Since beginning graduate school I have tried to organized reading groups for already published papers and for working papers. To me this was clear, we had to talk about the papers to really understand them. It is interesting to me to observe the different things one can take away from an article. Especially since that article was honed and refined presumably to contribute an isolated incremental insight to the larger literature.
Today, I have spent time reading a wonderful piece by a friend and colleague. This paper has many good aspects, but I struggle in my own ability to critique writing. There is always room for improvement, but how do we suggest this without displaying our own ego. I have a broken mechanism for knowing if the insights that I offer are tangents to the author's purpose or if they are salient points helpful in revision.
So much of what we do with writing is to take stabs in the dark. How do I know this speaks well to the audience? Because it is similar to something that has worked in the past. People assume that writing is an art. This would imply that we have an innate sense of good writing. I probably thought that at one point, but I have learned over the years that it is a craft. The important difference is that it is not something you are born with, you must develop the muscles, so to speak. It is learned through hard work and working with others to understand and appreciate what they need to see in order to find common ground with your intended topic. Often that common ground is vanishingly small.
I have many times grabbed a published paper whose title or abstract attracted me, only to realize that the author was overselling a particular aspect of the piece or was very unsuccessful at convincing me that it was more than a tangent. I am left thinking that I either missed something, or the article was poorly written. How can I do anything but assume that the fault lies in my own understanding? I have my own troubles communicating ideas, but we all have confidence that the referee process is one that at least certifies a minimum standard of literacy. So I am frustrated. Either the state of the craft in our journals is low, or I am missing the point.
As opposed to writing things "off-the-cuff;" journal articles are polished. So how do we do this polishing? I think that paper workshops are great. We get to see what other people are doing and gauge our own progress against theirs. I am very fortunate to have such a group to participate in this process with. However, I wonder sometimes if it is really possible to have the fully frank discourse that is necessary to refine the craft. Since we are not trying to simply get by the challenge is greater. We are writing to correct what we see as errors in the existing literature, not just pad a CV. How can I court the type of frank feedback that I need to develop my own writing?
I wonder if others feel that their writing is a process of discussion. I always feel from other writers that I encounter that they learn to write for themselves. We joke in academia that articles are written for 5 people to read (if you are lucky). I can see the progress in my writing, however, I want to develop more than the ability to get by. I would like to court the type of reactions that will make me embarrassed when I make my usual battery of mistakes. At the end of the day I am looking for the opportunity to develop by assuming that I know very little compared to what I will one day absorb about writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment