Please provide freedback on/proofread my essay before submitting

hedonicflux~~ on 29/9/2016 at 00:41

Quote Posted by Sulphur

* 'The free world (as often referred) has for a century been lured down a path of perversion, regression, and decay by a handful of utopian idealists and the abundance of political leadership unscrupulous enough to bite their bait.' In an essay, the first sentence is usually your leading or thesis statement, and if it's a declaration, it is naturally read as a statement of intent. As such, it colours everything that comes after. In this instance, the scene is set for the reader: this is going to be a diatribe on free market economies. This works against the essay, for if I'm someone who's opposed to your sort of viewpoint, I'm almost certainly convinced that I don't want to read any further.

So my first thought about this is, do you really think there's a person out there who reads socio-psychological journals and progressive alt news sites and is a DEFENDER of free market ideology? I really don't think that person is going to come across this essay, and if they do I really don't care. To clarify, I'm not trying to convert anyone with this essay. Hell no lol. If I were trying to persuade the other side, this would obviously be the wrong approach. My target audience, for starters, is people who frequent Truthdig. These people will generally be aware of and literate in Sheldon Wolin's "inverted totalitarianism", as that book is a big hit among that crowd.

Quote:

If there's a through-line that connects Leo Strauss and Alan Greenspan, it's not made very clear apart from the assertion of your introductory statement, leading the reader to assume he shouldn't like them because the writer feels that both of them are dicks. As a reader, I'm not convinced because there's very little evidence provided to illuminate that assertion; the context is either missing or inadequate.

Again, this is a line of thought that will be easily followed by anyone who has read Wolin's book, Democracy Inc. And as I plan to submit to Truthdig first, I don't think this should be a problem. I also like to encourage the reader to research and find their own connections. I know, you might say "well, a lot of people aren't going to be interested enough to put in the effort", and that's fine. If none of the topics covered in the first two paragraphs are of any interest to the reader, this essay isn't for them.

Quote:

If, however, the intent is to have this read by people who already subscribe to your views and are assumed to be aware of everything you cite, then much of the above doesn't really matter.

Right. And I often read articles on Truthdig (not essays, but articles) which begin in a similar fashion. Truthdig is itself kind of a stream of consciousness. Perhaps, after submitting to Truthdig and getting their feedback, I should consider making alterations to suit whatever other outlets I'll be submitting to, or perhaps have a unique preface paragraph for each outlet which tries to acknowledge the audience of the particular outlet being published to.

hedonicflux~~ on 29/9/2016 at 01:00

qolelis: First of all, thanks a fuckload for all the corrections. And I've made some of the phrasing alterations you mentioned. Here are my disagreements:

Quote Posted by qolelis

Would the shorter "banality defined, delusional, and greedy." still get your (full) point across (ignoring the change in rhythm)?

:/ It would get the point across and it would look and sound damned ugly..

Quote:

"the unrestraint (liberation) of definitions and uses of power"

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here.

"the unrestraint of definitions" suggests that you are talking about a lack of restraining definitions, or, rather, freedom from restraining definitions, but it could also mean "unrestrained definitions", as in there do exist definitions, but they are (allowed to be) too loose (and therefore useless), which suggests a typographical error. Then we have the parenthesis to further confuse the matter, because the sentence "the unrestraint liberation of definitions" suggests that "unrestraint" is meant to be an adjective, which it isn't -- which furthermore suggests a lack of symmetry.

Honestly I'm not sure what you're trying to say.. what is supposed to be stated is the "lack of restraint in the defining of power, or in other words, no restraints on what form power can take. Does this make sense?

Quote:

"clandestined"

If this was a piece of poetry I wouldn't object to the word "clandestined", because, you know, poetic license, but that word doesn't really exist, does it? As interesting or useful made-up words can be, academic, peer-reviewed essays might not be the correct forum for such, so prepare to defend the use of it again. With that said, I take it to mean "destined to do something in secret"!?

Quote Posted by https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clandestine

clandestine ‎(comparative more clandestine, superlative most clandestine)

Done or kept in secret, sometimes to conceal an illicit or improper purpose.

