Academic writing's reputation for being dry and unengaging is often lamented, but one UK academic suggests this characteristic is not an accidental by-product but a fundamental aspect of the discipline. Jonathan Wolff, reflecting on his extensive experience, argues that academics are, in essence, trained to produce prose that prioritises clarity and exhaustive detail over narrative flair, leading to texts that are often a chore to read.
Wolff highlights a crucial distinction, borrowed from literary theory, between the 'plot' – the chronological sequence of events – and the 'story' – the method by which those events are revealed to the reader. He explains that compelling literature thrives on creating a tension between these two elements, offering enough information to pique interest while holding back details to build suspense and keep the reader invested. This technique, he notes, is a simple yet effective way to maintain engagement.
However, academic writing operates on an entirely different principle. According to Wolff, students are typically instructed to immediately disclose their main findings or arguments. He humorously likens this to a detective novel beginning with the line, 'In this novel I shall show that the butler did it,' with the remainder of the text merely filling in the supporting evidence. This approach, while ensuring all information is explicitly stated and understood, deliberately strips away any potential for narrative tension or reader curiosity.
The emphasis on explicitness and thoroughness is deeply ingrained in academic culture, reinforced by the demands of peer-reviewed journals. Academics are expected to present all their work on the page, leaving nothing to implication or the reader's interpretation. High praise in this field often includes terms like 'thorough,' underscoring the value placed on comprehensive and direct communication, even if it comes at the expense of readability.
Wolff's observations suggest that the perceived 'boring' nature of academic texts is not a failure of individual writers but a consequence of a deeply embedded stylistic convention. This convention is established early in academic training and continuously reinforced throughout a scholar's career, making it challenging for academics to deviate from this accepted, albeit often tedious, mode of expression.