I'm finding myself getting more frustrated with editorializing in writing.

In the Steve Jobs book, there's this line:

--
"Bill was never really strong on the design side," Jobs said, unfairly.
--

Unfairly? Ok, prove it. Or get a quote from someone else disproving it. Or explain yourself why it was unfair. But not this time. The book just skips merrily along. "Jobs said, unfairly" is one of my least favorite lines in a book of all time. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying it's asserted arrogantly without any back up.

Or Pitchfork, reviewing a DJ Shadow album called "The Less You Know, The Better". The review has changed by now, but I'm pretty sure the original referred to the stupid title in an offhand way, like "The lamely titled 'The Less You Know, The Better' album is in, and we'll dive in" or something.

People say they don't want writers to be weak-kneed, to say "I think", to second-guess. And I agree with that in broad brushstrokes. Weak writing is boring writing. But too often we're wielding the point of view to tear down, without explaining where we're coming from. It's cowardice dressed up as taste.

It's like the more insults you can throw around to make your point, the more refined your tastes must be. Like "Oh god, it's like Woody Allen. But then it gets worse. By the end it's like Sean Penn." What do you mean? Other than proving that you're too cool for Woody Allen and Sean Penn, of course. (that quote is not real, but easily could be)

I think it's a poisonous way to write. I think it's a sad way to try to relate to others. "Oh, you hate things? ME TOO. Let's be friends, or something lame like that. Whatever. *scoff*"

Hate is lazy. I want someone with the courage to tell me why they love something. It's endearing. It's exciting. I learn something. And the person comes off like they know what they're talking about and have something to contribute, instead of sitting in the back of the classroom of life, shooting spitballs.