Hi Mari. I've really enjoyed your posts about writing, especially since I just finished my fourth book (as you know). One of the challenges of a book is knowing or learning what to leave out. There are times in this book where I had painstakingly explained some bit of complicated medical info only to have my editor cut the entire section and give a comment along the lines of "we were getting lost in the details." At the time, I grit my teeth, whimpered a little to myself about how the details are so interesting, but I never argued with her. She was a generous and smart reader (like you!) and I figured I should trust her even if I didn't agree with her. The book is better for her efforts. When I taught writing at Tufts I would tell my students, "When in doubt, cut it out." I'm glad I had someone able to do the job for me when I couldn't. Too much information can be its own form of confusion and make writing less clear instead of more, which actually is interesting.
Oh, it is SO painful to cut out these fascinating bits! But I agree: You have a good editor. When I taught high school, I always told my students that if they had an argument or idea that was interesting but that didn't really fit the point of their paper, they should write it on the back of the paper, and I promised that I would read it. Some of them even took me up on my offer!
I took away some kernels of writing wisdom from this essay. Thanks!
I very much dig this thought: "the secret to immortality is connecting with and helping other people, so that we live on in the hearts, thoughts, and actions of those whose lives we have touched during our brief time here on earth." It reminds me a bit of Douglas Hofstadter's "I Am a Strange Loop"—but connection or not, it's simply a lovely and true concept.
Now with AI writing a shocking number of published papers, it can't be long before the whole of academic paper-writing gets buried in a mountain of useless, fake slop.
Glad you liked the joke! Casey told it to us a few years ago.
Not only did I know about the Sokol hoax, but I was a copyeditor at Critical Inquiry--a literary-theory journal that published Derrida, Foucault, and their ilk--when it all went down. It was amusing to watch the professors on the editorial board tie themselves into knots trying to explain away the idiotic decision the editors of Social Text made to publish a piece that claimed that gravity was socially constructed!
Hi Mari. I've really enjoyed your posts about writing, especially since I just finished my fourth book (as you know). One of the challenges of a book is knowing or learning what to leave out. There are times in this book where I had painstakingly explained some bit of complicated medical info only to have my editor cut the entire section and give a comment along the lines of "we were getting lost in the details." At the time, I grit my teeth, whimpered a little to myself about how the details are so interesting, but I never argued with her. She was a generous and smart reader (like you!) and I figured I should trust her even if I didn't agree with her. The book is better for her efforts. When I taught writing at Tufts I would tell my students, "When in doubt, cut it out." I'm glad I had someone able to do the job for me when I couldn't. Too much information can be its own form of confusion and make writing less clear instead of more, which actually is interesting.
Oh, it is SO painful to cut out these fascinating bits! But I agree: You have a good editor. When I taught high school, I always told my students that if they had an argument or idea that was interesting but that didn't really fit the point of their paper, they should write it on the back of the paper, and I promised that I would read it. Some of them even took me up on my offer!
What an excellent idea! Maybe for my book I could have an online supplement: boring stuff my editor cut that’s actually fascinating! Lol.
I took away some kernels of writing wisdom from this essay. Thanks!
I very much dig this thought: "the secret to immortality is connecting with and helping other people, so that we live on in the hearts, thoughts, and actions of those whose lives we have touched during our brief time here on earth." It reminds me a bit of Douglas Hofstadter's "I Am a Strange Loop"—but connection or not, it's simply a lovely and true concept.
Oh thank you for these kind words! I will check out Hofstadter's book!
No doubt you already know the Sokal Hoax. I just went to look up a quick reference, and found this more recent article about a larger, repeated demonstration. The author refers to it as "Sokal Squared." https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
Now with AI writing a shocking number of published papers, it can't be long before the whole of academic paper-writing gets buried in a mountain of useless, fake slop.
P.S. Loved the punch line!
Glad you liked the joke! Casey told it to us a few years ago.
Not only did I know about the Sokol hoax, but I was a copyeditor at Critical Inquiry--a literary-theory journal that published Derrida, Foucault, and their ilk--when it all went down. It was amusing to watch the professors on the editorial board tie themselves into knots trying to explain away the idiotic decision the editors of Social Text made to publish a piece that claimed that gravity was socially constructed!
Thanks for the link about Sokol squared!