There are a number of issues being confused here, it seems to me. The first
is about those English-language writers who choose to put their writings in
deliberately opaque language for various reasons. Then there is the problem
of reading e.g. Foucault, Bourdieu, Baudrillard (who I use in my own work)
and others, who are not read in the original (in these cases French) but in
published translations: I have had no problem with the French of these
writers, who write in proper and often quite clear academic French: the
problem is that in translation the language becomes opaque because to keep
the 'feel' of the original you must do horrible things to English
(including leaving out verbs and running on with very long sentences, both
of which are acceptable in French). Then there is the issue of what
academic writing is supposed to look like and whether this should be
anything like what we put out to a wider (non-professional) audience. And
then there is Timothy's point about the complexity of even the 'simple'
terms we happily use. And then there is the issue of antipathy to science
or possibly post-modernism, post-structuralism, or any other neo/post-ism.
You probably have your own issues too which fit in here.
Can we make a deal? That when you contribute to this discussion, you make
an effort to make it clear exactly which of these issues you are
addressing.

I confess that I do have a slight problem with those who write in
deliberately opaque ways. This crosses the processual/post-processual
divide; indeed I think one reason why post-processual archaeologists so
often write this way is because they are reacting to processualism in its
own terms. To the argument that 'you cannot express complex ideas in less
than complex language' I say (a) I'm not so sure and (b) we should try
anyway however hard it may be. To those who do it for tactical reasond - to
look more 'academic' or 'professional' - I say: be careful! some of us can
understand language that is written to be difficult! To those wgho simply
cannot write, I say: practice it in English first! and go read a few
well-written texts to get the feel of good writing.

I also think that there is no reason why what we write for a wider public
should not be written in the same style as we wreite for each other, and
vice versa. It is difficult, and I'm not sure I can do it yet. But I aim to
try. Any joiners?

John


Dr John Carman
Clare Hall
Cambridge CB3 9AL
Uk