Saturday, June 16, 2012

A brush with academic writing (and poor writing in general)

Recently I agreed to review a book titled Bollywood Travels: Culture, Diaspora and Border Crossings in Popular Hindi Cinema, by Rajinder Dudrah (a senior lecturer at the University of Manchester). When it arrived, I flipped through the first 4-5 pages and knew I was in for a long, hard ride. Sample sentences:
All cinemas offer border places and spaces of ideas, of different sorts, but it is the focus on the imaginative positing of border places and spaces through Bollywood’s idiosyncratic audio-visual construction of such a possibility that is of focus here.
The notion of the haptic urban ethnoscape is developed out of a critical theorising about the concept of representation, as a way of extending text-based analyses beyond the materiality of film and media, and to consider their articulations in and through urban cultural geographies.

It’s a slim book, thank FSM, but even 110 more pages of this...long, deep sigh.

As I’ve often said in this space, we need more intelligent literature on popular films. But such writing – rare as it already is – should try to be accessible to readers who have not been weaned on the hermetically sealed language of academia, and who believe that there are lucid ways of expressing ideas.

Pauline Kael often cautioned against the dangers of film criticism falling into the hands of university circles, resulting in stodgy “over-analysis”. This view is, of course, open to debate: you might disagree with it if you believe (as I do) that popular films deserve serious, engaged analysis. But it's important to consider the quality of the analytical writing. Remember that Kael herself wrote many long, passionate reviews full of detailed observations that could only have come from her and no one else. And some of my own favourite cinema writing is by academics such as Robin Wood, who knew how to write clearly and directly.

Dudrah’s writing, on the other hand, is often dense and obfuscating in the way that a certain type of (widely parodied) academic writing tends to be – full of generously recurring “heuristics” and “diagetics” and convoluted sentences that appear to be an end in themselves rather than channels for conveying meaning or insight. But the problem with Bollywood Travels isn’t just that it is over-academic – in fact, it isn’t consistently so. There are passages where it is self-consciously informal, almost as if making a hip effort to eschew the language of the classroom (and perhaps suggesting that behind the garb of the lecturer is a fanboy who is interested in movies and movie stars at a more elementary level). Dudrah references the dim-witted comments that typically appear under YouTube videos (“srk is a kid, Amit G is his baap”) and elaborately quotes Tweets by Bollywood stars like the Bachchans to understand how stars “are using this medium to extend their onscreen personas, to perform themselves in a virtual public setting...”. In a charming little aside he even mentions asking Salman Khan (on Twitter) why he disliked the term “Bollywood”, and not receiving a response.

The bigger problem is that much of the prose – both in the complicated passages and in the simple ones – is awkward in ways that anyone with a functioning knowledge of English would recognise. Thus: “John Abraham is known for keeping fit and working out regular (sic) and his buff body is put to good titillating use, often revealed at almost every opportunity with only shorts on throughout the film.” And: “Jhoom Barabar Jhoom [...] is a knowing film: knowing that Bollywood is being noticed by the international entertainment industries and knowing too that a little creative licence would not go amiss in the execution of this popular text.” There are many other instances of such triteness.

It’s a pity, because there are passages here – especially the detailed analyses of sequences from Jhoom Barabar Jhoom and Dostana – where one senses that Dudrah has an eye for detail, knows how to read movies and occasionally has noteworthy things to say about them. But his form is so muddled that the content rarely stands a chance.

[More on the book later]

33 comments:

  1. How would you rate Baradwaj Rangan as a reviewer? I ask this because the example of sentences you have given here are also found in his reviews, which are so difficult to read that I rarely ever read the full review.

    Would appreciate your thoughts on his style of writing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jai: lol, this book will leave an impact on your mind. On second thoughts, have you ever read Thomas Pynchon? The guy is a brilliant writer, but again his form makes his content even more difficult to read.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Haa haa , the John Abraham part is hilarious :D . And you have to say it definitely isn't one of the academic bits , more like some form of closeted fascination (OK maybe that is too harsh) or fan boyism for the "buff body"

    -Prashila

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon: I'm a huge fan of Baradwaj's work - consider him one of the best film writers I've read - and I don't think he would ever write the sort of sentence I've quoted here. (Note: I'm not dismissing "difficult" sentences per se - I'm talking about a particular type of difficult sentence that demonstrates no clear thought process and appears, more often than not, to be the product of an Automatic Sentence Generator.)

