An intriguing but lazily written article
Richard W. writes:
I found this article by Daniel Greenfield, “The Graveyard of Neo-Conservatism,” interesting and thought you might as well.LA replies:
Thanks for sending. He has interesting and original insights, and I thought of posting and commenting on it. But the article is also sloppily written, with unexplained references, mixed metaphors, jumbled overlong sentence that contain an unintelligible hash of ideas, and so on. It’s a draft that needs more work.
Paul Nachman writes:
I think you’re too hard on Daniel Greenfield, or, anyway, not appreciative enough. It’s a muscular article, with passages like this:LA replies:
I agree. There were strong passages in the article that I wanted to praise and comment on, but, by the time I finished the article, the badly written parts had given me mental indigestion. There are paragraphs so jumbled that I have no idea what he’s saying. There is no excuse for such sloppy writing, especially when one has the ability to write better and one is dealing with such a serious issue, as Greenfield was here.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 20, 2012 03:08 PM | Send