I have been struggling with writing a script.
I am struggling to find the right mix between academic and idiosyncratic.
I remember in the first class Mark asked us to think what kind of editors we are. And try to start from there. I like divergence. I like sharp unmediated cuts. I like meaning to lay in between the lines. I don’t want to connect the dots. I don’t want to hold the listener’s hand.
In literature there is something called ‘Sebaldian’ style, named after the writer W.G. Sebald. The book Flights by Olga Tocarczuk (which I’ve cited before) is written in that style. ‘a cut and paste of cultural and personal memory.’ Chapters that are not directly related but together paint a bigger picture.
That’s the kind of form I am drawn to. How does that work with academic writing? Turns out there is a lot to be said about the voice. It is a lot more well studied than I anticipated. It has an important place in philosophy and psychoanalysis. Many theory strands and I’ve been feeling compelled to cite and mention all of them. But it makes the paper stuffy and pseudo-intellectual. Also makes it sound aimless and unengaging.
I listened to And Then the Sea Came Back yesterday.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/archived/soundproof/and-then-the-sea-came-back/8082192
It’s the class example I’ve enjoyed the most so far. Few things I’ve noticed: it’s very dynamic, there are build up points followed by complete silence; repetition, both of entire sentences and in the form of one sentence; form your argument as a question and attempt to answer it?
Also, very importantly, not a lot of text! Not a huge amount of factual information being conveyed. Very sensorial, very subjective.