[tw102]

I think you're right. This essay, like so many of PG's, has the exact hallmarks of a smart person thinking for themselves about a topic.

If you "think for yourself" when confronted with a problem like this (a problem at least three millennia old! People have been arguing about effective writing for a long time), you'll inevitably retrace some steps—good steps—of smart thinkers that have gone before you. But you won't be able to think deeply! PG, like some many smart people who embark on criticism, don't imagine the responses-to-their-response (which are, historically, also by clever and independent thinkers), and the third order responses, and so on.

This essay is shallow because it has no reference to, and no argument against, the generations of writers who thought "perhaps complexity or even obscurity has an essential and unavoidable place in our writing" and wrote persuasively to advocate for the need complexity in writing.

This (like so many of PG's essays about things that aren't programming), is armchair philosophy about a contentious and deep topic that doesn't consider the very real problems of writing. PG (by virtue of his position) doesn't have to, and therefore cannot, steelman his arguments. While you're right that this essay isn't in any way "dumb", unfortunately the comment you're responding to was right! This is pseudo-intellectualism.

[amadeuspagel]

The essay is called write simply and it explains how and why to write simply. It's not a complete overview of all thought about writing. PG has hinted at the necessity of obscure writing in other essays, also without refering to generations of writers before him. Obscure writing is meaningful only if it as an exception, only then can it lead people to think about why the author is writing obscurely about a topic, and not that the author can't write. It's ironic to complain that PG doesn't simply tell people to write obscurely.