<p>Well, I find that a poor argument. Shakespeare’s plays were meant to contain literary devices as he develops his stories and his themes. On these forums, however, it’s better to be brief and clear when stating a point. This is not implying that mifune does the opposite, but I’m saying LuciaB’s argument in favor of mifune is fallacious. After all, brevity is the soul of wit (props to anyone who knows who said that without looking it up). Poems and literary works are fine to be much more loose-constructed because it is with the constuction of the sentences that you can analyze it to support the themes/messages of the works the author incorporates. For example, by analyzing long-winded explanations, it helps characterize Polonius from Hamlet as a pompous, ironic character.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, actually I am not alien to the writing expected at the university level. I completed a freshman expository writing course through the state university and received just under a 99 so I did indeed receive a shock, albeit not necessarily a rude one.</p>
<p>The stylistic and syntactical embodiment of what constitutes great writing varies by audience and academic discipline. Brevity may be a virtue in many aspects but not to the extent that the writing appears mechanical and monotonous. Also, mindfully limiting diction in fear of being perceived as pretentious can only serve to lessen the precision of one’s message. Variety in syntax and diction inevitably helps to clarify one’s writing. The introduction of a wider variety of words often provides new connotations that serve to refine the writer’s meaning and the variation in sentence structure represents a more interesting and thorough thought process. Most importantly, writing involves choosing the best words to convey the proper thoughts which ultimately satisfies the foremost objectives of writing to begin with. </p>
<p>Again, let me reassert that there is no absolute quintessence of what represents perfect writing. A science research paper, for instance, is obviously directed towards an audience separate from that of mainstream culture and differs in purpose from a children’s novel. Although it is very intricate with deliberate mechanistic diction, science writing does indeed serve its purpose and its academic focus is appropriately communicated to its desired audience.</p>
<p>Moreover, 187 mentions a fine point regarding Shakespearean language. Although Shakespeare’s characters are well-known for their antiquated speech and inverted arrangements, the contrasting rhetorics of individual characters may serve as distinguishing features. Therefore, it holds a valid purpose and is not simply empty, extravagant language.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once more, allow me to reiterate that ad hominem arguments are a very pitiable form of discussion and leads to absolutely zero progress. I do not feel that anyone has the right to self-righteously declare an understanding or full judgment of the mental abilities of any individual. This is especially true when something is posted in a scornful and mocking tone such as the comment quoted above. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In return, randombetch, I must say that your rhetorical skills are not impressive to any extent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, my final post in the initial publicized thread was not an analysis of the comment posted by the OP. The conversation had digressed from the “joke” that we all know to be false to one that discussed the possible factors that led to Princeton’s application increase. I have stated this on more than one occasion and even provided the proper context of the original discussion in post #37 of this thread. Yet the common misunderstanding continues to hold that my post was a direct response to those that preceded it in The Ink article and is therefore wholly miscomprehended. Let me repeat myself: my response in the original thread regarded Princeton’s applications increase, which was indisputably true. Such an analysis could fill multiple textbooks. An eighty-three-word paragraph fails to even brush the surface of that discussion. Rather, my post merely served to outline the possible contributory factors to application increases without a subsequent an increase in the number of students applying to college.</p>
<p>As for the side discussion of President Obama, I will assert that I am supportive of the majority of his policies since I myself am politically left-of-center. I enjoy his individual speeches as well; however, I hold an opinion similar to that of Stupefy’s. Political addresses help to promote a public informed of present issues and create a sense of collectivism, but they are essentially meaningless if the words do not preview direct beneficial action. His campaign promises have thus far proven to be excessively impractical and there are some valid concerns regarding the prioritization of his political objectives. I am curious regarding the future of his political agenda now that the Democrats have lost the 3/5 majority in the Senate (and have thus lost to power to prevent a Republican filibuster). But I continue to be optimistically hopeful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ironically, a quote from Shakespeare no? From Hamlet, I believe. :D</p>
<p>ETA: Ah, you’ve made that reference clear - thanks! Hamlet’s one of my favourite plays, and absolutely - the fact that Polonius says “brevity is the soul of wit” and then launches into his lengthy diatribe, compounds the irony.</p>
