5 ms·

I’m sure to be in the minority in finding this fellow’s writing poorly edited and roundly devoid of incisive insight. I’m being droned at by a textbook whose au

by w0de0 2y ago

I’m sure to be in the minority in finding this fellow’s writing poorly edited and roundly devoid of incisive insight. I’m being droned at by a textbook whose author has an italics fetish (lest I miss his point in a deluge of exposition - emphasis need not be emphasized were it not drowning). It’s inevitable one learns, but I long to read a scholar with a little style and rather more respect for his audience’s basic knowledge. Informed and informative, yes; erudite or pithy, he is most certainly not. Given a Gordian Knot this author would spend four years quite precisely untying it, never once noticing the sword he daily affixes to his hip.

automatic6131 2y ago
Whilst I appreciate the allusion to the Gordian Knot, you're still just... mistaken. I have no idea how you can read this and think that Bret doesn't a) have style (more than a little, even!) and b) a respect for his audience's basic knowledge. "Devoid of incisive insight"? Are we reading the same thing? "Poorly edited" - okay, yeah occasionally I've caught a grammatical or spelling error but everyone makes these - even big newspapers - when you put out enough words. It's well edited, but short of perfect. Not the same as poorly though, not even in the same league.
- w0de0 2y ago
  I may very well be mistaken. By poorly edited I mean there is much heedless verbosity, rather than many grammatical errors. An under-appreciated job of the editor is trimming and tightening, chasing out the dry chaff.
red_admiral 2y ago
I've always found Bret to have a very distinctive style - one might call it "nerdy" if one had to pick one word. Not just that he talks about LotR and Star Wars, but also the way he talks/writes. If you don't like his style, fine, you're allowed to dislike it, _de gustibus non est disputandum_. But I'm genuinely curious if you have a point of more substance behind this claim. As to basic knowledge - I think the Fremen Mirage series in particular is getting at an important point that should be basic knowledge, but is not; popular culture gets this backwards in so many ways. I think you are making a valid point with your Gordian Knot analogy, but I personally think that's a much better failure mode than pulling out the sword as your default answer to any problem. Bret has this thing about needing to prove even outright fascist claims factually wrong before denouncing them for any other reasons, but I still prefer that many times over to the "if an argument supports our side, who cares if it's true?" approach.
ranger207 2y ago
There's a couple of problems with his writing for a general audience. One is that he's very pedantic and will spend significant time on things that aren't the main point. The other is that he's a historian and will spend significant time on sources. Personally I appreciate these but yeah they don't lead to as concise an article as could be written
- automatic6131 2y ago
  >One is that he's very pedantic and will spend significant time on things that aren't the main point. You aren't gonna believe what ACOUP in acoup.blog stands for
cryptonector 2y ago
TFA definitely needs editing. Nowadays though there are no editors. There's no more code review for prose. It's just not economical. And if you're going to write that much, you're going to make mistakes. It's ok, though I admit it grates a bit. I'm sure I cause others to feel that way about my writing sometimes.

by w0de0 2y ago

automatic6131 2y ago

Whilst I appreciate the allusion to the Gordian Knot, you're still just... mistaken. I have no idea how you can read this and think that Bret doesn't a) have style (more than a little, even!) and b) a respect for his audience's basic knowledge. "Devoid of incisive insight"? Are we reading the same thing? "Poorly edited" - okay, yeah occasionally I've caught a grammatical or spelling error but everyone makes these - even big newspapers - when you put out enough words. It's well edited, but short of perfect. Not the same as poorly though, not even in the same league.

w0de0 2y ago
I may very well be mistaken. By poorly edited I mean there is much heedless verbosity, rather than many grammatical errors. An under-appreciated job of the editor is trimming and tightening, chasing out the dry chaff.

red_admiral 2y ago

I've always found Bret to have a very distinctive style - one might call it "nerdy" if one had to pick one word. Not just that he talks about LotR and Star Wars, but also the way he talks/writes. If you don't like his style, fine, you're allowed to dislike it, _de gustibus non est disputandum_. But I'm genuinely curious if you have a point of more substance behind this claim. As to basic knowledge - I think the Fremen Mirage series in particular is getting at an important point that should be basic knowledge, but is not; popular culture gets this backwards in so many ways. I think you are making a valid point with your Gordian Knot analogy, but I personally think that's a much better failure mode than pulling out the sword as your default answer to any problem. Bret has this thing about needing to prove even outright fascist claims factually wrong before denouncing them for any other reasons, but I still prefer that many times over to the "if an argument supports our side, who cares if it's true?" approach.

ranger207 2y ago

There's a couple of problems with his writing for a general audience. One is that he's very pedantic and will spend significant time on things that aren't the main point. The other is that he's a historian and will spend significant time on sources. Personally I appreciate these but yeah they don't lead to as concise an article as could be written

automatic6131 2y ago
>One is that he's very pedantic and will spend significant time on things that aren't the main point. You aren't gonna believe what ACOUP in acoup.blog stands for

cryptonector 2y ago

TFA definitely needs editing. Nowadays though there are no editors. There's no more code review for prose. It's just not economical. And if you're going to write that much, you're going to make mistakes. It's ok, though I admit it grates a bit. I'm sure I cause others to feel that way about my writing sometimes.