写得更好 第一部分: 成为更好的作家

Write a lot better part one: becoming a better writer

写得更好 第一部分: 成为更好的作家

Graham Badley

KJ: 偶然间读到Graham教授这篇精炼的写作指导，饶有兴味，对中英文对照着试译了一下。 原文链接https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.599.4248&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Think of it this way: Maybe every writer can’t be Proust, but every writer can be a better writer (Palumbo, 2000: 63).

可以这样想: 不是每个作家都能成为Proust ，但是每个作家都能写得更好(Palumbo，2000:63)。

KJ：（法国著名小说家，代表作《追忆逝水年华》，被誉为20世纪最伟大作家）

Writing a lot and writing well are not always compatible processes. Those who write a lot may be tempted to focus on quantity rather than quality. They may just want to get their products published rather than spend quality time on refining the writing process. But those who do write well may expend so much effort in shaping and reshaping their ideas and their sentences that their output is limited. So, are there ways which could help us as new or old academics to write more and to write well or, at least, to become better writers? In the first of this two-part series I address the issue of trying to improve our writing by offering, in effect, an extended review of a classic text – William Zinsser’s On Writing Well. In the second part I look at ideas provided in a recent text (Silvia, 2007) to help us to maintain writing quality whilst at the same time increase the quantity of our output. Both parts are intended to be useful to academics and to postgraduate students who want to ‘write a lot better’.

高产和佳作，有时鱼与熊掌不可得兼。高产作家可能醉心于数量而非质量。他们一心想让作品出版，不会花大量时间提升写作过程。而那些写得好的人，会去精雕细琢创意和句子，以至于产出有限。有没有方法更高产，写得更好，或者至少成为更好的作者呢？本文由两部分组成，第一部分通过对经典——Zinsser的《On Writing Well》——的延伸评论，尝试提高我们的写作水平。第二部分，关注(Silvia，2007)中的观点，这些想法使我们保持作品质量，同时增加产出。这两个部分的读者是学术界和那些想要写得更好的研究生们。

Writing well or better

佳作，还是写得更好

On Writing Well, now in its 30th anniversary edition (Zinsser, 2006), is not often cited in books on academic writing in the UK (for two exceptions see Murray & Moore, 2006 and Wellington, 2003). And yet, I think Zinsser has much to offer struggling academic writers and which of us does not struggle since academic writing is a tough old trade? His main advice may be summed up in two quotations:

在英国，学术写作的书籍中很少引用《On Writing Well》，该书现已出版30周年纪念版(Zinsser，2006年) (有两个例外，见 Murray & Moore，2006和 Wellington，2003年)。 我们当中有谁不为学术写作而挣扎？学术写作是一项艰难的古老行业，Zinsser为苦苦挣扎的学术作家提供很多建设性建议，概括起来为2点:

Nobody told all the new computer writers that the essence of writing is rewriting. Just because they’re writing fluently doesn’t mean they are writing well.

没有人告诉用计算机的新作者，写作的本质是修改。 仅仅写得流利，并不意味着写得很好。

The principles of writing well haven’t changed in 30 years: That will still require plain old hard thinking…and the plain old tools of the English language.(Zinsser, 2006: xii-xiii)

30年来，写作的原则并没有改变: 仍然需要深刻的思考... ... 以及古老的工具-英语。(Zinsser, 2006: xii-xiii)

Zinsser discusses his principles of writing well in seven short chapters: The Transaction, Simplicity, Clutter, Style, The Audience, Words and Usage. I use these headings to help summarize some of his main points, to offer comments on them and to connect them with the work of other writers, drawn from fields including academic writing, ethnography, philosophy, psychology and sociology.

Zinsser在七个章节中阐述了他的写作原则: 交易，简明，杂乱，风格，观众，词汇和用法。 我用这些标题来总结他的主要观点，对它们作出点评，并将它们与其他作家的作品联系起来，这些作家来自学术写作、人文学、哲学、心理学和社会学等领域。

The transaction

交易

In all good writing, even academic writing, there is a ‘personal transaction’ between writer and reader. This is because what any writer actually deals in is not the subject being written about ‘but who he or she is’. What holds the reader as much as anything is ‘the enthusiasm of the writer for his field’ and what keeps the reader reading is ‘an aliveness’ which comes from the writer’s ‘humanity and warmth’. This is not about using gimmicks to ‘personalize’ the author but ‘using the English language in a way that will achieve the greatest clarity and strength’ (ibid. 5).

在所有好的写作中，甚至是学术写作，作家和读者之间都有一个 "个人交易"。这是因为任何作家实际处理的不是所写的主题，"而是他或她是谁"。吸引读者的是 "作家对其领域的热情"，让读者继续阅读的是 "一种活力"，这种活力来自作家的 "人性和温暖"。这不是使用噱头来'个性化'作者，而是'以一种能达到最清晰和最有力的方式使用英语'（同上，5）。

What Zinsser offers, I think, is a practical version of a transactional theory of reading and writing. The theory owes much to the philosophy of John Dewey, the psychology of Jerome Bruner and to theorists of writing such as Louise Rosenblatt and Jeanne M. Connell. For them transaction signifies ‘a mutual sharing of assumptions and beliefs about how the world is, how mind works, what we are up to, and how communication should proceed’ (Bruner, 1986: 57). A transactional theory of reading and writing highlights sharing to indicate that meaning is made by the reader from signs sent by the author within a particular discourse community.

我认为，Zinsser所提供的是一种实用的阅读和写作的交易理论。这一理论很大程度上归功于约翰 · 杜威的哲学、杰罗姆 · 布鲁纳的心理学以及路易丝 · 罗森布拉特和珍妮 · M · 康奈尔等写作理论家。对他们来说，交易意味着 "相互分享关于世界是怎样的、思想是怎样运作的、我们在做什么以及交流应该如何进行的假设和信念"（Bruner, 1986: 57）。阅读和写作的交易理论强调分享，表明意义是由读者从作者在特定话语社区内发出的符号中产生的。

Transactional theory is thus ‘a reader-plus-text perspective’ in which a link is made between reader and text during the attempt to make meaning. This theory connects with Dewey’s notion of the transactional nature of experience (see Connell, 2008: 106) where there is no radical separation between the reader and the text in the inquiry process called reading. Instead the reader connects with the text and makes meaning from the text. In order to join a community of inquiry new academic writers need, first, to engage in ‘transactions with the texts of established authors’ (Rosenblatt, 1988: 16) and, second, to learn how to critique those texts from their own critical standpoints (see Badley, 2008 for a fuller discussion).