<p>Mifune - honestly, I for one am not trying to attack you. But can’t you see that your overly rhetorical and stylised use of language sounds utterly ridiculous and pretentious on an internet forum? Have you perhaps studied the Georgian period where language was over-blown, high flauting, and embellished to an tiring extent? (Think Alexander Pope etc - who btw I like, but only in small doses) - the period directly after that was the Romantic period where the BACKLASH against that was Wordsworth’s commitment to the “language of the common man”. Frankly, that’s how I feel reading your posts - i’m sure it makes sense, but I really just want a break from reading it. (ie. Just get to the point please). </p>
<p>I’m not trying to brag (and basically who I am as a writer has absolutely no bearing here) but as someone who recently got a job writing for money (helping to research and write a chapter for a book to be published), a large part of how I write is thinking of how to make language LESS convoluted, MORE accessible, and thus more deliver more impact. </p>
<p>Convoluted language and overblown vocabulary should never be a substitute for good ideas and clear expression.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When did I, or anyone else, say I had great rhetorical skills?</p>
<p>Thanks for randomly throwing that out there, I guess?</p>
<p>This is the first thread I have ever created that didn’t sadly perish after two posts!</p>
<p>I feel proud.</p>
<p>^lol, leave it to mifune… in one thread on the yale board a two or three pager turned into 50 pages. he did have very good points to make however.</p>
<p>and i dont 100 percent agree that brief sentences and simple language are best. it really depends on how complex the topic is. finding the root cause of application increases is not simple.</p>
<p>Variety is the spice of life. Some people need to incorporate long sentences into their prose, while mifune needs some more short sentences that get right to the point. It makes the reading easier for the reader and also tends to be better stylistically. mifune is a great writer but has areas that need to be improved on (like everybody), and hopefully can learn to take some constructive criticism. Also, lighten up. Don’t get so defensive; it’s an internet forum. Some attacks go too far, but don’t block out the good advice that goes with it.</p>
<p>I don’t know about his rhetorical skills but </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>was hilarious! LOL.</p>
<p>Mifune I am not trying to attack you in any way but your writing is very byzantine.</p>
<p>I’m only in high school but I take IB English, a very intensive two year course. While I was reading your posts I was stuck because…
- I was saying your word choice is impressive (I’m a word connoisseur myself- in formal writing that is)
- I was annoyed because your sentences were extremely convoluted. It seemed as if you were in fact being pretentious. I was under the impression that writing is supposed to be clear and concise but maybe my paradigm is fallacious.</p>
<p>But great vocabulary:)</p>
<p>@theskylitup: Yes, for your personal project I am sure that you are writing with your intended audience in mind. Audience is usually the foremost consideration when writing. For instance, the average article in a newspaper is readily comprehended by most sixth-graders since the purpose behind journalism is to candidly provide facts. News journalists do not focus on variation in words and sentence structure simply because their job does not require that style of writing. Does this apply to scientists, historians, or sociologists who often wish to deeply expound and analyze phenomena? Not necessarily. The complexity of the language used is oftentimes directly correlated with the extent of the intellectual rigor.</p>
<p>I have never heard of the Georgian period (British literary movement?) but I am mildly acquainted with the works of the more rhetorically complex authors of past eras (i.e. Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, George Eliot). But I find their work not artificial and archaic but rather aesthetically magnificent and abundantly meaningful. But as I stated previously, it is not reasonable to imply that all forms of writing should be conflated into a single form that satisfies every circumstance. On this website, there are many occasions when academic questions or issues arise. Consequently, these deserve half-academic responses.</p>
<p>While complex sentence structure, extensive vocabulary, and elaborate explanations do not appropriately suit most rhetorical purposes, to demonstrate an understanding of something, one cannot simply adhere to basic means to express this. Basic vocabulary and brief sentences may often act to limit thought and understanding. For instance, a complete and thorough explanation of evolutionary theory, or any other complex ontological phenomenon, cannot be adequately explained with a limited framework of communication. Stephen Jay Gould expounds his evolutionary theories as simply as possible, yet his arguments transcend the full comprehension of most who share an interest in the subject. </p>
<p>Moreover, a more developed vocabulary and variety in syntax expands the mind’s ability to view scenarios with a more complex approach. When considering the proper subject matter, more complex analyses are fully fit for the situation. Explaining some phenomenon often requires some degree of complexity at the expense of the virtues of simplicity. Having one’s writing censured as conceited, pompous, and inaccessible is often unavoidable. Beginning to explain college application increases in the absence of increasing high school graduation rates is no different.</p>
<p>I am far from a perfect writer and I do not presume to be an expert on the subject. But simply put, my argument is that it is not always possible to reach a universal audience depending on the rhetorical situation.</p>
<p>I actually have an excerpt of a truly decorative comment on Dante’s Divine Comedy:</p>
