coco wrote:Thank you, everyone, for your explanations.
I thought the essay for "academic bad writing" could be clear and easy to read. I found that it is still very hard to distinguish between good writing and bad one to me. It must be stupid that I've selected this essay, but I'd still like to find a few more.
I think this is a good example of bad writing.
The bad writing in question is not the merely quotidian clunkiness and hack writing that's inevitable in a vast profession under constant pressure to publish
I assume that "Clinkiness" is a noun of "clunky". Is it a coined word?
No, it's a regular formation. The -ness nominalizing suffix is very productive. "Clunkiness" gets over 30,000 Google hits.
I was wondering what "a vast profession" refers to.
Is the definition of "vast" No.4?4. very great in degree, intensity
No, it's more like:
1. of very great area or extent; immense: the vast reaches of outer space.
I have no idea about the following structure.it's the notoriously opaque, preening, self-admiring, inflated prose of 'theory.'
It seems that "Notoriously" is an adverb.
An adverb could modify adjectives, if I'm not wrong.
"Preening" and "self-admiring" look nouns to me.
So "notoriously" modifies only "opaque"?
I assume it as "It's the notorious prose of 'theory' that is opaque, preening, self-admiring and inflated." Is it wrong?
The participles preening, self-admiring, and inflated are all acting as adjectives, modifying "prose of theory." "The prose of theory is notorious for being opaque, preening, self-admiring and inflated" is how it should be understood.