Arjun Yadav's Webpage
How Not to Write: episode 1
2025-02-15
As I have not yet reached the point where I can teach others - How to write. I can least try to show my own mistakes in writing and can show - How not to write. This is exactly one of those occasions where I have been able to find a fatal stupidity in one of my own writing which I want to share with you.
To be honest, my last written article is a piece of trash. If I had written it on paper, it should've been burned and ashes faxed to the devil as a proof of crime committed against humanity. But it turns out my article isn’t the only one deserving such a fate. I have found someone's well articulated piece of garbage in a credible business newspaper.
Before moving further I must tell why I am decreeing that my last written article is a piece of trash: I wanted to communicate a simple idea- Free trade leads to welfare for all only when everyone play by the rules. Otherwise, trade barriers of any kind leads to hoarding and misuse of wealth in the form of surplus as it can be seen being done by China.
That's it. That was the idea I wanted to communicate. For that, and only for that I built up first 80% of my article with simple facts presented in a comical way. However, that 80% is useless, half baked comical piece, armored with a malnourished vocabulary. The intention behind that part was to pave the way for my main point. But still, it could've been much better if I had reserved more proportion elaborating my main idea. More examples could've been given to make the conclusion come more smooth - rather than being abrupt, as it does now.
Now it is clear that I must've reserved more room for the main idea. Because that is more important than the whataboutry I did in most part. Too much whataboutery snatches any sort of relevance from the article. I learned that the hard way.
But ah ha ha (laughs in devil) I have finally found a worthy opponent in whataboutery. While I write on my little corner of internet, hidden from worldly eyes, reserved only for the few who deliberately dare to enjoy the suffering derived from reading a poorly written article. On the other hand, Mr. Anirudh Singhal, chooses to spread suffering-for-all on a well reputed business newspaper. Without wasting much time, let me introduce you to his magnum opus:
Here the main idea which Anirudh wanted to communicate was "to engage with china constructively without compromising domestic interests." (Line from last paragraph). Excellent idea in my opinion. But any sane person would know that US must have thought about this exact same idea before opening trade war front with China. The first 90% of his article is a common knowledge at this point. China has been a strong trading partner throughout the world. Well, there ought to be a reason why everyone calls it the 'factory of the world'. But the matter of the fact is US policy makers are aware about China's dependence. And they know how China is misusing this power. At this point China is a real competitor to US on almost all fronts. Now of all the things US policy makers know, they don't know how "to engage with china constructively without compromising domestic interests." Only if Anirudh Singhal had given more space on his article about the things US can try alternatively "to engage with china constructively without compromising domestic interests.", instead of a single line at the end, it would have been a exceptional article with some real information worth making notes of. However, as the circumstances stand, this article as you can clearly see contains 90% bluff which has nothing to do with the main idea. Hence, this article, along with my last written one, is a piece of trash, and if we had written it on paper, they should've been burned and ashes faxed to the devil as a proof of crime committed against humanity.