4 ms·

Can you at the very least expand on why it's so terrible, maybe a couple of examples so we can understand where you're coming from. All we really have is "Good

by parksy 8y ago

Can you at the very least expand on why it's so terrible, maybe a couple of examples so we can understand where you're coming from. All we really have is "Good God, my eyes" and similar epithets implying your stance that this is simply intellectual masturbation and hubris, but no real substance into what exactly makes you feel this reaction to the article. I am genuinely curious because I thought for what it was worth, it conveyed its point pretty well regardless of whether the guy is some big shot writer or not.

motohagiography 8y ago
At least two cliches per paragraph, buried lede some 500 words in on what "packaging," actually is and why it's bad, voice changes mid paragraph (first, second, third), to start. If these didn't merit a "Good God, my eyes," by themselves there are some great resources online about how to write. For a topic like the ethical (fiduciary?) obligations of agents to the people they represent, the issues above raise doubts about whether the writer can think clearly enough to represent a credible and honest case. To triple down, when you are a pro writer, producing ostentatiously poor work is a forfeit and an expression of contempt for readers.
- dralley 8y ago
  >buried lede some 500 words in on what "packaging," actually is and why it's bad, His primary audience is not HackerNews. I assume that most of the people subscribed to David Simon's blog are probably working in Hollywood and thus do not need so much explanation as to what Packaging is. He even explicitly calls out the fact that we are not the intended audience for his rant in the first substantial paragraph of the piece, and implicitly through his repeated references to the Writer's Guild of America. So I find this criticism rather unfair. Imagine a Facebook group for bird watching complaining about how a Medium post ranting about the evils of object-oriented programming didn't sufficiently explain what it is to people with no experience in programming.
- clucas 8y ago
  Are you seriously arguing that because he buried the lede and changed voices, you doubt his ability to think clearly enough to opine on fiduciary duties? I appreciate fine writing as much as the next person, but the standard you seem to be applying is hardly correlated at all with clear thinking - it's correlated with lots of training and taking care to write in that style. On a tangent: your original comment is missing a possessive comma. But I would never make the argument that such a lack of attention to detail brings your entire line of thinking into question. I'll take issue with the content of your post rather than the form.
  - motohagiography 8y ago
    We're way deep into a thread now, but it's an important problem. I would very seriously argue that someone who does not write clearly in their native language has not reasoned clearly enough about what they are trying to express. They may experience, feel, believe, express, or desire, but without the language, they have not reasoned about it with clarity. What's more, they are relying on something other than reason to prevail. It's analogous to the "you only know something as well as you can teach it," or Feynman's "explain it to a child," learning technique. Regarding the apostrophe, it's a fine catch and I would ask whether the effort the writer made was commensurate with their intended purpose.

by parksy 8y ago

motohagiography 8y ago

At least two cliches per paragraph, buried lede some 500 words in on what "packaging," actually is and why it's bad, voice changes mid paragraph (first, second, third), to start. If these didn't merit a "Good God, my eyes," by themselves there are some great resources online about how to write. For a topic like the ethical (fiduciary?) obligations of agents to the people they represent, the issues above raise doubts about whether the writer can think clearly enough to represent a credible and honest case. To triple down, when you are a pro writer, producing ostentatiously poor work is a forfeit and an expression of contempt for readers.

dralley 8y ago
>buried lede some 500 words in on what "packaging," actually is and why it's bad, His primary audience is not HackerNews. I assume that most of the people subscribed to David Simon's blog are probably working in Hollywood and thus do not need so much explanation as to what Packaging is. He even explicitly calls out the fact that we are not the intended audience for his rant in the first substantial paragraph of the piece, and implicitly through his repeated references to the Writer's Guild of America. So I find this criticism rather unfair. Imagine a Facebook group for bird watching complaining about how a Medium post ranting about the evils of object-oriented programming didn't sufficiently explain what it is to people with no experience in programming.
clucas 8y ago
Are you seriously arguing that because he buried the lede and changed voices, you doubt his ability to think clearly enough to opine on fiduciary duties? I appreciate fine writing as much as the next person, but the standard you seem to be applying is hardly correlated at all with clear thinking - it's correlated with lots of training and taking care to write in that style. On a tangent: your original comment is missing a possessive comma. But I would never make the argument that such a lack of attention to detail brings your entire line of thinking into question. I'll take issue with the content of your post rather than the form.
- motohagiography 8y ago
  We're way deep into a thread now, but it's an important problem. I would very seriously argue that someone who does not write clearly in their native language has not reasoned clearly enough about what they are trying to express. They may experience, feel, believe, express, or desire, but without the language, they have not reasoned about it with clarity. What's more, they are relying on something other than reason to prevail. It's analogous to the "you only know something as well as you can teach it," or Feynman's "explain it to a child," learning technique. Regarding the apostrophe, it's a fine catch and I would ask whether the effort the writer made was commensurate with their intended purpose.