4 ms·
disagree- it reads in an interesting way, cultivating a mood that wouldn't exist if you just stated the "facts". its also, i would say, in thematic agreement wi
by the_cat_kittles 9y ago
disagree- it reads in an interesting way, cultivating a mood that wouldn't exist if you just stated the "facts". its also, i would say, in thematic agreement with the linked article.
- dang 9y agoQuite right, but it's a tradeoff. We have years of experience with the effects posts like that have on HN, and they're dreadful. I puzzled over this dynamic for years but it seems clear to me now: the issue is genre/medium fit. In the case of the GP comment, the genre is the diatribe. A scathing diatribe in a small literary salon or journal, like n+1, is one thing; on a large, public, internet forum it's another. In the first case it's interesting and leads to interesting responses. In the second it's a fast track to the bottom of the barrel, a snake in Snakes and Ladders. Imagine if anyone who felt like it could reply to any n+1 piece and n+1 had to publish all of them as new pieces without editing. What would happen to quality? It would tank. Personal projection, simple misunderstanding, dimwittedness, windbaggery, reversion to the mean: every known factor would work against you. Extrapolate further and this would kill n+1. In both cases—a small literary forum and a large internet one—the goal is more complex, more interesting formations, but the way to get them could not be more different. The more I learn about this, the more I appreciate McLuhan. Most of the issues on HN derive from the medium, not what people post to it.
- the_cat_kittles 9y agoi give you a lot of credit for writing this out. very thoughtful, thanks.