Worst Writers?

[Two Espressos]

As a way of venting my frustration over this seminar paper, I want to ask fellow Grad Cafe members: which theorists, philosophers, etc. are the worst writers--obscure, needlessly wordy, unnecessarily difficult--that you've encountered?

My vote goes to Hegel. And I thought Lacan was bad! It's basically impossible to quote him, as he takes pages upon pages to explain himself.

Lacan takes second place. I kinda like him, but reading him is really rough.

Thoughts from other members?

Edited December 6, 2011 by Two Espressos

[poeteer]

Deleuze

[cquin]

Seconding Hegel, and throwing in Foucault. Once I was actually able to decipher The Order of Things, I loved it, but the process was a long and tiring one, resulting in much agony and frequent trips to Dictionary.com

[HaruNoKaze]

Foucault and Barthes

[wreckofthehope]

Seconding Hegel, and throwing in Foucault. Once I was actually able to decipher The Order of Things, I loved it, but the process was a long and tiring one, resulting in much agony and frequent trips to Dictionary.com

Hmmmn, I like reading Foucault... of all the big theory names I feel like his writing has the most clarity and simplicity (you know, comparatively).

I had to read quite a lot of Sandor Ferenczi for my MA, whose writing is probably aggravated by the more-than-occasional of-the-wall craziness of his subject matter, but yeah... it made my brain squeal for mercy. Heidegger; not that it's bad writing, just that it's hard.

[Jbarks]

Deleuze

I second that.

[user_name]

I like Foucault. Derrida is just verbal masturbation to me.

[antecedent]

I second Heidegger. I think he writes beautifully, but hell if I know what he's talking about 90% of the time.

Lacan made me feel like I was bleeding out my eyes from frustration. And, from what I understood, there was nothing beautiful in what I read to redeem him.

[Grunty DaGnome]

Don't blame Hegel or Heidegger, blame their translators...or read them in German.

And, yes, Hegel is impossible to quote, because he doesn't intend his thoughts to be examined in isolation. It's sort of the basis of his entire world view.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Grunty DaGnome

[truckbasket]

You'll run into the kind of problems exemplified by Deleuze and Kristeva, in part, because of the translation. But Deleuze just makes words up as he goes along -- which doesn't help. Foucault is hit or miss. Some of it as actually very straight forward.

Should look at this:

http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm

[HaruNoKaze]

You'll run into the kind of problems exemplified by Deleuze and Kristeva, in part, because of the translation. But Deleuze just makes words up as he goes along -- which doesn't help. Foucault is hit or miss. Some of it as actually very straight forward.

Should look at this:

http://www.denisdutt...bad_writing.htm

That made my day!

[cquin]

Should look at this:

http://www.denisdutt...bad_writing.htm

"On the other hand, as a cynic once remarked, John Stuart Mill never attained Hegel’s prestige because people found out what he meant."

Bahahahaha.

[Two Espressos]

And, yes, Hegel is impossible to quote, because he doesn't intend his thoughts to be examined in isolation. It's sort of the basis of his entire world view.

That's actually pretty cool, I guess. I like Hegel's ideas, but trying to cite him is literally impossible. I guess I'll have to settle for lots of paraphrasing and generally citing page numbers (or, you know, the entire chapter, lol).

[Two Espressos]

Should look at this:

http://www.denisdutt...bad_writing.htm

I've actually seen this before. I don't really find the Butler quote to be all that badly written or difficult to understand though. It's a little overwritten, but I think the quote is rather straightforward.

[Sparky]

I vote Foucault, with extra points for Butler using Foucault. Not because he's necessarily the worst writer, or because his ideas are the most intricate. He actually makes a lot of sense (even if he was a lousy historian ) when other people* explain his ideas. That leads me to the conclusion that my problems comprehending him have more to do with bad writing than with the elusiveness of language in articulating certain ideas.

(*excepting Butler. /sigh. Let us just say that "block quote" is here for a reason. Also excepting SparkNotes, but this should perhaps not come as a surprise.)

[Hegel's Bagels]

Derrida! He was either brilliant or brilliant at coming off like he was brilliant...either way, my eyeballs bleed every time I try to work my way through him. It's also funny to see how often he is misinterpreted and misused...e.g. the critical cartographers of the '80s.

