4 ms·

Out of interest, should descriptions in fiction be straightforward? I can understand why non-fiction should be straight forward but surely one of the joys of

Out of interest, should descriptions in fiction be straightforward? I can understand why non-fiction should be straight forward but surely one of the joys of fiction is that you fill in the gaps and ambiguities yourself. Incidentally, I'm not defending the sentence in question which is messy, and "it's terrific blast" may be straightforward but it's also a slightly odd choice of adjective.

Avshalom 16y ago
Personally, no, I love the shit out of sprawling twisting recursing sentences that end at the beginning and some where new simultaneously. Give me all the ambiguity, vagary and literary wankery that you can muster. Not to say my bookshelf is not equally full of horrible sci-fi that would get me laughed out of an english department for owning, let alone enjoying. I responded the way I did because it was easy and snarky. The OP claimed to prefer the "straightforward" prose that the article lambasted, and then illustrated it with maybe the worst possible quote (for the purpose) out of the entire article. Combined with: solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.) Led me to feel that 10ren has no idea what solipsistic, narcissitic or straightforward mean and in general no clue. So... I snarked.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  Don't knock your sci-fi books. I have an ex-g/f with a PhD in English Literature (more precisely Dickens) who read Star Trek novels to unwind. Different books for different times.
  - Avshalom 16y ago
    nah, don't get me wrong I was raised on a steady diet of sci-fi and love it to death, when I say I own a lot of terrible sci-fi I mean it in the best possible sense.
- 10ren 16y ago
  > solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.) You omitted the beginning of that line, which was "A clever writer can easily get carried away with himself - " Is not clever wordplay disconnected from the external world? Is not indulging in one's cleverness narcissistic (BTW you misspelled it)? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsistic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsistic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcissistic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcissistic The quote I followed it with (if you come across a passage you think particularly fine, strike it out.) is from Samuel Johnson; the same basic idea is often expressed more concisely with "kill your darlings." http://everything2.com/title/Kill+your+darlings http://everything2.com/title/Kill+your+darlings Just to be clear: I didn't illustrate straightforwardness with that entire passage, but with one specific part: including this image: "scattering the town's 4,000 inhabitants before its terrific blast." Which I still really like, because it draws a metaphor between how humans respond to a fire and the physics of how small particles are pushed by the heated air of a fire. Maybe you disagree, but to me, a clean metaphor is a very straightforward communication. On HN, if you suspect someone has "in general no clue", it's informative to check their comment history, rather than act on an assumption. It could be that their comment is a one-off, or that you have misinterpreted it. Normally, I don't bother responding to snark. It's irritating, but being drawn in is just a second injury. And it's rare on HN anyway. But I'm puzzled when people are snarky, as it seems unrelated to the topic. So it's helpful that you have explained your thinking, and so I've taken the trouble to explain my original comment. If snark comes easily to you, you might be more comfortable on reddit (though snark there is usually purely in fun.)
  - 10ren 16y ago
    For your reference, the other examples I gave were: the elimination pun: [He passed maths] by a process of elimination, like a tapeworm the parallel of temper and years: an elderly, crotchety lady of certain temper and uncertain years
    - Avshalom 16y ago
      Which as far as I'm concerned just makes your statement worse. Those are some singularly (plurally?) innocuous bits of word play, one of which it should be pointed out comes from his autobiography an excuse to be a little extra self indulgent if there ever was one.

Avshalom 16y ago

Personally, no, I love the shit out of sprawling twisting recursing sentences that end at the beginning and some where new simultaneously. Give me all the ambiguity, vagary and literary wankery that you can muster. Not to say my bookshelf is not equally full of horrible sci-fi that would get me laughed out of an english department for owning, let alone enjoying. I responded the way I did because it was easy and snarky. The OP claimed to prefer the "straightforward" prose that the article lambasted, and then illustrated it with maybe the worst possible quote (for the purpose) out of the entire article. Combined with: solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.) Led me to feel that 10ren has no idea what solipsistic, narcissitic or straightforward mean and in general no clue. So... I snarked.

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
Don't knock your sci-fi books. I have an ex-g/f with a PhD in English Literature (more precisely Dickens) who read Star Trek novels to unwind. Different books for different times.
- Avshalom 16y ago
  nah, don't get me wrong I was raised on a steady diet of sci-fi and love it to death, when I say I own a lot of terrible sci-fi I mean it in the best possible sense.
10ren 16y ago
> solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.) You omitted the beginning of that line, which was "A clever writer can easily get carried away with himself - " Is not clever wordplay disconnected from the external world? Is not indulging in one's cleverness narcissistic (BTW you misspelled it)? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsistic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsistic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcissistic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcissistic The quote I followed it with (if you come across a passage you think particularly fine, strike it out.) is from Samuel Johnson; the same basic idea is often expressed more concisely with "kill your darlings." http://everything2.com/title/Kill+your+darlings http://everything2.com/title/Kill+your+darlings Just to be clear: I didn't illustrate straightforwardness with that entire passage, but with one specific part: including this image: "scattering the town's 4,000 inhabitants before its terrific blast." Which I still really like, because it draws a metaphor between how humans respond to a fire and the physics of how small particles are pushed by the heated air of a fire. Maybe you disagree, but to me, a clean metaphor is a very straightforward communication. On HN, if you suspect someone has "in general no clue", it's informative to check their comment history, rather than act on an assumption. It could be that their comment is a one-off, or that you have misinterpreted it. Normally, I don't bother responding to snark. It's irritating, but being drawn in is just a second injury. And it's rare on HN anyway. But I'm puzzled when people are snarky, as it seems unrelated to the topic. So it's helpful that you have explained your thinking, and so I've taken the trouble to explain my original comment. If snark comes easily to you, you might be more comfortable on reddit (though snark there is usually purely in fun.)
- 10ren 16y ago
  For your reference, the other examples I gave were: the elimination pun: [He passed maths] by a process of elimination, like a tapeworm the parallel of temper and years: an elderly, crotchety lady of certain temper and uncertain years
  - Avshalom 16y ago
    Which as far as I'm concerned just makes your statement worse. Those are some singularly (plurally?) innocuous bits of word play, one of which it should be pointed out comes from his autobiography an excuse to be a little extra self indulgent if there ever was one.