This was extremely difficult to read. It was purposefully opaque and that's the longest paragraph I've ever seen. The passive voice on everything created so much distance that It is hard to anchor to any point. And it read more about how you felt about the idea than on the idea itself.
Someone did the same for me when I started my first book. Ultimately we all write to communicate. If it's not clear I can't blame the readership, I can only get better at articulating myself.
The title was a great hook and I can see that theme doing work. It's the only reason I checked this out and bothered to comment.
Pardon for my callous, snide remarks. I do appreciate the outreach. However I disagree with you on every account, you seem to judge actions of style and choice on some homogenous mechanism from which “good writing” emerges. I am not opaque, we just don’t get along psycho/environmentally — little overlap of interests. You seem very rule driven and mechanistic in the style of academic training, I wish you well in that arena. To have not encountered a paragraph longer than mine is jarring to say the least, I have encountered paragraphs which unite more than one page into one lengthy idea. The breaks in writing are there to enact structure to thought forms, writing elicits a piece of cognitive music within the mind and the rules therein are regulated by the complexity of the formulation; simpler ideas necessitate small packets of easy to understand arguments for audiences of lesser attention, I do not cater my writing to the uneducated.
I have heard it said by others of their encountering things that are “hard to read”, Hegel and Heidegger, some other thinkers or those limited by translation discrepancies, but I have never found this to be an issue. A complex thought, spoken plainly, appears as gibberish to the layman. Writing transmits things that exist in the mind before the spoken word contracts them into the zip file of text, to then be unpacked by the reader to the best of their extraction ability. It is simply a decoding error, my work is quite clear, just not in your language.
I ostracize myself, Fool, simply by being true to myself.
Thats the idea
Helluva statement about mankind.
That could be my favourite opening sentence yet, haha!
I ostracise myself for thinking differently, or at all, on various subjects. Having red hair might not help either (ha!).
too blurmy
This was extremely difficult to read. It was purposefully opaque and that's the longest paragraph I've ever seen. The passive voice on everything created so much distance that It is hard to anchor to any point. And it read more about how you felt about the idea than on the idea itself.
Have you ever read anything that wasn’t rooted in materialism? Skill issue
Have you ever had anyone give you honest feedback on your work before?
"Does not the love for another ring more true than an honest insult in times of strife"
I guess the love for ones self rings much truer than an honest statement taken as an insult.
I appreciate the attempt to be useful
Someone did the same for me when I started my first book. Ultimately we all write to communicate. If it's not clear I can't blame the readership, I can only get better at articulating myself.
The title was a great hook and I can see that theme doing work. It's the only reason I checked this out and bothered to comment.
Pardon for my callous, snide remarks. I do appreciate the outreach. However I disagree with you on every account, you seem to judge actions of style and choice on some homogenous mechanism from which “good writing” emerges. I am not opaque, we just don’t get along psycho/environmentally — little overlap of interests. You seem very rule driven and mechanistic in the style of academic training, I wish you well in that arena. To have not encountered a paragraph longer than mine is jarring to say the least, I have encountered paragraphs which unite more than one page into one lengthy idea. The breaks in writing are there to enact structure to thought forms, writing elicits a piece of cognitive music within the mind and the rules therein are regulated by the complexity of the formulation; simpler ideas necessitate small packets of easy to understand arguments for audiences of lesser attention, I do not cater my writing to the uneducated.
I have heard it said by others of their encountering things that are “hard to read”, Hegel and Heidegger, some other thinkers or those limited by translation discrepancies, but I have never found this to be an issue. A complex thought, spoken plainly, appears as gibberish to the layman. Writing transmits things that exist in the mind before the spoken word contracts them into the zip file of text, to then be unpacked by the reader to the best of their extraction ability. It is simply a decoding error, my work is quite clear, just not in your language.
It reminded me of another author, roman McClay. I don't mean that as an insult, it's simply the style.
mad libs bruv
>those of sufficient intelligence cannot form complex systems
ftfy