The two main readings from George Orwell and Proscio are what I consider “modern-day satire.” Both articles point out glaring flaws in common language usage and diction, hoping that people will take note of their own bad writing habits, and then make necessary changes. In any event, the glittering wit of these authors only further demonstrates their mastery of language and shrewd judgment.
With that said fellow Verons, I would like us to continue to address the heart of the matter: clear writing and speaking! Today’s class discussion touched on some important aspects, and I would like us to consider these aspects carefully.
Clear writing, I believe, has a lot to do with knowing yourself and developing the ability to put words to your inner thoughts, feelings, and perspectives. So, I have a few questions that should help us analyze our own issues with language and find the best ways to reduce instances of language abuse and misuse. We agreed that there is a connection between language and meaning. We also agreed that perhaps the only way to avoid the abuse and misuse of language is by forcing ourselves to think about our language AND its intended meaning.
As scholars, the words we choose to use are very important. But, do you think that the word choice issue that Proscio elaborates on is completely valid? Or does it seem like he, as well as the other authors, sometimes quibble over language use? After reading the articles, I suspect that there is at least one point with which you strongly agree or disagree. What is it and why? Also, which, if any, of these “bad habits” are you guilty of?
I agree with Orwell’s statement that “[t]he great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” Have you guys ever read a piece of work by someone or, worse, spoken to someone who had great things to say but you were turned off by a slight feeling that they were being insincere? I have, and I don’t like it when people do it, so that is why I try not to write or say things that I don’t mean, especially regarding flattering words or words about my beliefs. But back to my point, do you realize how insincerity can create barriers between different parties, people, etc.? Once you get the feeling that someone’s writing, words, or feedback is insincere, further communication seems to undergo the proverbial “shut-down.”
Another interesting point that Orwell makes is that “[p]olitical language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Three classes ago, we had to submit our personal mission statements and review the mission statements of a few prominent organizations and institutions (including John Jay college). I remember that there was a lengthy discussion about the “politics” behind the mission statements of these organizations and institutions. Professor Stein, in particular, seemed to be picking up on the political language to which Orwell refers. However, if it is true, as Professor Stein noted, that these mission statements are riddled with buzz-words in an attempt to gain and maintain funding, then what does it imply about these institutions and organizations? Do their mission statements imply that they are all being insincere about the type and quality of services which they claim to provide? Does a mission statement with buzz-words necessarily facilitate poor or negative results and vice versa? Or do our concepts of buzz-words reflect our own biases?
While we are on the topic of scruples, do you consider yourself to be a scrupulous writer (and speaker)? I try to be scrupulous most of the time, but my writing (and speaking) may appear over-the-top to some people, and still there are others who enjoy it. I say this to show that words are potent precisely because another individual’s perception is involved. As we discussed in class, the agencies for which we work are cautious about their use of words because the truth is that throwing around words is sometimes akin to throwing around knives. But, even if throwing around words is not the best idea, can we ever be sure that we are saying exactly what we mean AND that people are understanding exactly what we are saying? Are there any instances when you feel as though you are not understood, despite numerous (re) explanations? Should the “labels” that agencies use boldly encompass the issue at hand? At what point, if ever, do you think we should throw in the towel on all of this “precision-talk”?
I don’t throw in the towel often, but I do in situations where I am speaking to people and I feel that they are intentionally trying to twist what I am saying or when they seem to be feigning uncertainty. At that point, logical discourse is no longer possible because they have broken an important rule of logical communication.
I am still mulling over which of the “bad writing habits” I have. I think that I am guilty of using the word “assist” instead of “help.” I always preferred the word “assist” more because it has a nice professional ring to it—it might be the ending “t” sound versus the “p” sound. I also like the word “empowerment”--just saying or seeing the word makes me feel empowered.
Professor Reitz said it best when she said that “sloppy writing means sloppy thinking.” However, is it possible that we are creating harsh generalizations? I say this because Lenny commented on how difficult it was to find the right words during one of her former courses but that she had an idea of what she wanted to say. Yet if we had read her work for that course, because of its lack of clarity, we would be forced to say that her thinking was sloppy based on the aforementioned generalization. HOWEVER, I would not say that her problem was with her thinking, it was more a problem of finding the “right” words, whatever they may be. What I am trying to say is that in some cases, finding the right words can be challenging and it would be unfair to say that unclear writing is a clear indication of one’s inability to think clearly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Thank you, Jamie, for posting an interesting set of questions and concerns around language. It’s a pleasure to read because it is stimulating AND so well written!
I think it’s always a struggle to figure out what you want to say and then how best to say it. I know I have that problem when speaking and writing. I prefer to write rather than speak when it comes to “thinking through” complex issues related to my work—intellectual ideas, teasing out the key features of a history, analyzing the political aspects of social phenomena. I admire those who can speak with elegance and ease. I enjoy writing because of the solitude, and I don’t have the pressure to be quick on my feet and can work through what I want to say. I also like getting into the rhythm of the written composition—the rhythm of the work process itself, and how the string of words comes together in a rhythm.
I’ve had many instances when I feel I’m not understood even though I thought I was clear. It’s hard to know why. Is it because I’ve communicated poorly or awkwardly? Is it that the listener/reader isn’t paying attention? Is it because they don’t want to “hear” what I’m saying? It’s hard to know for sure.
Still, it’s so important, I think, to keep being reminded to “write and speak clearly,” and to “force ourselves to think about our language AND its intended meaning,” to quote Jamie. As a teacher, I see that not enough students think that through. I do think there is a difference between the written product by someone who is trying to make her/himself clear (even if they don’t quite succeed) and those who really are thinking “sloppily” and then produce a sloppy paper. I can tell you it’s a great pleasure to read papers by students trying to make themselves clear and it’s a real drag to read papers that have not been thought through and proofed (and it often takes a very long time to decipher these).
