Might This Sound A Bit Pretentious?

38. Might This Sound a Bit Pretentious?

Pretentious writing tends to say more about you, the author, than it does about the subject itself. It suggests that you value prose over content, or that you are prone to generalizations that are not supported by fact. There are two types of pretentious writing that obstruct readability, yet can be employed with skill and one cannot.

• Example: “The ancient Mesopotamians developed a method by which they could grow crops in the desert, to wit, a complex system of irrigation canals and a tool called the shaduf .”

“To wit” means the same as “namely” but displays a more formal (or overly formal) tone. This type of formality is generally reserved for technical or legal texts, but can also lend an air of sophistication to your writing. This, however, assumes you employ it properly and that your writing is effectively formal in all other respects. If you are prone to errors of formality such as first person pronouns or regional dialects, you ought not employ technical idioms such as “to wit.” But you can avoid the generally pretentious tone of such language if you are otherwise an effective writer.

• Example: “The historian should never ignore the value of geology to his own discipline.”
• Example: “The Mesopotamian farmer preferred the use of the shaduf to less mechanical means of water transportation.”

Both of these examples exhibit the same fault: in casting a generalization about a population that is not supportable by hard fact, you have created a pretentious tone in your writing that suggests you know so much about the subject you are able to explain the patterns of an entire group of people by the general actions of one representative of that group. I might equally say:

• Example: “The USU Aggie wears blue on game days, studies hard, and drinks deionized water.”

Clearly this is a stupid assertion. One, it borders on overstatement (section 3), and two, to clearly isn't applicable to every element of the whole subject. What if I'm an Aggie that hates blue, refuses to study, and drinks Mountain Dew? Am I actually not an Aggie, according to this statement? In logic, this error is called the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. In historical writing, it's called being a self-righteous prat. Don't employ generalizations by describing conditions using a single entity as universally representative of the whole.

Corrected versions of the above statements might look thusly:

• Example: “Geology offers additional context to historians of ancient cultures.”
• Example: “Mesopotamian farmers used the shaduf to transport water from lower elevations to their fields in the highlands.”
• Example: “Aggie fans like to wear blue on game days, study hard, and drink water.”

These versions apply the same condition but no longer use a single subject as a representative of the whole. Now there isn't the danger of overstatement, and the pretentious air is relaxed without adversely affecting the forceful argument of the statement.

In sum, pretentious writing suggests some standard to which the reader ought to aspire. It forces on the reader some condition or argument, not through the strength of the evidence or rhetoric, but rather through the creation of some arbitrary standard. Yes, you should be forceful in your writing and be bold in your argumentation, but do so through the authority of the information and its organization, and not through subtle linguistic tricks that imply a sense of looking down your nose at the rest of your audience.

Home-Introduction

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Pretentious writing tends to say more about you, the author, than it does about the subject itself. It suggests that you value prose over content, or that you are prone to generalizations that are not supported by fact. There are two types of pretentious writing that obstruct readability, yet can be employed with skill and one cannot.
	• Example: “The ancient Mesopotamians developed a method by which they could grow crops in the desert, to wit, a complex system of irrigation canals and a tool called the shaduf .”
	“To wit” means the same as “namely” but displays a more formal (or overly formal) tone. This type of formality is generally reserved for technical or legal texts, but can also lend an air of sophistication to your writing. This, however, assumes you employ it properly and that your writing is effectively formal in all other respects. If you are prone to errors of formality such as first person pronouns or regional dialects, you ought not employ technical idioms such as “to wit.” But you can avoid the generally pretentious tone of such language if you are otherwise an effective writer.

	• Example: “The historian should never ignore the value of geology to his own discipline.” • Example: “The Mesopotamian farmer preferred the use of the shaduf to less mechanical means of water transportation.”
	Both of these examples exhibit the same fault: in casting a generalization about a population that is not supportable by hard fact, you have created a pretentious tone in your writing that suggests you know so much about the subject you are able to explain the patterns of an entire group of people by the general actions of one representative of that group. I might equally say:
	• Example: “The USU Aggie wears blue on game days, studies hard, and drinks deionized water.”
	Clearly this is a stupid assertion. One, it borders on overstatement (section 3), and two, to clearly isn't applicable to every element of the whole subject. What if I'm an Aggie that hates blue, refuses to study, and drinks Mountain Dew? Am I actually not an Aggie, according to this statement? In logic, this error is called the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. In historical writing, it's called being a self-righteous prat. Don't employ generalizations by describing conditions using a single entity as universally representative of the whole.
	Corrected versions of the above statements might look thusly:
	• Example: “Geology offers additional context to historians of ancient cultures.” • Example: “Mesopotamian farmers used the shaduf to transport water from lower elevations to their fields in the highlands.” • Example: “Aggie fans like to wear blue on game days, study hard, and drink water.”
	These versions apply the same condition but no longer use a single subject as a representative of the whole. Now there isn't the danger of overstatement, and the pretentious air is relaxed without adversely affecting the forceful argument of the statement.
	In sum, pretentious writing suggests some standard to which the reader ought to aspire. It forces on the reader some condition or argument, not through the strength of the evidence or rhetoric, but rather through the creation of some arbitrary standard. Yes, you should be forceful in your writing and be bold in your argumentation, but do so through the authority of the information and its organization, and not through subtle linguistic tricks that imply a sense of looking down your nose at the rest of your audience.