This blog is a cut-up of a dissertation in progress. Each day, I will post my favorite sentence that I have newly scribed. Everything out of context, but suggestive. I hope.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Best Sentence #65
How are these two kinds of identity reticulated through public encounters with city architecture, neighbors and strangers, pedestrian choreography, traffic flows, crowds and abandoned spaces?
"How are these two kinds of identity reticulated through public encounters with city architecture, neighbors and strangers, pedestrian choreography, traffic flows, crowds and abandoned spaces?"
As in #64 before it, here again we lack context and we don't know which "two kinds of identity" the writer is referring to.
This sentence/question is not bad at all. It could use, though, a small touch of parallelism:
"How are these two kinds of identity reticulated through public encounters with -city architecture, -neighbors AND strangers, -pedestrian choreography [AND] traffic flows, -crowds AND abandoned spaces?"
Three sets of "AND's" sound better than two broken up right down the middle by a comma instead of another "and"... Don't you think? :-)
I was a bit sleepy when I wrote the above last night. Here's another little comment the morning after...
May I rephrase that last sentence? Three sets of "AND's" sound better than two sets plus a third one broken up right down the middle by a comma instead of another "and"... Don't you think? :-)
And the reason it sounds better is that the three sets of items joined each by the conjunction "and" form a triplet, and triplets ("a government of the people, by the people, for the people") are always a sign of good writing...
And what's with the verb "to reticule"? What is it supposed to mean in this technicalese context? How exactly are "identities" (of ANY KIND) reticulated, pray tell?
Yes, yes, yes, I KNOW that this is technicalese for technicalese speakers (e.i., "professors"). Still, I firmly believe that EVEN target-specific writing like this serves its purpose better by appealing and being accessible to the widest possible audience. The point of the exercise (e.i., a dissertation), I suppose, is not only to convince those technicalese speakers (dissertation committee?) that you are fluent and proficient in technicalese but also to show them that there is rigorous thinking behind it. Rigorous thinking expressed in the simplest of terms is probably the clearest, sharpest and most beautiful thinking of all.
People may dress to impress, but sometimes they overdress to excess! Don't overdress (your language) to express yourself clearly :-) You may be overdressing at the expense of clarity... :-)
"How are these two kinds of identity reticulated through public encounters with city architecture, neighbors and strangers, pedestrian choreography, traffic flows, crowds and abandoned spaces?"
ReplyDeleteAs in #64 before it, here again we lack context and we don't know which "two kinds of identity" the writer is referring to.
This sentence/question is not bad at all. It could use, though, a small touch of parallelism:
"How are these two kinds of identity reticulated through public encounters with
-city architecture,
-neighbors AND strangers,
-pedestrian choreography [AND] traffic flows,
-crowds AND abandoned spaces?"
Three sets of "AND's" sound better than two broken up right down the middle by a comma instead of another "and"... Don't you think? :-)
I was a bit sleepy when I wrote the above last night. Here's another little comment the morning after...
ReplyDeleteMay I rephrase that last sentence? Three sets of "AND's" sound better than two sets plus a third one broken up right down the middle by a comma instead of another "and"... Don't you think? :-)
And the reason it sounds better is that the three sets of items joined each by the conjunction "and" form a triplet, and triplets ("a government of the people, by the people, for the people") are always a sign of good writing...
And what's with the verb "to reticule"? What is it supposed to mean in this technicalese context? How exactly are "identities" (of ANY KIND) reticulated, pray tell?
Yes, yes, yes, I KNOW that this is technicalese for technicalese speakers (e.i., "professors"). Still, I firmly believe that EVEN target-specific writing like this serves its purpose better by appealing and being accessible to the widest possible audience. The point of the exercise (e.i., a dissertation), I suppose, is not only to convince those technicalese speakers (dissertation committee?) that you are fluent and proficient in technicalese but also to show them that there is rigorous thinking behind it. Rigorous thinking expressed in the simplest of terms is probably the clearest, sharpest and most beautiful thinking of all.
People may dress to impress, but sometimes they overdress to excess! Don't overdress (your language) to express yourself clearly :-) You may be overdressing at the expense of clarity... :-)