> But while we can't safely conclude that beautiful writing is true, it's usually safe to conclude the converse: something that seems clumsily written will usually have gotten the ideas wrong too.
So, we have 1) Can't conclude that beautiful writing is true, and 2) Writing that is not beautiful usually has bad ideas too.
But he immediately follows this up with:
> Indeed, the two senses of good writing are more like two ends of the same thing.
How does this idea logically follow from the previous statement? Indeed?
I don't agree with other commenters that PG's writing here is good. The writing is bad, and so are the ideas.
What are people smoking to think PG is such a great thinker and/or writer?
> But while we can't safely conclude that beautiful writing is true, it's usually safe to conclude the converse: something that seems clumsily written will usually have gotten the ideas wrong too.
So, we have 1) Can't conclude that beautiful writing is true, and 2) Writing that is not beautiful usually has bad ideas too.
But he immediately follows this up with:
> Indeed, the two senses of good writing are more like two ends of the same thing.
How does this idea logically follow from the previous statement? Indeed?
I don't agree with other commenters that PG's writing here is good. The writing is bad, and so are the ideas.
What are people smoking to think PG is such a great thinker and/or writer?