In terms of politics, insincerity and the mission statements, I think that to be “political” is not necessarily to be insincere. The Partners In Health (PIH) mission statement is political and sincere. The folks who founded, developed and work at Partners In Health make no bones about their position. They explicitly work against structural inequality, and in the interests of the poor (what they call “the option for the poor”). Because it is a partnership, the organization includes those they serve, together doing “whatever it takes” to redistribute resources down the grade of inequality. One reason I like this group and consider it a strong social change model is they make no bones about their explicitly political position.
And today I finished a paper I’ve been struggling with for the past month. Yay!
Thank you, Jamie, for an interesting post and set of questions being raised in it.
And my congratulations to Professor Waterston!
I am lost after our last class discussion about Orwell. I always knew that I needed to improve my writing. I am working on it since I got here. If one compares my writing skills three years ago and now, one can feel substantial difference. On the contrary, I have realized that all those techniques that I was applying in order to improve my writing skills are not good enough. Even more, the way I was taught English all my life in Ukraine was criticizes by Orwell. The sad part is that I totally support his criticism. I noticed that I use many set impressions in my writing, such as “in order to,” “according to…,” “taking in consideration..,” “even though…,” and etc. Would you have any suggestions for me how I can get rid of them and polish my writing? On the other hand, when I do not use those “huge words,” I feel my writing is so simple and primitive. What should I do?
Prof. Waterston raised a good point while comparing writing and speaking. It is important to express one’s thoughts clearly in both forms. I prefer writing because there is no “pressure to be quick,” as Prof. Waterston mentioned, and I can always proofread and revise what I have written. Totally different situation is with speaking. Once I said a word, there is no way back to change it. Speaking, however, has some advantages. Unless I am giving a speech, I can always clarify my point while speaking. It does not happen with writing. Even though I have multiple chances to revise my paper, I have to make sure that everything is well-written before I submit it.
I like Jamie’s statements about clear writing that it has “a lot to do with knowing yourself and developing the ability to put words to your inner thoughts, feelings, and perspectives.” Even though I discovery something new about my own personality every day, I believe I know myself pretty well. My problem, I think, is that I have to adjust myself to a new way of writing, to a new culture, and to a new language. I am still in the process of transformation. Therefore, I continue struggling with my writing and speaking. Transformation needs some time and numerous hours of practice.
Politics… The world of manipulation and lie… A country one represents and the benefits that we can get from our cooperation with it – those are the things that really matter in this world. Countries and international organizations sign resolutions, agreements, and treaties every day. Language in any of these political pieces of writing is so vague and unclear, though. Do you think that a person without an education in politics or international relations can clearly understand what they state in the political pieces of writing?
I would like everyone to look at a quote from the General Assembly Resolution 53/243: “Declaration and Program of Action on a Culture of Peace:”
9. Actions to foster a culture of peace through:
f) Encourage and strengthen efforts by actors as identified in the Declaration, in particular the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, aimed at developing values and skills conducive to a culture of peace, including education and training in promoting dialogue and consensus-building;
I have chosen this resolution because its main theme is education. It is an easy topic. An ordinary person, however, cannot get much from it, unless he/she was being trained for how to read it. Why do the representatives from countries all over the world use “big words” that have vague and unclear meanings in resolutions and agreements? Are there any benefits in it? If yes, who benefits from it?
I understand and agree with many of the points that both Jamie and Orwell are making about language and writing. There is a desperate need to be clear and precise so that our words are not misconstrued. However, Jamie asks us “does it seem like he, as well as the other authors, sometimes quibble over language use” and “at what point, if ever, do you think we should throw in the towel on all of this “precision-talk”? Quibbling over language can sometimes hurt more than it can help. Language and words are alive, they move and change daily. Trying to pin words and language down to precise meanings seem to me to be counter-intuitive to actual change. Ward Churchill (1996) in his text A Native Son explains that, “Mounting quantities of progressive time, energy, and attention are squandered in…a virtually endless stream of talk about how to talk about “the issues.” All of this happens at the direct expense of actually understanding the issues themselves, much less doing something about them” (p 460). A young non-profit organization that spends too much time arguing what should be in the mission statement waists time rather than “getting on with the important work.” Yes language is important and it must be clear, but we must also remember that it is a living entity and we must try and be as precise as possible while not being overly critical and wasting time. I do think we should throw in the towel on “precision-talk” and simply just be as clear as possible without missing sight of what is important and why we are speaking in the first place.
Chad Out!
Professor Waterston - Congratulations on finishing your paper! I also prefer to write rather than speak; however, I am aware that there are some situations in which the written word is not the best medium for communication--there comes a time when one just has to speak to get a point across clearly and emphatically. People may misunderstand you for any of those reasons that you gave, and there may be additional reasons for apparent misunderstanding as well. When you receive papers from students who struggle to make themselves clear versus those who are sloppy, do you grade both groups the same or do you employ subjectivity to be "fair"? Also, when you have strong writers in your classes, are you tougher on grading their papers in comparison to both of the aforementioned groups?