<p>[James</a> Fenton considers Mandelstam’s reading of Dante | Books | The Guardian](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jul/16/classics.dantealighieri]James”>Hell set to music | Books | The Guardian)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I defend her creative use of language and admire her vocabulary, but it is not exactly the most simple overview of the Divine Comedy.</p>
<p>mifune you talk about having great syntax in order to explain more complex subjects. But that syntax needn’t be long winded. You’re a great writer; I admit that. Just add some shorter sentences here and there. It adds emphasis to your point. People aren’t gonna remember long sentences, but they (long sentences) can be great for a build up to a powerful punch of a few words. That’s just my personal taste though.</p>
<p>^Yes, I will agree. But there definitely is some correlation between syntactical complexity and the length of a sentence.</p>
<p>Analogically speaking, discussion over the best form of writing is like an artistic debate over the best figurative representation of the human figure - the drab simplicity of the stick-figure or the psychological depth of a Willem de Kooning.</p>
<p>“I have made this [letter] longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter.”</p>
<p>It really depends on the point you’re trying to make. If it’s a literary work, do whatever you want. If you’re trying to actually make an argument, it’s best to be clear and concise so the audience you’re writing to knows everything you’re saying. Of course, if your intended audience is much more educated, it’s okay to elaborate and use more complex syntax that may argue your point better. When people used the example of Obama’s rhetoric, he has to be VERY clear and succinct as he’s talking to a somewhat uneducated American population (on average, of course). mifune may make some sentences harder to understand than they actually should be, but it’s perfectly fine. None us are perfect political figures in a crazy debate. This is just a forum after all.</p>
<p>
Exactly the point. :)</p>
<p>I agree with 187’s view on the proper relationship between speaker and audience. Also, I do not thoroughly reread what I post to these forums. I only have so much time to dedicate to this after all.</p>
<p>Btw, do you talk like this as well?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All from the neoclassical/Georgian period of which I spoke. ;)</p>
<p>(Apart from Eliot)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Blaise Pascal! I’m loving all your references 187!</p>
<p>I’m also co-signing every one of your posts, that’s EXACTLY how I think too! :D</p>
<p>PS. Guiltybystander - good job! 
PPS. IBSenior254 - 
I took a course very similar to yours (not the IB though) where English was an intensive 2 year deal, with ALOT of focus of what would be very literary, critical theory dense material (I was reading journal articles by the dozenload every day, ie. Harold Bloom on Shakespeare, Judith Butler on gender theory, Terry Eagleton with his Marxist analysis etc, etc) and I find it amusing that even the writing of THESE academics - convoluted and often incredibly obscure as they were, was STILL easier to read (and evidently had more substance) than Mifune’s. </p>
<p>Basically I reckon, after reading REAL convoluted matter (both in concept and expression), I (and I think you?) agree that there is simply no point in replicating that language in everyday life. To do so is ridiculous…and yes, pretentious.</p>
<p>Mifune, from an adult, you use English incorrectly. “Mildly acquainted”? “I am not alien to?” More ornate does not equal more better. Writing should be judged by its impact on the desired audience.</p>
<p>Thanks TheSkylitup:)</p>
<p>If he talks and writes like that in real life then I am extremely proud of him. Also, if he is getting high marks in his English and other related courses, then I raise my glass to him.
However if he is in fact, doing it to belittle others and/or be pretentious then shame on him. </p>
<p>I must saw that if he wrote an article then within the first two minutes I would have stopped reading. I am not saying that I would not know what he is saying, it is just that I prefer clear writing that flows. </p>
<p>I just reread the thread and saw that he is still in HIGH SCHOOL. Again, a paradigm that might not be true. Do you have a lot of friends mifune? I just cant imagine too many contemporary teenagers actually comprending your speech. </p>
<p>& randombetch the joke about the avion migration pattern was hilarious because thats precisely what he he did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>maybe we’re different, but i dont find his posts difficult to read at all. and they are not empty but actually quite rife with meaning. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah thats perfect English…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sure, everyone agrees. but most people cant stand reading shakespeare. it takes a certain person to really appreciate good language.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>this thread has only gotten this long b/c other people belittle and insult him and make doubts about his talent, not the other way around. (i think when someone irrationally calls you egotistical and a d*****bag i think you have the write to get ticked and write a hefty response on how you feel.) whether anyone wants to admit it or not he is extremely intelligent and an incredible thinker and frankly i dont think that you can disagree with what he says, because hes right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>actually he is in high school. his third year actually, but hes graduating this year and was already accepted at a prestigious university outside the HYPS cluster.</p>
<p>also, although many people might be able to make his prose shorter, its not exactly A-level work. most of the posts against him have been annoying, biased, non-constructive and completely uninformed. i actually respect him very much for how hes responded.</p>