I use the term “bad pieces” to refer to writing in which the author lacks experience, motivation, intention, or the necessary skills for the topic they are trying to address. Although such pieces often have the potential to be improved, as readers we should be selective, both in what we read and in how much time we choose to spend on different kinds of writing.
In my work, I am frequently assigned to review many of these “bad pieces,” acting as a kind of gatekeeper for others: master’s students, PhD students, and sometimes even content written by family members. Reading these texts has exposed me to new terms and unfamiliar analytical approaches in a broad, surface-level way. However, this experience contrasts sharply with the kind of deep reading I seek in my spare time, reading that sharpens my understanding of a topic and enriches my analytical perspective. The latter gives me meaning and pleasure; the former tends to bore me very quickly.
This made me wonder: isn’t reading “bad pieces” analogous to doomscrolling on social media? In both cases, we can often predict the content and even suggest how it could be improved. Yet there are limited opportunities to encounter something genuinely new, interesting, or intellectually constructive for our own understanding.
For this reason, I believe in maintaining a healthy balance. I try not to immerse myself too frequently in reading “bad pieces.” For me, giving comments and assigning quantitative grades to such work is simply not enjoyable.
THIS IS NOT FUN.
RoofGazers 