1. Rosenburg discusses how academic publications won't use sensory language, suspense and other literary methods to keep you hooked on what you're reading. I would like to know if Rosenburg's article is considered academic? I assume it would be because most of the articles we read are. But even for a academic publication I feel like she does a really great job of keeping the attention of the audience; atleast she has kept my attention. The reason I ask is because if it's possibly to make academic publications more intriguing to their audience why would you not attempt to do so. If they're academic publications then they want us to learn from them but they expect us to continue reading something that lacks any "zest" per say.
2."Unless the reading is billed as a review or a synthesis, the only way
that an academic text can even get published is if it claims to argue
something new or different." I have seen so many books out there, that seemed and I assumed to be saying the exact same thing over and over again. Why do we need so many books stating the same thing over and over again? How do they justify if these books get to be published? If one sentence of the entire book is a new idea or concept but the rest of the ideas and arguments are old, it can still be published.
3. Is this text a different type of academic text from the others we have read? I felt the organization, explanations and discussion that Rosenburg used were much easier to understand and she really wanted to help us understand what she was saying. Compared to Greene's framing and arguments where there was no organization, he bounced form issue to argument and in the end I had no idea what he was talking about. Why would all scholars not write in this format is my questions. Especially if they're writing for the college audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment