the deal and slip in enough stuff so you can read between the lines.
What Chomsky wrote does sound more important:
- Instead of “write the truth no matter what”, he has, “professional integrity and honesty”.
- Instead of “read between the lines” he has “a critical and skeptical reading of what the media produce.”
- Instead of “know the deal” he has, “quite aware of the factors that shape the media product.”
- Instead of “so” he has, “The result is that”.
- And, for free, he threw in “overriding mission”.
It sounds better, maybe, but it is hard to read and understand.
Look at the nouns:
outcome, interests, the powerful, the media, picture, the world, integrity, honesty, mission, journalists, factors, product, openings, result, reading.
Weak, grey words.
Compare them to the nouns James Baldwin used in the same paragraph (second paragraph on page 94) in “Go Tell it on the Mountain”:
Deborah, mother, eyes, night, tavern, house, daytime, lust, hammers, skull, friends, enemies, blood, morning, mud, clay, beds, jail, mouth, clothes, rags, stink, corruption, death, cruelty, chains.
Chomsky lives in a world of pale clouds somewhere up above our heads. A place where there are factors, integrity and missions, not mud and lust.
Baldwin’s words are much shorter too: only 5 in a 100 are more than two syllables long. For me it was 9 in a 100, but for Chomsky, 25! It makes his writing worse, not better.
It is easy to rewrite Chomsky and make what he says shorter, clearer and more pointed. Not so with Baldwin.
See also:
I’m sorry but I do understand clearly what Chomsky says, and my mother tongue is not even English, it’s Spanish, besides he has a Doctorate in Linguistics, he’s writing like he’s supposed to. It may look stilted I give you that, but I like it.
English has at the very least, a quarter of a million words, why not use all it’s possibilities?
Call me a geek but I think that People should always look forward to expand his vocabulary
LikeLike
It was not clear to me. I sort of understood it the first time I read it, but I had to read it two or three times more before I had a firm understanding of it.
In English the short words that everyone uses everyday are easier to understand than the long words that people like Chomsky use in their writing. All things being equal.
LikeLike
I find myself going back through your blog and intentionally skipping all the racism stuff as sometimes it can be a bit depressing (unless it touches on something that has happened to me personally) and looking for more of your blogs on writing and the like. I know these are not the sort of posts that gain a lot of attention but I just wanted to let you know that they are appreciated and please keep them up!
LikeLike
Marci:
Thank you for your encouragement. Some people think this is a racism blog and some think it is a T&A blog. Those parts certainly get the most attention, but those are hardly the only things I write about.
LikeLike
Those are the ones who need to take a second and read the little addendum under your name!
LikeLike
Chomsky isn’t a poet. Chomsky is not a preacher. There are plenty of preachers (who are incapable of being meticulous in describing power mechanisms) around.
For years, I was thirsty for a proper description, an in depth description of the lies of Western society. I found it in Chomsky and like the first commenter, I found Chomsky easy to understand and totally refreshing.
——————————
No one talks like that.
Are you kidding me!? Writing is often different from how we speak. Why shouldn’t they be different? Writing and speaking don’t even rely on identical brain areas.
There are different types of writing. When you write in a detailed manner, and choose words carefully and choose implied meaning carefully, the writing will sound like whatever it sounds like, so what?
Again, Chomsky isn’t writing on the Arts. He isn’t writing liner notes for an album. He’s writing on politics, state violence, propaganda, etc. He doesn’t have to write in whatever stereotype of an author you’d prefer him to write in. Those stereotype writers are out there and when they turn their pen to political subject matter, they’ll make me thirsty for someone who puts details first, and fashionable, publisher approved diction second: a guy like Chomsky. Anyway, I like his diction.
——————————-
If you want a (more) conversational Chomsky, listen to his interviews with Barsamian, et al. Or, listen to his lectures on the speaking circuit.
LikeLike
ABSOLUTELY.
There are different ways of saying something.
Like there are different kinds of accents.
I don’t see any problem with Chomsky’s paragraph.
And, frankly — Shakespeare is hard to read.
His plays are wonderful and wonderfully rewarding when, or after, one understand all the layers of meaning. But it takes EFFORT and re-reading and footnotes to get to that point.
LikeLike
I see. Then you understand far more about stuff here than you really let on.