因此，交易理论是 "一个读者加文本的视角"，在试图创造意义的过程中，读者和文本之间建立了联系。这一理论与杜威关于经验的交易性质的概念相联系（见Connell, 2008: 106），在称为阅读的探究过程中，读者和文本之间没有根本的分离。相反，读者与文本相联系，并从文本中获得意义。为了加入一个探究社区，新的学术写作者首先需要参与 "与既定作者的文本的交易"（Rosenblatt, 1988: 16），其次，要学会如何从自己的批判立场来批判这些文本（见Badley, 2008的更全面讨论）。

A simpler view of writing as transaction is that ‘the printed page brings two remote strangers, reader and writer, in contact’. A more profound view is that ‘no event in civilization is more important, or more intimate, than this contact – this contact right here now – between a writer and a reader’ (Jones, 2007: 178). Indeed ‘the actual “writing” turns out to be, wholly or in part, the reader’s job: the reader actively writes each sentence as he goes; this little fountain of words rises within your brain stem. Its substance is provided by your reflection and experience’ (ibid. 179). This transaction between writer and reader then becomes ‘a very real conversation’ (ibid. 181). All writing, when properly managed, is ‘but another name for conversation’ according to Laurence Sterne.

对写作作为交易的一个更简单的看法是，"印刷品使两个遥远的陌生人，读者和作家，建立连接"。一个更深刻的观点是，"文明中没有任何事件比作家和读者之间的连接--此时此刻的连接--更重要或更亲密"（Jones, 2007: 178）。事实上，"实际的 "写作 "完全或部分是读者的工作：读者积极地写下他的每一句话；这个小小的文字喷泉在你的脑干中升起。它的实质是由你的思考和经验提供的'（同上，179）。作者和读者之间的这种交易就变成了'非常真实的对话'（同上，181）。所有的写作，如果管理得当，按照劳伦斯 · 斯特恩的说法，"不过是对话的另一个名字"。

Simplicity

简约

Zinsser’s criticism of American writing is also a criticism, in my view, of much academic writing:

在我看来，Zinsser对美国写作的批评，也是对许多学术写作的批评：

Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless jargon (Zinsser, 2006: 6).

杂乱是美国文学的疾病。 我们是一个充斥着不必要的词汇、循环结构、浮夸的装饰和毫无意义的行话的社会(Zinsser，2006:6)。

His objection to the (North) American tendency to use ‘clotted language’ and ‘to inflate and thereby sound important’ is also an objection to the density and opacity of academic prose. Instead, ‘the secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components’ especially by removing unnecessary long words and ‘every passive construction that leaves the reader unsure who is doing what’. His advice boils down to ‘simplify, simplify’. This requires that we clear our heads of clutter because only ‘clear thinking becomes clear writing: one can’t exist without the other’. Unfortunately, ‘writing is hard work. A clear sentence is no accident’ (ibid. 6-9).

他反对（北）美国人使用'凝固的语言'和'夸大从而听起来很重要'的倾向，也是反对学术散文的密度和不透明。相反，"好文章的秘诀是把每个句子剥离到最干净的部分"，特别是通过删除不必要的长词和 "所有让读者不确定谁在做什么的被动结构"。他的建议可归结为 "简化，简化"。这要求我们清除头脑中的杂乱无章，因为只有 "清晰的思维才能成为清晰的写作：二者缺一不可"。不幸的是，"写作是艰苦的工作。一个清晰的句子不是偶然的"（同上，6-9）。

But is ‘simplify, simplify’ a helpful guide for academics who have to write complex, detailed and extended texts using an appropriate academic voice (see Vardi, 1999)? Is ‘simplify, simplify’ useful in helping us write all our academic analyses, arguments, comments, definitions, descriptions, evaluations, explanations, explications, expositions, interpretations, narratives, reports and summaries? Can academic voice really be simplified? Aren’t we required to display our subject knowledge in the specific and complex language of the discipline? Don’t we have to use the accepted vocabulary and phraseology so that we actually sound like a biologist or a historian or a psychologist?

但是，对于那些必须用适当的学术语气来写复杂、详细和扩展的文本的学者来说，'简化、简化'是一个有用的指南吗（见Vardi, 1999）？在帮助我们撰写所有的学术分析、论证、评论、定义、描述、评价、解释、阐述、说明、解释、叙述、报告和总结时，'简化、简化'有用吗？学术声音真的可以被简化吗？难道我们不需要用本学科的具体而复杂的语言来展示我们的学科知识吗？难道我们不需要使用公认的词汇和短语，以便我们听起来真的像一个生物学家、历史学家或心理学家吗？

Does ‘simplify, simplify’ help us contribute to that ‘creation and transformation of academic knowledge’ which is usually regarded as the main task of the expert academic writer (see Geister, 1994)? Can ‘simplify, simplify’ help us engage critically with the complexities of important concepts and theories? Would ‘simplify, simplify’ help us assert or claim authority in our own fields? And could ‘simplify, simplify’ simply lead us into writing simplistically?

