To whom it may concern,
I have become increasingly frustrated with the way you write your articles, books and general ramblings. Either you don't know how to write sentences shorter than a page, spectacularly mis- and over-use commas (I thought I was bad before I started reading these texts) or (well, probably 'and'), my current frustration, you feel the need to use stupidly long words.
Do you realise that humiliating your reader into submission is not a good way to be convincing? The idea is you actually give a decent argument rather than just trying to sift out the people with enough sense to go, 'I'm not going to wade through this crap just to be left feeling wholly unsatisfied. There are enough people out there who can leave me feeling unsatisfied without wasting quite so much of my time.' Then, the only people who are left, will go 'oh yes, it was brilliant, quite brilliant indeed' because they don't want you to realise they don't know what most of the words meant.
When I've typed 'define: ...' into google more than 5 times while trying to read a philosophical article, I usually start to get a bit frustrated. It's all very well being elitist and aiming at a higher audience, but unfortunately some of us are forced (or at least optimistically expected) to read your bullshit. Philosophy is not (should not be?) about confusing and embarrassing people. It's about being convincing if you have something worthwhile to say. So from now on, if you're not going to let me understand what you're talking about, I'm going to assume you're attempting to hide a bad argument behind long words. Then I'll go back to reading books about Winnie the Pooh (the original text is a bit hardcore for me...).
Yours faithfully,
Me.
0 comments:
Post a Comment