Welcome!

I happily stumbled upon the image below recently and I was delighted to see the point, by Gary PROVOST, made so beautifully. Having wrapped up my Thesis only recently I kissed goodbye to the very dry, monotonous and lukewarm objectivity of academic writing with the enthusiasm of a starved lion invited to an open buffet. I jumped headlong into a post-research backlog of romantic writing inaugurated by GOETHE's musings and now PUSHKIN's Queen of Spades. And I'm so happy again to be reading things that stimulate the soul and emotionality rather than just the mind and rationality.

I struggled with how horrible academic writing was. To read and to write. Objectivity is a reasonable ask when logic is the order of the day, but the "burden" that is created on readers and writers alike, is so obvious when you talk to academics and ask them about the content they must endure. Not by desire, but demand.

I've wondered repeatedly whether a more mature understanding of emotion, even in rational settings, is needed to re-engage people with the arguments of academia. But both parties seem to prefer their deeply entrenched about-face. The out-of-reach "ivory tower" seems to suit academics who elevate themselves in any case, and the those-who-can argument is the consolation workers and the public deem realistic. The culmination of this latter line of reasoning is the current trump constituency and their happily adopted mantra of fake news and the culling of the tallest poppies. The worst of the former perspective is nothing short of an aristocracy.

I don't see an end to the solution when neither party seeks arbitration, but for now at least, my famine is ended and the DOSTOYEVSKY's, ORWELL's and THOREAU's can't keep me from their prizes much longer. The image below demonstrates economically why rhythm appeals to the soul the same way the parched tongue craves a running tap. 