“简化，简化”是否有助于我们对通常被视为专业学术作家的主要任务的“学术知识的创造和转化”作出贡献(见 Geister，1994) ？ “简化，简化”能帮助我们批判性地处理复杂的重要概念和理论吗？ “简化，简化”是否有助于我们在自己的领域中维护或主张权威？ 难道“简化，简化”只会让我们简单地写作吗？

Eagleton argues that there are ideas, especially in science, which cannot be adequately simplified and that wisdom cannot always be presented as simple and spontaneous. Yet he also points out that ‘it is possible to write clearly about some esoteric issues, just as some theorists manage with heroic perversity to write esoterically about plain ones’ (Eagleton, 2004: 77). So Zinsser’s ‘simplify, simplify’ should not be seen as advice to write simplistically. Instead it should be seen as urging us to try to be as clear as possible even when writing about complex ideas. The philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett, was once told that a book of his was ‘too clear to become a cult book’. What that meant was that he was explaining things as carefully as possible. This reminded him of a conversation a friend had had with Michel Foucault: ‘Michel, you’re so clear in conversation; why is your written work so obscure?’ Foucault replied: ‘That’s because, in order to be taken seriously by French philosophers, twenty-five percent of what you write has to be impenetrable nonsense’ (see Dennett, 2006: 405, n. 12). Do we all, as academic writers, have to make a portion of our writing nonsensical and impenetrable in order to be taken seriously? Or should we take Zinsser’s advice to ‘simplify’ as much and as often as we justifiably can?

伊格尔顿认为，有些思想，尤其是科学中的思想，是不能被充分简化的，智慧不能总是以简单和自发的方式呈现。然而他也指出，"有可能把一些深奥的问题写得很清楚，就像一些理论家以英雄式的变态来写深奥的普通问题一样"（Eagleton, 2004: 77）。因此，Zinsser的 "简化，简化 "不应该被看作是对简单化写作的建议。相反，它应该被看作是敦促我们即使在写复杂的想法时也要尽可能地清晰。哲学家丹尼尔-C-丹尼特（Daniel C. Dennett）曾被告知，他的一本书 "太清楚了，不能成为一本邪教书"。这意味着他在尽可能仔细地解释事情。这让他想起了一位朋友与米歇尔-福柯的对话："米歇尔，你在谈话中如此清晰；为什么你的书面作品如此晦涩难懂？福柯回答说：'那是因为，为了被法国哲学家认真对待，你所写的东西有25%必须是难以捉摸的废话'（见Dennett, 2006: 405, n.12）。作为学术写作者，我们是否都必须使我们的写作有一部分是无稽之谈和不可穿透的，以便被认真对待？或者我们应该接受Zinsser的建议，尽可能多地、经常地 "简化 "我们的写作？

Clutter

杂乱

Fighting clutter is like fighting weeds – the writer is always slightly behind (ibid. 12). To become uncluttered in our writing we need to examine every word we put down: ‘writing improves in direct ratio to the number of things we can keep out of it that shouldn’t be there’. We need to remember that ‘clutter is the official language used by corporations to hide their mistakes’. Our academic writing is cluttered with weeds which smother what we write. We use ‘assistance’ when we mean ‘help’, ‘facilitate’ instead of ‘ease’, ‘implement’ instead of ‘do’, ‘sufficient’ instead of ‘enough’ and ‘referred to as’ rather than ‘called’. And we are seduced by fad words like ‘prioritize’ and ‘potentialize’.

与杂乱作斗争就像与杂草作斗争——作者总是稍微落在后面(同上 12). 为了使我们的写作变得整洁，我们需要检查我们放下的每一个字: 写作的进步与我们能够避免的不应该存在的事情的数量成正比。 我们需要记住，“混乱是企业用来掩盖错误的官方语言”。 我们的学术写作杂乱无章，使我们写的东西窒息。 当我们指「帮助」、「促进」而非「简易」、「执行」而非「行动」、「足够」而非「足够」及「指称」而非「呼召」时，我们会使用「协助」。 而且我们被诸如“优先化”和“潜力化”这样的时尚词汇所吸引。

Most of the first drafts we write can be cut by half without losing their sense if only we followed Zinsser’s advice: ‘simplify, simplify’ (ibid. 12-16).

只要我们听从辛瑟的建议: “简化，简化”，我们写的大多数初稿都可以长度减半而不失其意义。(同上 12-16).

Fighting clutter means that we have to try to become more concise and becoming concise means that we have to cut. But cutting sounds negative. We have to learn to see cutting as a positive process, a way of making our writing leaner and more focused. We need to become self-critical (but not hyper-self-critical) editors of our own work. Further, ‘editing isn’t a cosmetic process. It’s a thinking process’ (Rhodes, 1995: 113).

打击杂乱意味着我们必须努力变得更加简洁，而变得简洁意味着我们必须删减。但删减听起来很消极。我们必须学会把删减看作一个积极的过程，一种使我们的写作更精简、更专注的方式。我们需要成为我们自己作品的自我批评（但不是过度自我批评）的编辑。此外，"编辑不是一个表面的过程。它是一个思考的过程"（Rhodes, 1995: 113）。

Unfortunately editing is never really finished since every sentence could still be improved. Also whilst there is danger in over-editing we need to see editing as ‘simply more writing – a higher-level (or lower-level, if you prefer) version of the same process whereby you produced the creative draft in the first place’ (ibid. 133-134). So to declutter we need to cut: words we over-use and words we don’t need; adjectives and adverbs that decorate but add little of substance; sentences which repeat; and paragraphs that elaborate rather than clarify. Cutting for Orwell meant deleting both the garbage and the purple prose, and writing less picturesquely and more exactly (Orwell, 2004/1946).

不幸的是，编辑工作从未真正完成，因为每个句子都还可以改进。另外，虽然过度编辑有危险，但我们需要把编辑看作是 "更多的写作--一个更高层次（或者更低层次，如果你愿意的话）的版本，也就是你首先产生创造性草案的过程"（同上，133-134）。因此，为了整顿，我们需要削减：我们过度使用的词和不需要的词；装饰性的形容词和副词，没有增加什么实质内容；重复的句子；以及阐述而非澄清的段落。对奥威尔来说，删减意味着删除垃圾和华丽散文，少一些生动形象，多一些准确（奥威尔，2004/1946）。

Cutting is clearing away the wordy underbrush that chokes the growth of both argument and ideas. To de-clutter is to cut is to clarify is to be concise is to simplify.

