4 ms·

Personally, I believe that the distinction between "unnecessary detail" and "the point" is mostly subjective and in the mind of the reader. The point of a book

Personally, I believe that the distinction between "unnecessary detail" and "the point" is mostly subjective and in the mind of the reader. The point of a book is to get the reader to reach a certain understanding. Every brain is different and while one literary path might get some readers to that destination, other paths may be required for others. But there is no singular point of understanding that exists solely at the end of that path. The path itself is what builds that understanding. Part of the art of writing is covering a large enough space of multiple paths to get most readers there without too many of them getting lost.

felipefar 3y ago
There is a very clear distinction between details and main point. If you assume that there is no main point in a text, you negate all that the writer is trying to communicate.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Maybe I've been reading books the wrong way my whole life, but I never assume there's a singular "main point" in the text. I mean, why would one waste time writing 100 or 1000 page text circling around some single point for the reader to guess, instead of spelling it clearly up front, and then arguing for it?
- munificent 3y ago
  You're asserting a dichotomy that I didn't make. Often, writing is like a connect-the-dots drawing where those points are the written details and the point is the overall shape. Yes, there is a "main point" that is not those details. But it's the details that convey it. Subtract all of them, and the shape disappears. For any given reader, some of those detail points won't resonate with them and will be basically ignored. But as long as there are enough other details, they will still trace the right shape and get the overall point. A big part of the art of writing is figuring out which constellation of details will lead to the right shape being traced in the minds of as many readers as possible.

felipefar 3y ago

There is a very clear distinction between details and main point. If you assume that there is no main point in a text, you negate all that the writer is trying to communicate.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Maybe I've been reading books the wrong way my whole life, but I never assume there's a singular "main point" in the text. I mean, why would one waste time writing 100 or 1000 page text circling around some single point for the reader to guess, instead of spelling it clearly up front, and then arguing for it?
munificent 3y ago
You're asserting a dichotomy that I didn't make. Often, writing is like a connect-the-dots drawing where those points are the written details and the point is the overall shape. Yes, there is a "main point" that is not those details. But it's the details that convey it. Subtract all of them, and the shape disappears. For any given reader, some of those detail points won't resonate with them and will be basically ignored. But as long as there are enough other details, they will still trace the right shape and get the overall point. A big part of the art of writing is figuring out which constellation of details will lead to the right shape being traced in the minds of as many readers as possible.