The past three weeks have consisted in little more than artless rearrangement of claims as I wheel around "the merry-go-aground." What do I mean? Witness:
I decide that Claim 87 belongs before Claim 63. After moving Claim 87 there, I realize the cogency of Claim 87 requires Claims 73-86 immediately precede it. I proceed to front Claim 87 with Claims 73-86 and it is a full seventeen seconds before I remember Claim 76 sounds ridiculous when not preceded by Claims 69-72. Out come the cranes again (dropping dreadful claims like they're heresy, dropping dreadful claims into the ocean) and Claims 69-72 now precede Claim 76 again. Claim 69 then draws my attention. Logic demands I prove points before assuming them proven: Claim 69 relies on the point I establish in Claims 63-68. I deposit Claims 63-68 before Claim 69 and out comes the shame again (pouring from my mouth as profanity, pouring from my mouth like obscene devotions).
And there I am. Back where I started. Only more frustrated. More annoyed. And a couple hours older.
I'm currently writing an expository book for first-time programming, and it's the same deal. I wonder, though, whether you or I have the less chartiable audience: I think my standards for sequential logic is much higher than other authors in my genre, so I feel a self-imposed obligation; in academic writing, however, if you fail to make your point digestable, you're in danger of not getting a favorable reading and being accused of not having a point at all. I'll say I'm better off.
Posted by: aPantomimeHorse | Thursday, 29 September 2005 at 08:42 AM