Some of the most important works even of C20th philosophy would struggle to get published now. A reader’s report on Iris Murdoch’s The Sovereignty of the Good might say there’s no real argument, the central claims are never properly stated, and Ch 3 just repeats themes from the other 2 Chs.

I think she also displayed some classism & some self loathing anti-Irishness at times: “Goodness appears to be both rare and hard to picture. It is perhaps most convincingly met with in simple people-inarticulate, unselfish mothers of large families-but these cases are also the least illuminating”.

Reading Dewey yesterday and there's all these sweeping empirical generalisations with no evidence, very few citations of the views he's criticising, unclear arguments... But it paints a picture in the way modern philosophers generally don't

Murdoch's published philosophy (whisper it softly) is not terribly well written and the intellectual content of her novels is often richer. And I say that as a huge admirer. Famously she never permitted editing of her books.

I don't like her namedroppy style, I could never get into "Metaphysics As A Guide To Morals" as there was too much of it from the off.