<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More bad writing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/29/more-bad-writing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/29/more-bad-writing/</link>
	<description>Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 01:15:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Runnacles</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/29/more-bad-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-9400</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Runnacles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2003 13:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=654#comment-9400</guid>
		<description>I can confirm that when he supervised some of my graduate work, Jerry Cohen spoke in complete, elegantly-turned paragraphs for most of the time, complete with nifty gags.  In fact, he came straight to my mind as an example of someone who writes pretty much as he speaks, and how that can (sometimes) be very cool indeed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I can confirm that when he supervised some of my graduate work, Jerry Cohen spoke in complete, elegantly-turned paragraphs for most of the time, complete with nifty gags.  In fact, he came straight to my mind as an example of someone who writes pretty much as he speaks, and how that can (sometimes) be very cool indeed.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Farber</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/29/more-bad-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-9399</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Farber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=654#comment-9399</guid>
		<description>Um, this post isn&#039;t about bad writing.  Bad reasoning, maybe.  Bad logic.  Possibly bad thinking.  But it&#039;s not about &lt;i&gt;writing&lt;/i&gt;, at all.  Which disappoints me, having troubled to open it, since, as someone with a lot of experience, the subject interests me.  Wheras I have considerably less interest in technical questions of philosophy.  So, in other words, this post is an example of bad writing.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Um, this post isn&#8217;t about bad writing.  Bad reasoning, maybe.  Bad logic.  Possibly bad thinking.  But it&#8217;s not about <i>writing</i>, at all.  Which disappoints me, having troubled to open it, since, as someone with a lot of experience, the subject interests me.  Wheras I have considerably less interest in technical questions of philosophy.  So, in other words, this post is an example of bad writing.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas Dent</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/29/more-bad-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-9398</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas Dent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=654#comment-9398</guid>
		<description>Talking is talking; writing is writing. (And never the twain, etc...)While time was when everything read would be read aloud (back in the Middle Ages I think) silent reading is now the norm. Which is why written discourse can and should be definitely different from spoken. First, one can go back and look at a text once or several times, so the amount of repetition that gets your idea across in speech is pointless on paper.Second, there&#039;s less need for an academic writer to keep the attention of the audience moment by moment. In a book you can put in the unexciting but strictly necessary bits of the argument, safe in the knowledge that those liable to be bored will skim over them.Of course, this doesn&#039;t explain huge discrepancies between writing style and speaking style. But the psychology of the two are also very different.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Talking is talking; writing is writing. (And never the twain, etc&#8230;)While time was when everything read would be read aloud (back in the Middle Ages I think) silent reading is now the norm. Which is why written discourse can and should be definitely different from spoken. First, one can go back and look at a text once or several times, so the amount of repetition that gets your idea across in speech is pointless on paper.Second, there&#8217;s less need for an academic writer to keep the attention of the audience moment by moment. In a book you can put in the unexciting but strictly necessary bits of the argument, safe in the knowledge that those liable to be bored will skim over them.Of course, this doesn&#8217;t explain huge discrepancies between writing style and speaking style. But the psychology of the two are also very different.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: one of the many</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/29/more-bad-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-9397</link>
		<dc:creator>one of the many</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:09:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=654#comment-9397</guid>
		<description>Josh Cohen talks and writes remarkably clearly, whether in conversations, an audience or in  prepared lectures. However he is a little more willing to joke in speech (all three sorts) than print. Rumor has it that his near-namesake G.A. Cohen does as well - can any of you confirm this? Nice to know that Butler can be clear, though, great story. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Josh Cohen talks and writes remarkably clearly, whether in conversations, an audience or in  prepared lectures. However he is a little more willing to joke in speech (all three sorts) than print. Rumor has it that his near-namesake G.A. Cohen does as well &#8211; can any of you confirm this? Nice to know that Butler can be clear, though, great story.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: c</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/29/more-bad-writing/comment-page-1/#comment-9396</link>
		<dc:creator>c</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=654#comment-9396</guid>
		<description>A favorite professor of mine, who studied at Harvard, says that Stanley Cavell&#039;s writing style is very similar to his speaking style.  I&#039;ve only read a couple of books by Cavell, but, based on the style of those books, it strikes me as a plausible claim.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>A favorite professor of mine, who studied at Harvard, says that Stanley Cavell&#8217;s writing style is very similar to his speaking style.  I&#8217;ve only read a couple of books by Cavell, but, based on the style of those books, it strikes me as a plausible claim.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

