Fair enough. I do talk about Plato, sophists, and bodhisattvas, and I speak of casting pearls before swine. But I make no apologies for intellectual elitism. There's a balancing act in appealing to average readers without dumbing down the arguments so that writing them out becomes a waste of time. I try to elevate the discourse without retreating to obscure jargon.

I'm not stopping the reader from investigating the concepts I posit and explore in my writings. You think the argument is so "elevated" that it can't even be understood, and that this is a cheap way of avoiding critique? But is it really so complicated? Did you not understand the main point of the article?

I write mainly to please myself, so I try to choose the best words to say what I want to say. I can write at an elevated level and I can be more conversational too. Sometimes I may get caught up in a train of thought.

But the elitism here is also the very point at issue. If some writing is too good to be sold, it will likely be the academic, intellectually elite kind. That's the writing few readers would want to buy anyway because it's unsullied. Zulie Rane blames the elite author for not compromising or selling out to a salesman's mentality. I put the blame where it more properly belongs, on that degrading mentality.