Transparent prose

[akashiver]

matociquala's post on transparant vs. beautiful writing got me thinking about the

Needless to say, I completely disagree with the notion that transparent prose is somehow "harder" to write than something poetic and adjective-heavy. Say rather that *effective* prose is difficult to write in either style.

I spent most of the day today going over student writing. Most, thankfully, was of the ultra simplistic kind: "in today's society there are many movies." I suppose that could match one criterion of transparency - Student A's writing lacks anything to distinguish it from, say the work of equally vague Student B. And needless to say, that is not a mark of good writing.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum - Theosaurus students who try to stick 10 c words in at every opportunity, hoping that their (usually misused and blatently incorrect) vocabulary will blind me to the fact they have no argument. Needless to say they aren't going to be earning high grades either.

Does vocabulary and writing style have an impact on how I perceive my student's work? Absolutely. Students with a larger vocabulary have an advantage when expressing complex ideas - they can use fewer words for greater effect. But the best writers in my classes also know to use simple words when simple words will do.

I do think that bad "poetic" writers (or speakers) in all disciplines may have a marginal advantage
over bad "transparent" writers.* Maybe if I was a teacher with a low vocabulary myself, I'd be less likely to mark down a theosaurus paper because I wouldn't recognize misused words. (I'm sure that happens - I've had students tell me that their teachers *told* them to blindly use the theosaurus as an essay-writing strategy). I've seen "poetic advantages" at work in online workshops - my bad "poetic" fiction typically received less criticism, not because it was better (I think), but because some online critters were not sure what I was saying and didn't want to look stupid. And I've certainly have some experiences in grad school with the "theory bat" phenomenon, where someone misuses theoretical terms everyone else is unsure of and gets away with it.

But damnit, bad writing is bad writing. Unless it features drow or gossipy teenage girls shilling clothing, it's unlikely to get ahead.

(*And yes, I'm temporarily equating "poetic" here with "ornate vocabulary" and "transparent" with "simple vocabulary" because that's the way the debate appears to have been framed.)