3 ms·
Interesting analogy about narrative style. I’m not deeply familiar with stack behavior but am very interested in narrative, so I want to make sure I read you co
by kaycebasques 8y ago
Interesting analogy about narrative style. I’m not deeply familiar with stack behavior but am very interested in narrative, so I want to make sure I read you correctly. Are you saying that he goes into depth on one topic, and then moves into depth on another, and then at the end you have to piece the topics together yourself?
What’s your preferred narrative style? To connect all the topics at a high-level in the beginning, and then go into depth on each?
(Based on everyone’s comments I don’t think I’m going to spend time on this video, hence why I’m asking here if my interpretation of your comment is correct.)
- disqard 8y agoI'll try and simplify: He would ideally say A, B, C, and D. Then descend into each part, so we know where he is going. Instead, he says A, A1, A1.a, A1.b, A1.b1, A1.b2, A1.c, A2, A3, A3.a, A3.b, A3.b1, A3.b1.i, A3.b1.ii, ... What should be a smooth narrative for a 30 minute talk about a book, becomes a series of asides, discursions, qualifiers, and more minutiae, which, while technically accurate, make it hard to stay engaged as a listener. Of course, I'm only a "YouTube listener". The average person physically in the audience that day might have substantially higher levels of commitment and focus on parsing his narrative.