删减是清除那些扼杀论证和思想发展的文字灌木。去芜存菁是为了澄清，是为了简明扼要，是为了简化。

Style

风格

But, again, if we simplify too much won’t we end up writing naïve nursery school English? Can our complex academic ideas really be discussed in simple and uncluttered sentences? Zinsser argues that few of us realize how badly we write because few of us have been shown the murky excesses that have crept into our writing which then obstruct what we are trying to say. Cutting an eight-page article down to four pages is easy. The hard part is cutting it down to three. We don’t develop our own style of writing by ‘embellishing’ plain words with ‘gaudy similes’ and ‘tinseled adjectives’. We can’t add style by ‘garnishing our prose’ because ‘style is organic to the person doing the writing’: ‘Readers want the person who is talking to them to sound genuine. Therefore a fundamental rule is: be yourself’. Unfortunately no rule is harder to follow (see Zinsser, 2006: 18-19).

但是，同样地，如果我们过于简化，我们最终不会写出幼稚的幼儿园英语吗？我们复杂的学术思想，真的可以用简单而不杂乱的句子来讨论吗？Zinsser认为，我们中很少有人意识到自己写得有多糟糕，因为我们中很少有人看到写作中出现了模糊的过度行为，这阻碍了我们想要表达的东西。把一篇八页的文章削减到四页很容易。困难的是把它缩减到三页。我们不能通过用 "花哨的比喻 "和 "华丽的形容词 "来 "点缀 "平淡无奇的词语来发展自己的写作风格。我们不能通过'装饰我们的散文'来增加风格，因为'风格是写作的人的有机组成部分'：'读者希望与他们交谈的人听起来是真实的。因此，一个基本规则是：做你自己。不幸的是，没有比这更难遵守的规则了（见Zinsser, 2006: 18-19）。

One way to a personal style is, obviously, to write as a person. After all ‘writing is an intimate transaction between two people, conducted on paper, and it will go well to the extent that it retains its humanity’. He therefore urges students to write in the first person by using ‘I’ and ‘me’ and ‘we’ and ‘us’: but ‘They put up a fight’. Students and researchers think such writing is egotistical or undignified – ‘a fear that afflicts the academic world. Hence the professorial use of “one”…or of the impersonal use of “it is”’. Zinsser doesn’t want to read the boring academic called ‘one’: ‘I want a professor with a passion for his subject to tell me why it fascinates him’ (ibid. 19-20).

显然，实现个人风格的方法之一是以个人身份写作。毕竟 "写作是两个人之间的在纸上进行亲密交易，只要能保持人性，就能顺利进行"。因此，他（Zinsser）敦促学生通过使用 "我"、 "和 "我们 "以第一人称进行写作：但 "他们（学术界）攻击这一点"。学生和研究人员认为这样的写作是自负的或不体面的--"这是困扰学术界的恐惧。因此，教授们使用 "一个"......或者使用非个人化的 "它是"。Zinsser不想读到被称为'一个'的枯燥学术论文: “我想要一个对他的学科充满激情的教授告诉我为什么这个主题让他着迷'（同上，19-20）。

Of course using ‘I’ all the time can be ‘a self-indulgence and a cop-out’. And many journal editors won’t allow such personal prose. Zinsser’s advice here is ‘at least think “I” while you write, or write the first draft in the first person and then take the “I”s out. It will warm up your impersonal style’. For even academic writers have to sell themselves and their topics in order to get published and so they have to believe in themselves and their own opinions. As Zinsser points out, ‘writing is an act of ego, and you might as well admit it. Use its energy to keep yourself going’ (ibid. 17-23).

当然，一直使用 "我 "可能是 "一种自我放纵和逃避"。许多杂志的编辑不允许使用这种个人散文。Zinsser的建议是："至少在写作时想一想 ‘我’，或者用第一人称写第一稿，然后把 ‘我’拿掉。这将使你的非个人风格得到升温"。因为即使是学术作家也必须推销自己和他们的主题以获得出版，所以他们必须相信自己和自己的观点。正如Zinsser所指出的，"写作是一种自我的行为，你不妨承认这一点。利用它的能量让自己继续前进（同上，17-23）。

To develop style, however, we must ‘pay attention to sentences’. ‘The most effective lesson is to get inside and to work inside sentences, with the ambition to make writing work for you – to make it do good work, to make it thoughtful and compelling, to be noticed and heard, to establish presence, a stylistic self…Style is agonistic. The writer is caught within and struggles to make use of the available materials’ (Bartholomae, 2005:15).

然而，为了发展风格，我们必须 "关注句子"。最有效的经验是深入句子内部，在句子内部工作，雄心勃勃地让写作为你服务--让它做好工作，让它有深思熟虑、有说服力、引人注目，建立存在感，建立自我风格......风格是激动人心的。作家陷入其中，并努力利用现有的材料（Bartholomae, 2005:15）。

Good style in academic prose is clear, direct, and even graceful (Crowley 1982). It is clear without banality and rigorous without needless technicality: it is swift, unfussy and blunt, and it is readable and understandable at a single reading (Watson 1987). It eliminates wordiness and shortens sentences, paragraphs and sections (Crowley 1982). It does not over-use polysyllabic abstract nouns - the besetting sin of scholarly prose (Watson 1987). Good style, according to C. Wright Mills, is writing as unpretentious intellectual craftsmen (sic). And this entails avoiding verbiage, using clear statements, giving solid examples, and guarding against ‘weird jargon’ and ‘pretensions of expertise’ (Mills, 1970: 245-248). Even an academic audience should be put off by jargon and pretension.

学术散文的好风格是清晰、直接、甚至优雅的（Crowley 1982）。它清晰而不平庸，严谨而不乏技术性：它迅速、不挑剔、直截了当，而且一读就懂（Watson 1987）。它消除了词藻，缩短了句子、段落和章节（Crowley 1982）。它不会过度使用多音节的抽象名词--这是学术散文的顽疾（Watson 1987）。莱特-米尔斯（C. Wright Mills）认为，好的风格是作为朴实无华的知识工匠来写作。这就需要避免言辞做作，使用清晰的语句，给出可靠的例子，并防止 "奇怪的行话 "和 "专业的矫饰"（Mills, 1970: 245-248）。即使是学术界的听众也应该对术语和矫饰感到厌烦。

The audience

听众

But who is the academic’s audience? Most of all, according to Zinsser, we write for ourselves and we shouldn’t think of some great mass out there waiting for our wonderful words: ‘There is no such audience – every reader is a different person’. So initially we write to please ourselves and, with hard work and some luck, we might even get others interested in what we have to say. If we try to master the tools, simplifying and pruning and striving for order, we can write cleaner sentences that readers will understand and might actually enjoy. Readers will enjoy what we say if we heed another bit of advice: ‘Never say anything in writing that you wouldn’t comfortably say in conversation’ (ibid. 24-31).

