Academic writing is a form of art, in a sense, and it has been raised to a level that insures academia will be enshrined for many long years to come. For the average individual, reading the writings of those who've clothed themselves in robes of purple is akin to attempting to read an ancient Greek text. But such studious writings were and are intended to impress peers and those who are on levels that the ones doing the "serious" writing hope one day to attain. These writings are not for the "average" citizen.



It takes a lot of work to do a serious piece of writing on an academic level, particularly where one is writing a thesis. But whether one is writing a doctoral thesis, a text book or some other "intellectual piece" for peers and glory, one thing will always be true for such writings: they're boring. Some can be real yawners. Even the half-glass set tend to stare into the wall after a chapter or so.

The objective of most "scholarly writings" is, amongst other things, to develop a theme so that the reader is not merely enlightened, but is compelled to believe the writer's suppositions are probably true. This is accomplished not by passionate rhetoric but by bringing forth "solid facts" that others have discovered (or overlooked). The scholar footnotes all of his or her declarations of fact.

Ah, but in scholarly writings, one cannot merely footnote something someone else said. The writer must use "original sources" as possible. Thus, if King James is quoted by a notable historian, one does not quote the historian's work but one must reach back and quote the source from which the historian got his quote.

Now all of this has some very useful purposes, one being the maintenance of a semblance of consistency with facts. If there were not this strict standard, then Lonnie the Historian could say that King James said "I love shrimp with my wine" and Lonnie would thereafter be taken as the original source. But did James really say that? Who knows? Lonnie said so and he's a good historian, so it must be so. Well of course, this would never do, especially not with venerable professors of history who demand proof for virtually every fact claimed by a writer. And if you can't prove it, then you must attribute the quote to another, as in "so and so said that James said." In short, academia does not want heresay in scholarly writings.

I learned all this as a student of history. And I came to love it. It is a form of writing which appeals to me. It is the same kind of standard that is demanded by the law. But I have to tell you, though I love it, I rarely use that kind of writing.

I discovered that while the "brainy" folks demanded such writings, few others did. And I discovered that outside of the scholars and intellectuals of various stripes, no one really had an appetite for such writings. I've found, for example, that few people are excited about my legal briefs, besides some lawyers (who mostly want to copy the brief in order to save themselves from reinventing the wheel on a particular issue-a practice I confess to being guilty myself).

So, whilst I love my footnotes and citations to obscure sources and building a foundation that is irrefutable in unimpeachable sources, I have more or less abstained from such writings, excepting of course in my legal endeavors.

I realize in such writings that I'm writing to peers. It has therefore become something of a competition. It becomes a prize to be won (respect, admiration, whatever). And so we immerse ourselves into the system, accept its form as the norm and eventually, come to love it. But it's definitely an acquired taste. Tobacco and alcohol are not something the human body accepts as tasteful the first time. Indeed, they are repulsive. But in time, the harshness is gone and the pleasure of addiction to the taste is acquired. Even so, writing in the style and form of academia is an acquired thing. Some even come to love it.

But, I have learned that writing is more than a competition, more that just seeing one's peers nod their acceptance. It is more than gaining acceptance as an authority in a subject or being seen as someone very "learned" in a particular subject. Writing is something we do in order to communicate with one another. Academia communicates with each other. Lawyers communicate with each other. Their styles and strictures and structures are very rigid and formal. But communication with the vast majority of the populace is another matter entirely.

I say all of this because it seems to me of late that there is a concerted effort on the part of writers, those who would communicate with the rest of us about subjects they wish for us to "hear," to render their communications in scholarly tones.

And I'm bored, frankly.

I don't mind reading my own scholarly stuff, you know. I mean, after all, it's my "baby," my very special work on which I have pontificated with erudite fervor and I know its good. So it does not bore me. But to read someone else's stuffed teddy bears, well, that's asking a bit much, you know.

So hey, you who write such heavy tomes to enlighten the rest of us and think you need to document everything you say and wish impress us with a dozen footnotes a page, lighten up. I gotta read that stuff at work!

[And if this goes right over your head, just grin and pretend.]