Nadiya - I can understand the difficulties in acquainting yourself with a new country and its language. I feel the same when I try to (re)learn Spanish. You ask some very good questions, and though I do not have a set model that you should follow for total improvement, I have a few suggestions: (1) Be patient with yourself--learning and writing English is challenging for even the best of us. (2) Try to get help and guidance when you write your papers, as often as possible (from the Writing Center, the ESL Center, or someone who is knowledgeable and willing to guide you along in developing your writing and speaking. (3) Read a lot of books on subjects that you enjoy (not text books). Perhaps you need to become more acquainted with the English word on the page and how different writers form different ideas. (4) Once you become aware of some of your weak areas, try to make a conscious effort to reduce instances of them. This is easier said than done, but at some point, you must force yourself to see your writing and cut out all unnecessary or incorrect language. But, in the midst of doing all of these things, you must be patient with yourself, your writing, and your speaking. These are few suggestions that I have applied myself to help improve my own writing and speaking abilities. My writing and speaking will never be perfect, but I will always be striving to improve. Regarding your question on political language, I think that this language is a perfect example of what I like to call "jargon-infested langauge." I believe that political language is designed like that to purposely be confusing and misleading. You have to remember that most politicians depend on votes and funding and, therefore, have to be very conscientious about what they say, for fear of upsetting the wrong crowd. Of course, there are other reasons, but I stand firmly behind this one because when it comes to politics in America, power is mostly hinged on support in the form of votes or funding. You ask excellent questions, Nadiya. Please let me know if my explanations and suggestions help. The Professors or other Verons should feel free to add or edit what I have said.
Chad - You make an excellent point, which helps to add another dimension to this discussion! I agree with your statement that "we must also remember that [language] is a living entity and we must try and be as precise as possible while not being overly critical and wasting time." I think that the hardest part is applying this to organizations that thrive on funding and politicians that thrive on votes etc. It is up to individuals, Professors (because sometimes they have extremely high expectations when it comes to grammar and content), organizations, and institutions to decide WHEN the quibbling should end, without appearing mediocre. This will prove to be quite a task, Chad, because we both know that "old habits die hard."
Jamie, thank you so much. Your post is both engaging and intellectual. You raise questions that are at the heart of the writing enterprise: can one be political and sincere? Might precise language (or at least the obsession with it) be counterproductive in certain situations?
I would agree with Prof. Waterston that politics does not always negate the claim of sincerity. To the contrary, political acumen might lead us to be strategic in speech or writing so that we more clearly communicate ideas that align with our goals. This doesn’t necessarily imply that our statements are hypocritical or false. In the case of PIH, I was pointing out, in fact, that the politics of their mission statement might in fact be so honest (to the savvy reader) that it could endanger their fundraising goals. More typical buzzwords are meant to evoke feelings in the reader that comport with deeply held values about self-reliance, altruism, compassion, patriotism, etc. These are largely a sales pitch. Whether the product they sell is good or bad is another story.
The question of precision, I think, is also linked-albeit in a different way-to authenticity. I direct you to the essay I mentioned in class “On being a cripple” by Nancy Mairs (http://www.fpsct.org/uploaded/faculty/andrewsn/On_Being_a_Cripple.doc) , which explores the impact of language on identity. She rejects such words as “differently abled” for their sloppiness, preferring the precision of “cripple” even as she acknowledges that “Society is no readier to accept crippledness than to accept death, war, sex, sweat, or wrinkles.”
Finally, there is a wonderful piece by Michael Cunningham in this week’s NY Times called “Found in Translation” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03cunningham.html?_r=1&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print ) which speaks to the process of writing. Like the rest of you, I would rather write than speak because I think I can perfect my language that way; I have more time to find Lenecea’s “right” word. Cunnigham discusses the tension between wanting to have an authoritative voice when writing and the impossibility of actually producing anything that is any better than a pale approximation of what we really want to say. Sobering, indeed.
So Nadiya, don't feel badly about including Orwell's no-nos. We are all stumbling around trying to find the best way to say something. We all play with different forms until, hopefully, we find a voice of our own. In addition to remembering what Chad said about the language being a living thing, I really struggle to sound "alive" in my writing. To me, the one crime worse than sloppiness is deadness; I want to read things that jump off the page or pull me into it. Too many of the ways we have taught people to write produce empty, cold prose.
Professor Stein – I agree with Nancy Mairs statement that “[s]ociety is no readier to accept crippledness than to accept death, war, sex, sweat, or wrinkles.” Words such as these are just too raw for some people’s delicate sensibilities. Some people can appreciate bluntness, while others are averse to such bluntness. I prefer to err on the side of caution especially when using terms that refer to specific groups of people. Some people will never be accepting of blunt terms, and we must take there sensibilities into consideration too. I respectfully disagree with Michael Cunningham’s point on “the impossibility of actually producing anything that is any better than a pale approximation of what we really want to say.” Yes, there is some level of tension between thought and expression because communication involves a web of thoughts, feelings, and sometimes even contradictions; however, there are some occasions when people reach a point of satisfaction regarding their writing and speaking. I have achieved that feeling in the past, and I am sure others have achieved it also. If it were not so, we would all be running around frustrated because we would never feel as if we understood and others would, likewise, never be able to understand us. Have you ever written work and submitted it for review with utmost satisfaction? Have you ever had a good and satisfying talk with an old friend? THAT is an example of producing a stunning “approximation of what we really want to say.” There is a point when one can achieve satisfaction, when one FEELS understood and IS understood. Also, regarding your point on deadness as a crime in writing, do you equate “jump[ing]” prose with sincerity? Do you think that “empty, cold prose” has no place in society?
Thanks, Jamie, and early responders, for starting up a lively discussion. I'm always a little blue on Sundays when I begin the work week, but a meaty blog conversation helps.
I've put a link to the articles Professor Stein mentions in our "Check it Out" section on the blog. (By the way, if you ever refer to anything that you want a link to on the blog, just send me the web address.)