但谁是学者的听众？Zinsser认为，最重要的是，我们为自己而写，我们不应该认为外面有一大群人在等待我们的精彩文字，“没有这样的听众--每个读者都是不同的人”。因此，我们写作的初心是为了取悦自己，如果努力工作，加上一些运气，我们甚至可能让别人对我们所说的感兴趣。如果我们努力掌握这些工具，简化、修剪并努力使之有序，我们就能写出更干净的句子，读者会理解并可能真正喜欢。如果我们听从另一个建议，读者就会喜欢我们所说的话："不要在写作中，用你在谈话中不会说的话"（同上，24-31）。

But academics also hope to be read by others interested in the topics they address. These others may not amount to more than a couple of referees for a journal and a small number of readers, assuming their articles were actually accepted for publication. The standard advice for all academics is therefore to target the audience of a particular journal. We can learn to do this by a close reading of the articles that the journal usually publishes and so find out what editors prefer and what they think their audience wants to read. We can then try to ensure that our work is effectively presented with clarity and integrity and written in a suitable style for communication to and with its intended audience. Further, what we write should be understood without ‘undue difficulty’ because ‘the intended audience of scholarship (should) be reasonably broad’ (see Glassick et al. 1997: 31).

但学者们也希望能有其他读者对他们所讨论的话题感兴趣，假设文章真的被发表，这些人可能是某期刊的几个审稿人和少数读者。因此，对所有学者的标准建议是，针对特定期刊的读者。我们可以通过仔细阅读该期刊通常发表的文章来学习，了解编辑们喜欢什么，他们认为读者想读什么。努力确保我们的工作能够有效地呈现出清晰、完整的内容，并以适当的风格写给目标读者，与他们交流。此外，我们写的东西应该没有 "不适当的理解困难 "，因为 "学术研究的预期读者（应该）有合理的广泛性"（见Glassick等人，1997：31）。

Indeed without an audience, even an audience of one, there would be no scholarship at all. Scholarship is a continuing conversation, ‘a conversation in which one participates and contributes by knowing what is being discussed and what others have said on the subject. Therefore, a project that does not speak to current issues of theory, fact, interpretation, or method is unlikely to contribute to its field, regardless of other virtues’ (ibid. 27). We write for an audience of others by, in effect, negotiating with them and paying them the respect they are owed for having examined similar issues and topics (see Badley, 2002).

事实上，如果没有听众，一个听众也没有，就根本不会有学术研究。学术研究是一个持续的对话，"在这个对话中，人们通过了解正在讨论的问题和其他人对这个问题的看法来参与并做出贡献。因此，一个项目如果不涉及当前的理论、事实、解释或方法问题，就不可能对其领域做出贡献，无论其他优点如何"（同上，27）。我们为读者写作，实际上是与他们协商，并给与他们因研究过类似问题和主题而应得的尊重（见Badley，2002）。

Writing for an audience, even a small one, means that we have to learn how to negotiate the transition from ‘writer-based’ to ‘reader-based’ prose, to imagine how a reader would respond to a text and thus to learn how to transform or restructure the text around a goal shared with a reader. This is a matter of imagining a reader’s goals, of becoming aware of audience, of tailoring our writing to the needs and expectations of our audience. Writers need to build bridges between their point of view and the reader’s, to anticipate and acknowledge the reader’s assumptions and biases (although I would also say be ready to challenge them). But the problem of addressing audience is also a matter of transforming the social and political relationships between writers and readers, itself a matter of power and finesse (see Bartholomae, 2005: 64-5).

为读者写作，即使是一小部分读者写作，也意味着我们必须学会如何协商从 "以作家为基础 "到 "以读者为基础 "的过渡，想象读者会如何回应一个文本，从而学会如何围绕与读者共同的目标重组文本。这是一个想象读者的目标的问题，是一个感知到读者的问题，是一个使我们的写作符合读者的需要和期望的问题。作家需要在他们的观点和读者的观点之间架起桥梁，预测并承认读者的假设和偏见（尽管我也想说要准备好挑战他们）。但触达读者的问题，也是一个作家和读者之间的社会和政治关系的转换问题，本身就需要实力和技巧（见Bartholomae, 2005: 64-5）。

Zansser’s clear view is that the best approach is always to write for an audience of one –yourself (see Zansser, 2006: 24-31). But whilst this may be a useful general approach academic writers do have to try to write for others. We are expected to see the importance of audience, to imagine, if we are to be successful, multiple audiences for our texts: researchers, students, teachers, professionals, policy-makers, publishers, editors, referees, hosts, and even the general public. Realizing this means learning to write for different audiences in different styles.

Zansser的明确观点是，最好的方法总是为一个听众--你自己而写（见Zansser, 2006: 24-31）。尽管这可能是一个通用方法，但学术写作者确实必须尝试为他人写作。我们要看到读者的重要性，如果我们要成功，就要想象我们的文本有多个受众：研究人员、学生、教师、专业人士、政策制定者、出版商、编辑、裁判员、主持人，甚至是普通公众。认识到这一点意味着要学会以不同的风格为不同的读者写作。

Words

词语

Remember that words are the only tools you’ve got. Learn to use them with originality and care. And also remember: somebody out there is listening (ibid. 36).

记住，文字是你唯一的工具。 学会原创性和谨慎地使用它们。 还要记住: 有人在那里听(同上 36).