[lolopixie]

Derrida for sure. I actually love Lacan and Foucalt - I literally LOL when I read them. They entertain me.

[Grunty DaGnome]

That's actually pretty cool, I guess. I like Hegel's ideas, but trying to cite him is literally impossible. I guess I'll have to settle for lots of paraphrasing and generally citing page numbers (or, you know, the entire chapter, lol).

The trick to paraphrasing Hegel, is to summarize the kernal of thought that interests you together with the opposing idea that he eventually gets around to several paragraphs later.

[TripWillis]

See, I like Derrida.

Deleuze & Guattari is tough for me, but not because I don't understand what they're saying -- it's that what they're saying does not need such verbosity to be communicated. Same goes for Butler.

[antecedent]

Deleuze & Guattari is tough for me, but not because I don't understand what they're saying -- it's that what they're saying does not need such verbosity to be communicated. Same goes for Butler.

That pretty much sums up why I enjoy and fear critical theory all at once.

[perrykm2]

I don't know if anyone else has had to read her, but Elin Diamond. She teaches at Rutgers and has written a few pretty popular pieces of theory on feminism, psychoanalytical theory, and the theater.

I have more problems with her general ideas and the way she formulates her arguments than her prose-style, but that's awful as well. When my professor asked us for our thoughts on the paper, I just said, "what IS this?"

Has anyone read anything by her? Let me know I'm not alone.

[perrykm2]

See, I like Derrida.

Deleuze & Guattari is tough for me, but not because I don't understand what they're saying -- it's that what they're saying does not need such verbosity to be communicated. Same goes for Butler.

That's interesting because I find Butler to be not only lucid but very quotable/zingy. So many times I've found little blurbs in her writing that affect me so much more than other theory writers. I love the phrase "an identity tenuously constituted in time." I also love this quote from Undoing Gender, and I'm going to shamelessly plug it:

“Let's face it. We're undone by each other. And if we're not, we're missing something. If this seems so clearly the case with grief, it is only because it was already the case with desire. One does not always stay intact. It may be that one wants to, or does, but it may also be that despite one's best efforts, one is undone, in the face of the other, by the touch, by the scent, by the feel, by the prospect of the touch, by the memory of the feel. And so when we speak about my sexuality or my gender, as we do (and as we must), we mean something complicated by it. Neither of these is precisely a possession, but both are to be understood as modes of being dispossessed, ways of being for another, or, indeed, by virtue of another.”

Very punchy, in my opinion!

[perrykm2]

OH, I also want to mention, in terms of fiction writers, I hate, hate, hate Theodore Dreiser. Reading An American Tragedy was painful. I didn't find the book very profound, definitely not enjoyable, definitely not likeable, and about 300 pages too long.

Kind of off-topic, but I feel so passionately about this that I had to share.

[especially]

Donald Davidson tbh, his stuff is so hard to read / make sense of.

Also seconding Grunty that sometimes the translations are just bad, encumbersome, and make things more difficult to read.

[Two Espressos]

That's interesting because I find Butler to be not only lucid but very quotable/zingy. So many times I've found little blurbs in her writing that affect me so much more than other theory writers. I love the phrase "an identity tenuously constituted in time." I also love this quote from Undoing Gender, and I'm going to shamelessly plug it:

“Let's face it. We're undone by each other. And if we're not, we're missing something. If this seems so clearly the case with grief, it is only because it was already the case with desire. One does not always stay intact. It may be that one wants to, or does, but it may also be that despite one's best efforts, one is undone, in the face of the other, by the touch, by the scent, by the feel, by the prospect of the touch, by the memory of the feel. And so when we speak about my sexuality or my gender, as we do (and as we must), we mean something complicated by it. Neither of these is precisely a possession, but both are to be understood as modes of being dispossessed, ways of being for another, or, indeed, by virtue of another.”

Very punchy, in my opinion!

I've only read selections from Gender Trouble, but I found Butler's prose fairly readable as well. The last few pages of Gender Trouble are extremely quotable and very powerful, in my opinion. It's really great stuff overall.