Manuel Moreale writes about complaining and how it differs from ranting. I must say that ranting, if done well and respectively, can be a very entertaining form of criticism. Thinking of the rants from John Siracusa or Ben Thompson on their respective podcasts, they’re usually my favourite parts.

But it got me thinking about what makes a good rant. Manuel first reason on why he enjoys ranting is that his rants are about things that don’t really bother him. Not entirely sure I agree with him on that point. There’s no reason why you need to really be bothered by the thing you’re ranting about, but the truly great rants I enjoy and listen to again and again are about things that obviously bother the ranter. John and the MacOS Photos App, Ben and the elected Boeing chair. It’s clear in their delivery that they really care about these things.

No, I think what makes a good rant is: one, it’s an issue that you obviously care deeply about, and two, you have enough knowledge about what is wrong and how it should be. Both of these add weight to your criticism: having an unformed prick ranting about something they know nothing about is not nearly as interesting as someone who knows what they’re talking about. The rest is in your delivery: examples, counter-examples, lots of personal anecdotes about your experience in these things. Oh, and don’t be cruel: attack the problem, not individuals.

That makes for a good rant.

Well, this post was longer than I was expecting. But I truly am a fan of the art form. I guess the next thing for me is to find opportunities for a good rant when I encounter something that I simply want to complain about.