Most of our writing is banal: ‘no surprise awaits us in the form of an unusual word, an oblique look’. We have to learn to ‘be finicky’ about the words we choose because ‘the race in writing is not to the swift but to the original’. We will only learn to make good choices through good reading because ‘writing is learned by imitation’. But we must also learn to ‘cultivate the best models’. We need to look words up in dictionaries to check meanings, learn their etymologies and master their nuances. And we need to check how the words we choose sound because readers ‘hear what they are reading far more than you realize’: ‘Therefore such matters as rhythm and alliteration are vital to every sentence’. Again Zinsser’s advice is useful: If all your sentences move at the same plodding gait, which even you recognize as deadly but don’t know how to cure, read them aloud (ibid. 36).

我们大部分作品是平庸的："没有惊喜在等待着我们，一个不寻常的词或一个斜视的眼神也没有"。我们必须学会对选择的词语 "精挑细选"，因为 "写作比拼的不是快速，而是原创"。我们只有通过良好的阅读才能学会做出正确的选择，因为 "掌握写作要通过模仿"。但我们也必须学会 "培养最好的模式"。我们需要在字典中查找单词以检查其含义，学习其词源并掌握其细微差别。我们还需要检查我们选择的词的发音，因为读者 "听到他们所读的东西比你意识到的要多得多"："因此，诸如节奏和押韵等问题对每个句子都至关重要"。Zinsser的建议也很有用，“如果你所有的句子都节奏平淡，甚至你也认识到这是致命的，但不知道如何治疗，那就大声读出来”（同上，36）。

By reading aloud we can learn when to reverse the order of a sentence, when to alter its length and when to add a fresh word. Words are the best tools we’ve got (ibid. 32-36).

通过大声朗读，我们可以知道什么时候改变句子的顺序，什么时候改变句子的长度，什么时候添加一个新词。 词语是我们最好的工具(同上 32-36).

Zinsser’s comments are echoed by other writers. For example the novelist Philip Roth sees his job as one of ‘turning sentences around’ in order to make them clearer and stronger. And the sociologist Howard Becker points out that we can avoid ‘the wooliness and pretentiousness of “classy” writing’ by taking out words that aren’t working (Becker, 1986: 164). And again Orwell is useful in warning us against ‘staleness of imagery’ and a ‘lack of precision’ in most of our writing: ‘prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house’ (Orwell, 2004/1946: 105). Further, we are given to using pretentious words – categorical, constitute, eliminate, liquidate, phenomenon, utilize – ‘to dress up simple statements and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements’ (ibid. 107). And ‘bad writers, and especially scientific, political and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones’ (ibid. 108). Big Brother George is still watching us - fortunately.

Zinsser的评论得到了其他作家的赞同。例如，小说家菲利普-罗斯（Philip Roth）认为他的工作是 "翻来覆去摆弄句子"，以使其更加清晰和有力。社会学家霍华德-贝克尔（Howard Becker）指出，我们可以通过删除不合适的词语来避免''优雅'写作的愚昧和自命不凡'（Becker，1986：164）。奥威尔再次警告我们，大部分写作中，"意象呆板 "和 "缺乏精确性"："散文越来越少地由为其意义而选择的词语组成，而更多的是像预制鸡舍的部分一样粘在一起的短句"（奥威尔，2004/1946：105）。此外，我们被赋予了使用自命不凡的词语--分类、构成、消除、清算、现象、利用--"来修饰简单的陈述，给有偏见的判断披上科学公正的外衣"（同上，107）。而且糟糕的作家，特别是科学、政治和社会学作家，几乎总是被这样的观念所困扰，即拉丁语或希腊语的词汇比撒克逊语的词汇更伟大（同上，108）。幸运的是乔治老大哥仍然在看着我们。

Usage

习惯用法

Usage has no fixed boundaries so it is difficult to decide why one word is good to use and another is cheap. Word freaks (‘verbivores’ – Pinker, 2007) fight over what is allowable. And ‘scholarship hath no fury like that of a language purist faced with sludge’. Guardians of usage are only doing half their job by resisting sloppy language – ‘healthwise’ and ‘rather unique’. They must also welcome immigrant words which add strength and colour to the language – ‘dropout’ is vivid and clean but ‘senior citizen’ is ‘typical of the pudgy new intruders from the land of sociology’. Robust words once derided as colloquial should also be welcomed: ‘rile’, ‘shambles’, ‘trek’, ‘trigger’ and ‘tycoon’. The best rule is whether a word fills a real need – ‘if it does, let’s give it a franchise’. As Zinsser points out, it all comes down to what is ‘correct’ usage: ‘We (Americans) have no King to establish the King’s English: we only have the President’s English, which we don’t want’. But we should try to separate usage from jargon and use good words to express ourselves as clearly and simply as possible (ibid. 37-45).

用法没有固定的界限，所以很难决定为什么一个词好用而另一个词不妥。词汇狂人（"verbivores"--平克，2007年）为“什么是可允许”的而斗争。而 "学术研究的愤怒，不亚于语言纯粹主义者面对污泥的愤怒"。用法的守护者只是做了一半的工作，他们抵制马虎的语言--"健康的 "和 "相当独特的"。他们还必须欢迎那些为语言增添力量和色彩的移民词汇--"辍学 "是生动简洁的，但 "资深公民 "是 "典型的来自社会学领域的臃肿的新入侵者"。曾经被嘲笑为口语化的强大词汇也应该受到欢迎："骚动"、"破败"、"跋涉"、"触发 "和 "大亨"。最好的规则是一个词是否满足了真正的需要--"如果是，让我们给它一个特许权"。正如Zinsser所指出的，这一切都归结为什么是'正确'的用法。我们（美国人）没有国王来建立国王的英语：我们只有总统的英语，尽管我们不想要"。但是我们应该努力把用法和行话分开，用好的词来尽可能清楚和简单地表达自己（同上，37-45）。

But one major problem in academic writing is that technical jargon is often necessary and might even be desirable or, at least, acceptable. And we should be wary of dismissing as jargon those ideas with which we just happen to disagree. But when a writer produces a sentence such as ‘The in-choate in-fans ab-original para-subject cannot be theorized as functionally completely frozen in a world where teleology is schematized into geography’ he is being obscure and silly. This use of jargon may even be unintelligible to the writer as well as to his readers. Indeed ‘people who write like this are not even interested in being understood’. We should not accept that difficult ideas have to be dealt with obscurely since ‘difficulty is a matter of content, whereas obscurity is a question of how you present that content’ (see Eagleton, 2004: 75-77).

