Let's not use "edgy and contrarian" like Britain's working class use "pretentious". E.g. to criticize any attempt to divert from the norm and be more inquisitive.
It's perfect fine to be "contrarian". If anything, we need more of those.
If I were to be cynical, I'd say it's because a woman writing on information technology. Or because someone is writing about information technology without it being strict and to the point and boring to everyone that doesn't have a geeky interest in that specific piece of technology. But most likely the former.
A phrase that I didn't use. If you're going to put words in my mouth, don't try to overanalyze what they might have meant had I said them.
As you said "there's a lot of valid criticism to be had". All I'm saying is to be aware of that and seek out that criticism. And don't believe everything you read, even in the NYT.
Not having time for in depth critical reading is understandable, but if that's the case, recognize it and adjust your confidence level appropriately.
> I think "attacking" Crazy New Ideas is how we develop them, iron out the kinks and test our understanding.
Criticism is the crucible in which crazy new ideas are forged into crazy viable ideas.
> However, the main problem I have with with this article is that it divides people into domain experts and the rest.
Let's be honest: in this day and age "the rest" are far too vocal and need to STFU on things which they have no knowledge. Sure, domain experts can disagree - let them be heard, but the know-nothings should be given zero attention.
>Second, the critiques themselves often have serious flaws, and then those have serious flaws, and it sort of goes on forever. I find this aspect of reality very frustrating, but most discussions seem to be an infinite regress carried on until someone gets exhausted and leaves.
There are two types of criticisms: criticism out of disagreement with the thesis, or a criticism that undermines the reasoning or conclusion of the thesis itself. The latter is much worse. Good journalists and writers try to keep the second to a minimum as it can come at a major cost to credibility.
If something is extremely popular but you perceive something wrong about it of course that's a good reason to write about it.
At the same time many critics seem to just try to put artists down because that makes it seem the critic is above the artist because he can see the wrongness in the artist. Critics are wannabe artists.
>If you are examining your own writing critically, it is worth critically examining the writing of others that you admire, and those you might disagree with.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I find that my own prose has benefited greatly from reading those who write well.
>This kind of criticism is supposed to be constructive, so it should not be taken as an attack.
Your point is well taken, however your characterization ("Everything is wrong") is even more extreme than what Pullum said in the piece you linked. He said "almost everything is wrong."
What's more, all the links you posted are quite critical of The Elements of Style and are not representative of the many other voices out there (cf. [0][1][2][3][4]). I'd expect that one might attempt to balance the criticism, rather than just piling on.
That's not to say I reject outright the criticisms of Pullum and Pereltsvaig. Rather, they both make interesting points.
However, from the standpoint of a lay person who wishes to write cogently and concisely (that is, most of us) rather than a grammarian or professional writer, Elements provides useful advice and numerous examples of good writing.
Are the recommendations contained therein universally apropos? Certainly not.
That said, for most people who wish to get a better sense, not only of how to write more clearly and concisely, but also what such writing looks like, Elements provides a wealth of suggestions and examples.
Whether or not you disagree with some of the recommendations in Elements, it stresses clarity, concision and direct expression of ideas.
That many will go beyond those recommendations doesn't invalidate the value of elucidating good writing habits, and utilizing them to provide cogent examples of the same.
Writing styles are inherently subjective, and a text like Elements is and can be a worthy supplement to reading widely and honing one's own style.
The Elements of Style isn't a tome with a litany of prescribed and proscribed methods and techniques. Rather it's a slim (only 52 pages) volume focused on expressing ideas clearly and concisely -- a goal it achieves for itself.
I recommend that you read it[5]. It shouldn't take more than 30-45 minutes.
With all due respect, no you aren't. There isn't any criticism of the actual content in your post. It's all critiquing the tone - what style he used when writing, who you think he thinks his audience is, how informal his phrasing is. None of that has ANYTHING to do with content, it's all about form.
I dislike how this article goes out of its way to prejudice the reader against a perfectly reasonable criticism but making it sound like critics are simply unwilling to entertain unconventional ideas.
Let's not use "edgy and contrarian" like Britain's working class use "pretentious". E.g. to criticize any attempt to divert from the norm and be more inquisitive.
It's perfect fine to be "contrarian". If anything, we need more of those.
reply