4 ms·

Such a badly written and dull piece on what should be a very interesting subject to write about (DNA). I wonder if ppl who are upvoting this submission actuall

by oska 2y ago

Such a badly written and dull piece on what should be a very interesting subject to write about (DNA). I wonder if ppl who are upvoting this submission actually read the whole, verbose piece before upvoting or whether they're just upvoting on seeing Douglas' name in the submission title ?

hardlianotion 2y ago
If people are like me, there is a lot of interesting information about Douglas's life and character that they were previously only dimly aware of. And I disagree about the badly written bit, that seems a little much.
- oska 2y ago
  There's certainly information in there, I agree, but it's badly delivered. We're more than 20 years past Douglas' untimely death. People writing new pieces on him now need to be writing much more appealingly or, if they're only going to deliver information without any flair, boil it down to just that, the newer or lesser known information they are presenting without all the detail that most even moderate fans of Adams are already familiar with. In Hamlet, Polonious declaims that : “Since brevity is the soul of wit / And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief…” and then goes on and on at pompous length. Adams truly understood that brevity was the soul of wit and showed it in his writing. The author of this blog piece doesn't.
  - karkaflax 2y ago
    >Adams truly understood that brevity was the soul of wit Hadn't really twigged that aspect but I think you're correct. So he combined deep ideas with humour and brevity. He also had to carry his torch post-Hitchhikers, a show which had had creative input from other talented people in addition to his own. Small wonder he found writing hard. It must have been really really hard.
- siliconpotato 2y ago
  The writing is rather unwieldy and quite a few awkward uses of grammar that made me wonder if the author spoke English only as a second language. After a while I stopped reading, it was very wordy, and it felt like they were trying too hard. Long form is fine if you have good reason. I didn't think this was it.
  - pavlov 2y ago
    The author is an American with a degree in literary studies. He has written an absolutely massive chronological history of computer games (mostly focused on adventures and other story-driven gaming, but not exclusively). This piece about Adams is part of that timeline. Over the past 13 years he’s covered 1971 to 1998: https://www.filfre.net/sitemap/ https://www.filfre.net/sitemap/ It’s not unfair to say that his pieces could use some editing. But he writes them every week, like clockwork, for decades now. As a long-time reader, I find the Digital Antiquarian’s long-winded digressions to be cozy and essential to why I keep coming back. It’s a bit like sitting down with a friend regularly.
olddustytrail 2y ago
For me, the latter. I've read his story before and it's a rather sad tale but the anecdotes in the comments here are interesting.
munchler 2y ago
I read the whole thing and learned a lot. It’s full of relevant information, even if it’s a bit wordy at the start.

by oska 2y ago

hardlianotion 2y ago

If people are like me, there is a lot of interesting information about Douglas's life and character that they were previously only dimly aware of. And I disagree about the badly written bit, that seems a little much.

oska 2y ago
There's certainly information in there, I agree, but it's badly delivered. We're more than 20 years past Douglas' untimely death. People writing new pieces on him now need to be writing much more appealingly or, if they're only going to deliver information without any flair, boil it down to just that, the newer or lesser known information they are presenting without all the detail that most even moderate fans of Adams are already familiar with. In Hamlet, Polonious declaims that : “Since brevity is the soul of wit / And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief…” and then goes on and on at pompous length. Adams truly understood that brevity was the soul of wit and showed it in his writing. The author of this blog piece doesn't.
- karkaflax 2y ago
  >Adams truly understood that brevity was the soul of wit Hadn't really twigged that aspect but I think you're correct. So he combined deep ideas with humour and brevity. He also had to carry his torch post-Hitchhikers, a show which had had creative input from other talented people in addition to his own. Small wonder he found writing hard. It must have been really really hard.
siliconpotato 2y ago
The writing is rather unwieldy and quite a few awkward uses of grammar that made me wonder if the author spoke English only as a second language. After a while I stopped reading, it was very wordy, and it felt like they were trying too hard. Long form is fine if you have good reason. I didn't think this was it.
- pavlov 2y ago
  The author is an American with a degree in literary studies. He has written an absolutely massive chronological history of computer games (mostly focused on adventures and other story-driven gaming, but not exclusively). This piece about Adams is part of that timeline. Over the past 13 years he’s covered 1971 to 1998: https://www.filfre.net/sitemap/ https://www.filfre.net/sitemap/ It’s not unfair to say that his pieces could use some editing. But he writes them every week, like clockwork, for decades now. As a long-time reader, I find the Digital Antiquarian’s long-winded digressions to be cozy and essential to why I keep coming back. It’s a bit like sitting down with a friend regularly.

olddustytrail 2y ago

For me, the latter. I've read his story before and it's a rather sad tale but the anecdotes in the comments here are interesting.

munchler 2y ago

I read the whole thing and learned a lot. It’s full of relevant information, even if it’s a bit wordy at the start.