Thursday, July 12, 2007

and then sometimes I think maybe I should have been a linguist instead

I've been reading an excerpt from Clifford Siskin's The Historicity of Romantic Discourse*. It was published in 1988, which probably explains why Siskin uses such a convoluted and jargon-heavy writing style. Example: "I want now to take the opportunity to consolidate a position outside Romantic discourse by locating Wordsworth's lyric turn toward Imagination within it: the turn empowers the discourse by insisting on an exclusivity that denies the historicity of its own criteria for admission." I'm sorry, sir, but I'm going to have to fine you for excessive use of ambiguous antecedents.

Some days I think I should've just majored in Linguistics.

*Yes, the fact that it has the word "historicity" in the title should have been my first clue about what kind of writing it was.


Nicole said...

yeah, i just about dozed off there. but then again, my ongoing rage regarding certain arrangements really takes it out of me. so i was quite tired to begin with.

Heidi said...

Hahaha. That was great. I much prefer the Church Fathers. At least you expect them to be long-winded and trite!