4 ms·
I mean, I agree. My point is just that if you can't be bothered to read the piece but have such an insatiable curiosity to know what it was about, then do us a
by avemg 2y ago
I mean, I agree. My point is just that if you can't be bothered to read the piece but have such an insatiable curiosity to know what it was about, then do us a favor and just dump it into an llm to scratch your itch.
I find two things to be distasteful: 1) Asking others to do the work you're uninterested in doing yourself and 2) the rejection of any kind of stylistic writing as an annoying distraction. I don't know if the person I was replying to is guilty of #2 but I've seen the sentiment a lot here and more frequently than I used to. Not everything is a technical manual that needs to convey its main ideas in as straightforward a way as possible.
This article is a work of art. And I don't mean that in the highfalutin sense. But the style is meant to evoke something just as much as the words themselves. It's fine if it that doesn't work for you, but the goal was not to convey as much meaning in as few words as possible.
- milesrout 2y ago[flagged]
- alabastervlog 2y agoThis isn't notably hard to read, though... and it's stylistically fairly plain and unadorned. Down-the-middle '80s-'00s era fiction style, for literary-leaning fiction that aspired nevertheless to sell some copies.
- WolfeReader 2y agoPlease cite a passage from the story which is difficult to read.
- notevenreal 2y ago[flagged]
- milesrout 2y agoIt isn't difficult to understand, it is difficult to get through. It is difficult in the sense that crawling through mud under barbed wire is difficult: exhausting because of its unpleasantness.