He has as little research as possible, then twists it to make it seem like he is right and that he thought of it all by himself. Throughout the entire article he claims that the engaged writer does this while the detached writer does this, making it seem like he did research, but then you get through the paragraph and realize that he must have twisted his logic a bit to make it seem like he is right. In his writing, it seems like Brooks has no side to his argument. Are engaged writers better or are detached writers better? He goes on to talk about the greatness of each, but also the flaws of each. Going as far as saying “at his worst, the engaged writer slips into raid extremism and simple-minded brutalism. At her worst, the detached writer slips into a sanguine, pox-on-all-your-houses
He has as little research as possible, then twists it to make it seem like he is right and that he thought of it all by himself. Throughout the entire article he claims that the engaged writer does this while the detached writer does this, making it seem like he did research, but then you get through the paragraph and realize that he must have twisted his logic a bit to make it seem like he is right. In his writing, it seems like Brooks has no side to his argument. Are engaged writers better or are detached writers better? He goes on to talk about the greatness of each, but also the flaws of each. Going as far as saying “at his worst, the engaged writer slips into raid extremism and simple-minded brutalism. At her worst, the detached writer slips into a sanguine, pox-on-all-your-houses