3 ms·

That's not the expectation. The expectation is that everybody's thinking is a stream of thoughts very specific to the person and context. It's not naturally c

That's not the expectation. The expectation is that everybody's thinking is a stream of thoughts very specific to the person and context. It's not naturally conducive to another person's consumption, or to long-term or comprehensive understanding. My thinking is a disorganized mess because that's the nature of thought in the first place. Your thoughts are everything you are experiencing or considering as you experience or consider them. The vast majority of them are gone within moments after you've thought them, to never be remembered again. The thoughts that stay are the ones that you consider, run over in your head a few times, and have taken the opportunity to organize in your head a bit more. True stream of consciousness is not usually enjoyable to read (and I'll note that this article is not true stream of consciousness, but rather minimally organized thoughts).

ncr100 3y ago
Ahhh, I see where you are coming from. That you have less shame than I thought for yourself when you say "mess". Thanks for clarifying my perception. It looks like instead it's more appropriate to talk about synchronizing with the intention of the author? To back up for a second and provide context, I was keyed up after reading and really focusing in on the parent commenters criticality, mocking and shaming. I perceived it as a judgmental characterization of the author of this piece of story writing guidance. So when I came across your comment I thought you might be beating up on yourself to echo the emotional sentiment of, and to try and build a bridge between the parent commenter and the article writer. I wanted to provide a counterpoint and some support to you. Now I guess that my reaction to the article is different, less about a jarring sensation of discordance where I'm expecting you know organized bulletized conventional grammar explaining some subjects, and recognizing instead a person who's trying to help fiction writers to access their feelings. I see the author chose to do this through a tongue in cheek way of writing whimsical prose using little punctuation and lots of white space.
- LegibleCrimson 3y ago
  Yes. I also find the article's prose difficult, but I really am not the target audience. I appreciate your consideration and thoughtfulness. You're not far off in your assessment. I was trying to bridge a gap between the top-level comment and the negative reaction to it by using my own perspective as an example of why the presentation might be difficult for some people. I also don't appreciate the tone of the original criticism, but I did share the same disconnect with the content due to the presentation. Personally, I feel that people should be able to express themselves however works for them. The article's prose isn't for me, but it really doesn't have to be. On the other hand, I do also feel that there's nothing wrong with others sharing their critiques of written works. I don't like the common sentiment of negative reactions to any and all criticism of anything. We are not our creations, and a criticism of a written work shouldn't be treated as hostile. Again, the mocking tone of the original criticism was distasteful, but not enough so to disregard it entirely (unlike another "crackhead" comment that crosses the line).

ncr100 3y ago

Ahhh, I see where you are coming from. That you have less shame than I thought for yourself when you say "mess". Thanks for clarifying my perception. It looks like instead it's more appropriate to talk about synchronizing with the intention of the author? To back up for a second and provide context, I was keyed up after reading and really focusing in on the parent commenters criticality, mocking and shaming. I perceived it as a judgmental characterization of the author of this piece of story writing guidance. So when I came across your comment I thought you might be beating up on yourself to echo the emotional sentiment of, and to try and build a bridge between the parent commenter and the article writer. I wanted to provide a counterpoint and some support to you. Now I guess that my reaction to the article is different, less about a jarring sensation of discordance where I'm expecting you know organized bulletized conventional grammar explaining some subjects, and recognizing instead a person who's trying to help fiction writers to access their feelings. I see the author chose to do this through a tongue in cheek way of writing whimsical prose using little punctuation and lots of white space.

LegibleCrimson 3y ago
Yes. I also find the article's prose difficult, but I really am not the target audience. I appreciate your consideration and thoughtfulness. You're not far off in your assessment. I was trying to bridge a gap between the top-level comment and the negative reaction to it by using my own perspective as an example of why the presentation might be difficult for some people. I also don't appreciate the tone of the original criticism, but I did share the same disconnect with the content due to the presentation. Personally, I feel that people should be able to express themselves however works for them. The article's prose isn't for me, but it really doesn't have to be. On the other hand, I do also feel that there's nothing wrong with others sharing their critiques of written works. I don't like the common sentiment of negative reactions to any and all criticism of anything. We are not our creations, and a criticism of a written work shouldn't be treated as hostile. Again, the mocking tone of the original criticism was distasteful, but not enough so to disregard it entirely (unlike another "crackhead" comment that crosses the line).