Surfulater PrevGen on bits, again

Posted by 22111
Dec 1, 2013 at 06:40 PM

“Learn to program software instead. And develop the software you wish to use.”

This is not the only sentence in your post I’d fully subscribe to.

In fact, I often muse about such 800-page manuals (as the one about JavaScript scripting for Acrobat), and others, more “accessible”, but in which most details are left out.

I perfectly understand what you’re saying, and I perfectly understand that you don’t say it as an “enemy”, all to to contrary, and I’m thankful for that. It’s just that I never found the integration of “saying it all” AND “be concise”, and I fear I’ll not find it in my lifetime, and so I risk to continue to hurt the patience of others because I have to make “choices”, i.e. the choice between “approximate completeness” and being possibly welcomed for “being on spot”.

Some weeks ago, in “Die Zeit” (online), I advised publishing houses (of the “creative” kind) to try to find 200-page novels (as abound in France, and are avidly bought and read), instead of publishing too many 600-, 800-, 1200-page novels where in these days, only SOME get bought (“winner-takes-it-all” phenomenon there), whilst most of those eventually will get shreddered. (Whilst in the Seventies, enough housewifes with maids assured the living of many writers of those.)

Now, in fiction, the solution I would adopt for this problem (if I wrote fiction), is to slice up your “novel material” into 3 or 4 thinner, much more accessible separate novels, and to “titillate” a little bit, both Thomas Mann’s “Tonio Kröger” and “Tod in Venedig” (“Death in Venice”, most readers will perfectly have understood even without this translation) are perfectly imaginable as parts of “Buddenbrooks”, making this rather thick boock even thicker. (see below)

You’ve written about 40 or 50 books of your own, Franz, so you must know something about it: How to leave out so many details and hence preserve your message (necessarily not backed-up any-more to that degree then)?

My recurrent question has been: Why do people see length, in itself (!), as an aggression to them?

Well, if I’m entirely honest about it, I see my my writings in another form, too: As said here, one web page, one thought, NO scrolling! So here, I’m in the “developing stage”, and at the end of the day, I should perhaps face the possible truth that nobody wants to serve as a “guinea pig”; in other words, the “form” might too much indicate the true, “pensive” nature of what I’m advancing, so readers might feel abused.

And yes, the sheer length of all of it is a problem, too (all the more so since using too many CAPITALS is rude, and there’s no bolding in order to facilitate skimming. But again, Franz, I’m thankful for what you say, even though not really grasping yet how to better spare all of yours’ time.

In the end, I’ve got more insight than some people here, here and there, had been willing to acknowledge, and my own sw development has been more than 15 years now, which is a very long time, and without other, alternative outliners / IMS taking the conceptual place mine never took, and so my level of frustration is rather high.

And yes, that might be the second cause why threads/postings I deem constructive, often just encounter hate: does my (obviously justified!) frustration (acknowledged!) and my envy (“creating good products doesn’t pay, look at that crap and its returns!” - btw, I suppose CT is rather select, too…?!) - acknowledged! - literally overshadow what I’ve got to say to such a degree that they literally invalidate it for most readers?

Ok, for the experts, this was another post dedicated to Wundt. ;-)

P.S.: Thank you again, Franz. Any more hint (perhaps on the practical side? ;-) ) would be warmly welcome.