"The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who can write know anything"
About this Quote
Bagehot’s barb lands because it refuses the comforting myth that good writing is primarily a matter of style. It’s a Victorian-era slap at literary professionalism: the idea that a person can master prose as a craft while remaining intellectually empty, skating across surfaces with nothing heavy enough to leave a mark. The line is almost engineered as a paradox. It flatters “people who can write” with technical competence, then yanks the compliment away by indicting their ignorance. Wit, here, is a delivery system for a moral claim.
The intent is less to sneer at amateurs than to shame a culture of fluent thinness. Bagehot wrote in a period when journalism, reviews, and mass print were booming, creating a new class of career writers who could produce copy quickly, persuasively, and endlessly. His target is the kind of sentence-making that imitates authority without earning it: prose that sounds right because it’s well-made, not because it’s true or informed.
The subtext is that “knowing” isn’t trivia or credentialism. It’s lived contact with ideas, history, institutions, human motives - the raw material that makes sentences consequential. Bagehot is also protecting the reader. If the writer’s mind is poorly stocked, the reader gets motion without movement: plot without insight, argument without understanding, commentary without contact with reality.
It still stings because it names a recurring cultural pattern: when the incentives reward output and polish, knowledge becomes optional, and the result is a lot of competent writing that can’t quite become a good book.
The intent is less to sneer at amateurs than to shame a culture of fluent thinness. Bagehot wrote in a period when journalism, reviews, and mass print were booming, creating a new class of career writers who could produce copy quickly, persuasively, and endlessly. His target is the kind of sentence-making that imitates authority without earning it: prose that sounds right because it’s well-made, not because it’s true or informed.
The subtext is that “knowing” isn’t trivia or credentialism. It’s lived contact with ideas, history, institutions, human motives - the raw material that makes sentences consequential. Bagehot is also protecting the reader. If the writer’s mind is poorly stocked, the reader gets motion without movement: plot without insight, argument without understanding, commentary without contact with reality.
It still stings because it names a recurring cultural pattern: when the incentives reward output and polish, knowledge becomes optional, and the result is a lot of competent writing that can’t quite become a good book.
Quote Details
| Topic | Writing |
|---|
More Quotes by Walter
Add to List
