When you read something you've written years ago, you secretly hope it is shit, so that you tell yourself that your writing has improved tremendously over the years. To my dismay, my piece about the time I lost my way in a Himalayan forest was not shit. It was overwrought in some places and tried too hard to impress with analogy and wit, but one the whole it was a pretty decent piece of writing.
To be sure, my writing has improved--it now flows more smoothly. I attribute this to my years working for an American news publication. It was drilled into us that our writing had to be as easy to understand as possible. We were encouraged to explain even complicated financial concepts in such a way that even our grandmothers would understand them. Leaving aside that sexist and ageist analogy, working there improved my writing. I now aspire for writing that shines with its simplicity. To write words which come alive on a page, which stir something in the reader. Elegance, but no flamboyance.
I don't really have a different style for academic writing, and that has caused some niggles. On some occasions I have received feedback saying my writing style was too journalistic. I don't see that as a problem and seriously believe academics could learn a thing or two about writing clearly from journalists. Academic writing should aim to be as uplifting as a great piece of feature writing. All the great academic articles I have read have all been very well-written. In the social sciences, writing is very important.
The problem is journalistic writing tends to be too descriptive and not analytical enough. There is a tendency to present facts for or against a position without engaging with the theory surrounding that position. Academic writing, though, has no space for opinions. I am consciously trying to become a robust academic writer without forgetting the writing lessons I learnt in journalism.
To be sure, my writing has improved--it now flows more smoothly. I attribute this to my years working for an American news publication. It was drilled into us that our writing had to be as easy to understand as possible. We were encouraged to explain even complicated financial concepts in such a way that even our grandmothers would understand them. Leaving aside that sexist and ageist analogy, working there improved my writing. I now aspire for writing that shines with its simplicity. To write words which come alive on a page, which stir something in the reader. Elegance, but no flamboyance.
I don't really have a different style for academic writing, and that has caused some niggles. On some occasions I have received feedback saying my writing style was too journalistic. I don't see that as a problem and seriously believe academics could learn a thing or two about writing clearly from journalists. Academic writing should aim to be as uplifting as a great piece of feature writing. All the great academic articles I have read have all been very well-written. In the social sciences, writing is very important.
The problem is journalistic writing tends to be too descriptive and not analytical enough. There is a tendency to present facts for or against a position without engaging with the theory surrounding that position. Academic writing, though, has no space for opinions. I am consciously trying to become a robust academic writer without forgetting the writing lessons I learnt in journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment