On one hand there's the lack of ability to process nuance, on the other there's nearly content free blathering for length. Most everything these days is 5 times as long as it needs to be because there's only that much actual information, not for lack of attention.
>And in doing so, we've accidentally engineered away the most essentially human experiences: the productive confusion of not knowing, the generative power of sitting with difficulty, the transformative potential of things that resist compression.
Here's the example:
* the productive confusion...
* the generative power ...
* the transformative potential ...
The author did not add anything, they just said the same thing three different ways instead of one. It continues throughout the essay.
The reason everything is tl;dr is that it's too long and not worth reading, it's never worth reading. Write properly. Say the most important things at the top that cover your topic entirely and then go into further depth. If it's worth reading people will read it, if it's not they won't.
Most popular business books are like this. They have an idea that could fit in like a single chapter, but have to write a whole book about it to get paid, so they pad it with numerous anecdotes and their entire life’s story.
I wish there were more reliable ways to monetize for authors between clickbait and published book. I know there are many paid Substacks and newsletters out there, some of which are really great. But I feel like you need a lot of luck or self promotion skills for this to work.
We need to return to the grand history of the publication of the pamphlet, which is exactly what we want. Short form content, 5 to 50 pages, which is exactly the length that would fit for so many of these business, "popular science", and other kinds of nonfiction books which have good ideas but no business being 250 pages long. Essentially one-off magazines instead of being a periodical, individually published and probably in a smaller format than 8x11/A4-ish sizes for most modern magazines.
Monetisation: how about a periodical publication? Edited and curated around a theme and then contributors can write to an appropriate length. Spin-off courses and perhaps even individual sessions where a general theme is applied to a specific situation?
I came to the comments to see if anybody else was bothered by this style. Every other paragraph contains a list rephrasing a simple concept. Bit of irony for an article focused on the problem of compression to so easily exemplify where compression would be useful.
I think there's a nuance here that you're missing.
Yes -- so much popular "literature" (if it can be called that) written in the last 50 years has been conversational in tone. If I'm looking for a particular answer to a pressing problem, I don't want to read 10 different people's stories about facing the same problem, I want an information-dense 10-pager that I can slowly pore over. If you have the information, please present it up front!
On the other hand, some books are the product of so much prior thought that it takes a lot of discipline to sit with them long enough to understand what they're saying. Anything by the philosopher Josef Pieper, for example.
And other pieces, like TA, are the product of someone discovering or meditating on an idea as they write. I think we ought to read these not as popular fluff, but perhaps to join the author thoughtfully as they process an idea -- which can be rewarding.
Repetition builds rhythm and emotional resonance. She is not just trying to convey an idea, but a feeling as well. I think you missed that point. There is more to conversation than conveying data.
Repetition can be a powerful rhetorical tool, sure. It is not used effectively here. In this essay it's just lists of mediocre metaphors. Using a technique doesn't make your writing good by default, you have to use it well.
>And in doing so, we've accidentally engineered away the most essentially human experiences: the productive confusion of not knowing, the generative power of sitting with difficulty, the transformative potential of things that resist compression.
Here's the example:
* the productive confusion...
* the generative power ...
* the transformative potential ...
The author did not add anything, they just said the same thing three different ways instead of one. It continues throughout the essay.
The reason everything is tl;dr is that it's too long and not worth reading, it's never worth reading. Write properly. Say the most important things at the top that cover your topic entirely and then go into further depth. If it's worth reading people will read it, if it's not they won't.