[Matt] If, for the sake of discussion, we stipulate Dan and I as the epitome of mealymouthed, back-talking, then Krimel, you are our exact opposite, a blunt, guileless philistine.
Now, I don't think either is true, but they represent the poorer of ways of understanding what I see as different rhetorical strategies. [Krimel] I was about to put you down for a fruit basket on 'that great day' until upon reflection I noticed that the only serious bone I have to pick with what you say is your suggestion of the possibility that I am not a blunt, guileless philistine. DM is always trying to get a pole started around here and I am willing to bet that the nearest thing to a consensus that exists on this forum is that Krimel is a blunt, guileless philistine. [Matt] I think it the lesser part of wisdom (read: stupid) to think that there is a single context in which people are to be read, that we have true, pure voices that should be heard for what they are no matter the audience before us. Dan can be read as thinking that, and so can you, and I think you're both wrong. It is about persuasion, it is about effect, it is about doing something in a space that has been provided, space that is created by a stipulated audience, real or imaginary. We all have voices, but to think we can't, or shouldn't, modulate them, is to think that singing is best when there's one note. That's just not the point of singing. In other words, you can swear all you like Krimel, but who are you talking to? Who are you trying to convince of what? And: might there be a better way? As Pirsig said, "Hey baby, it be rhetoric all the way down. GET DOWN TONIGHT. GET DOWN TONIGHT." Or something like that. [Krimel] I took the topic of this thread to be style and if I wasn't specific I hope it was clear that I was talking for the most part about my style, rationalizing, if you will, why I write like a blunt, guileless philistine. I have an aversion to ritual and niceties but I readily concede the aversion is a personal peccadillo. I suspect that often in my zeal to eschew them I do indeed sound like a flaming asshole. Those who know me well though, would confirm that this is not just an affectation. Certainly any of us who have persevered here for any length of time have had ample opportunity to express the same ideas in a variety styles and we modulate our modes of expression to match some perceived notion of what is likely to appeal or irritate to our partners in dialogue at every go around. Dan seemed to see this as a negative; as a tedious cycle of endless return. I like to think of it as opportunity to try harder, to do better, to try something else. After all, by way of example, the effectiveness of profanity is inversely proportional to the frequency of its use. If I have a stylistic goal here it is to avoid being locked into a single style. Doubtless I fail, but I do strive to swing between smart assery and sagedom; between gravity and levity; between being pedantic and being poetic. I do notice of late that I have developed an unhealthy love of the semi-colon. I suspect you are right though, there is always a better way. My point was, aren't we all here looking for just that? [Matt] All of which is to say: just about everything everybody says on the topic of plains-spoken is almost inevitably right at some point, but not at all points--what we take to be good, effective writing always depends on the perspective and taste of the reader. The point of a forum is to toss out ideas to see if they stick, but what if you don't know what the idea is yet? Might silence be a good idea? We are here to sharpen our voices, but is all help the same? Does everybody respond in the same way to the same kind of teacher? Do all teachers teach every student in the same way? [Krimel] One of the things about MoQ.org that gives it the addictive quality that Dan alluded to and that you have touched on, is the over all high quality of the writing here. For a bunch of amateurs the people here are surprisingly good. >From Craig's sparse syllogisms to Ham's nested definitions wrapped in double negatives, not a day goes by that someone here doesn't say something that is entertaining, thought provoking or both. Much of what I was ranting about was aimed at Dan's admission that he writes drafts but doesn't share them and his claim that words can not express the purity of certain ideas. That does not seem to me to be silence motivated by uncertainty. I enjoy Dan's writing. I'd love to see more of it. I don't think I am alone in that. Also I am pretty confident I am on Dan's ignore list. At some point I failed to exhibit a properly respectful tone in our exchanges, ironically as I recall it had something to do with his suggestion that I might benefit from meditation and my overly prosaic response to the suggestion. [Matt] Dan _was_ saying, "Fucking college boy!," but he also wanted to say something else, something that if he'd led off with that, wouldn't really have been rhetorically permitted. Or, he wasn't saying that, because he doesn't swear and that kind of verbiage doesn't come to him as it does to you or I. Choice in words doesn't ever reduce to a few set ideas that we can dress in different ways. The choice of words _are_ the ideas, and the way we put the idea determines what we are saying. We can be brusque, or pedantic. We can be witty, or boorish. All of these things determine our voice, our ideas, our "I". Some people think I'm quite unintelligible because of the way I write, the things I say. Perfectly fine, but in a certain way, some of the things I say can't be put in a different way, can't be "cleaned up" and put more straight-forwardly. To think there is something called "plain-spoken" that is the _only_ way to write is to mount shackles on people, to tell them that if their "I" doesn't fit into this box, they should get the fuck out of here. But we know what Pirsig thinks about people who fall outside the mythos. [Krimel] I'm not so sure that words _are_ ideas or that they determine ideas in the way you suggest. Rather I would hope that ideas determine what words we use and that the words we use modulate the tone or shade the meaning of the ideas we express. So sure, the choice of language and the order of presentation may lead us around the bush but in the end you're still a fucking college boy. You are just a slightly less insulted college boy or you might even be flattered to be one. You know, you might even want to put it on a T-shirt and dress it that way. If you are looking for feedback, I don't find your writing unintelligible or mealy-mouthed. Obtuse, wordy and a bit pretentious, perhaps, but I expect no less from a fucking college boy. I hope nothing I have said suggests that I think there is a right way to go about this business. It is the diversity of thought and modes of expression that makes this place fun. Most of us here are familiar enough with each other that we could probably write each others posts. For example I think it would be fun for Arlo and Platt to switch sides every once in a while. While we are on the topic of writing technique why to you use _ instead of " sometimes, as in _was_ as opposed to "I" above? [Matt] p.s. I think you're absolutely right that "After a while it isn't hard to tell when the words are sincere and when they sincerely mean, 'Professor Puffalicious is a insufferable dipshit.'" It's why I fell in love with academic writing: read enough of it, and the secret doors of its style open up and release all sorts of little jokes. What can I say: I love being an insider! [Krimel] I find these particular academics as trifle dense to read but I love to listen to them. They are mainly theologians and religious historians brought in by the religion and philosophy department. I sometimes think they are intentionally using double speak because if they were plain spoken they would get crucified, so to speak. But you are correct. You really wouldn't have a clue how subversive much of what they say is, if you were listening from the outside. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
