Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1997 :: June ::
The Annual Bad Writing Contest
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 8.0623.  Monday, 2 June 1997.

From:           Norm Holland <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Saturday, 31 May 97 12:26:21 EDT
Subject:        The Annual Bad Writing Contest

One of the more entertaining moments in the Internet year is the
announcement of the winners of the Annual Bad Writing Contest, conducted
by Dennis Dutton, at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, N.Z.
Hence my forwarding of this only semi-psychological post.

Let me remind PSYARTers that son John Holland has devised (with help
from Dad) a program that churns out this kind of critical prose-as much
of it as you can ever use.  See

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/nnh/critic.htm

--Best, Norm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:           Denis Dutton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 21 May 1997 13:50:10 +1300
Subject:        BWC

--Bad Writing Contest Winners--

We are pleased to announce winners of the third Bad Writing Contest,
sponsored by the scholarly journal Philosophy and Literature (published
by the Johns Hopkins University Press) and its internet discussion
group, PHIL-LIT.

The Bad Writing Contest attempts to locate the ugliest, most
stylistically awful passage found in a scholarly book or article
published in the last few years.  Ordinary journalism, fiction, etc. are
not eligible, nor are parodies: entries must be non-ironic, from actual
serious academic journals or books.  In a field where unintended
self-parody is so widespread, deliberate send-ups are hardly necessary.

This year's winning passages include prose published by established,
successful scholars, experts who have doubtless labored for years to
write like this.  Obscurity, after all, can be a notable achievement.
The fame and influence of writers such as Hegel, Heidegger, or Derrida
rests in part on their mysterious impenetrability.  On the other hand,
as a cynic once remarked, John Stuart Mill never attained Hegel's
prestige because people found out what he meant.  This is a mistake the
authors of our our prize-winning passages seem determined to avoid.

* The first prize goes to a sentence by the distinguished scholar
Fredric Jameson, a man who on the evidence of his many admired books
finds it difficult to write intelligibly and impossible to write well.
Whether this is because of the deep complexity of Professor Jameson's
ideas or their patent absurdity is something readers must decide for
themselves.  Here, spotted for us by Dave Roden of Central Queensland
University in Australia, is the very first sentence of Professor
Jameson's book, Signatures of the Visible (Routledge, 1990, p. 1):

"The visual is _essentially_ pornographic, which is to say that it has
its end in rapt, mindless fascination; thinking about its attributes
becomes an adjunct to that, if it is unwilling to betray its object;
while the most austere films necessarily draw their energy from the
attempt to repress their own excess (rather than from the more thankless
effort to discipline the viewer)."

The appreciative Mr. Roden says it is "good of Jameson to let readers
know so soon what they're up against."   We cannot see what the second
"that" in the sentence refers to.  And imagine if that uncertain "it"
were willing  to betray its object?  The reader may be baffled, but then
any author who thinks visual experience is essentially pornographic
suffers confusions no lessons in English composition are going to fix.

* If reading Fredric Jameson is like swimming through cold porridge,
there are writers who strive for incoherence of a more bombastic kind.
Here is our next winner, which was found for us by Professor Cynthia
Freeland of the University of Houston.  The writer is
Professor Rob Wilson:

"If such a sublime cyborg would insinuate the future as post-Fordist
subject, his palpably masochistic locations as ecstatic agent of the
sublime superstate need to be decoded as the 'now-all-but-unreadable
DNA' of a fast deindustrializing Detroit, just as his Robocop-like
strategy of carceral negotiation and street control remains the
tirelessly American one of inflicting regeneration through violence upon
the racially heteroglossic wilds and others of the inner city."

This colorful gem appears in a collection called The Administration of
Aesthetics: Censorship, Political Criticism, and the Public Sphere,
edited by Richard Burt "for the Social Text Collective" (University of
Minnesota Press, 1994).  Social Text is the cultural studies journal
made famous by publishing physicist Alan Sokal's jargon-ridden parody of
postmodernist writing.  If this essay is Social Text's idea of
scholarship, little wonder it fell for Sokal's hoax.  (And precisely
what are "racially heteroglossic wilds and others"?)   Dr. Wilson is an
English professor, of course.

