what is the nature of good scientific writing? many scholars say it’s clarity, cohesion, and simplicity. i agree… but only to a certain extent. sometimes good writing does the opposite: it hurts and abuses the reader. it lacks all of the above (clarity, cohesion, simplicity) and keeps us distracted: a never ending stream of distractions. such writing offers distractions from the text, its words, grammar and style but mostly distraction from ourselves. because when we read, we read with a self that is inherently disobedient… a bad an historic self full of scorn – mostly nourished by self-affirmations and a good deal of boredom as well… we read with pride. good (scientific) writing distracts us from such “proud” reading practices. it delivers unpleasent complacecenices. in the end, such real “good” writing enslaves us by taking away our selfish selves. i wouldn’t want such writing (oh wait, maybe i do), and so far i haven’t found it, either, at least not in science. still, maybe one day i come across it. in boxes full of sand. we might find it there, all hidden. maybe for good reason.