 |
 |
The fact is that much so-called "theoretical" writing is bad, not only in the use of jargon, but in explaining the obvious by reference to the arcane, often poorly understood as well. The dangers of this sort of thing impinges on research such as REED's as well as on other drama research. Not only teaching is involved here, but also scholarly papers and other research. My point is that some good ideas do in fact get very lost in bad methodology and bad rhetoric. I speak from more than thirty years of experience as an editor. Cliff Davidson On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Ruth Evans wrote: > I absolutely agree with Elza Tiner that it is vital for medieval scholars > to recognise the importance of the teaching of composition (or 'style') to > our students. Everyone on this list should, of course, be concerned about > 'bad writing'. And the examples given were, indeed, egregiously bad. I > never meant to imply otherwise. But while I did mean to > question--mildly--the _especial_ relevance of the mailing to a drama > history list (I certainly accept its _general_ relevance to all of us who > teach and write ), I was primarily concerned with the form of the critique. > Debunking is a great thing, but this type of debunking tends to invite > readers not merely to hold bad writing up to ridicule but to mock the > intellectual arguments and endeavours of critical theory. If this is what > is at stake, then the debunking doesn't constitute a proper intellectual > argument: it simply confirms prejudices. I don't want to enter here into a > long defence of critical theory, but I do want to uphold its importance for > certain scholars and students within the field of medieval studies. Bad > writing is another matter altogether, and I deplore it. > > Ruth Evans > Cardiff University, Wales >