Re: GG and scholarship

["Anne M. Marble" <amarble@sff.net>]

> Take a look at Dr Gould's published book, a guest lecture
> recast as an essay.  _Arnold Schoenberg--A Perspective_,
> Cincinnati, 1964.  The complete text is on pp 107-128 of
> the _Reader_. Gould's methods of using evidence aren't
> scientific.  His sentences are wordy and padded with
> adverbs.  The tone is chatty.  He makes his points with
> unsupported generalizations.

I wish the musicologists would teach the biochemists how to
write. You should see some of the articles that come across
my desk in my job as an editor for the Journal of Biological
Chemistry. There was one scientist I dubbed "Dr. Semicolon"
-- and he was one of the better writers.

They do use the scientific method, however. :->

Do musicologists learn better writing skills than other
students? If so, I wish they'd share their knowledge with
the other disciplines.

> There is only one footnote.

Oh, my. I wish I had more papers like that. I had one with
53 the other day, and the article was less than 8 pages
long in the Journal (including illustrations).

Anyway, I can't imagine Glenn Gould writing any other way.
The style is a part of him. As my mother once said after
watching one of the videos, "He talks like he plays." I
guess you could say the same about the writing.

No, the style, particularly the pop culture references such
as the "Linus blanket" remark wouldn't have played well in
a scholarly paper. But he wasn't trying to communicate to
scholars, for the most part.