Although, you accidentally pointed out that clandestined with a d at the end is not a word..

Quote:

What are you trying to say here? While it is undeniably true that something of low conductivity is a poor conductor, you might want to rewrite that -- unless you meant something completely other.

You would have to read Baudrillard's In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities to understand what I mean. And I feel that's appropriate for what this essay is trying to be and who it is for. This isn't for people who don't want to put any effort into researching the citation sources. I mean, I could make the essay twice as long and sum all of Baudrillard's theories up in one nice package so the reader doesn't get confused and have to do any research, but I don't see the point of doing that, considering the audience I'm trying to reach.

Quote:

I feel like there is something wrong with the rhythm here, so in its stead I suggest 'We see the delusional underpinnings of American imperialism and "free market" ideology finally being stripped of their veils, and thus left standing there with their embarassing bodies publicly exposed.', although the word "embarassing" feels wrong!?

My intention with the word "embarassing" was to articulate that (I think) the rich upper class feel somewhat emarassed now that their scummy deeds are more transparent than ever thanks to the internet and whistleblowers. Sure, everyone always knew the upper class was up to all kinds of exploitation, but before the internet made everything transparent, they could hide behind a kind of veil of seeming like they were doing something sophisticated or refined. Now it's all exposed that they're just lazy assholes. We know their tricks and we could take them up any time if we wanted to and had the money to invest. I must think that they feel less powerful every day as the public disgraces them more and more.

Quote:

Honest question: Will your essay "manage to expose to ordinary people what an embarassment our socioeconomic order is"? If very few people read it -- and, more importantly, understand it -- then I doubt it. Will very few people read it? I don't know. How many of those who do read it will also understand it? How many of those who read it, but didn't understand it will read it again until they do understand it?

Back to the target audience question, and I think I answered it above. Basically I want this to entice and flirt with the imaginations of people who are already capable of understanding the subject matter and, if not entirely literate on the topics covered, at least have had some exposure to it. My essay is supposed to be a call to action among the already interested, not a persuasive piece.

Nicker on 29/9/2016 at 01:31

Quote Posted by hedonicflux~~

Okay, so if there are parts you or Nicker find too dense/too flowery, I'd like for you/Nicker to point them out specifically, so we can discuss it.

The entire thing needs air. Quite frankly, I wouldn't offer any further comment until the structural issues, lack of focus and over abundance of words are addressed.

Just cut 800 words and let it fly.

hedonicflux~~ on 29/9/2016 at 01:56

Quote Posted by Nicker

I'll consider that, as well as the valuable opinions of Goldmoon Dawn and my most valued critic, who seem to think the essay is perfect as is.

Again, this is all about my target audience.

faetal on 29/9/2016 at 07:07

So you're essentially preaching to the converted? Are you trying to change minds or just get kudos?

Vivian on 29/9/2016 at 07:41

Is this a troll?

hedonicflux~~ on 29/9/2016 at 08:42

Quote Posted by Vivian

Is this a troll?

Are you kidding me?

Yes, the ultimate postmodern jokes has been played, and it is me getting you guys to provide feedback on this ridiculous essay.

ffs.

hedonicflux~~ on 29/9/2016 at 08:46

I'm taking time to consider and reconsider advice that has been given so far. Sometimes I reject criticism on first look then reconsider it and find it of value. I want the majority of you to be satisfied with this essay before I submit it. It's not supposed to be masturbatory. If it is, I'll continue fixing it until it isn't in the majority's opinion.

Vivian on 29/9/2016 at 09:01

Whatever dude. I'm not spending any more time tapping the outside of your echo chamber.

Goldmoon Dawn on 29/9/2016 at 16:54

Quote Posted by hedonicflux~~

my most valued critic

The reason I say it, is because, yeah, if you do everything everyone is saying, it will become more "perfect", just so long as you dont "cut too much". I say I wouldnt change a word, because everything you write, has your own personal style and stamp on it. That is just as enjoyable to read as the information itself. Make it more perfect, I suppose, but dont change who you are! lol