There are so many ways to enter this conversation, but I'll limit myself to two: I like both speaking and writing, but it depends entirely on the context and on how clear I am about what I want to say. I was just thinking about this in terms of the tasks that I have been working on this week. I love speaking (in a conversation, in front of a class) when I really know what I want to say. Colorful, incisive language comes naturally and it feels like a real connection. But when I don't know exactly what I want to say, language feels inadequate, leaden, vague. Similarly, if I'm writing an academic article and I feel like what I have to say is relevant, insightful and clear, then writing is a wonderful experience. I never have to search for words. But if I don't care about the argument, or it feels like rehashing ideas already out there, then writing is torture.
My comment here is really about political writing/speaking and the fragility of meaning. All through the reading of Orwell (and this happens every time I read it), I get more and more depressed about contemporary political discourse, the spin, the campaign rhetoric, the talk-radio nonsense. I very much feel the truth of Orwell's statement about "giving an appearance of solidity to pure wind." So this was my mindset when I read the NYT Magazine cover story this morning on Glenn Beck. It is tempting to unleash a torrent of insults about Glenn Beck. I will refrain. Because my point is not about Glenn Beck being an idiot, or the devil, or too conservative, or whatever. For me, the danger of Glenn Beck is that he stomps on Orwell's crucial idea that one's meaning should choose one's words. Beck is quite clear, ironically, that he thinks out loud, often and in quite unclear ways. "When you listen and watch me," Beck tells the writer, "I'm trying to figure it out as I go." A supporter of Beck is quoted as saying "You can hear his heart speaking."
I'm not saying that there can't be emotional speech, or that some topics don't challenge the limits of language. I've been teaching Toni Morrison's BELOVED this semester and she manages to write incredibly thoughtful, emotional language about a topic that is almost so painful (slavery) as to defy communication. Her artistry is that she can both write about it and suggest in her writing how certain things are almost unrepresentable. What bugs me about Beck and his ilk (and all journalists in the 24-hour news cycle are guilty somewhat) is that so much value is placed on producing writing/talking to the exclusion of time thinking/reflecting/choosing. In a way, this is another way of coming around to our seminar discussion about the pressures of time and how that shapes our choices in terms of writing.
Professor Reitz - Do you think that Glenn Beck's "thinking as you go" attitude leads to more effective and thoughtful communication or less effective and thoughtful communication? Do you think that time pressure generates political jargon? Do you think the pressure for time, whether for campaigns or even in the classroom, breeds problems for effective, thoughtful writing?
I think that the pressure on time in the classroom, as well as for campaigns, may affect thoughtful speaking and writing; however, to what extent, I am unsure. It is true that some people have a skill for producing witty responses and thoughtful written work at a faster pace than others. For example, I have witnessed your quick witty responses in class, and it does seem natural for you. However, there are others who struggle to have the same effect when they speak, or write for that matter. Do you think quick wit is something that can be cultivated or do you consider it to be under the category of pure talent?
I tend to watch many speeches that are given by political speakers and many times I have a difficult time following them. I have to say that our readings and class made me feel better about my confusion. It makes more sense to me and it is much more obvious. Politicians have mastered the art of “dancing around” what they are truly trying to say. After realizing this, I was moved from an “ah ha” moment to, a disturbed one. I am bothered by the idea that politicians are “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind” (Politics and the English Language).
The following sentence does a fantastic job of summing up written and spoken communication, “all communication is, at best, an approximation of meaning” (A plea of plain speaking in foundations in other words). This one sentence is, in my opinion, extremely true and quite interesting. It makes me want to think twice about what I say, what I write, and how I manipulate the words that I use.
More interesting questions! I think that quick wit/thinking is partly a character trait, partly a sign that you are comfortable with what you are saying and, most importantly, who you are. I am full of admiration for Abraham Lincoln. He is my hero for many reasons, but one of them is his way with words: spoken and written. He was, apparently, a fantastic storyteller and certainly he is one of our greatest American writers. He was also incredibly funny. I think that his wit and his facility with language come from a place of great confidence in himself. He didn't always know exactly what to do -- his honesty about the difficulty of making decisions is striking (and such a contrast with today's leaders who feel the pressure to be, in the words of George W. Bush, "deciders") -- but he always knew who he was and trusted that self and so when he spoke or wrote something, he knew what he meant. How else could one have written the Gettysburg Address, approximately 200 words and containing most of the important ideas behind America's experiment with democracy. As a contrast -- and to the point of this discussion -- the speaker who came before Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg went on for almost 3 hours, and only the rare historian recalls what he said.
To get to Katie's rather post-structuralist point: the English professor in me can only agree that representation and language are such complex and multivalent things that communication is an approximation. That language is alive and changing (Chad's point) and open to interpretation is the very basis of my profession! But I think the reason that Orwell's essay is called "Politics and the English Language" and not "Poetry and the English Language" is that while he would agree that poetic language has license to play around with meaning, political language should not -- because there are, indeed, significant political implications of not saying what we mean because ultimately that will become not knowing what we mean.
Katie – Yes, it is very disturbing when we realize how much politicians tend to “dance around what they are truly saying.” I had the same reaction after reading the article because I always knew that politicians were trying to be slick with their language, but I could not pin down their code of deception as well or as clearly as Orwell does. If anyone stops to think about their words after reading Orwell’s article, I think that he has achieved his intended effect.
Professor Reitz – Your points and explanations are well taken! I agree with your stance that political language should leave little, if any, room for “playing around,” precisely because this playing around with words will ultimately affect its intended meaning and interpretation.
