>I understand that, but why aren't more left academics turning out books
>that normal people can buy at the bookstore?
because you don't get "credit" for that. if your work is popular in the popular press that is actually considered "bad" in academia.
also, i've been extensively involved in work that is meant for regular folks. i don't think what i write is that hard to understand. the research lead for one of the projects once told me that i have a journalistic style even when writing up research. he started out as a journalist for the washington post, so i trust his judgement. he also used to introduce me as "marx for the masses." (admittedly, he has broad notion of what marxism is, 'k? :)
nonetheless, his judgement that i'm easy to read is not at all in sync with what people actually tell me after they read my writing. we had a conference about our "findings". at the conference and at cocktail parties--as well as among family and friends--i learned just how hard a time people have with this stuff. we're not talking h.s. education. we're talking, at least with conference attendees, college graduates.
i don't think, apart form my typhoes and gramma errors, i'm that hard to understand. but you know what? people on lists that are not composed of academics are afraid of me when i'm NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE. not because i'm mean, but because i can wield words with a facility that makes them feel extremely inferior. given an academic system that makes people feel as if they are responsible for their lack in this regard, no duh. i don't mean to make them feel this way and tend toward the extreme of thinking the best of people. sometimes i just live people in all their variety and i naturally assume they are bright. they seem pretty bright to me and, if anything, i get outraged at the stupidity of those who have had every advantage in life. i think what steve said about max yesterday was probably more where it's at.
anyway....
kelley