On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Harzem Peter went:
> Papers in Psychology journals, shackled by the demand to follow the
> APA style, are so very, very boring. From none of them would one
> get the sense of excitement that may arise from and finding.
David Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snip>
That seems like articulate, thoughtful writing--not flashy, but also
not suggestive of any sort of stylistic shackling. For pleasure
reading, I'll choose it over most of the research articles published
in _Science_.
Of course you would, you're a psychologist; why wouldn't you rather read
about psychology than about, say, advances in cloning. But would you choose the
modern writing in the typical APA journal over the clear, vigorous prose of
Sigmund Freud (say what you will about his ideas, his writing was excellent),
Alfred Adler, or William James?
A very, very good writer can navigate the demands of APA style and still
write prose that is interesting, entertaining, and of interest even to people
who don't have to read it for their jobs. But it is extraordinarily difficult
to do so. APA style is "writer-proof"--that is both its virtue and its
viciousness.
My dislike of writing in APA style, and of the epistemological assumptions
that it is based on (the subject of Madigan et al's article), is a major reason
that I am not an academic psychologist. Learning to write in APA style made me
feel like the Little Mermaid (Hans Christian Anderson version, not Disney
version), giving up my voice for the dubious privilege of walking on dry land.
Very dry land, at times.
R.
Notices at the bottom of this e-mail do not reflect the opinions of the sender.
I do not "yahoo" that I am aware of.
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