I have to admit that I am delighted that we have been able to bring up this topic of language and its implications at this point in our seminar because I know that I need much improvement in this area. I find it very hard sometimes to express what I am trying to say in a coherent way. The thoughts are there, but I am unable to get them on paper exactly the way I would like, and this may be seen as sloppy thinking. Some people seem to be more gifted than others in the area of linguistics such as poets, rappers, politicians, etc. I need to expand my vocabulary and I try doing that each day by looking up words from my readings, reading the thesaurus, and books specifically designed to improve language skills. Unfortunately, I still have trouble with retaining the information. I meet people everyday, that speak multiple languages and I am envious of them because I cannot even master my native language. I try learning Spanish but this too is very difficult for me. Is it possible that the parts of my brain that control language are not working at their full potential, or am I just not putting forward enough effort?
I feel like I am noticing every little mistake of my own and others now that we are being so critical of our words. I thought that using big words was a good thing. I feel like I have to unlearn what I have been learning throughout my college experience. And even when we are trying to be conscious of the words that we choose, it is almost impossible to correct the mistakes fully. Even while reading Orwell and Proscio as they try to dismantle difficult language, I noticed how they too were doing exactly what they were criticizing. At this point I feel lost.
Unlike the rest of you, I enjoy speaking rather than writing because I feel that I am able to express myself fairly well when I am put on the spot (mostly when I feel passionate about the topic). When writing, you are not able to use your hands, facial expression, and tone of voice to further the point that you are trying to make. Also, speaking allows room for a debate, which I love, and although I am sure that this was the intention for the blog, I prefer being in class and seeing my classmates and professors faces when they speak to me. It reminds me of taking an online class, still very effective but there just seems to be a key element missing, and that is human interaction. Perhaps this is why I don’t enjoy this FaceBook phenomenon.
Christina – As I told Nadiya, “good” writing is difficult for the best of us. Writing is very difficult, and if you don’t believe me, you can ask one of your Professors. Yes, the satisfied feeling of completing a well done paper or article is wonderful, but most strong writers would confess that turning out solid prose has its challenges. As I said in my original blog post, writing is also about being able to put words to your feelings, emotions, and perspectives. It takes time to find the “right” words, but I hope that while you explore and experiment with yourself for the “right” words that you can also be patient with yourself. To answer your question, no I do not think that the parts of your brain that control language are not working at their full potential. Think about it this way: Can you juggle? Can you tap dance? Can you knit? These are some examples of activities that people have to LEARN. Similarly, learning to put words to your thoughts is also a skill that has to be learned. With that in mind, you must be honest with yourself: do you feel as though you are doing all that you can do to improve you writing abilities? Are you aware of the different effective methods that may help to improve this skill? Do you dislike writing, deep down inside yourself? By taking an honest look at your feelings and current perceptions of writing, you may be able to uncover what is hindering you from growing as a writer.
I agree that Orwell and Proscio make us more prone to nitpicking. However, this is what happens when we first become acquainted with anything new. Orwell and Proscio present a kind of crash-course in diction, and that can be very overwhelming. You make an interesting point regarding your preference to speak. I agree that body language is very important in the process of communication; in most, but not all, instances, body language can be a telling indicator of someone’s feelings. I prefer face-to-face communication especially when I talk with my friends. Are there any instances when you prefer to communicate with someone via email or phone instead of face-to-face?
Thank you Jamie for the advice. I agree completely when you say that good writing requires honesty, and truthfully I do not enjoy writing as much as I do speaking. I do however recognize the fact that I must practice because strong writing skills are required of people like ourselves; scholars, scientists, innovators.
And yes there are times that I prefer to communicate through an email rather than a phone call. In this technologically dependent and fast paced society in which we live it is quicker, easier, and more efficient to just type a few lines. As was mentioned earlier, conversation requires quick witt, an immediate response, the possibility of losing your "train of thought". With emails, essays, and text messaging we are allowed time to answer when it is convenient, find just the right comeback, and avoid those awkward silences. When communicating with loved ones I would much rather "speak my mind", but if we are on an email only basis, I guess there's no need to alter that.
Thank you, Jamie, for advice.
Thank you, Prof. Stein, for understanding and support
More terrific questions!
First, let me weigh in on the issue of Prof. Reitz’s great wit. At first, I wanted to joke that clearly her cleverness was so “natural” that I assumed it to have genetic origins. I’m so glad that Prof. Reitz responded before me, more seriously, and brought up the matter of confidence. It becomes more obvious to me each day how many of my communications get stranded in my throat because of insecurity. Anxiety tamps down my ability to think clearly (I’m too worried about how I will sound) and then garbles the words themselves, making presentations far less effective.
To some extent, I think the same thing operates with writing: as I have attained a bit more professional stature and the confidence that my work will not be rejected out of hand, my writing has become smoother and has gained authority. When I am less certain of the reception my work will get, the writing can become stiff and self-conscious.
On another question: Jamie, you are right that we do absolutely produce some writing that is pretty perfect (hopefully you will all bring samples of such to class on Thursday); it’s just that such writing is generally a far smaller percentage of the total than we would like.
Finally, your question about whether prose that jumps off the page is always “sincere” made me think “absolutely not". Indeed there are times when cold, dead prose is painfully authentic (because the writer truly, sincerely feels nothing) and times when the charming, seductive purveyor of ideas is drawing you in with pure propaganda. I guess I would say that, in its way, the second kind of writing is more “effective” even though it might be morally indefensible on other grounds. Ah, what a complication you have raised!
Dear Jamie,
Wonderful post about our class discussion! I strongly believe that our discussion in class was vital in understanding ourselves, but most importantly being honest about who we are (as you stated).
After reading your post, I have to say that I took some time to ponder on how I should respond. In all honesty I am just the type of writer that writes everything I think and then uses all the information I wrote to create a clear and coherent paper.
