Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
> At 02:29 PM 11/22/2009, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >This is vicious. There are probably quite a few million people in the
> >world who have interesting thngs to say who,if they attempt to write
> >them down produce miserable prose.
>
> That's just what I said. Generally people write badly before they
> write well.
No. What I said is that some people with important things to say, with real knowledge, NEVER learn to write well; can no more learn to write well than a tone deaf person can learn to sing well.
Writing is NOT a general human skill; it is a very special technology _separate_ from verbal skill, that some people will never master and should not be expected to master or be judged by their writing competence.
> My problem is that the piece was presented here as something to get
> excited about. I don't see how that follows.
This is ghe genre problem again. You are not acknowledging or recognizing its genre. Compare it to a leaflet calling for a demonstration. If we had one of the leaflets distributed in the provcess leading up to the Paris Commune, woujldn't you be excited regardless of its style. The same principle here. A leaflet (or this whole web page) is directed to a particular audience for a particular purpose. We should read it as a sign of a developing action, and the criteria for assessing it are the criteria that apply within that special context.
Someone wanted it signed in order know where it is coming from. But leaflets are never signed. They come not from a person but from some kind of collective entity.
Carrol