Note to Reader: As the writer of this article was trying to throw something up that made sense, a particularly obnoxious prick by the pseudonym Blue Herring decided to pop in and screw everything up. Boldface characterizes his interjections. One should bear in mind that he knows nothing.
In my academic (and mostly nonacademic) discourses, I usually try to make assertions that require little qualification due to the nature of their specificities. In other words, I try to sound smart without having to provide evidence for it. You see, among the general populace, who actually reads citations and quotations? That’s a fair point, but beyond sounding smarter than I actually am, the general characteristic of an assertion allows for argument. It’s always frustrating to me when arguments are so well qualified that there is little room left for extrapolation and even discussion. After all, is there any fun in a monologue? In a discussion, there is opportunity for the strengthening of one’s argument or, if having been convinced by the opposition, a widening of one’s view of the topic.
On the other hand, there exists another breed of particularly toxic INTJs who have a certain masochist/sadist trait about them that compels their writing to specify EVERY. BLOODY. THING. The idea that they express remains general, though the specificity of their examples and tangents make it near impossible to focus on their core assertion. Especially for readers of this day and age. Now, I know not of the INTJ in reference but if, in example there is specificity, and ignoring the tangents since I assume they stray from the main idea, is not the general idea first established then made specific through the examples? Is he not then expressing a specific idea at the end of the passage? So, from the very beginning, the ‘general idea’ was not his argument but his introduction. I would have to stop and dispute that point since specific examples do not a general idea encompass. For the sake of this argument, I won’t list out specific examples. But the idea of a specific example is that it captures some aspect of the general idea to facilitate a degree of understanding, not to encapsulate the entire idea. When using specific examples, nit-picky readers tend to examine the flaws of those examples. This is inherently self-defeating since the example wasn’t meant to be (can never be) perfect anyways.
Thus, the core assertion is never strengthened to the best of the author’s ability. By relying on examples and tangents to be the pillars of his argument, he is inevitably introducing material that is irrelevant, distracting. Does it not also reflect the author’s inadequacy to assert his argument in his own words? Maybe so. But ultimately I know that the ability to still maintain the core of an assertion at the end of a ling dirge traditionally signifies the existence of a clear head. I move to question the readers. Are we all so accustomed to the expedient nature of google web searching that we can no longer focus on articles longer than 500 words in length? Is the concise expression of a big picture that sacrifices certain qualifying safeguards what we now prefer over thorough studies of an idea?
I can’t speak for anyone, but I can now draw the line between two camps of writing. On my side, we have the short essays that exist purely to get to the point and finkle off. We are easily misunderstood, but stand by the hopes that in one of those misunderstandings, someone will point out the fault in our dying stars. So, here we are. An essay attempting to cover all loopholes, trap all rabbit holes but in doing so, reveals even the tiniest holes of irrelevance. And an essay that breathes like air but, just like air, bears many scents mingled, leaving much to question, much to ponder. The reader is questioned, does he prefer a flying brick in the face, or a whiff of something vague. Something that sprouts questions and thoughts in the mind, something that leads the reader to answer the important questions for himself.
I have only ever hoped to be the latter.
