>(I'll put a K in front of Kelly's post.)
>
>K)Let's take Doug as an example. Most people on this list believe
>Doug is a stellar example of clear, relatively jargon-free writing.
>In my experience, most people I've worked with would find Doug's
>work difficult--whether they're the CIO of a Fortune 50, a degreed
>professional who reads Harper's, or a butcher.
>
>J) I don't think Doug's a good example. His writing is clear, but
>it's also sarcastic, witty, and relies on an assumed "common"
>background with his readers that some potential readers would not
>have. There's also a lot of irony that might prove confusing to the
>many readers.
It depends on the audience I'm writing for. If it's for a left audience, then I assume the common background. If not, then I don't. If it's for The Nation, I assume the common background but cut back on the irony, to beat the editors to the punch.
Doug