![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lhexaI don't want to interrupt this progression of entries with a long tangent on writing style, so I'll just list some topics that I'll need to think about later. The topics are only stated in enough detail that I'll remember what they mean later on, so don't expect them to make much sense.
Structural influences on the sense of import (mainly at the sentence/paragraph level).
Effective flow in long sentences (the goal being a return to 60-plus word sentences, where useful).
How often to invoke metaphors, and how to deal with their obscurity, perversity, or aggressiveness, where applicable.
Using different levels of vagueness well (mainly epistemic/temporal/quantificational/emphatic vagueness).
Sentence-level structural redundancy/recursiveness, finding the balance between readability and concision.
When to avoid alliteration, given how naturally it comes to me.
Minimizing the presence/impact of words with a solely, or mostly, grammatical function.
To what extent I should use repeating terms with a peculiar, complex meaning (a la "flight").
How explicit, how convoluted, and how symbolic written self-awareness should be.
Titles and section headings that are good, without being catchy.
Large-scale structural cohesiveness, whether it's desirable.
Learn how to interrupt myself well.
Utilizing illocutions, when they should be explicit performatives, and when not. Bringing in illocutions not normally found in philosophical writing.
Deciding between impersonal pronouns (namely "one" and "you").
Dealing with a split audience.
The compatibility of philosophical argument, symbolic narration, and Thoreauvian writing.
Study Thoreau's, Cavell's, Nietzsche's styles. Maybe also Derrida's, Heidegger's, and Kant's, to learn what to avoid.
Opening and closing methods of approach (the reader's). Should any be closed?
Controlling the amount of various important aspects, in a given section: eloquence, abruptness, explicit connection, "meaning density," layering, disinterest...
In science, one has a reason to avoid a personal style of writing -- elsewhere, one has an excuse.
Structural influences on the sense of import (mainly at the sentence/paragraph level).
Effective flow in long sentences (the goal being a return to 60-plus word sentences, where useful).
How often to invoke metaphors, and how to deal with their obscurity, perversity, or aggressiveness, where applicable.
Using different levels of vagueness well (mainly epistemic/temporal/quantificational/emphatic vagueness).
Sentence-level structural redundancy/recursiveness, finding the balance between readability and concision.
When to avoid alliteration, given how naturally it comes to me.
Minimizing the presence/impact of words with a solely, or mostly, grammatical function.
To what extent I should use repeating terms with a peculiar, complex meaning (a la "flight").
How explicit, how convoluted, and how symbolic written self-awareness should be.
Titles and section headings that are good, without being catchy.
Large-scale structural cohesiveness, whether it's desirable.
Learn how to interrupt myself well.
Utilizing illocutions, when they should be explicit performatives, and when not. Bringing in illocutions not normally found in philosophical writing.
Deciding between impersonal pronouns (namely "one" and "you").
Dealing with a split audience.
The compatibility of philosophical argument, symbolic narration, and Thoreauvian writing.
Study Thoreau's, Cavell's, Nietzsche's styles. Maybe also Derrida's, Heidegger's, and Kant's, to learn what to avoid.
Opening and closing methods of approach (the reader's). Should any be closed?
Controlling the amount of various important aspects, in a given section: eloquence, abruptness, explicit connection, "meaning density," layering, disinterest...
In science, one has a reason to avoid a personal style of writing -- elsewhere, one has an excuse.