Post publishing thought: Now one may argue that I am being self-congratulatory, that I'm rationalizing a deficiency. But I might then observe that this is very much an aesthetic conversation. And if you haven't already noticed, I'm quite the fan of David Hume and Albert Camus.
Keep doing what you are doing, Mike. The refrsins are beautiful, like incantations, and clearly intentional. There is, among literary types in the humanities, a general presumption that the writer is in control of his work and that his choices are very deliberate attempts to reach clearly defined goals . A few writers fail at this, but you do not. For the love of God please ignore requests to shorten or dumb down your writing. Maglafication is not a consummation devoutly to be wished. Stand firm, and hold your ground.
I for one (with 3 advanced degrees) am learning so much from your work to educate those philosophically inclined but without formal training in that field. I am not sure if the following etymology is wholly correct, but e-ducere, to lead out, seems as good a definition of education as any.. and you accomplish this with tact and grace. Thank you for your impeccable writing, your learning, and your courage.
Totes. Somewhere back in my dark distant past, I seem to recall getting some kind of literary degree, and I am constantly humbled and in awe. I only wish you had a much greater audience and your thinking could be shared a lot wider. The world would be a better place for it.
“Criticism is as inevitable as breathing.” — T.S. Eliot from Traditional and the Individual Talent
Your writing style doesn’t bother me. You’re in good company: T.S. Eliot used repetition. It’s as old as Homer’s “The Odyssey,” which repeats certain details throughout. Because poems were recited, these repeated details served as mnemonic devices for those who were tasked with recitals.
A scientist friend watches Rachel Maddow but complains about her repetiveness. I tell him, "It's obvious you have spoken only to academics and researchers, not, like me, to high school classes."
The first post of yours that I read was about the Circus. I see the child holding a candle while the wind blew and I felt hope we would survive with the help of that child, I thought of the wind as our enemy trying to destroy us and our safety . Every time you. Say "The wire still holds I say a prayer! Every time in the moment of fright I feel as the tent flaps and the wire bends you say "Two plus two equals four" and my hope returns and I feel a sense gratitude I am huddled in the tent with friends and fighters who will not give up keeping that wire connected. No matter what happens. Don't change a thing Mike. The wire, the lite candles , the child, the relighting of some of the candles, all make me think will we survive? And I feel more than just hope! I ask myself what can I do to help as I will be 81 next Sunday. I answer to myself provide comfort and encouragement to those keeping the wire connected! I pray the wind will stop and the sun will shine again. That is what our ancestors have done. Some lived to see the calm and some didn't. I hope I can say I was one that did. I am in this race for time !!
As a fellow writer on here, I don't understand these folks who log in to Substack and take it as their job to try to "fix" other people's writing. Seriously, no one asked for it, and if someone did, you'll know it because they, I don't know, explicitly asked for that type of feedback. Here's a handy rule for commenting on Substack: comment on content, not form.
What was "required" was to cover the points of failure in Brock's "style" defense. I didn't say I disliked his "style", I did say that that some of the things he was hiding behind the cover of a "question of style" (reducing the matter to a subject of taste-criticism) had to do with his poor writing skills and nothing to do with style, per se.
As for 'nodding heads', that's an observation not an insult. If you look at almost all the comments here, they are of a species of unqualified approval, without any real supporting argument, let alone citing actual faults or improvements that Brock might make. Not least of which is Brocks' defensive reaction to such critique. That alone is a dead giveaway. Those with experience in the writing game don't reach for a lot of excuses for why they write the way they do when faced with critique on their writing. Obviously Brock has had enough "feedback" about his writing to serve as a good indicator that he should be listening to it, rather than blowing it off with arguments that try to deflect and hide it.
I can assure you, anonymous critic, that your particular objections weren't rattling around my head when I wrote this. I wrote it because I'm interested in philosophical pedagogy—in making explicit what I'm attempting so readers can evaluate it consciously rather than just reacting to whether it "feels" right to them.
