Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1390622" data-attributes="member: 5171">The problem with this interpretation, jester, is that one could just as well say, &quot;I am better than Homer, because I can tell the Odyssey in fewer words: Warrior irritates god, warrior wanders, warrior gets home after long adventures and reclaims throne and wife.&quot;&nbsp; Nobody (I think) would argue that this makes me better as a storyteller than Homer.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because I did not put in the same level of richness and detail.You say, &quot;If it's the same story but shorter, it's better.&quot;&nbsp; I agree with you, but I sense that I have a much different definition of what makes it &quot;the same story&quot;.&nbsp; If it's richer, deeper, and more fully realized, then it's not the same story -- it's a better story.&nbsp; And I wouldn't argue, and don't think you would, either, that &quot;tells a duller story in fewer words&quot; is the mark of greatness.&nbsp; Therefore, it's a matter of interpretation.&nbsp; It's too much detail for you.&nbsp; That's fine, but it is only your opinion, and attempting to state your opinion as an objective standard will cause people to disagree with you.I am not a computer science major.&nbsp; I am a writer.&nbsp; Good writing is powerful compression if I am trying to explain how to hook up a DSL modem in a tech document.&nbsp; Good writing is rich and evocative if I'm reading a story.&nbsp; That doesn't always mean that it should be long, but it doesn't always mean that it should be short, either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takyris, post: 1390622, member: 5171"] The problem with this interpretation, jester, is that one could just as well say, "I am better than Homer, because I can tell the Odyssey in fewer words: Warrior irritates god, warrior wanders, warrior gets home after long adventures and reclaims throne and wife." Nobody (I think) would argue that this makes me better as a storyteller than Homer. Why? Because I did not put in the same level of richness and detail. You say, "If it's the same story but shorter, it's better." I agree with you, but I sense that I have a much different definition of what makes it "the same story". If it's richer, deeper, and more fully realized, then it's not the same story -- it's a better story. And I wouldn't argue, and don't think you would, either, that "tells a duller story in fewer words" is the mark of greatness. Therefore, it's a matter of interpretation. It's too much detail for you. That's fine, but it is only your opinion, and attempting to state your opinion as an objective standard will cause people to disagree with you. I am not a computer science major. I am a writer. Good writing is [i]powerful compression [/i] if I am trying to explain how to hook up a DSL modem in a tech document. Good writing is [i]rich and evocative[/i] if I'm reading a story. That doesn't always mean that it should be long, but it doesn't always mean that it should be short, either. [/QUOTE]

Verification