tips on writing style - truthful and informative without being boring

(advice from a friend)

The traditional persona of an accomplished and reliable informer is one who is restrained and almost stoic when it comes to passing off judgments, especially those overarching generalizations about a person rather than on the individual points, on justifiable or unjustifiable grounds. I'm not saying that any naming-name critique is bad. But there's a way to do it so that no personal spite is detected. More skillfully, the critique can come across as humorous, good natured, and savage at the same time. I'm far from knowing how to do this properly. But I'm comfortable with a certain academic approach to critiquing. Some scholars are very good at it in that they can do this without being pedantic and without sounding too journalistic. Their normative, prescriptive judgments come across clearly, and what is right and wrong are clearly demarcated. But this is all done without giving people the impression that they're denigrating any one, especially, someone who has an established stature in the field.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Edward Thorp's single most important piece of advice: think for yourself and think critically

making your own home page for your web browser instead of using browser's bookmarks