You claim I'm "hiding behind style" to excuse "poor writing skills," but you haven't actually engaged with the argument I made. I said refrains serve cognitive anchoring functions, that showing reasoning serves pedagogical purposes, that integration of registers demonstrates philosophical commitments, that density is necessary for certain kinds of complexity. You can disagree with these claims, but you'd need to explain why. Why don't refrains serve those functions? Why isn't showing work pedagogically valuable? Why is integration of registers actually just confused writing? Make the argument.
You're irritated that I responded to feedback at all, calling it "defensive." But I made arguments. I explained my methodology. I justified my choices. That's not defensiveness—that's intellectual engagement. If you think I'm wrong, make the counter-argument. Show me where the refrains fail, where the pedagogy doesn't work, where the density obscures rather than clarifies. Bring evidence. Cite examples. But "you're just making excuses" isn't critique—it's dismissal pretending to be analysis.
As for the "nodding heads"—you're asserting that positive responses lack real supporting argument, but multiple commenters explicitly engaged with specific elements. One compared it to academic writing and explained why it works. Another discussed refrains as incantations and referenced literary theory. Another described how the mythology functions for her. Several others specified which aspects they find valuable. You're calling this "unqualified approval" because they disagree with you, not because they lack reasoning.
You claim "those with experience in the writing game don't reach for excuses." But philosophers routinely explain their methodology. That's not insecurity—that's transparency about method. I'm doing public philosophy. Part of that work is making the methodology visible so people can understand what they're engaging with. If you think that's defensive, you misunderstand what philosophical writing does.
Finally, you suggest I've had "enough feedback" to know I should be listening. But the feedback is contradictory. Some say too long, others say the length is necessary. Some say repetitive, others say the refrains are powerful. Some want pure analysis, others value the mythology. I can't "listen to feedback" when the feedback points in opposite directions. What I can do is be clear about what I'm attempting and let readers decide if it serves them.
So: do you have an actual argument about why my methodology fails? Specific examples of where it doesn't work? I'm genuinely open to that conversation. But "you're just being defensive" isn't a conversation—it's an attempt to end one. And I'm not interested in being silenced by someone who mistakes explanation for excuse and pedagogical transparency for insecurity.
Thank you. Your reply made my original case exactly. Do you know any words anyone puts on a page that aren’t “refrains [that] serve cognitive anchoring functions” (a meaningless tautology). To what else do you think they could possibly be “anchored”? Like I said, you’ve made my point. No need to say more, the rest of your reply is much the same. Wish you the best.
I hope at my age, I'm still learning! I try. I completely agree with what you're trying to do. Yes, it's difficult sometimes to grasp ideas but that's why your method is helpful. It gives you the trail to follow to see how and why we arrived at that particular point. Do I always absorb all the intricacies of that journey, no .... but it gives me facts, which are the foundation I walk on, and it gives me food for thought to contemplate those things that I didn't fully understand. I learned long ago from a teacher who taught us to do long division only, by showing our work! Not just the answer, but how we arrived at that conclusion. It has served us all well in everything we do, I'm sure. So, thank you for your explanation. I'm sorry there were those who thought they knew better than you, how to convey your thoughts into words. Isn't it amazing how perfectly "know-it-all" one becomes on judging others when given the anonymity of social media, but rarely identifies their own short comings? PHD's on every subject in the world. You won't find a PHD lurking in my comments I'm afraid. Thank you for sharing your time and efforts with us all. I appreciate it very much.
I’m an editor and proud member of the elite precariat. 😉 Your writing style is fine. You are conveying your ideas clearly and with a passion that brings a potentially dry topic alive. It’s really easy to be a critic, much harder to create something original. Every single writer I enjoy here on Substack gets this kind of feedback and my personal opinion is that you don’t need to waste energy defending your writing…because people (including the armchair critics) are reading it, aren’t they? 😈
Post publishing thought: Now one may argue that I am being self-congratulatory, that I'm rationalizing a deficiency. But I might then observe that this is very much an aesthetic conversation. And if you haven't already noticed, I'm quite the fan of David Hume and Albert Camus.
Post-post publishing thought: this is meta-philosophy, by the way. What it is, that I’m doing now.
