icecreamemperor

I hear you, I hear you. You've touched on the whole problem with academic writing, and, in a way, the whole problem with the English profession as it is. So much pressure to publish; so much pressure to do 'original' work. 98% of published academic writing is crap, or if it's not crap, it's uninteresting, or even if it's interesting it's usually so poorly written that it's unintelligible. I don't think I'm cut out for it. Like you, writing, for me, is about discovery. It's not really 'writing' if it's dead. An 'essay,' in the original sense of the word (see Montaigne), is an attempt, literally a 'trial,' a go at something. But that sense has largely been lost. The voice of the writer has been devalued. Scholarly writing in the humanities should be *interesting.* Stanley Fish once said something like, "the job of the critic is not to be correct, but to be interesting." A lot of people didn't take too kindly to the remark, and I think he actually rescinded on it, but I know what he means, and I believe it. Agh. It's just very frustrating. I want to teach at the college level, but I don't think I'm going to make a run at being a tenured professor at a major research institution. I don't want to have to make a living on 'original' research and frequent publication. Too much pressure. I'd rather teach and write for discovery. Agh. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your little rant. Sums up how I feel about these things. And how I felt writing my thesis.