I have some reservations about this discussion. I have the impression that it has turned into a scuffle. There is nothing substantive in it. What I see here is mainly malice that leads to nothing but an escalation of the conflict.
I am attacking her skills as a writer, not her as a person.
Have you read any of her books?
Maybe I will answer this comment substantively. Without any personal attacks. Isn't that the best way to defend the specified approach? It is not for me to judge.
So, Othree, you have criticized Laura's writing style, but have not given any specific argument. You didn't say what exactly you meant, you didn't say why you thought so. What is the point of discussing or voicing your views if you are not arguing?
Thus, I do not believe that attacking you without any arguments is right. And I don't want to attack you or anyone else. I would like to say how I see it.
I am, among others, a philosopher by education, I am currently studying theology. In the literature, there is such a concept as hermeneutics. This is the theory and methodology of interpretation. Whatever we write, however much we try to express as accurately as possible, if it is not a closed axiomatic system, can be interpreted in many different ways. And even a closed set of axioms can be an object of considerations in the philosophy of mathematics.
Hence, a literary work in itself has no objective value that we can give it. We may like individual authors more or less because of their writing style, which is more or less close to us, but it is not an objective assessment.
Nevertheless, philosophical, historical, and theological literature are governed by certain laws that are generally accepted. If we write in accordance with these laws to some extent, then it cannot be accused of our style of writing being wrong. Yes, our writing style may not suit someone, because, for example, we use words that they do not like, our descriptions are too long or too short, we pay attention to something that does not interest the reader, we omit something that interests them. However, this can be said of any book. About any book we choose.
Meanwhile, there is a characteristic in Laura's books that is a very valuable aspect of theological, historical and philosophical literature. This feature is synthesis. When we talk about a topic as a physicist or mathematician, we don't necessarily need that synthesis. We describe a specific problem and formulate equations. However, when it comes to inquiry of a historical, theological or philosophical nature, synthesis is of great value.
Could anything go wrong in the synthesis process? Of course, we can be misunderstood. If Hegel did any synthesis, would he be understood? He would be, but only if we knew his views well enough. Without it, his synthesis seems cloudy.
In my opinion, Laura wrote very clearly in many places in the book. The most important aspects have been explained in the simplest possible way. So that the person reading the book does not have to have an education in a given field. The concepts were clearly presented. In the first chapter of the book, the author allowed the reader to get to know her, so that in the following chapters the reader fitted the author's mind and guessed what she would write next.
Additionally, the synthesis was carried out in an interesting way. The author has compiled many literary concepts and items that have not been compiled before.
The writing style was also characterized by building a certain tension. In fact, a person who has no philosophical, theological and historical knowledge may not see connections at some point. Someone who knows about it can immediately see what the book is going to. On the other hand, if someone does not know about it, he should let the words flow, remember them, simply read and receive certain information. The synthesis will connect them, all you need is patience.
Additionally, it cannot be accused that the books are written in isolation from the generally accepted methodology of the humanities. They are written in strict accordance with the methodology, while Laura has her own original style of writing. Many authors do not have their own style. So, even if we don't quite like this style, I think it should be appreciated.
However, it is difficult to write anything more to me, when you have not specified your allegations.
I think it is the same with books, pictures, poetry and music. When we pay attention to a fragment detached from the whole, we may get the wrong impression, we may find a point that does not quite suit us. However, I think that the most important thing in all this is the perception of the whole and the general message of a given work.
In my opinion, from a philosophical and theological point of view, Laura did this job very well.
