Thank you for posting the main points of the article. I honestly couldn’t physically read the article because it was organized and written so badly.





It’s fine structurally. The style is the problem, and like I said, I have an American bias towards concision, but I really do think obscurity was the point.

Was that pun intentional?

Indeed, I pride myself on being concise and to the point. As the modern saying goes, “Ain’t nobody got time for that!”. Ten dollar words are meant to embellish writing but in this case it’s quite evident that they are being used as a distraction. From what? From a weak argument and SoFail’s even more tenuous qualifications *snort*. In rhetoric we call this ‘Style Over Substance’. I understood everything she wrote and am now SMH at how this got past the editor’s desk. I think they published it in it’s unedited glory on purpose. So that the thinking public can see what a ‘constellation’ SH is, how she shines with the light of many suns…or at least one: BC.

I’m with you on being concise.  That’s one reason I’m a Hemingway fan.  



Yeah and it sure looks like BC’s been following EH’s example when it comes to SH…

Leave a Reply