However, I must say, that there are times when I am unsure how to express a thought because I truly can't find the right words to explain my idea. In that case I would usually approach my peers, professors, and or even my own family to just talk about my idea and hopefully find the answer in speech. In a sort of interesting way, I seem to find more of my answers in speech then when I sit and write. For example, when I was in my 2nd year of college, I went to the writing center to receive help in trying to write my ideas in a clear and straight forward way. While sitting and reading over my paper, I found that when it came time to express my idea, the sentence became very messy and if wasn't messy it was very confusing in thought. As a result, my writing mentor told me to explain what I was trying to say in that section of my essay. In explaining to him what I was trying to say all I could see was a smile, in which he responded, you just said the answer clearly to me; what you need to do is record what you say, listen to it again, and then use your own words to write the idea and or explanation you are trying to get others to see/ understand.
As funny as it sounds, it was a great idea. Not only do I write my papers and have my laptop mic on when I write, but I if I say an idea out loud, I would just go back and write what I said before.
Nevertheless, this plan too has a flaw. When you are told to think about certain issues and or topics that you are unfamiliar with or perhaps don't seem to understand, you tend to get lost in your own writing. This is where I would just go to the professor and just have him or her explain to me the section in the topic I don't understand. I find this helpful because sometimes, the textbooks nor databases can't always give you the clear answer.
Going back on the class discussion, I agree with Orwell the language today is starting to lower in standards. While AT&T had a hysterical commercial about a daughter speaking to her mother in text code (using lol, ttyl, ect), I recall my parents laughing and saying "what in the world is that girl saying". As funny as the commercial was, it proved a point that today's youths are looking at the easy way out in simplifying all they do, and sadly that means their language too.
While there are many students in school who have a hard time with their writing skills (spelling, grammar, writing coherently), many also have a hard time in comprehending what they read. In many ways reading and writing are one of the many essentials in the development of an individual; but if the person can't read or write clearly, chances are they are going to have a tough time communicating in the real world.
Overall, I would like to thank you for the post you wrote, it really made me think about my writing and what I do in trying to improve it. However, my only question to you is, when you find yourself unable to express an idea or find the right words when writing, what methods do you use, to overcome it?
Flattery will get you everywhere.
OMG!! I love this conversation!
I’ve been following it over the past couple of days but feel terrible that I haven’t had a chance to respond. Christina is right on point when she says there’s something missing from the in-the-flesh conversation when we move to other platforms (blog; Facebook; writing). In the case of this blog conversation, there are lots of points (if this were in real-time) where I’d have wanted to say, “Yes, and this is how I experience it!” or “But what about that?” But because it’s not in real-time, those moments passed.
I do want to respond to Jamie’s questions for me, and I also want to make a comment on something Professor Reitz wrote. Jamie asked, “When you receive papers from students who struggle to make themselves clear versus those who are sloppy, do you grade both groups the same or do you employ subjectivity to be "fair"?” It is so difficult to answer this question in a succinct way. I have to say I’m not sure what you mean by “employing subjectivity to be ‘fair’” but I will tell you what I do. In assessing each student’s work, I look at “content” and “writing.” Does the student understand the material (or seem to); how well is the student expressing her/his understanding of the material, and related to that, how nuanced (or literal) is that understanding—how deep is the understanding? Nine times out of 10, students who write well also express a more nuanced understanding of the material (the content). The result is that those who write well get the better grades! And those who do not have the basics (including reading comprehension—which goes hand-in-hand with writing fluency, as Jessica points out) tend to get poor grades. Jamie, you also asked, “when you have strong writers in your classes, are you tougher on grading their papers in comparison to both of the aforementioned groups?” I am not “tougher” on grading their papers, but I will always look to make a comment or question to push (challenge) that student further.
Since Professor Reitz invokes Glenn Beck, I just need to put in my two cents. In my view, it is total pretense that Glenn Beck “thinks as he goes.” I believe he knows exactly what he’s saying, what he is going to say and who he is trying to appeal to, and that the portrait he paints of himself as the heart-felt, thinking it as he goes kind of guy is total manipulation that obviously “works”: "You can hear his heart speaking”—some people are falling for the pretense.
Finally, I want to make one last comment in response to Jessica’s post. First, I think it’s great that you’ve found a couple of strategies that help you get through those writing humps. One thing I do when I’m in the midst of writing torture is discuss and read aloud what I’ve written to my poor husband. We discuss what I’m trying to say, there’s a dialogue, I get mad at him, then there’s an epiphany, and then I know what I’m doing next. When I read aloud to him, we both “hear” what’s weak, what I’ve left out, what needs strengthening, what’s repetitive, etc. It works, and I think the marriage is actually the better for it!
Dear Prof. Waterston,
Thank you for the feedback. I was reading your comment and I couldn't help but see myself in your shoes when reading my paper to someone else. In this case, I would usually have my sister listen to me and stop me when things didn't make sense. Although the debates of whether I used the right word in a certain sentence was helpful, I feel that this strategy really works in the long run.
Additionally,I believe if students were motivated to improve on their speech and writing, perhaps we wouldn't have such low reading and writing rates in schools.
However, this all goes back to our previous discussion, we need the family to be a motivating factor in the child's life and we need to tackle any insecurities that cause students to have low self esteem. Sadly, low self esteem can lead one to believe that they aren't good enough, which could cause them to have low standards. Motivation in this case is then key; but the main issue is, how do we give motivation to others without mixing it up with reward giving?
I am sorry Jessica, but I may be misunderstanding you. I know that we had a conversation previously about motivation, rewards, incentives, etc., but I don't fully recognize the difference between these very similar terms. Reward giving? Can you please elaborate?