*
The King James Bible is actually standard in English schools, as is Shakespeare. I’d be amazed if anyone understood the following paragraphs (rather than a simple sentence) without re-reading and checking footnotes. From 3 Act, from “As you like it”:
A man may, if he were of a fearful heart,
stagger in this attempt; for here we have no temple
but the wood, no assembly but horn-beasts. But what
though? Courage! As horns are odious, they are
necessary. It is said, ‘many a man knows no end of
his goods:’ right; many a man has good horns, and
knows no end of them. Well, that is the dowry of
his wife; ‘tis none of his own getting. Horns?
Even so. Poor men alone? No, no; the noblest deer
hath them as huge as the rascal. Is the single man
therefore blessed? No: as a walled town is more
worthier than a village, so is the forehead of a
married man more honourable than the bare brow of a
bachelor; and by how much defence is better than no
skill, by so much is a horn more precious than to want.
Or the “Fool’s Song” from Lear:
That sir which serves and seeks for gain,
And follows but for form,
Will pack when it begins to rain,
And leave thee in the storm.
But I will tarry; the fool will stay,
And let the wise man fly:
The knave turns fool that runs away;
The fool no knave, perdy.
LikeLike
I think this all boils down to two things:
1) A bunch of academics trying their damnedest to sound smarter than their peers and
2) Attempting to write with as much detail as possible so you’re point-of-view is completely understood. I believe this is more common with people who tend to process information bottom-up instead of top-down.
At first, it can be pretty difficult reading this type of writing, however the more academic journals, textbooks, and articles you read, the easier it is to understand. Although, I do agree that what I like to call “higher English” is rather annoying. Especially when you’re reading something in order to learn. You’d think people would know that the easiest way to teach is when you break down the material, making it easier to understand for your learner.
LikeLike
A bunch of academics trying their damnedest to sound smarter than their peers
That does not apply to all academics but it is a definitely a vulgar practice that has crept into academia. It’s vulgar because it is so obnoxiously pretentious. Chomsky has a couple of interviews (maybe more) where he talks about this sort of thing. (I’ll post them if I can find them.) He says a big part of this “sounding smarter” stuff was driven by the envy of some to gain the prestige and rigor enjoyed by those who practice physical sciences.
Also, Abagond has a post on just such a pretentious academic. I can’t remember the man’s name, I may go on an Index hunt. I originally left Chomsky’s amusing interview on pretentious verbiage in academia on this post of Abagond’s but it’s gone now because of a comment deletion, I requested.
Pragamatist, were you the commenter The Cynic?
LikeLike
Oh, it may be too time consuming to find this interview. In case I never post it, here is the info to find it if you, whomever “you” might be, to find it.
Search utube for an interview of Chomsky by Michael Albert. The setting is Albert’s home, in the kitchen. The interview exists in it’s long form and in clips.
LikeLike
Re: “No one talks like that.”
I noticed that I said “whom” above. I really like using it. No one – and I mean NO ONE uses it in North America when speaking. I sometimes say it verbally but with a degree of effort and awkwardness, even when I’m clear that “whom” is called for and that “who” would be a grammatical error.
In my verbal speech, what I believe I do most of the time is to use “whom” with people whom (haha) I’m indifferent about forming a friendship with. In those situations I care more about speaking how I want to and maintaining formality if I want to. At the other end of the spectrum I never use “whom” with a woman whom ( 😛 ) I’ve decided I want to be with. I’m not sure what would be the most attractive way to speak, if I wanted to date an English professor. (Perhaps a speech that is different, though not too much, from what she hears everyday from her colleagues.)
LikeLike
Chomsky is easy to read and understand. He understands how the business of trickery works in reading, writing and speaking. He practices those tricks and leads his readers down whatever road amuses him most.
LikeLike
ugh! I forgot to say the following:
So although no one says whom and I admit to a degree of awkwardness when I say it verbally, using it when I write or type comes more or less naturally.
I doubt I’ve ever used “whom” with any of my family members. I think it would be like an instant mood ruiner. They might even search for adoption papers!
LikeLike
@Legion
Pragamatist, were you the commenter The Cynic?
Yes, a couple of years ago I would frequently comment on this blog under the username, ‘The Cynic.’ I think my current username is a better fit.
LikeLike
^ Ah! I hope you are well.
LikeLike
* if you [offset clause] want to find it.
LikeLike
I found the interview where Chomsky goes into the fake over intellectualizing that a good deal of academics like to engage in. It’s at the beginning of this part two video, maybe about 5 mins in. It’s where they start talking about Science and even leftist criticisms of the way Science is practiced.
“You don’t get to be a respected intellectual by presenting truisms in mono syllables.”
(http://youtu.be/f02gcRrdK2I)
LikeLike