I just read the article entitled "A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing" and my reaction to the frequent use of bullshit in writing is something like this: so what? For me, writing has often involved some sort of bullshit, whether or not we choose to classify it as such is subjective. Papers are interesting when they make some sort of absurd claim, and then through careful argument and rhetoric, prove it to be true. I have never read an interesting paper that started with an obvious and/or boring statement about a book and then proceeded to give the obvious points to back it up. The ability to create a thesis that is to a certain degree bullshit and convince your readers by the end of the paper that not only is it not bullshit, it is one of the truest things ever said about the book, is part of being a good writer. In college, our essays are supposed to be arguments that challenge the readers' previous views about the topic and provide a different insight. Any time a radically different view is suggested it is at first thought to be bullshit. The art of writing, to me, is not about taking an easy conventional idea and using jargon to make it sound intelligent, but instead should be taking a difficult and controversial idea and making sense of it. I would more quickly define bullshit as the former writing style rather than the latter. I guess what I am trying to say is that what starts out as bullshit doesn't always end as bullshit. Often, when I sit down to write a paper and finally think of some bullshit thesis, I have absolutely no idea how I am going to tie it together or how the argument is going to unfold. As I continue to write the paper and make connections and tie my argument together not only am I creating a more persuasive essay, but I also learn things about the book that I may not have understood before. One of the things that I think is truly wonderful about writing is being able to use it to prove points that otherwise would be seen as totally insane. My English teachers over the years have always said again and again and again that our theses need to be arguable, not obvious truths that no one would dare question. So in some sense, these arguable theses are partially bullshit, but as long as you are able to make clear and effective points to back up your bullshit and convince the reader, it is good writing. Frequently I find that these essays that began in bullshit actually open up my eyes to a new way of seeing the book that I wasn't able to see before. Through trying to convince others of my bullshit, I often end up convincing myself, suggesting that maybe it isn't bullshit at all but just a different/slightly strange way of looking at things. Maybe I'm crazy or maybe have just become so good at the art of bullshitting that I am convincing myself that bullshitting is a good thing, but there you have it.
“A writer is not so much someone who has something to say as he is someone who has found a process that will bring about new things he would not have thought of if he had not started to say them."-William Stafford