Thank you for helping us build mental fortresses against the barrage of bully-shit
Keep doing what you are doing, Mike. The refrsins are beautiful, like incantations, and clearly intentional. There is, among literary types in the humanities, a general presumption that the writer is in control of his work and that his choices are very deliberate attempts to reach clearly defined goals . A few writers fail at this, but you do not. For the love of God please ignore requests to shorten or dumb down your writing. Maglafication is not a consummation devoutly to be wished. Stand firm, and hold your ground.
I for one (with 3 advanced degrees) am learning so much from your work to educate those philosophically inclined but without formal training in that field. I am not sure if the following etymology is wholly correct, but e-ducere, to lead out, seems as good a definition of education as any.. and you accomplish this with tact and grace. Thank you for your impeccable writing, your learning, and your courage.
Totes. Somewhere back in my dark distant past, I seem to recall getting some kind of literary degree, and I am constantly humbled and in awe. I only wish you had a much greater audience and your thinking could be shared a lot wider. The world would be a better place for it.
“Criticism is as inevitable as breathing.” — T.S. Eliot from Traditional and the Individual Talent
Your writing style doesn’t bother me. You’re in good company: T.S. Eliot used repetition. It’s as old as Homer’s “The Odyssey,” which repeats certain details throughout. Because poems were recited, these repeated details served as mnemonic devices for those who were tasked with recitals.
A scientist friend watches Rachel Maddow but complains about her repetiveness. I tell him, "It's obvious you have spoken only to academics and researchers, not, like me, to high school classes."
Your writing style is the reason I subscribed.
The first post of yours that I read was about the Circus. I see the child holding a candle while the wind blew and I felt hope we would survive with the help of that child, I thought of the wind as our enemy trying to destroy us and our safety . Every time you. Say "The wire still holds I say a prayer! Every time in the moment of fright I feel as the tent flaps and the wire bends you say "Two plus two equals four" and my hope returns and I feel a sense gratitude I am huddled in the tent with friends and fighters who will not give up keeping that wire connected. No matter what happens. Don't change a thing Mike. The wire, the lite candles , the child, the relighting of some of the candles, all make me think will we survive? And I feel more than just hope! I ask myself what can I do to help as I will be 81 next Sunday. I answer to myself provide comfort and encouragement to those keeping the wire connected! I pray the wind will stop and the sun will shine again. That is what our ancestors have done. Some lived to see the calm and some didn't. I hope I can say I was one that did. I am in this race for time !!
Or, like a certain “journalist”, you could respond to criticism by bullying, blocking, and mocking instead of responding to it.
I’m glad you’re not like him, or them.
Don’t change a goddam thing, Mike.
For everyone else…. More art less technocratic dry analysis. More rhetoric, less didactic. Form has meaning. So more poetry less pedantry.
As a fellow writer on here, I don't understand these folks who log in to Substack and take it as their job to try to "fix" other people's writing. Seriously, no one asked for it, and if someone did, you'll know it because they, I don't know, explicitly asked for that type of feedback. Here's a handy rule for commenting on Substack: comment on content, not form.
Mike - your response to criticism is another example of your brilliant writing - I very much enjoy your thoughts - one of your paid supporters
I also recognize the “two plus two equals four” from George Orwell’s 1984
What was "required" was to cover the points of failure in Brock's "style" defense. I didn't say I disliked his "style", I did say that that some of the things he was hiding behind the cover of a "question of style" (reducing the matter to a subject of taste-criticism) had to do with his poor writing skills and nothing to do with style, per se.
As for 'nodding heads', that's an observation not an insult. If you look at almost all the comments here, they are of a species of unqualified approval, without any real supporting argument, let alone citing actual faults or improvements that Brock might make. Not least of which is Brocks' defensive reaction to such critique. That alone is a dead giveaway. Those with experience in the writing game don't reach for a lot of excuses for why they write the way they do when faced with critique on their writing. Obviously Brock has had enough "feedback" about his writing to serve as a good indicator that he should be listening to it, rather than blowing it off with arguments that try to deflect and hide it.
I can assure you, anonymous critic, that your particular objections weren't rattling around my head when I wrote this. I wrote it because I'm interested in philosophical pedagogy—in making explicit what I'm attempting so readers can evaluate it consciously rather than just reacting to whether it "feels" right to them.