但学术写作中的一个主要问题是，技术术语往往是必要的，甚至可能是可取的，或者至少是可以接受的。我们应该警惕把那些我们碰巧不同意的观点当作行话来看待。但是，当一个作家写出这样的句子："在一个目的论被图解为地理学的世界里，不能把在choate in-fans ab-original para-subject理论化为功能上完全冻结"，他就显得晦涩和愚蠢了。这种行话的使用甚至可能让作者和他的读者都无法理解。事实上，'这样写的人甚至对被理解不感兴趣'。我们不应该接受困难的思想必须被晦涩地处理，因为 "困难是一个内容的问题，而晦涩是一个你如何呈现这个内容的问题"（见Eagleton，2004：75-77）。

Generally, however, it would be hard to argue with the judgement that ‘standards of writing in many academic circles are low. Jargon and obtuse prose deprive scholars of the benefit of the interplay that could result from more effective presentation. If scholars present their work in language as clear and simple as the subject allows, scholarly communication would be improved not only among colleagues but with the public as well’ (Glassick et al. 1997: 33, my italics). Sadly, in my view, much academic writing is somewhat opaque and given to unnecessary obfuscation (see Badley, 2002). There is, of course, a danger in trying to write more simply and clearly for a broader audience. It is that such writing may be dismissed as trivial or even resented as popular because ‘real’ writing can only be produced by using the ‘elaborate technical jargon’ of an academic discipline (see Grayling, 2006: 82-3). And critics are not always consistent:

然而，一般来说，很难对 "许多学术界的写作标准很低 "这一判断提出异议。专业术语和晦涩难懂的散文，使学者们无法受益于更有效的表述所带来的互动。如果学者们能在学科允许的范围内用简单明了的语言介绍他们的工作，那么学术交流不仅在同事之间，而且在公众中也会得到改善"（Glassick等人，1997：33，我的斜体）。可悲的是，在我看来，许多学术写作都有些不透明，而且存在着不必要的混淆（见Badley，2002）。当然，试图为更多的读者写得更简单、更清楚是有危险的。那就是这样的写作可能会被认为是琐碎的，甚至被认为是流俗的，因为 "真正的 "写作只能通过使用学术的 "精致的技术术语 "来完成（见Grayling, 2006: 82-3）。而批评家们也不总是一致的：

I read reviews that praised me as having skills I never knew I had – related to my unusual use of structure and the simplicity of my prose. And I read the critical ones as well, which pointed out faults that I also never knew I had – related to my unusual use of structure and the simplicity of my prose (Tan, 2007: 201).

我读了一些评论，称赞我有我自己都从来不知的技能--与我对结构的不寻常运用和我的文章的简明有关。我也读了批评性的评论，指出了我也从来不知道自己有的缺点--也与我对结构的不寻常运用和我的文章的简明有关（Tan, 2007: 201）。

Perhaps some reviewers, in their destructive feedback, are ‘simply protecting their power base and the narrow concerns of a small group’ or perhaps they see themselves as actually ‘upholding the standards’ of a particular journal or of the discipline itself (see Murray, 2005: 194). Either way academic writers should try not to be thrown by adverse criticism but should learn that even divergent reviews may be helpful reflections of current debates in the field – about content or theory or usage or whatever (ibid. 196-197).

也许有些审稿人，在他们的破坏性反馈中，"只是在保护他们的权力基础和一小部分人的狭隘关注"，或者他们认为自己实际上是在 "维护 "某个特定期刊或学科本身的标准（见Murray，2005：194）。无论是哪种情况，学术写作者都不应该被负面的批评所吓倒，而应该学会即使是存在分歧的评论也可能是对该领域当前争论的有益反映--关于内容、理论、用法，或其他（同上，196-197）。

Writing well or writing better?

写好，还是写得更好？

Do Zansser’s prescriptions help us to write well or, at least, to write a little bit better?

Zansser的处方是否能帮助我们写得更好，或者至少写得更好一点？

Will following his advice help us shift from ‘typical sterile, voiceless academic prose’ towards scholarly writing which is ‘warm, inviting, and intensely personal’ (see Olson, 1995)? In many ways the answer is a resounding ‘yes’. Academic writing would benefit from being clearer, simpler, more direct, more concise, and less cluttered. The simplest way to enliven our sterile, academic prose is to do what Zinsser tells us. The hard part is actually doing it. This is because doing it requires more ‘hard thinking’ and yet more ‘rewriting’. The only way to learn to write is by writing. And practicing: ‘The only way to learn to write is to force yourself to produce a certain number of words on a regular basis’ (Zinsser, 2006: 49). Also ‘rewriting is the essence of writing well: it’s where the game is won or lost’ because each new sentence ‘almost always has something wrong with it’. This is because it is ‘not clear’ and ‘not logical’. It is ‘verbose’, ‘klunky’ and ‘full of clutter’. It is ‘full of clichés’ and ‘lacks rhythm’. And ‘it can be read in several different ways’ (ibid. 83). The point is that ‘clear writing is the result of a lot of tinkering’ (ibid. 84).

听从他的建议，是否能帮助我们从 "典型的毫无生气、没有声音的学术作品 "转向 "温暖、诱人和强烈的个人化 "的学术写作（见Olson，1995）？在许多方面，答案是一个响亮的 "是"。学术写作将受益于更清晰、更简单、更直接、更简明、更少的杂乱。要使我们毫无生气的学术文章活跃起来，最简单的方法就是按Zinsser说的做。困难的部分是真正做到这一点。这是因为这样做需要更多的 "努力思考 "和更多的 "重写"。学习写作的唯一途径是边做边学。练习："学习写作的唯一方法是强迫自己定期产生一定数量的文字"（Zinsser, 2006: 49）。此外，"重写是写好文章的本质：这是游戏的胜负所在"，因为每个新句子 "几乎都有问题"。这是因为它'不清晰'和'不符合逻辑'。它是'冗长的'、'笨重的'和'充满杂乱的'。它'充满了陈词滥调'，'缺乏节奏'。而且'它可以用几种不同的方式来阅读'（同上，83）。关键是，'清晰的写作是大量修修补补的结果'（同上，84）。

Unfortunately we won’t write well until we understand that ‘writing is an evolving process, not a finished product’ and that rewriting mostly requires ‘reshaping and tightening’ our original raw efforts (ibid.). Whereas writing is writing for yourself Zinsser argues that rewriting is a matter of ‘putting yourself in the reader’s place’ (ibid.).

