DISQUS

anonymous · 8 months ago

Dear Julian (poster),

lol... i bookmarked this post a few days ago to get back to when i had time because the title looked like it would be an interesting read. About a minute ago i finally had some time to get back and read this. I lasted about 10 seconds before my eyes started to glaze over and my mind completely shut down.

I have absolutely no idea what your point or your supporting argument is.... not because your logic or opinion is faulty but because my brain refuses to read what you wrote. Your writing style (at least in this article) is absolutely atrocious. (I'm sorry if that adjective is a bit harsh as i don't intend to be mean here but it is honestly the most appropriate description i can think of.)

You have turned sesquapedalian-ism into an art form. The language you use is so abstract that your point is completely obfuscated. Your post is replete with run-on sentences and the sheer number of times you used some grammatical or etymological derivative of the word "real", boggles the mind.

The fact that this blog has a fair number of intellectually-minded people commenting daily and that this particular post has had zero responses after being up for 4 days should be a good indicator that nobody else has read this post. In fact the only reason i'm writing this is that i'm hoping you will take this criticism to improve your writing. (Again... sorry to be harsh here but i'm really trying to help you.)

Tip 1: be concise. Keep you sentences short and to the point.
Tip 2: simple language is best. Lose the pseudo-intellectual thesaurus and speak plainly. "Plainly" doesn't mean "dumb-ly"... it just means if you have an equal choice when it comes to using an "easy" word or an "hard" word, choose the easy word. Pull out the SAT words only when it's appropriate.
Tip 3: Make it an easier read. Limit your abstract points in a given section to a reasonable amount; preferably 1 per paragraph. You can get across a sophisticated idea without forcing your reader through a literary maze.

A prime example of how you managed to break tips 1-3 in a single sentence is, i quote:

'In the context of Gunning’s writings then, King Kong’s use of stop-motion would be an example of “an aesthetic [that] runs counter to an illusionistic absorption”—thus, King Kong simultaneously acknowledging the presence of its audience, thereby disavowing an isolated synthesis of dream and reality; the blatant presence of the enunciator overwhelmingly interrupts the narrative and literally blocks absorption.'

Seriously - wtf?... i have a bachelor's in English and a JD (both Ivy). I professionally/daily have to read some of the most artful-bullshit-rhetoric you could possibly imagine... and i haven't the foggiest idea what the hell you were trying to say. Talk about "block[ing] absorption".

Ultimately, my point is this - learn to edit. You'll attract a lot more readers/responders.

JDS1 · 3 months ago

This is actually pretty funny to read.

Nothing in this essay is 'so abstract' to those who have been in the same educational environment as I have. Let me explain: The reason why the article is going totally over your head and seems so baroque is because it is incorporating an entire semester's worth of (lesser known) film studies concepts. In fact, that was the point of the article (originally, at least); the article was an essay for a class. It was posted onto this site verbatim. The prompt for the essay required that we analyze a handful of the theories and concepts that we had just recently covered. A lot of what I'm writing about is strictly in the context of cultural theory--theories that are clearly unknown to you, otherwise you would have caught on. The nature of these theories, like many others, involves a unique language in the sense that the meanings of many 'abstract' words are rendered more specific and meaningful in new contexts.

I'm glad that you "have a bachelor's in English and a JD (both Ivy)," because I certainly care about your educational history, but the reality here is that what's more surprising than your inability to realize what the origin of this article was is the fact that the article got posted at all. The article is completely unsuitable for a news site like this, but I figured I'd submit it for review anyway. Why not--it could be kind of funny.

To be able to fully understand what it is I was writing about, you would have needed to read a lot of random academic essays.. and you probably would have had to be in the same class I was in.

But, I certainly get a kick out of all the time you wasted writing that response. Then again, I just wasted some time writing *this* response.

JDS1 · 3 months ago

To clarify, everything in the article makes perfect sense in the context of the theories taught. With an understanding of the theories at hand, the writing would flow significantly smoother to the reader and would not seem so needlessly flaunting nor so immature.

I made no attempt to elucidate the theories I was referencing nor to contextualize my terms. Like I said, it was posted verbatim for review. Somehow they put it through to the site :)

By the way, the essay was given a grade between 92% and 96% (I can't remember exactly where within that bounds). But, to satisfy my own ego, let me make it clear that it is a great piece of writing in the context of the class I wrote it for :)