Title: From Polders to Postmodernism: A Concise History of Archival Theory
Author: John Ridener
Published: 2009 Pages: 161
Genre: Nonfiction
Rating: Not yet reviewed
Author: John Ridener
Published: 2009 Pages: 161
Genre: Nonfiction
Rating: Not yet reviewed
"There is an understandable scepticism in the archival profession about theory, especially when theory can sometimes take the guise of a formulaic imposition of arcane concepts betraying little cognizance of workplace realities, or worse deteriorate into a self-indulgent quagmire of jargon-laden obfuscation" (Terry Cook in the preface to John Ridener's From Polders to Postmodernism: A Concise History of Archival Theory).
There is something about this sentence; the words, the structure, something about it appeals to me. It could be temporal - the weekend before finals is a difficult time for professors as we scrutinize piles of writings that in no way resemble the above sentence. Perhaps the difference in the writing style of this book compared to my students' essays is the cause of my admiration.
Or it could be the poetry like flow of the words; they seem to roll off the tongue, the brain, in a relatively simple but familiar beat. I like the way it sounds in my head.
Or it could be the specificity and complexity of the sentence which relays meaning through the use of quite descriptive words. Most sentences, that I hear, employ the everyday language of your typical middle class American. As such, these mundane words have lost some of their specificity; they are used in too many contexts and have a more fluid meaning. Words like quagmire, imposition, arcane, and obfuscation are seldom used (around me) and hence carry more meaning (for me).
I keep adding the me part because I'm sure there are people who use/hear those words in everyday life, but, uh, they certainly aren't my students, friends, or family, so I'm talking about me - and most likely a large portion of middle class America - when I say that these words are unusual.
Now back to the book itself which I'm reading for LibraryThing's Early Reviewers. I'm betting a simplistic discussion of one sentence in the text doesn't count as an acceptable review. :)
There is something about this sentence; the words, the structure, something about it appeals to me. It could be temporal - the weekend before finals is a difficult time for professors as we scrutinize piles of writings that in no way resemble the above sentence. Perhaps the difference in the writing style of this book compared to my students' essays is the cause of my admiration.
Or it could be the poetry like flow of the words; they seem to roll off the tongue, the brain, in a relatively simple but familiar beat. I like the way it sounds in my head.
Or it could be the specificity and complexity of the sentence which relays meaning through the use of quite descriptive words. Most sentences, that I hear, employ the everyday language of your typical middle class American. As such, these mundane words have lost some of their specificity; they are used in too many contexts and have a more fluid meaning. Words like quagmire, imposition, arcane, and obfuscation are seldom used (around me) and hence carry more meaning (for me).
I keep adding the me part because I'm sure there are people who use/hear those words in everyday life, but, uh, they certainly aren't my students, friends, or family, so I'm talking about me - and most likely a large portion of middle class America - when I say that these words are unusual.
Now back to the book itself which I'm reading for LibraryThing's Early Reviewers. I'm betting a simplistic discussion of one sentence in the text doesn't count as an acceptable review. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Talk to me baby!