不幸的是，我们不会写得很好，除非我们明白 "写作是一个不断发展的过程，而不是一个成品"，改写主要需要 "重塑和收紧 "我们最初的原始努力（同上）。而写作是为自己而写，Zinsser认为改写是'把自己放在读者的位置上'（同上）

Indeed Zinsser states that ‘I don’t like to write; I like to have written. But I love to rewrite. I especially like to cut’. So Zinsser urges us ‘to enjoy this tidying up process’ (ibid. 87). Academics, who often feel stressed by all they have to do to get the writing done let alone to get it published, may well feel that rewriting is not the joyful experience that Zinsser makes it sound.

事实上，Zinsser说："我不喜欢写作，我喜欢写过。但我喜欢重写。我特别喜欢剪裁"。因此，Zinsser敦促我们'享受这个整理的过程'（同上，87）。学术界人士经常因为要完成写作而感到压力，更不用说发表文章了。他们很可能觉得，重写并不是Zinsser所说的那种快乐的经历。

KJ： Zinsser更关注过程。

But even with practice and with more rewriting our (highly critical) reviewers may think that we have still not got it right. Some will actually like the simplicity of our prose and the way we structure our articles and essays. And others, for various reasons, won’t. If we ‘write with respect for the English language at its best – and for readers at their best’ (ibid. 233) then perhaps we will persuade journal referees and editors that our writing is worth publishing. Perhaps. But perhaps, too, we should heed Zinsser’s final piece of advice:

但是，即使经过练习和更多的重写，我们的（高度挑剔的）审稿人仍认为我们没有写好。有些人会喜欢我们的文章的简明和文章的结构。另一些人，出于各种原因却不喜欢。如果我们 "在写作时尊重英语的最佳状态--也尊重读者的最佳状态"（同上，233），那么也许会说服期刊的评审员和编辑，我们的文章值得发表。也许吧。但是，也许，我们也应该听从Zinsser的最后一条建议：

Writing well means believing in your writing and believing in yourself, taking risks, daring to be different, pushing yourself to excel. You will write only as well as you make yourself write (ibid. 302).

写得好意味着相信自己的作品，相信自己，敢于冒险，敢于与众不同，追求卓越。 成败在乎一心(同上 302).

This, too, looks like good advice but it also looks hard to follow.

这看起来也是个不错的建议，但是也很难遵循。

References

Badley, Graham (2002) Improving the scholarship of teaching and learning Innovations in Education and Training International Vol 40 No 3: 303-309

Badley, Graham (2008) Developing (authentic?) academic writers Quality Assurance in Education (forthcoming, June 2008)

Bartholomae, David (2005) Writing on the margins: essays on composition and teaching New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Becker, Howard S. (1986) Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article Chicago & London: Chicago University Press

Bruner, Jerome (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds London: Harvard University Press

Cheuse, Alan & Writers workshop in a book Alvarez, Lisa (Eds.) (2007) San Francisco: Chronicle Books

Connell, Jeanne M. (2008) The emergence of pragmatic theory’s influence on literary theory: making meaning with texts from a transactional perspective Educational Theory Vol. 58 No. 1 2008: 103-122

Crowley, Sharon (1982) Style: ten lessons in clarity and grace Journal of Advanced Composition Vol 3 No 1-2

Dennett, Daniel C. (2006) Breaking the spell: religion as a natural phenomenon London: Penguin

Eagleton, Terry (2004) After Theory London: Penguin

Geister, G. (1994) Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: reading, writing and knowing in academic philosophy New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates

Glassick, Charles E., Scholarship Assessed: Huber, Mary Taylor, and Evaluation of the professoriate

Maeroff, Gene I. (1997) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Jones, Louis B. (2007) A note to an unpublished writer

In Cheuse & Alvarez (Eds.) (2007)

Grayling, A.C. (2006) The form of things: essays on life, ideas and liberty in the 21st Century London: Phoenix

Mills, C. Wright (1970) The Sociological Imagination London: Penguin Books

Murray, Rowena (2005) Writing for academic journals Maidenhead: Open University Press

Murray, Rowena & The handbook of academic writing: a fresh approach Moore, Sarah (2006) Maidenhead: Open University Press

Olson, G. A. (1995) Resisting a discourse of mastery: a conversation with Jean Francois Lyotard, Journal of Advanced Composition, 15(3). Available online at: http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/15.3/ Articles/1.htm

Orwell, George (2004/1946) Why I write London: Penguin

Palumbo, Dennis (2000) Writing from the inside out: Transforming your psychological blocks to release the writer within New York: John Wiley & Sons

Pinker, Steven (2007) The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature London: Allen Lane

Rhodes, Richard (1995) How to write: advice and reflections New York: William Morrow

Rosenblatt, Louise M. (1988) Writing and Reading: The transactional Theory Technical Report No. 416 Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman

Silvia, Paul J. (2007) How to write a lot Washington DC: American Psychological Association

Tan, Amy (2007) Angst and the second book In Cheuse & Alvarez (Eds.) (2007)

Vardi, I. (1999) Developing critical writers at the undergraduate level: some insights from critical thinking, pedagogy and linguistics

HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

Watson, George (1987) Writing a thesis: a guide to long essays and dissertations London: Longman

Wellington, Jerry (2003) Getting published: a guide for lecturers and researchers London: RoutledgeFalmer

Zinsser, William (2006) On writing well New York: Collins