* That incomprehensibility need not be long-winded is proven by our
third-place winner, sent in by Richard Collier, who teaches at Mt. Royal
College in Canada. It's a sentence from Making Monstrous: Frankenstein,
Criticism, Theory, by Fred Botting (Manchester University Press, 1991):

"The lure of imaginary totality is momentarily frozen before the
dialectic of desire hastens on within symbolic chains."

* Still, prolixity is often a feature of bad writing, as demonstrated by
our next winner, a passage submitted by Mindy Michels, a graduate
anthropology student at the American University in Washington, D.C.
It's written by Stephen Tyler, and appears in Writing Culture, edited
(it says) by James Clifford and George E. Marcus (University of
California Press, 1986).  Of what he calls "post-modern ethnography,"
Professor Tyler says:

"It thus relativizes discourse not just to form-that familiar perversion
of the modernist; nor to authorial intention-that conceit of the
romantics; nor to a foundational world beyond discourse-that desperate
grasping for a separate reality of the mystic and scientist alike; nor
even to history and ideology-those refuges of the hermeneuticist; nor
even less to language-that hypostasized abstraction of the linguist;
nor, ultimately, even to discourse-that Nietzschean playground of
world-lost signifiers of the structuralist and grammatologist, but to
all or none of these, for it is anarchic, though not for the sake of
anarchy but because it refuses to become a fetishized object among
objects-to be dismantled, compared, classified, and neutered in that
parody of scientific scrutiny known as criticism."

* A bemused Dr. Tim van Gelder of the University of Melbourne sent us
the following sentence:

"Since thought is seen to be 'rhizomatic' rather than 'arboreal,' the
movement of differentiation and becoming is already imbued with its own
positive trajectory."

It's from The Continental Philosophy Reader, edited by Richard Kearney
and Mara Rainwater (Routledge, 1996), part of an editors' introduction
intended to help students understand a chapter.  Dr. van Gelder says,
"No undergraduate student I've given this introduction to has been able
to make the slightest sense of it. Neither has any faculty member."

* An assistant professor of English at a U.S. university (she prefers to
remain anonymous) entered this choice morsel from The Cultures of United
States Imperialism,  by Donald Pease (Duke University Press, 1993):

"When interpreted from within the ideal space of the myth-symbol school,
Americanist masterworks legitimized hegemonic understanding of American
history expressively totalized in the metanarrative that had been
reconstructed out of (or more accurately read into) these masterworks."

While the entrant says she enjoys the Bad Writing Contest, she's fearful
her career prospects would suffer were she to be identified as hostile
to the turn by English departments toward movies and soap operas.  We
quite understand: these days the worst writers in universities are
English professors who ignore "the canon" in order to apply tepid,
vaguely Marxist gobbledygook to popular culture.  Young academics who'd
like a career had best go along.

* But it's not just the English department where jargon and
incoherence are increasingly the fashion.  Susan Katz Karp, a graduate
student at Queens College in New York City, found this splendid nugget
showing that forward-thinking art historians are doing their desperate
best to import postmodern style into their discipline. It's from an
article by Professor Anna C. Chave, writing in Art Bulletin (December
1994):

"To this end, I must underline the phallicism endemic to the dialectics
of penetration routinely deployed in descriptions of pictorial space and
the operations of spectatorship."

The next round of the Bad Writing Contest, results to be announced in
1998, is now open with a deadline of December 31, 1997.  There is an
endless ocean of pretentious, turgid academic prose being added to
daily, and we'll continue to celebrate it.

**********************************
Dr. Denis Dutton
Senior Lecturer in the Philosophy of Art
Editor, Philosophy and Literature
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Phones:  64-3-366-7001, ext. 8154; 643-348-7928 (home)

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.