My guess - small changes in the way you use words may reduce the chance that you are badly misunderstood by some people.
I love your essays, but our personalities are probably similar. My friend Mike, who was always a word man when I was an idea guy, has a reaction to your writing that is so similar to hers that at first I was sure he was the author of her post.
When I read her point by point rebuttal, my reaction is that she seems to be missing the ideas behind the words, fighting the texture of the bark and missing the layout of the forest.
But in her mind the bark looks phony so the whole forest is a fraud.
The whole tension may be about personality and perspective, not truth and falsehoods.
I don't have an answer, or even specific suggestions. But I sense that there is something to learn here. And I suspect that you are more likely to solve the puzzle than she is.
I'd guess it's largely the nature of the Essay as a literary form. Some of the criticisms here are very reminiscent of those Arnauld and Pascal made regarding Montaigne's method and rigor.
It's fascinating that the same essay makes you intellectually galled, and me intellectually stimulated. I don't think it's because one of us is right and the other wrong. And I'm skeptical that lazy thinking is the source of the conflict.
Take the quote "Having good ideas is most of writing well."
My reaction was "that's an interesting belief", and I stopped to think about it. It seemed plausible, and that was enough for me to move along. I knew he was setting up an intuitive frame in order to make a larger point. I didn't bother to agree or disagree with the statement because I knew I could circle back to it if it was crucial to his major point. Even after all this debate, I feel no need to agree or disagree with the statement. I'm perfectly satisfied feeling that it is plausible.
Now I'm going to stick my neck out, because this is the part I'm trying to understand:
Perhaps you view statements like that as an attempted declaration of scientific fact. From that perspective, it's perfectly reasonable to respond "Woah cowboy, slow down! Either break this down for me or at least cite some references here, because that's a provocative statement". I bet that if pg had also written an essay on "Ideas and Writing Well", even that is a citation you would find useful, it wouldn't have to come from Aristotle.
Apologies if I am guessing wrong here, but if that is the way you view it: you are not wrong, I am not wrong, and pg is not wrong. We're just viewing the same statement differently.
I'm willing to bet that this is a subject pg has considered deeply. And from his perspective, I'm certain his statement is true. The criteria for "good writing" is definitely an opinion, and his is probably a well considered opinion. Your opinion could even be diametrically opposed, and that wouldn't make either of you wrong. It would just mean that you disagree. And that's perfectly OK.
It was your comment about the lack of references that hit me like a punch in the nose. From my perspective, that seemed to come way out of left field. But in retrospect, it could be a totally valid question when viewed from another perspective.
Reading your comment is a totally superior experience to reading pg's essay. You explained your viewpoint. You reasoned it out. You backed up your views. You didn't make seemingly unconnected bald statements with a single sentence and then moved on.
If pg has thought deeply on the subject, it's impossible to tell. He doesn't "show his work" at all. He doesn't explain how he came to a conclusion (unless you consider one speaker ever that he referenced), or give illustrations. He certainly doesn't try to bring you around to his way of thinking.
He also doesn't use words like "It seemed" or "I believe" or "the way I see it," or "from my perspective." Certainly there is no indication that he ever questions his own motives or beliefs.
BTW - when I wrote "references," I wasn't necessarily talking about research (except when I specifically said studies or research). I'm talking about evidence of thought process, justification, reasoning, any kind of investigation, internal or otherwise.
Public speaking didn't arise out of the late part of the 20th century, it's a tradition thousands of years old with thousands of years of opinions on it. It's extremely facile to simply declare it to be the bastard stepchild of writing (of course speaking came first), with little more value than appealing to the "mob" of the audience, without even acknowledging or disputing this history.
The whole essay is not argued at all, but a collection of bald statements (which I list above) which must be swallowed wholesale in order to continue reading.
It's "pure" exercise in a priori reasoning (although we don't see any reasoning).
But whether speaking has value or not is not something that can possibly yield to a priori.
The thing that pisses me off isn't that I believe we're talking about facts -- although, of course, that's the way pg states things because he (mis)uses classic style -- but the sheer lack of argument. The whole essay hinges on several statements which are presumed to be true, and without which, none of the other points make sense. Begging the question in action.
