When I was in undergrad, during my methodology class, my professor (and advisor) was asked, "How do you keep your journal articles jargon-free?" and his answer was, "After a certain level, you simply cannot, and to do so would actually make your writing bad historical writing." He then went on to compare two different articles by the same author written in a journal where undergraduates can submit, and a journal where only phd. can submit.
The difference in language was subtle but noticeable, because there is an implicit understanding that the article is written for someone who has the necessary background on the subject. The writer was able to not have to explain every concept in a journal for phd., since the readers were supposed to bring a baseline of knowledge, or know how and where to go to be educated (or who to ask). This is despite the fact that both were available via jstor.
There will always be people having conversations about things that are beyond your understandig on the topic. I do not instantly understand nuclear physics or computer science or organic chemistry, but I give credentialed people that I know aren't cranks the benefit of doubt that they know what's going on. This respect is often not extended to humanities people talking about their work because "blue curtain is just blue" people think the high school education they mostly rejected puts them on the same field of discussion as people educated on the subject. Yet, these are the people who get mad when they find that rudely interjecting into a conversation where everyone else is on the same page and saying understanding the conversation is too hard in an extremely hostile manner gets a answered with hostility.
The bottom line is, you aren't entitled to understanding everything you come across instantly. If you do not understand the conversation, it is your job to either get educated on the subject if it seems interesting enough, or move on if it seems incomprehensible and is not something you'd care about. If you enter a conversation you are not ready for, that is on you, not people bewildered at your antics.
35K notes · View notes
Hello Mr Gaiman,
I don't know if someone asked this before, but what was your inspiration in good Omens for the design of heaven and hell? BTW I love that corowley flat and aziraphaels bookshop are the opposite of that.
Greetings from Germany and thank you for your incredible works.
Terry Pratchett was always certain that the Good Omens Heaven and Hell were in the same building. He used to like to mention this KitKat advert (It's at 10:05, which is where this video should start). (But it doesn't want to. Manually move it to Kit Kat Limbo at 10:05.)
So that was my design idea. Heaven got the lovely rooms at the top of the skyscraper. Hell got the awful ones in the basement. When Michael Ralph, our amazing production designer, came to me with his first designs for an incredibly impressive Hell, I shook my head sadly and said, "Michael, the key to Hell in Good Omens, is it's all a bit shit. Too many people, not enough room, and the roof leaks." And he grinned, and that was what he gave us...
2K notes · View notes