I am the left curve know-nothing for whom Carlo Rovelli writes, which is probably why I love his writing so much.

From his latest, White Holes:

"I have two readers in mind when I write. One knows nothing about physics: I try to communicate to him the charm of research. The other knows everything, and I try to offer her new perspectives on what she already knows. For both, I aim at the core of the matter. I remove from my writing anything I can. I imagine those who know nothing of physics would find details useless and burdensome. The experts, on the other hand, know the details already; they are not interested in hearing them repeated. They want a novel perspective.

In this way, however, I displease and sometimes even annoy intermediate types of readers--those who are acquainted with the field but perhaps have not yet immersed themselves in it completely. Physics students, for example. The worst reviews I get come from them. I understand. It grates to see details skipped that you have painstakingly studied, and to find things presented in a way that is different from the sacred (text)books, for which I can only apologize.

But there is another reason I sometimes annoy my young colleagues: I don't use jargon, the parlance of the trade. Imagine how shocked a sailor would be if instead of 'Ease the jib!' he heard you shout, 'Let go a little the rope attached to the small sail!' For the uninitiated, however, 'Let go a little the rope attached to the small sail!' will surely be more comprehensible than 'Ease the jib!'"

I wish more scientists wrote like Rovelli: beautiful books plus papers, the why and how and history behind the what.

I wish to write more like Rovelli myself: no unnecessary jargon, approachable to all, novel even to the experts.