I wouldn't go as far as you, Pete. There is a self-serving element in nearly everything in life (name me one profession that is pure and untainted by any careerists or peddlars of B-S), and because I accept that, I can tolerate a certain amount of nonsense.PeteJ wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:16 pmYay! Another sceptic. It's too much of a generalisation and it would vary a lot with the subject-area but for the most part I'd agree with your assessment.
I came back into academic study late in life and being armed with more awareness than a twenty-year old am horrified at the incompetence, mediocrity, dishonesty and self-serving conformity to dogma and speculation. Philosophy is my thing and here the situation is chronic.
I write a lot and have spent many years trying to learn how to avoid an 'unwelcome style', but it's not easy. I fear that some innate talent may be required. Adrian mentions another problem, which is that many books could be cut down to a page without leaving out any important content.
However, it might depend on the subject or discipline. There are elements or philosophy that cross over with history, particularly post-modernism and Foucault etc, and I have found some of that a real challenge to wade through. A subject with a lot of links to history, archaeology, seems to be presented with a much greater economy of words, and generally comes across as being more scientific in approach. Philosophy, however, might be the one subject that allows for the biggest excuse to indulge in semantic games.
And all of this brings me back to what I love about the classical guitar - there is no chance of disguising anything - it's all about the player and his or her skill, no effects pedals, no concealing poor technique.