Professor Waterston, so far your book is amazing, and after reading the first 17 pages I am compelled to buy the real copy. By the way, an excerpt from your book is also a reading for my Anthropology 340 course, so perhaps your publicity efforts have paid off. Also, I plan on helping with the matter by sending some pages to a friend of mine who also is referred to by an inmate number.
I cannot believe that I forgot to comment on Glenn Beck's own understanding of his thoughtless speech. I am reminded of his comment that Barack Obama has a hatred of the white culture; which he later recanted. Or his unknowingly choosing to hold his Restoring Honor Rally at the exact location, exactly 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech. I remind you that he is a historian. Did this ruse work because he really is being sincere or because he has done a good job at using his words to make his followers believe that he is?
I see that I came way too late to this conversation. The topic about “good” writing has everyone thinking about their own mistakes or weaknesses and which ways to improve those mistakes or weaknesses.
Writing to me is very difficult; I spend many hours figuring out the best way to hook the reader into my paper, essay, or other writing project. I spend almost an entire day before I can successfully finish the introduction of a paper. Sometimes even after I finish, I scrap the entire project and start all over again. I usually have to go outside and play lacrosse, or watch one of my favorite action films to get myself motivated. Once my emotions are attached with the paper I can unleash the words as they come into my mind. When I finish the paper I have to hand it in to the professor as soon as possible otherwise I will become bored with what I wrote and have to rewrite the entire paper. This obsession with writing has been with me since I can remember. The need to be emotionally involved with the work before I start or complete the paper can sometimes be an annoyance. I have to be either 100 percent involved or not involved at all. You may have noticed that I never said I edit my work, because I become so involved with the paper I tend to not want to look at it when its complete, for fear I will find something I do not like and have to restart. My papers have grammar, spelling, and other errors because I do no edit properly.
After reading Orwell and Proscio I was a confused. I was thinking that Orwell sounded like he wanted to make English a purely Anglo-Saxon language, taking out words related to Latin, Greek, and other foreign languages. After the class discussion I think Orwell was trying to state that he wanted English writing to use phrases and words that mean what they are intentioned to mean. Orwell was trying to argue that he believes writers now are using phrases and words which they do not fully understand, and are placing those words and phrases in sentences because the writer feels they make the sentence sound better. I have done this, when a teacher stated my writing was at a third grade level when I was in high school, I began using words which I did not know fully understand. Now try to first write what I mean before I conform to what the teacher decides they want in the paper, I alter the paper, and still try to maintain my true meaning and ideas.
After writing this comment I feel I should have came in to this conversation way earlier, now I’m just trying to catch up. Catching up leaves me with one question; who’s Glenn Beck?!!!
Hi everyone,
I have a few comments on the recent posts:
• Thank you Jessica, for a good technique. I will definitely try it.
• It was so funny to see “OMG” in Prof. Waterston’s comment…
• I like the way Michael Cunningham compares dancing with translation and music with language (writing) in his article. I have been taking dancing classes since my childhood. I also finished a musical school. In order to master dancing and playing the piano, I spent numerous efforts and hours of practice… One day, a John Jay professor read my paper and said that something was missing in it but he could not identify what was that. That phase always bothered me. Cunningham speaks about melody heard in each sentence. I think that melody/ “word flow” is exactly what was missing in my paper. And now, I have to spend many hours of practice in order to let that melody flow through my writing.
• Another point that I like about the article is the way author calls the whole creation of a new text - “a translation from the images.” A creation of a new text is a long and scrupulous process. The result of it, however, is smaller/ shorter that the story and images we had in our heads. Why is it so? Is it difficult to express our own thoughts? Are we afraid or ashamed of them? Are we writing for ourselves instead of writing for someone “like Helen?”
This discussion has been enjoyable and intellectually stimulating!
Christina – Yes, it is true that with text messages and emails, we have more time to craft a thoughtful response, while crafting thoughtful speech is trickier. What a dilemma!
Professor Stein – I agree that there seems to be some connection between level of confidence and level of effective writing/speaking. However, I’m going to err on the side of caution with this generalization because I know an excellent writer who is absolutely shy and hesitant to speak, always. Maybe this writer is an exception, but I believe that our personalities are unique and may affect other areas of our lives accordingly.
Jessica – Wow! You seem to have a great technique to help your writing along. I am not too much of a talker sometimes, so I know that this technique might prove challenging for me on the wrong day. To answer your question, when moments arise in which I feel unable to express myself, I walk away from the assignment or task or whatever it is for a while, eat something delicious, and take deep breaths. I also try to clear my head of any little anxieties or “to dos,” and refocus on the task at hand. This method helps me through almost all of the episodes of writer’s block. Then there are those stubborn times when I just can’t breakthrough—during those times, I shamefully confess that I usually give up.
Professor Waterston – When I said “employ subjectivity to be fair,” I meant whether you grade on a curve or grade each paper without any preconceived notions about the given student. But, you answered my question thoroughly. Thank you.
Jessica & Christina – Great questions! Let’s wait for one of the Professors to tackle them :)
Joseph – I am sorry that you did not get in on the discussion earlier too, but you’re here now, and I hope that you find the discussion enlightening. After reading your comment, I can’t help wondering, “Are you a perfectionist?” You say that you have to get your writing perfect before you hand it in and that even when it’s complete, you have to hand it in quickly. Do you find these tendencies helpful to your academic growth and progress, or a hindrance?
