3 ms·
The guy's problem is he's a terrible writer, which is pretty unforgivable considering his career. If he could articulate himself better I'd be interested to le
by Judgmentality 6y ago
The guy's problem is he's a terrible writer, which is pretty unforgivable considering his career. If he could articulate himself better I'd be interested to learn more about his story. Brevity is the way to go. This guy isn't Faulkner.
I'll regularly go hours into holes reading fascinating articles about obscure topics. I even wanted to learn more about this, but I just could not stomach his awful writing. He thinks he's more important than he is and he clearly does not know his audience, which is what got him into trouble in the first place.
He is legitimately a bad writer. He's not even mediocre. And the majority of comments here on HN seem to agree, and this is hardly the "knee-jerk" reaction forum of the internet.
- pbcoronel 6y agoThere's a difference between writers and reporters. I think this guy is known as an amazing _reporter_. I think there are some people who are both but they are less common than you might think. So yes, he does need help in the writing department but, as someone mentioned before, he just lost that.
- Judgmentality 6y agoOkay, fair. I guess what I should have said is "he needs to learn how to tell his story in a way that people want to listen." Finding an editor is likely an easier solution than relearning how to write.
- breischl 6y agoI suspect that he was also writing in large part for his colleagues at the NYT, who might be quite a bit more interested in the office/corporate/union politics angles that he spends a lot of time talking about. Obviously that's less interesting for those of us on the outside.
- kelnos 6y agoTaste really is subjective. I couldn't stop reading, and enjoyed his writing style (a pity I've been introduced to it by such an awful tale).
- SurfingToad 6y agoIf you think these articles qualify as 'terrible writing', you haven't read much.