You claim I'm "hiding behind style" to excuse "poor writing skills," but you haven't actually engaged with the argument I made. I said refrains serve cognitive anchoring functions, that showing reasoning serves pedagogical purposes, that integration of registers demonstrates philosophical commitments, that density is necessary for certain kinds of complexity. You can disagree with these claims, but you'd need to explain why. Why don't refrains serve those functions? Why isn't showing work pedagogically valuable? Why is integration of registers actually just confused writing? Make the argument.
You're irritated that I responded to feedback at all, calling it "defensive." But I made arguments. I explained my methodology. I justified my choices. That's not defensiveness—that's intellectual engagement. If you think I'm wrong, make the counter-argument. Show me where the refrains fail, where the pedagogy doesn't work, where the density obscures rather than clarifies. Bring evidence. Cite examples. But "you're just making excuses" isn't critique—it's dismissal pretending to be analysis.
As for the "nodding heads"—you're asserting that positive responses lack real supporting argument, but multiple commenters explicitly engaged with specific elements. One compared it to academic writing and explained why it works. Another discussed refrains as incantations and referenced literary theory. Another described how the mythology functions for her. Several others specified which aspects they find valuable. You're calling this "unqualified approval" because they disagree with you, not because they lack reasoning.
You claim "those with experience in the writing game don't reach for excuses." But philosophers routinely explain their methodology. That's not insecurity—that's transparency about method. I'm doing public philosophy. Part of that work is making the methodology visible so people can understand what they're engaging with. If you think that's defensive, you misunderstand what philosophical writing does.
Finally, you suggest I've had "enough feedback" to know I should be listening. But the feedback is contradictory. Some say too long, others say the length is necessary. Some say repetitive, others say the refrains are powerful. Some want pure analysis, others value the mythology. I can't "listen to feedback" when the feedback points in opposite directions. What I can do is be clear about what I'm attempting and let readers decide if it serves them.
So: do you have an actual argument about why my methodology fails? Specific examples of where it doesn't work? I'm genuinely open to that conversation. But "you're just being defensive" isn't a conversation—it's an attempt to end one. And I'm not interested in being silenced by someone who mistakes explanation for excuse and pedagogical transparency for insecurity.
Thank you. Your reply made my original case exactly. Do you know any words anyone puts on a page that aren’t “refrains [that] serve cognitive anchoring functions” (a meaningless tautology). To what else do you think they could possibly be “anchored”? Like I said, you’ve made my point. No need to say more, the rest of your reply is much the same. Wish you the best.
I love your writing style.
I love reading your posts. People that complain are those who don’t really like to read. Keep on being yourself.
The world needs more Mike, not less. The 15 second soundbite is the devil's work. Insidious and undermining.
I hope at my age, I'm still learning! I try. I completely agree with what you're trying to do. Yes, it's difficult sometimes to grasp ideas but that's why your method is helpful. It gives you the trail to follow to see how and why we arrived at that particular point. Do I always absorb all the intricacies of that journey, no .... but it gives me facts, which are the foundation I walk on, and it gives me food for thought to contemplate those things that I didn't fully understand. I learned long ago from a teacher who taught us to do long division only, by showing our work! Not just the answer, but how we arrived at that conclusion. It has served us all well in everything we do, I'm sure. So, thank you for your explanation. I'm sorry there were those who thought they knew better than you, how to convey your thoughts into words. Isn't it amazing how perfectly "know-it-all" one becomes on judging others when given the anonymity of social media, but rarely identifies their own short comings? PHD's on every subject in the world. You won't find a PHD lurking in my comments I'm afraid. Thank you for sharing your time and efforts with us all. I appreciate it very much.
I’m an editor and proud member of the elite precariat. 😉 Your writing style is fine. You are conveying your ideas clearly and with a passion that brings a potentially dry topic alive. It’s really easy to be a critic, much harder to create something original. Every single writer I enjoy here on Substack gets this kind of feedback and my personal opinion is that you don’t need to waste energy defending your writing…because people (including the armchair critics) are reading it, aren’t they? 😈
Agree largely, yet even in defending his writing he made me think and see things I hadn’t thought about. So, another score for Mike!
I assure everyone I didn’t write this from a place of insecurity or a need to justify myself.