That's the way I try to write, with middling results; I'm nowhere nearly as gifted as you are (which drives me a little nuts). I don't know if it's the way Patrick tries to write. But I do know that Patrick's writing is extraordinarily successful. It's stylistically not to your liking, you've made very clear, but it's effective at communicating the ideas he's looking to communicate, and, especially with Bits About Money, has found a large and receptive audience.

The concision you're looking for in his work is one mark of successful writing, but not the only one. You can compare his writing to that of, say, the Rationalists, who have never found a narrative they were unable to pulverize into a half-finished wiki page. There's research, and the choice of which details to make prominent. B.A.M. succeeds in part because it tells interesting stories. That's good writing, regardless of stylistic choices.

I think you're being too glib. This could have been a much more interesting discussion.

The guy came here and said, people can't handle my writing because it's so dense and textured; let them go ahead and try to write these millions of words. I thought that was obnoxious, but since the technology does not yet exist to give people swirlies over the internet, I adapt to the constraints of the medium.

I really don't care about the personal dynamics here. We are all three of us polarizing figures to substantial numbers of people on the Internet.

What bugs me is the blithe assertion about the quality of his writing, because like it's just demonstrably false that he writes badly. He has different writing goals, different subject matter, a different audience, and a very different style. It's easy to see how any or all of those things might not be your cup of tea. But his writing is effective, which is really the first and most important thing you want to ask for from what he's trying to accomplish. Just as important (to me, nerding out about this) I don't think he'd be more effective if he tried to write more like you do.

I'm sorry, but he writes badly! Like the guy at the head of the thread said, it's painful trying to parse his sentences, and that's not because the material is inherently difficult (compare Matt Levine, who can make similar subject matter read like Wodehouse).

The context of this subthread is a non-native speaker asking if the fault here lies with the writer or the reader, and I gave my honest opinion. Arguments about effectiveness and success are neither here nor there; don't make me drag Kenny G into this.

It is wild to me that you think that, because he has a following that adores his writing, including among professional writers. I'm not trying to persuade you at this point, but I genuinely would like a better understanding of how you think about this stuff.

This is not about sticking up for Patrick, who can stick up himself just fine (he has more readers than either of us). It's about my understanding of what "good writing" is.

This is like watching someone arguing with the French Laundry staff that the cooking on the USS Ronald Reagan is still technically good cooking.

I'd enjoy a prix fixe meal at the French Laundry more than I would a burger on an aircraft carrier, but a lot of people wouldn't agree with me about that!

Never been on board, but I suspect the cooking on the USS Ronald Reagan is technically pretty good cooking.

Funny enough the common wisdom in the Navy is that you eat much better on smallboys (destroyers, frigates, etc.) than on a carrier.

I knew a guy whose brother worked as a chef on the Charles de Gaulle (France's only aircraft carrier), and I bet the cooking there was incredible. The thing probably has a dedicated wine deck.