I listened to Rudy Ray Moore last night. I assure you it was an enlightening experience. I am laughing as I write this post.
I linked to some articles written by Pat Jordan after reading about him here. He is a "pull no punches" writer that knows and has played sports.
I read and enjoyed two Pat Jordan articles this morning. I labored through three academic articles this afternoon. I just do not understand the purpose of much academic writing. All of the important (if there are any important) things are listed in the abstract. The rest is just excruciating details about nothing, nothing whatsoever.
I bet the average readership (introduction to conclusion) of any academic article is less than twenty-five.
Could a popular writer make a living with this kind of readership?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am not sure what you see in Rudy Ray Moore. Most academic writing is complete crap. Amazingly my mirco tracher alluded to that today as well. Her take was that it is a self-inflicted problem. Why, she asks, do teaching colleges want to hire faculty with lots of publications?
I am not sure what I see in Rudy Ray either, but I laughed.
Dolemite, Petey Wheatstraw, the devil's son-in-law. I am giggling as I type.
I think that most academic writing is over-edited. Everything is too formulaized. There is also this funny relationship between the editor and writer. The editor is more of a competitor than an advocate of the writer.
This one of those foolish things to talk about. It is what it is.
Post a Comment