thanks for sharing that perspective.

this made me really happy to read:

“many fields require writers not only to consider themselves part of the research but also to write up a bit about their own background in the report as as it helps the reader to consider what limitations may be inherent.”

i’m glad to know there’s increasing flexibility for writers in academia.

i hate the part of the writing ‘industry’ that is all clique-y and ‘who-you-know’.

i feel like the more writers emulate other writing styles by those recognized as the ‘industry leaders’, and/or they try to ‘get ahead’ or ‘gain-recognition’ via anything else besides their own original writing, ideas / stories / voice–their material transparency, [and, conversely, the more that editors, publishers, teachers, conference organizers foist something which may not be true to their own creative vision but is simply done as a way for themselves to make connections and 'get ahead'] then the more the ‘best’ of the form gets homogenized and less interesting, more a business and less an artistic expression. more disposable and less sustainable.

The same paradigm exists within academic writing. In the old days there was this unachievable aim to make all research objective and neutral as if the researcher was just an outsider looking in to the world of others. But these days many fields require writers not only to consider themselves part of the research but also to write up a bit about their own background in the report as as it helps the reader to consider what limitations may be inherent. Sort of a ‘bear in mind I’m a ___ who grew up in ___ conditions so it would be difficult for me not to see things through my own affective filter’ type of statement.

I think it’s an interesting comment on the current views of society that things are shifting this way in both genres.

thanks for the comment.

i pretty much agree with everything you said.

i was feeling this especially: ‘Everything these days seems more objective, efficient, unemotional; thus I think people are seeking “material transparency” in the places that have the capacity for it, even if those fields fields didn’t traditionally operate that way. Journalism is certainly one of a few flashpoints in this cultural shift.’

i also hear you about the risk of becoming self-asbsorbed. the writer has to maintain a clear sense of what he/she is doing–writing is still a craft and ideally an art form.

material transparency is not ‘confessionalism’. similar to a writer trying to render a character in a story as honestly and clearly as he / she can, material transparency is about doing the same with the way you ‘present yourself’ in your work.

thanks for giving me the opportunity to elaborate / clarify.

That being said, I think it still takes a TRUE professional–a person thoroughly dedicated to the craft of writing (such as Gates in the link you provided)–to avoid having that “material transparency” become pedantic, self-involved and, overall, a bad read. There is a lot of writing out there that would be best converted to a an objective narrative.

this part seemed really important:

“I worry a lot that this little blip we’re living in right now, this world of digital avatars clamoring for attention (and money), is actually diminishing the transparency of traditional storytelling in some fundamental way–where the too-vain storyteller refuses to disappear before his or her audience, to allow the story to take hold and to live on its own.”

the only thing is that i’m not 100% sure what “traditional storytelling” is. traditional storytelling to me is something that started with small groups of people around a fire and has evolved from there (as well as continues to happen there, although probably in smaller numbers every day) ever since.

if what we’re talking about as a modern version of traditional storytelling–short stories and novels and features–i don’t really judge style. i don’t necessarily care if the storyteller disappears or is right up in your face. i like writers and writing that use both of these styles. raymond carver is invisible. it’s all his characters’ words and actions. jim harrison is right there spilling wine. i don’t care as long as the emotions feel real.

but back to the cave and the people around the fire. people’s need to blog about themselves may be perceived as self-absorbed or vain, a departure from that original time spent in groups. but i think it still stems from that same original need to tell stories. it’s just a reflection of modern environments / isolation / technology.

and yet all of this said, i still ‘hear you’. and i totally agree that writing (used both as a noun and a verb) and promoting are fundamentally different and separate things. that’s why i called promotion a key “professional” element, whereas self-awareness was a “stylistic” element. promotion is about making money.

but i feel too like there’s a whole part of this [this being literally this--me typing right now on my parents sofa in sarasota florida at 7:26 am] which is like ‘damn this is a waste of time, i could just be actually writing (or surfing) instead of commentating about personal brands and promotion.’

i have a bro who would laugh at all of this, segundo. he lives in an off-grid cabin in the front range. he lives how he wants and writes just for himself. he’s probably shoveling snow right now.

I will be chewing on this as I edit videos and compose blogs tonight…