How to write (when all you do is read)

Iv'e been reading a lot lately. That's why I haven't been writing.
I've wanted to... but sometimes you just can't make it rain, you know?

The upshoot of it all is that I started going to a PhD seminar course in Qualitative Research methods. This being a course that is very, very heavy on terminology from knowledge philosophy, and we get so much to read that I hardly have time to work - the bottom line is that I'm stuffing my head full of new research concepts and philosophies ranging from the dawn of science philosophy to the pragmatic considerations of 'fuzzy' corporate research today - my brain is absolutely chock-full of impressions, insights, and (admittedly) a slight feeling of being overwhelmed. I never knew that so many >4-syllable-words (usually beginning with Q) could co-exist in so many sentences. Admittedly, this is probably the best course I've had ever, but the amount of reading exceeds 1.5 entire books per week, plus preparations of seminar assignments. And I still mix up the most important stuff about epistemology, ontology, constructionism and positivism. Egad.

All of these terms kind of scare me with regards to what they might do to my writing style. I've always wanted some kind of certainty that most stuff I write should be pretty straightforward to understand. It's kind of my duty, because if your job (and privilege) is to create new knowledge, writing it up in a dense manner just does everyone a disservice, if you ask me.
On the other hand, one of my supervisors recently criticised a slightly, shall we say, flourishing-with-irony expression I used in a journal paper I'd written, saying that 'Research papers shouldn't be easy to read, this isn't creative writing'... Need I say that I'm reluctant to write with
him again...? ;)

Ot the other hand, E recently did me the great favour (or, considering the timing with the course, unfortunate disservice, but I don't want to appear ungrateful ;) of lending me the two Erlend Loe-books I haven't read yet. I like the tone in the books - not only because Loe can describe an upcoming 25-year-depression crisis in such a deadpan way that you wear a big grin throughout the description. The main characters are always fantastically naive (and usually rather down-to-earth at the same time. How does that work out?) and want to comprehend the world, time and the meaning of life in a very structured, quasi-scientific way, albeit with condiserable optimism (even the depressed guy is decidedly optimistic). Furthermore they usually fall prey to impulses that throw their entire lives around somewhere in the middle of the book, which they always accept very stoically. One thing that strikes me is that the tone of writing is 1)very manly and 2) a bit autistic. I can't say why, but I can't see a woman writing this way (even though I occasionally feel like I would like to). And I like it.

Anyway, I guess that if you like someone, or what they do, it usually makes an impression that surfaces in your own choices and creative work. Hopefully for the better. I can't imagine a better way of connecting with people around me than letting the best things about them leave their mark on me.