> Those things are terrible; They look awful and destroy coherency of writing
Totally agree. What the fuck did Nabokov, Joyce and Dickinson know about language. /s
> Those things are terrible; They look awful and destroy coherency of writing
Totally agree. What the fuck did Nabokov, Joyce and Dickinson know about language. /s
Great writers aren't experts in the look of punctuation, I don't think anyone makes a point of you have to read Dickinson in the original font that she wrote in. Some of the greats hand-wrote their work in script that may as well be hieroglyphics, the manuscripts get preserved but not because people think the look is superior to any old typesetting which is objectively more readable.
> Great writers aren't experts in the look of punctuation
No, but someone arguing an entire punctuation is “terrible” and “look[s] awful and destroy[s] coherency of writing” sort of has to contend with the great writers who disagreed.
(A great writer is more authoritative than rando vibes.)
> don't think anyone makes a point of you have to read Dickinson in the original font that she wrote in
Not how reading works?
The comparison is between a simplified English summary of a novel and the novel itself.
> (A great writer is more authoritative than rando vibes.)
A great author is equivalent to rando vibes when it comes to what writing looks like, they aren't typesetting experts. I have a shelf of work by great authors (more than one, to be fair) and there are few hints on that shelf of what the text they actually wrote was intended to look like. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if several of them were dictated and typed by someone else completely with the mechanics of the typewriter determining some of the choices.
Shakespeare seems to have invented half the language and the man apparently couldn't even spell his own name. Now arguably he wasn't primarily a writer [0], but it is very strong evidence that there isn't a strong link between being amazing at English and technical execution of writing. That is what editors, publishers and pedants are for.
[0] Wiki disagrees though - "widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare
Their editors probably put them in?
Nothing. They wrote fiction.
I guess I'll ask: what's wrong with fiction?
Years past humans would hear stories from within their social circle. These are important because they create bonds and pass on wisdom & knowledge from one to many. From this, humans gained a yearn for hearing stories, but without adequate restrictions anything that fulfills pleasure can and will becomes a vice. The average human will spend their little "free time" (another delusion) toiling as an observer to fantasies conjured up by individuals they have no connection or relationship with. Fictional media preys on your mind the same way a video game, or a coke, or any one of these artificial productions of the modern world preys on you.
It's utterly pointless and degrades one's life into voyeurism. Many don't think of this, nor think about the food they eat, the work they do, the "life" they live, they only think of the consequences if they become painfully visible. Even then you will see people unwilling to get out of the bond of slavery, and form lies to protect their habit just as an addict of heroin addict would.
Non-fiction can be as bad (biographies, documentaries), but (for the most part) it's primary purpose isn't a voyeur's pleasure, so it's rarely abused in the same way.
> Nothing
/s?
> They wrote fiction
Now do Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman.
I don't care for them either. What am I supposed to hear some famous names and swoon?
You ok there?
Yes, but that doesn't mean I won't react with the same hostility that I recieve. It contradicts common sense one user will be burdened by hostility, and when they lash back out, the accosters will show it as proof of something. In another aspect, most people I have met in real life are cowards who don't dare speak out of turn. Of course, I have never had this issue in real life or otherwise, and I take personal joy in the wisdom I raise before the invalids, even though they will never appreciate or understand it.