    Pessimist Fool: Pynchon is a brilliant writer, period. Like I indicated in my comment above this, I'm not criticising difficult or complicated writing in itself. Some of my favourite novelists (e.g. David Mitchell or the early Rushdie) are people who do some highly complex things with language. But form in their work embellishes content - it doesn't mask it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I understand what first anonymous commentor is talking about. I like Baradwaj Rangan's artices. He writes well and I like his viewpoints.But sometimes when i read his review, I have no idea wheather he liked the movie or not or is the movie worth watching.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This sounds like a Gunda of books. :D

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Jai - I'm diverting this conversation. I checked your blog sometime back for Pynchon, there wasnt any post. Why don't you write on him Jai?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jai - I'll agree with you about the hopeless clunkiness of the passages you quote - not just the academic bits, but also the "working our regular" and so forth. But I just looked up the book and discovered that it's published by Routledge.

    I'm in favour of more accessible, intelligent film writing, but surely it's a bit much to ask that academic works for academic publishers must avoid the "language of academia"?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello.
    Being an academic myself, I may be too close to comment here :)
    I do agree that a lot of academic writing can be pontificate pointlessly and endlessly, I think there are times when people write the way they do because of their commitment to specific theoretical positions.
    For example, the terms 'identity' and 'subjectivity' are often used unthinkingly in social science writings, as if they were interchangeable. But a good academic writer would argue that the idea of subjectivity, as developed by Foucault, refers to the way in which an individual is constituted by the various institutional systems that she is subject to. Identity is, in that sense, differently charged politically than subjectivity, and which word you choose reflects your theoretical positions of the question of 'how does a human being come to be what she is?'
    On a minor point, referencing every single thing you cite is an academic requirement. Its part of a larger movement in academics wherein unfortunately more attention is paid to whether you have cited or not, as opposed to whether your argument has substance or not.
    Finally, I do feel (having read your blog) that you do not have a problem with 'difficult' writing :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was thinking of Baradwaj Rangan too when I read this piece, not because the samples seemed similar (far from it, BR's prose is a thing of beauty) but the common complains about him that he is inaccessible and more importantly, he doesn't tell you if you should watch the film or not, if it is good or bad, whether he liked it or not. Something that is quite baffling - not just to a cinema lover - but even otherwise the concept of movie reviewing is starkly different. And lo, here is the first comment! I am baffled when people say BR is inaccessible or hate him because he doesn't help them make a decision.

    But there are no easy answers to this. Form vs structure and what all they entail. Does one demand a conclusion when reading a film review and how does the approach differ if it is academic.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Try reading Spivak, Jai. Academics love her but it is a real pain to read any of her work. Her writing is a real example of form masking content

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jane Austen echoes this well - "I cannot speak well enough to be intelligible." (from Northanger Abbey)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Don't you think Jai that most of the times, what we thought and wanted to express, that thought itself comes with the right form in which it wants to be expressed. And mostly finding the right form itself becomes the process of writing.

    As I am writing this, I just finished a long piece on 'Shanghai' and I am still not sure that it's 'easy' enough for the so called common reader to read. But the point is that it's an 'in the middle of debate' kind of writing and I can't repeat the things which have been said in this ongoing debate earlier. And the point I am making, there is no easy way of making it. The impact would be lost if I switch to 'easy' way of saying.

    The book you are talking, maybe it's the example of bad academic writing? Like we have plenty of 'bad non-academic writing' on cinema in this country. Why argue against whole style of academic writings on popular cinema then, and we don't have many to choose.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It is one thing to write 'difficult' to read prose but, the least you expect from academicians are sentences that are coherent and make grammatical sense. That just looks like poor writing. If the book has been published already then it only shows the paucity of any kind of writing in the field!
    Could it be that English may not be the writer's second language? In which case, isn't one better off writing in the language one knows and looking for translators instead?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Shvetal,
    "I think there are times when people write the way they do because of their commitment to specific theoretical positions. "
    Great point. Probably its analogous to trying to read a paper on the electronic model of the hydrogen atom when you have no idea of quantum mechanics.
    I think the non-academics like us need to get acquainted with some of the all-stars of academia like Foucault , Derrida etc. Is there something like a dummies book that you can suggest? :)

    Moulding Defragmentation - I know what you mean , but having said that, I have , on occasion, enjoyed Spivak.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You know, Jai, writing can also be an art, and art can also be nonstandard/impenetrable/bizarre/obscure to those who it is not aimed at.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I personally like some academic writing about various topics, including commercial Hindi cinema, and I love Baradwaj Rangan's film criticism, as well as Jai's own. Happy if someone much smarter and more knowledgeable than I am shares his responses and thought processes about a movie.

    But: actually given your quotations, I place a lot of the blame where this book is concerned on Routledge - this is unedited prose. If a company of that stature contracts to publish a book, the reader expects a professionally smoothed-out project. There's a lot of publishing unedited, including un-copy-edited, academic books in my own field (psychology), but I thought Routledge was in a different category. If they think the man has something to say but has trouble saying it, it's their job to help him or advise him to fix it up before they put their name on it.

