Comment by jpfromlondon
18 hours ago
When I see what passes for modern writing, be it genre fiction, non-fic for the general audience, or even the literary, I'm not sure I want to appeal to, convince, or share knowledge with them.
Like casting pearls before swine.
Your reply reads very similar to what Hart wrote:
> True, some readers become indignant at their own inability to follow prose of any complexity or to recognize words any more obscure than those they are accustomed to using when talking to their dogs.
I do think that there is value in using precise, obscure words to convey precise, obscure knowledge (as with Hart's pogonotrophy example).
However, if all critique is dismissed as the indignation of swine, then how will anyone holding that position ever be able to tell whether they are just a bad writer?
Hart suggests that they should critique themselves, or rely on the critiques of those who write in the same way as they do. I am a programmer though, not an author. But I know that only accepting reviews from those I consider accomplished enough, and ignoring reviews by others as if they were indignant at their own inability to comprehend my code, is a very dangerous path to walk.
I don't think I would dismiss all critique as the indignation of swine. Previously valid criticism came in the form of review, be it from peers or the establishment, and while there might be a broader conversation to be had regarding the current state of literary review some voices probably have merit, I'm not familiar enough to know which, but would welcome recommendations from anyone that happens to read this.
I suspect most are drowned out by indignant squealing.
Re: code. I want to address you twice.
1. "ignoring reviews by others as if they were indignant at their own inability to comprehend my code", yes because doing so means ignoring your manager (hah).
2. Code review is very difficult to get right, the question I ask myself is whether I trust the individual to approach the repo without prejudice to the method or the author, I would think the ignorant would be reluctant to post a review lest their ignorance be broadcast to the team.
> yes because doing so means ignoring your manager Oh luckily I've been blessed with managers who don't code or do code reviews, so I lucked out there, haha.
But I'll admit that code review is actually not the best comparison, as my PRs don't get reviews from thousands of people from the public - only from other engineers. So I suppose that's actually an argument in favor of Hart.