@ academics, journalists, and writers alike,
No one wants to read your work. This is something you already know though. It's sad because it's not because we don't want to. We want to learn and grow. It's just that your writing sucks.
I analyze readings just like music critics judge music. I look at artists’ beat, their tempo, flow, bars, and content (I will talk about yall's content in another blog). I’ve noticed that in a lot of writings the “beat”, the regularly occurring pattern of rhythmic stresses, will resemble long jumbled messes, ensuring that the “tempo” of the paper is agonizingly slow.
A lot of writers will over-saturate their sentences with addendum's. This will have you forgetting the point they were trying to make after every carefully placed comma.
A lot of times an annoying “beat” will be coupled with an even more aggravating “flow”. By flow, I mean the way the author weirdly phrases sentences.The lyrical “flow” will make you not want to get whatever point the author is making. It will have you so confused and frustrated that one second you will be diligently poring over the work, and then the next thing you know you will be on social media for an hour. You won’t even notice the turn of events. Your soul will unconsciously gravitate to do anything else but read the texts.
I know some people may argue that people have short attention spans or something. But the thing is that people stay tuned into movies and shows all of the time. It’s pretty common for people to binge watch a whole season in one day. The issue is people's interest. Most likely, the stuff you are writing is interesting. The issue is the way you write.
All of this could work to ensure that the voice of the speaker, the tone, and use of figurative language is sub-par. At that point, even if the writer took a few applaudable artistic risks, no one will want to applaud a few needles in the haystack.
But also, there could very well be 50 11 “bars” but the reader won’t know because of how it’s written. All we know is that there has to be a better way of understanding what they author is trying to convey.
All my life I was taught that this is just the way it is. Knowledge is hard to come by. It bugs me that people act like the stress I feel when reading is a right of passage, a tradition that I need to just learn to love. I think that maybe the reason why so many people learned to appreciate it is that they were forced to appreciate it. I don’t think it should be this f’ing hard.
I feel bad for the academics who believe that it is supposed to be like this. They spent years and years and years in school and then in grad school training to code switch, training to speak and write elite gibberish. The sad thing is that writers spend all that time studying something they love, all that time researching and writing, and crafting pieces into works that they hope to be original, insightful contributions to academia; but in accepting that it’s supposed to be painful they become apart of the cycle. They become the gatekeepers for the very thing that deterred them through the years. And it did deter them when they were coming up. It had to. Everyone has felt exasperated at journalist and academics at one time or another. They continue on with the tradition of doling out painful jumbled messes, that is “worth the read” because it has a few good points in it.
One of the craziest things about all of this is that readers know that within those works are questions to answers we think are unsolvable. We know that there is so much written that we don’t know that we should want to know about it. There are so many questions that we haven’t begun to ask. Those questions are the beginning of a conversation that we desperately need to have. We just don’t want to do the work. And why would we?