Why do authors complicate their texts?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Community / Off Topic » Why do authors complicate their texts? » Why do authors complicate their texts?

Why do authors complicate their texts?
why not write text that is simply to-the-point? why the need to show off?

Page: 1 2 3 4

Why do authors complicate their texts?

cyborg
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 48

Posted 09/20/09 - 12:04 AM: Subject: Why do authors complicate their texts?	#1
I have a question for the book readers here. The question is: why do they write like this? Please read the excerpt below from the book Better Than Both: The Case For Pessimism by Peter Heinegg (this is also an available page on the google preview of this book.): And the message of pessimism here is, as always: savor the passing pleasure, but don't mistake the gorgeous dreams of art for the real "big picture". The Hallelujah Chorus resounds in concert halls, not within any non-existent Pearly Gates. Battle-scarred, balding, fiftyish husbands and their mistresses in motel rooms do not - ever - talk like the fiftyish Mark Antony and the 38-year-old Cleopatra whom Shakespeare imagined. The Classical Antiquity created by the Renaissance can never actually be "reached", in the sense that anybody with enough cash in hand can reach Heathrow Airport. I'll show you what I think is wrong with it by showing how I would have written the same message were I aiming for clarity instead of obscureness, opacity or cloudiness (changes are in red): And the message of pessimism here is, as always: savor the passing pleasure, but don't mistake the gorgeous dreams of art for the real "big picture". <removed bit where author shows off his knowledge and ability to draw parallels and make analogies> I think this makes it clear what I am talking about. Why murk the point one's trying to make with silly redundancies like "it's not reachable in the sense that an airport is reachable, like for instance this famous airport in the UK which I've heard of and am mentioning hoping it will make me sound smart"? Surely the author doesn't think he threw me off by using the superbly-complicated word "reach"; then why explain it? I get it, Heinegg, it can't be reached in the sense that a salt shaker on a table can be reached, or clothes on a rack, or steaks on hooks, or you know, things that can be reached, as opposed to those that can't. Oh, and you read Shakespeare. I'm so fortunate to read a book written by such a genius. What does throw me off is reading about airports on a text that tries to be about pessimism; more generally, what makes it hard for me to focus is all the parenthetical redundancies fluffing and murking the text. These useless additives take many forms, not just the ones shown on the passage above. There's also the quote forms, e.g.: "Thomas Aquinas is of the opinion that bla bla bla" Well who cares? If you're not going to include any of his reasoning that might back up his opinion, you might as well just say "my butcher is of the opinion that..." And many others I may list later if the point is not clear enough. Back to the question, then: Why do they write like this? Are they just trying to show off? Do they think it improves the text? Is it only the "academic types" that do this? (I don't think so) Are there authors that try to avoid those kinds of self-glorifying verbose traps?

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5575

Posted 09/20/09 - 12:16 AM:	#2
Actually the guy is a model of clarity. If it wasn't for the analogies he gave I would have no idea what he would be talking about. Instead of blaming others for not writing clearly, blame yourself for being a lousy reader who wants everything spoon fed.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

cyborg
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 02, 2008

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 48

Posted 09/20/09 - 12:20 AM:	#3
You may be right, but you can't say that I want to be spoon fed. You're the one benefitting from the extra text he writes. Therefore you are being spoonfed. What I'm saying is that I could do with much less text. To me that seems to be the opposite of being spoonfed. Maybe there's a trick to reading philosophy from authors like Heinegg? Maybe we only have to read the first two sentences and then jump to the next paragraph? Or something along those lines? Oh, and could we provide an example of authors that would be (in your opinion) great examples of writing concisely and to the point and then moving on to the next point? You know, skipping the fluff. Edited by cyborg on 09/20/09 - 12:26 AM

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3284

Posted 09/20/09 - 05:15 AM:	#4
What I don't understand, with or without the exemplary metaphors and erudition, it what he thinks a "real big picture" is as distinct from a "dream of art". I think he ought to be a bit more pessimistic about his own ability to "reach" something real with his words. "Mind the gap", as they say on the train to Heathrow.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

philosophytomorrow
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
Location: UNT

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 75

Posted 09/20/09 - 05:25 AM:	#5
I think David Hume does a great job in being very clear and consistent in his writing. I remember the first time I was reading through A Treatise of Human Nature thinking "Finally! A philosopher that knows how to write!" Some philosophers just aren't good writers, but that's hardly their fault. Some want that poetic prose in their philosophy, some think that's the best way to understand it. But, some writers, no matter how clear and concise they think they're being, still melt your brain (see: Martin Heidegger). If you want philosophy boiled down, no fluff, with the point being directly given to you, try spark notes or something.
"In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it." - Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." -- Ipid.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1020

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 09/20/09 - 06:23 AM:	#6
Well, he is being a bit wordy. One example would have done the trick for most. I wouldn't wonder about "why" very much in this situation. It's not likely you'll get an answer. When you sense the author is wasting you're time, do a bit of scanning for the next sentences with any substance. Of course, if after a good faith effort it seems the author simply isn't worth it, and you're not required to read him, move on to the next book.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Vigotski
The catcher in the rye

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2008
Location: Unknown Russia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 77

Posted 09/20/09 - 06:56 AM:	#7
ciceronianus wrote: Well, he is being a bit wordy. One example would have done the trick for most. I wouldn't wonder about "why" very much in this situation. It's not likely you'll get an answer. When you sense the author is wasting you're time, do a bit of scanning for the next sentences with any substance. Of course, if after a good faith effort it seems the author simply isn't worth it, and you're not required to read him, move on to the next book. Golden words! For example, I like complicated texts.

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1903

Posted 09/20/09 - 08:36 AM:	#8
Philosophers endeavour to substantiate their self-perceived pre-eminence through the expounding of a philosophy riddled with protracted and convoluted arguments articulated via a lexicon to which only those of comparable scholastic edification are privy. Edited by Yahadreas on 09/20/09 - 08:47 AM
I am awesome.