[caligarn]

Is Paul unfamiliar with what makes good academic writing? He starts by digging into academic writing, but I am not sure he knows how it functions and what it functions to do. Good and great academic writing pushes the envelope on theories and frameworks and tends to be the repository for new ideas that people like Paul use to make sense of the world. A case in point is Clayton Christensen. It's in the forges of his profession and writing practice that his Innovator's Dilemma was born. Academic writing may not be accessible and easy to read for outsiders, and tends towards a high degree of density. But that's the task of journalists, business people, educators, and essayists etc. to translate and apply it to the real world.

[rdlecler1]

Former academic here. I disagree. Academic writing has evolved to demonstrate that you are (1) an insider and (2) to obfuscate your ideas so that peer reviewers are less likely to challenge you.

[TimPC]

I think this varies a lot by subject. Certain fields reward ambiguity and vagueness quite heavily. Good academic writing tends to be the exception rather than the rule. This may be true of essays as well as good writing is quite rare. I think the criticism is less about accessibility and more about the general trend towards uselessness of academic writing in a lot of fields of academia.