    VIRGINIA K

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yeah man, totally agree, there's some writing that's way over the top and should be sledgehammered into readable shape by trustworthy aam-janta editors since the IQ of most readers is zilch.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Rahul, Sorry I didn't realise I had a follow up comment, so didn't reply earlier.
    The problem with dummies and introductory books is that they often either simplify in order to simplify, or are so general that they make most sense only if you already know the thinker in question. I would say just jump in - try and read someone directly, and that may be a more enjoyable process than reading someone else's interpretation of a thinker.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have to disagree with Jabberwock's camp/closeted review of this very interesting book. Even Jabberwock's own writing can be obscure and unclear at times - hey ho. Have you seen the eminent reviews of this book by international scholars from the field of film, media and literary studies from Australia, India and the UK? See the 'Reviews' tab at: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415447409/
    So these learned scholars are wrong and Jaberwock right? Hmmm, I don't think so...

    ReplyDelete
  21. So these learned scholars are wrong and Jaberwock right?

    Hilarious comment, Anon. By your logic, any negative review of pretty much any book ever published can be proved to be "wrong" simply by providing a list of complimentary blurbs.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No, not just wrong but an alternative perspective is offered which differs from yours and shows up that actually the others think that the book is not as badly written as you claim it is. It's interesting that one of the reviewer commends it for being 'lucidly written' (he/she does not appear to be an academic), and another is a Reader in English who also praises it. So perhaps they get this academic book and you simply don't - i.e. it is not badly written or not easily understood, rather you just did not get it, for whatever your motives may be... LOL

    ReplyDelete
  23. an alternative perspective is offered which differs from yours and shows up that actually the others think that the book is not as badly written as you claim it is.

    Anon: every review I have ever written has been done with the full knowledge that there can be perfectly valid alternate perspectives by people who feel completely differently about the book/film in question - so I'm not sure what your point is here. In any case, you're the one who is dealing in language that suggests that my perspective is "wrong" and that the other perspective is "right".

    As for that comment about "motives" followed by the facetious LOL - well, that's the sort of thing that makes me wish I still prepared my year-end lists of most entertaining comments!

    ReplyDelete
  24. As a student of film, I found this book engaging and easy to read, with a bit of academic work (as you would expect from reading and working with an acdemic book). But in no way did I find it poor writing - in fact it was easier to follow than some other film studies books that I have read, so have to disagree with Jwock's review of it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Another more balanced review of this book which disproves the claim of '"A brush with academic writing (and poor writing in general)" '. Read at:
    http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol11no1_2012/osuri_bollywood.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  26. Another very positive review of this book at:
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00856401.2013.800684?journalCode=csas20#.UfZeSqwkW0Y

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon: neither of those pieces "disprove" the claims I have made in my review, but thanks for sharing them anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  28. U r welcome Jabberwock. Actually these 2 reviews do disprove one of your claims at the very least. At the outset in the title of yr review you say '...and poor writing in general..'. If anything, these two reviews applaud the book for the clarity of ideas through its writing. So how can the book have 'poor writing'? Fine. Perhaps according to your reading of it. But then these two different and learned readers show/suggest otherwise. This does disprove one of your claims about this book then.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous: by exactly the same logic, my claim that the book is poorly written would "disprove" the claims made in those other two reviews, right? Surely the idea that two "learned" readers can hold opposing views about the same book isn't alien to you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. But the two learned readers who appear to be quite prolific in their academic fields (and no disrespect to you, you are not in the same academic field/s I don't think/know of), make clear that the book is not poorly written. You claim it is, as a matter of fact. If it was poorly written in general then these 2 readers and the other several reviews (e.g. cited at: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415447409/#reviews) would also have picked up that it was. Alas, they do not. If anything they commend the clear language and prose in the book.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anon: at risk of sounding immodest, I do have a certain amount of experience and qualification both as a literary critic and as a film writer. And even people within academia know that a lot of academic writing is turgid, bombastic and founded on using timeworn jargon for the sake of it, rather than in the service of clarity. I thought some of this book was like that, and I have given examples in the review.

    Can we agree to disagree and close this debate now? Using other people's favourable reviews to "negate" mine is a fairly pointless exercise (and one that I could easily counter by introducing the views of other established film writers - including some with an academic background - who thought this was a poor book).

    ReplyDelete
  32. Close the debate???? So much for yr blog being about open to ideas and diff take on things cultural in a democratic wsy. Thanks for showing ur true colours

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh that's hilarious. You were the one who was trying to close the debate by proclaiming that my views have been disproved by other reviews. Whereas I am closing the debate simply as a way of acknowledging that we disagree, that there isn't necessarily a "right" or "wrong" position here, and it's pointless to go on about this endlessly. And yet I'm the one who is not "open to ideas"?

    Carry on smoking that pipe.

    ReplyDelete