Nadiya – Interesting comments. Communication seems difficult because it is a skill that has to be honed. Babies have to learn to talk and walk, and I am sure that we have all witnessed their frustration during that learning period. Effective writing is no different from learning such basic skills. Some people are, in fact, ashamed of their thoughts. Sometimes the mere thought of showing someone else their work, people immediately bombard themselves with thoughts and feelings of inadequacy. Remember that the personal nature of writing leaves ample room for a host of other aspects of someone’s life to shine through. Do you associate your writing with your self worth? Or are you able to keep the knowledge of your weak areas in writing from imposing on your self-esteem?
I keep checking in and there is more to talk about -- very cool.
Just quickly, because I am so touched by Jamie's/Joseph's discussion of perfectionism and writing. I dwell amongst hard-core perfectionists and have my whole life. What I have learned (from reading, experience, therapy) is that being too concerned with perfection/too rigid is counterproductive in many areas. Of course we all know that no one or nothing is perfect. But some of us are drawn to this impossible standard anyhow, for lots of reasons. I think high standards -- in the classroom, as a person -- are very important to success. But if that is the only concern, so much gets left out (the kinds of things you all have been talking about: emotion, spontaneity of expression, vivid language, flow, rhythm). I realize that this might seem contradictory -- be spontaneous AND have no typos! -- but I think it is a balance that we all must find as communicators and it is a balance helped if we try not to be perfectionist.
I really liked everyone's description of how they work through the writing process, so I thought I'd add mine. I tend to get anxious about the writing, so I'm very committed to note taking first (getting quotes, being able to jot down an idea as it comes to me only semi-formed). I tend to do this while I'm reading the material. Reading notes. Then I use an outline -- no matter how long the paper is, I keep this to one page, because if you can't communicate something in one page (even a dissertation!), you don't really know what you mean to say. My outline has very specific examples, so that when I'm writing I don't have to hunt and peck through the reading. This is important to me because I need to write quickly; it has to feel fluid. If I have to sit and stare at a screen, that old anxiety comes back and I stop being my most thoughtful self. So I usually do a very speedy draft and then leave time for proofreading. I'm still catching typos/small errors even after several readings. I'm sure there's one at least in this comment.
But as a sign of my commitment to working against perfectionism, I'm not rereading this!
The discrepancy and, actual or percieved, insencerity within someone's speech or writing is rooted in the multifacetedness that may exist within it. It is absolutely possible that when someone says something they mean exactly what they said, with no subliminal message and so simple that it can not be misinterpreted. However this is not always the case.
If someone sneezes on you, one may respod with the word: "guzzunteit" (pardon my butchering of the spelling of that word). What the sneezer may interpret from that phrase, even if they do not know the exact translation, is "god bless you". What you may really mean is "please get away from me before you sneeze your snot onto me again". More often than not there are three sides to any phrase, what is literally said, what is meant, and what is understood.
Insincerity I believe is rooted in the discrepancy between what is meant and what is understood. The easiest way for such a discrepancy to develop is when message the speaker, or writer, wants to get across gets tangled in the actual words used. Frequently when the desired message sounds incompatible with the words being used the audience perceives insincerity as the entire speech or writing becomes, not neccesarily inauthentic, like a puzzle with pieces that didn't quiet come together.
I think this explains the messy writing equals messy thinking conundrum as well as the "politicains are all liars" dillemma. These ill-fitting puzzle pieces can be caused by the inability to find the right words to express one's ideas as well as in a failed attempt to bring one's audience toward a line of thought, such as in a political speech gone wrong.
I'm not entirely convinced that politicians are habitual liars, nor that mission statements are shameless attempts to gain as much money as possible, while offending as few people as possible, regardless of the authentic goals of the organization. I think that some organizations and politicians are more inauthentic than others, but this is merely common sense. I simply believe that some have a silver tongue, or at least their speech writers do, and are able to merge what they mean and what is understood throught the actual words they use. When these this doesn't happen the likely result is the "put off" feeling of inauthenticity.
Professor Reitz – I agree that there must be a balance regarding perfectionist tendencies and spontaneity. However, how would someone know if he or she is too much of a perfectionist? What are the signs that one’s perfectionist tendencies are becoming counterproductive? We, as scholars, are faced with expectations to excel, and I was wondering if you or any of the other Professors have any tips or advice for us to avoid the trap of becoming too perfectionist.
Alex – Your points are well received. However, I have a quick question: Are you able to tell when a politician, or anybody else for that matter, is being insincere in their speech and/or writing? If yes, how do you tell? If no, why do you think it is difficult to tell?
Great questions, Jamie! I wish you were in class today since I think our great discussion this morning owed so much to the conversation you got started here.
I don't think perfectionism is the path to happiness. What I've noticed from my self, my students and my own family is that the idea of perfection engenders fear and that fear is not conducive to clear thinking or creativity (both of which accept the risk of failure). An example: my son is so determined to have his assignments be perfect (exactly right word count, fulfilling exactly each stated requirement of an assignment) that he doesn't think about the bigger picture: what is interesting or important about the topic? why is this question being asked this way? what might be left out of this question that would be an unusual or provocative approach? I think his fixation on perfection literally keeps him from thinking in more creative ways. It certainly keeps schoolwork from being joyful. And while I know that joy is not what most people experience when doing schoolwork, if you fear it , it is worse than boring.
Having said that (see, if you keep reading I always contradict myself), one of my favorite quotes is from Goethe: "the highest happiness is to find what it is that holds the world together within." We all have our own rules that allow us to hold it together and I think we have to work within these core characteristics rather than try to be someone we aren't.
Professor Reitz - Thank you for your thorough response! I wish I was in class today too. I was ill, but I am glad that the blog was able to stimulate a great discussion--that makes me feel much better!
Post a Comment