On what we expect from a piece

A text published on ITALIC should begin from a concrete observation, not from a position to be defended. This distinction is more important than it may seem. Starting from a position tends to produce predictable arguments, often aligned with existing narratives. Starting from an observation, especially one that is not immediately resolved, creates space for something less obvious to emerge.

The role of the author is not to provide a definitive interpretation, but to follow that observation far enough to make its implications visible. This often involves describing mechanisms that are only partially explicit: how decisions are structured within a given environment, how constraints shape behaviour, how certain practices that are taken for granted in one context become ineffective or even counterproductive in another.

Personal experience is, inevitably, the starting point for most of these observations, but it should not remain the centre of the text. The transition from experience to structure is what determines whether a piece is relevant beyond the individual case. This transition does not require abstraction for its own sake, but it does require a certain discipline in what is included and what is left out.

There is no fixed format, but there is an implicit expectation of continuity. Texts should be readable as a single line of thought, rather than as a sequence of short, self-contained statements. The fragmentation typical of online writing, often used to increase readability, tends to reduce precision. For this reason, shorter sentences are not necessarily preferable, and breaks should be used when they reflect a change in reasoning, not simply to create rhythm.

Tone is a secondary concern. It will vary depending on the subject and the author, and there is no need to impose uniformity. What matters is that tone does not replace substance. Irony, for instance, can be useful, but only if it clarifies rather than obscures. The same applies to any stylistic device.

There is also no requirement to reach a conclusion in the conventional sense. Many of the dynamics being described do not resolve neatly, and forcing a conclusion can lead to artificial clarity. It is often sufficient to outline the conditions under which a certain behaviour or pattern emerges, and to leave the implications open.

What should be avoided, consistently, is the reproduction of familiar narratives. References to “brain drain”, “talent mobility”, or “global mindset” tend to flatten the complexity of what is being observed. If such terms appear, they should be examined rather than used as explanatory shortcuts.

In practice, this means that writing for ITALIC is less about expressing an opinion and more about constructing a line of reasoning that can withstand a certain level of scrutiny. It is a slower process, and it produces fewer pieces, but the intention is not to fill space. It is to build a set of references that remain useful over time.

Anything that does not contribute to that objective is, by definition, unnecessary.