Personally, no, I love the shit out of sprawling twisting recursing sentences that end at the beginning and some where new simultaneously. Give me all the ambiguity, vagary and literary wankery that you can muster. Not to say my bookshelf is not equally full of horrible sci-fi that would get me laughed out of an english department for owning, let alone enjoying.
I responded the way I did because it was easy and snarky. The OP claimed to prefer the "straightforward" prose that the article lambasted, and then illustrated it with maybe the worst possible quote (for the purpose) out of the entire article. Combined with:
solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.)
Led me to feel that 10ren has no idea what solipsistic, narcissitic or straightforward mean and in general no clue. So... I snarked.
> solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.)
You omitted the beginning of that line, which was "A clever writer can easily get carried away with himself - " Is not clever wordplay disconnected from the external world? Is not indulging in one's cleverness narcissistic (BTW you misspelled it)?
The quote I followed it with (if you come across a passage you think particularly fine, strike it out.) is from Samuel Johnson; the same basic idea is often expressed more concisely with "kill your darlings." http://everything2.com/title/Kill+your+darlings
Just to be clear: I didn't illustrate straightforwardness with that entire passage, but with one specific part: including this image: "scattering the town's 4,000 inhabitants before its terrific blast." Which I still really like, because it draws a metaphor between how humans respond to a fire and the physics of how small particles are pushed by the heated air of a fire. Maybe you disagree, but to me, a clean metaphor is a very straightforward communication.
On HN, if you suspect someone has "in general no clue", it's informative to check their comment history, rather than act on an assumption. It could be that their comment is a one-off, or that you have misinterpreted it.
Normally, I don't bother responding to snark. It's irritating, but being drawn in is just a second injury. And it's rare on HN anyway. But I'm puzzled when people are snarky, as it seems unrelated to the topic. So it's helpful that you have explained your thinking, and so I've taken the trouble to explain my original comment.
If snark comes easily to you, you might be more comfortable on reddit (though snark there is usually purely in fun.)
Is not clever wordplay disconnected from the external world? Is not indulging in one's cleverness narcissistic
No.
Or at least no more so than is inherent in all writing.
As for the good doctor Johnson, I would hesitate to use the inventor of the universal refutation as an authority when arguing against indulging in one's cleverness.
Faulkner is a similarly hypocritical source in a plea for clarity.
"Kill your darlings" isn't terrible advice, but taken alone it's as fatuous "write with verbs." Taken alone the basic idea is don't write anything you personally like, which is exactly the sort of life choice that quickly leads to a bottle.
Just to be clear: I didn't illustrate straightforwardness with that entire passage, but with one specific part:
One specific part preceded by a mountain of shit. I actually enjoy the straightfowardness of his "bad" writing doesn't actually work unless his "bad" writing is in fact straightforward, which is a shaky claim when the supporting evidence is a small fraction of a single very bad sentence.
Which as far as I'm concerned just makes your statement worse. Those are some singularly (plurally?) innocuous bits of word play, one of which it should be pointed out comes from his autobiography an excuse to be a little extra self indulgent if there ever was one.
Don't knock your sci-fi books. I have an ex-g/f with a PhD in English Literature (more precisely Dickens) who read Star Trek novels to unwind. Different books for different times.
nah, don't get me wrong I was raised on a steady diet of sci-fi and love it to death, when I say I own a lot of terrible sci-fi I mean it in the best possible sense.
I responded the way I did because it was easy and snarky. The OP claimed to prefer the "straightforward" prose that the article lambasted, and then illustrated it with maybe the worst possible quote (for the purpose) out of the entire article. Combined with:
solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.)
Led me to feel that 10ren has no idea what solipsistic, narcissitic or straightforward mean and in general no clue. So... I snarked.