jrn 2.docx - In On Writing Well Zinsser gives some examples of unclear and cluttered writing Below are some links to difficult or unclear passages What

jrn 2.docx - In On Writing Well Zinsser gives some examples...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.

In On Writing Well, Zinsser gives some examples of unclear and cluttered writing. Below are some links to difficult or unclear passages. What do you think is wrong with them? How would you change them to make them clearer? Please respond to at least ONE of these articles. If you find that others have already ‘fixed’ these articles on the board, please find your own passage and post it for the class, with your critique. 1) Here is a New York Times article written about Pluto. What do you see wrong with it, if anything? 2) This is an article about the super bowl. What might you change about it? -peyton-manning-peter-kingI've never been especially interested in science, but it's my impression that that most scientists are not good writers. Of course, I don't mean that all scientists are bad writers — there are many scientists that can and do write well — but Transgressing the Boundariesis a prime example of scientific writing that is so dense as to be incomprehensible. The subtitle itself is unnecessarily overwrought: instead of "Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," it could have been called "Interpreting Quantum Gravity," which is much more accessible to laypeople.The passage I was most interested in was this one:My approach will be as follows: First I will review very briefly some of the philosophical and ideological issues raised by quantum mechanics and by classical general relativity. Next I will sketch the outlines of the emerging theory of quantum gravity, and discuss some of the conceptual issues it raises. Finally, I will comment on the cultural and political implications of these scientific developments. It should be emphasized that thisarticle is of necessity tentative and preliminary; I do not pretend to answer all of the questions that I raise. My aim is, rather, to draw the attention of readers to these important developments in physical science, and to sketch as best I can their philosophical and political implications. I have endeavored here to keep mathematics toa bare minimum; but I have taken care to provide references where interested readers can find all requisite details.As Zinsser claims, "Writers are obviously at their most natural when they write in the first person" — and indeed, for a moment here, Sokal's writing is lucid and clear. What he's saying is simple enough: first, he will review; then, he will explain; and finally, he will comment! Unfortunately, Sokal loses his reader in the details. If he just simplified his language, his paper would be much easier to read. Here is my alternate

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture