[003]
frodobatmanvader
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Sorry, that came out stronger than it should have. However, I still stand by my statement. One line of thought from Yora\'s original post that bothers me is this: \'\'\
to:
Sorry, that came out stronger than it should have. However, I still stand by my statement. One line of thought from Yora\\\'s original post that bothers me is this: \\\"...but for a casual tvtropes-reader who only wants to know what it\\\'s about, and \\\'\\\'has no intention of reading it\\\'\\\'.\\\" When exactly did TVtropes become a substitution for, rather than a gateway to, great works of fiction? And why are we accommodating those who use this site that way?
Like I said before, the \\\'\\\'way\\\'\\\' that this page was written told me far more about what to expect from this book than if it had tried to straight-fowardly explain it\\\'s nonsensibility to me. In response to TheMalignancy\\\'s comment: yeah, if that\\\'s what you got from this trope page then we probably did you a favor, because I can guarantee you that the book would have matched \\\'\\\'whatever\\\'\\\' you got out of this (since the page is an accurate representation of what the book has to offer). Contrary to what you said, though, that \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be the way to attract new readers, \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' those readers find this book\\\'s approach to that style intriguing (like I did). It also has the benefit of warding off readers who find that annoying, not intriguing (thus saving them a waste of time).
So my argument is that changing the way the page presents itself would do a disservice: it would cease to attract those who would generally find the book interesting and start to attract the attention of those who would feel it\\\'s a waste of time.
My apologies if I\\\'ve come across too strong; I just feel very strongly about this book not being misrepresented.
EDIT: They took away the \\\"book about a book about a movie about a labyrinth\\\" quote!? The HELL!?
Like I said before, the \\\'\\\'way\\\'\\\' that this page was written told me far more about what to expect from this book than if it had tried to straight-fowardly explain it\\\'s nonsensibility to me. In response to TheMalignancy\\\'s comment: yeah, if that\\\'s what you got from this trope page then we probably did you a favor, because I can guarantee you that the book would have matched \\\'\\\'whatever\\\'\\\' you got out of this (since the page is an accurate representation of what the book has to offer). Contrary to what you said, though, that \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be the way to attract new readers, \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' those readers find this book\\\'s approach to that style intriguing (like I did). It also has the benefit of warding off readers who find that annoying, not intriguing (thus saving them a waste of time).
So my argument is that changing the way the page presents itself would do a disservice: it would cease to attract those who would generally find the book interesting and start to attract the attention of those who would feel it\\\'s a waste of time.
My apologies if I\\\'ve come across too strong; I just feel very strongly about this book not being misrepresented.
EDIT: They took away the \\\"book about a book about a movie about a labyrinth\\\" quote!? The HELL!?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Sorry, that came out stronger than it should have. However, I still stand by my statement. One line of thought from Yora\'s original post that bothers me is this: \
to:
Sorry, that came out stronger than it should have. However, I still stand by my statement. One line of thought from Yora\\\'s original post that bothers me is this: \\\'\\\'\\\"but for a casual tvtropes-reader who only wants to know what it\\\'s about, and \\\'\\\'\\\'has no intention of reading it\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"\\\'\\\' When exactly did TVtropes become a substitution for, rather than a gateway to, great works of fiction? And why are we accommodating those who use this site that way?
Like I said before, the \\\'\\\'way\\\'\\\' that this page was written told me far more about what to expect from this book than if it had tried to straight-fowardly explain it\\\'s nonsensibility to me. In response to TheMalignancy\\\'s comment: yeah, if that\\\'s what you got from this trope page then we probably did you a favor, because I can guarantee you that the book would have matched \\\'\\\'whatever\\\'\\\' you got out of this (since the page is an accurate representation of what the book has to offer). Contrary to what you said, though, that \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be the way to attract new readers, \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' those readers find this book\\\'s approach to that style intriguing (like I did). It also has the benefit of warding off readers who find that annoying, not intriguing (thus saving them a waste of time).
So my argument is that changing the way the page presents itself would do a disservice: it would cease to attract those who would generally find the book interesting and start to attract the attention of those who would feel it\\\'s a waste of time.
My apologies if I\\\'ve come across too strong; I just feel very strongly about this book not being misrepresented.
EDIT: They took away the \\\"book about a book about a movie about a labyrinth\\\" quote!? The HELL!?
Like I said before, the \\\'\\\'way\\\'\\\' that this page was written told me far more about what to expect from this book than if it had tried to straight-fowardly explain it\\\'s nonsensibility to me. In response to TheMalignancy\\\'s comment: yeah, if that\\\'s what you got from this trope page then we probably did you a favor, because I can guarantee you that the book would have matched \\\'\\\'whatever\\\'\\\' you got out of this (since the page is an accurate representation of what the book has to offer). Contrary to what you said, though, that \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be the way to attract new readers, \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' those readers find this book\\\'s approach to that style intriguing (like I did). It also has the benefit of warding off readers who find that annoying, not intriguing (thus saving them a waste of time).
So my argument is that changing the way the page presents itself would do a disservice: it would cease to attract those who would generally find the book interesting and start to attract the attention of those who would feel it\\\'s a waste of time.
My apologies if I\\\'ve come across too strong; I just feel very strongly about this book not being misrepresented.
EDIT: They took away the \\\"book about a book about a movie about a labyrinth\\\" quote!? The HELL!?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Sorry, that came out stronger than it should have. However, I still stand by my statement. One line of thought from Yora\'s original post that bothers me is this: \
to:
Sorry, that came out stronger than it should have. However, I still stand by my statement. One line of thought from Yora\\\'s original post that bothers me is this: \\\"but for a casual tvtropes-reader who only wants to know what it\\\'s about, and \\\'\\\'has no intention of reading it.\\\"\\\'\\\' When exactly did TVtropes become a substitution for, rather than a gateway to, great works of fiction? And why are we accommodating those who use this site that way?
Like I said before, the \\\'\\\'way\\\'\\\' that this page was written told me far more about what to expect from this book than if it had tried to straight-fowardly explain it\\\'s nonsensibility to me. In response to TheMalignancy\\\'s comment: yeah, if that\\\'s what you got from this trope page then we probably did you a favor, because I can guarantee you that the book would have matched \\\'\\\'whatever\\\'\\\' you got out of this (since the page is an accurate representation of what the book has to offer). Contrary to what you said, though, that \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be the way to attract new readers, \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' those readers find this book\\\'s approach to that style intriguing (like I did). It also has the benefit of warding off readers who find that annoying, not intriguing (thus saving them a waste of time).
So my argument is that changing the way the page presents itself would do a disservice: it would cease to attract those who would generally find the book interesting and start to attract the attention of those who would feel it\\\'s a waste of time.
My apologies if I\\\'ve come across too strong; I just feel very strongly about this book not being misrepresented.
EDIT: They took away the \\\"book about a book about a movie about a labyrinth\\\" quote!? The HELL!?
Like I said before, the \\\'\\\'way\\\'\\\' that this page was written told me far more about what to expect from this book than if it had tried to straight-fowardly explain it\\\'s nonsensibility to me. In response to TheMalignancy\\\'s comment: yeah, if that\\\'s what you got from this trope page then we probably did you a favor, because I can guarantee you that the book would have matched \\\'\\\'whatever\\\'\\\' you got out of this (since the page is an accurate representation of what the book has to offer). Contrary to what you said, though, that \\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\' be the way to attract new readers, \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' those readers find this book\\\'s approach to that style intriguing (like I did). It also has the benefit of warding off readers who find that annoying, not intriguing (thus saving them a waste of time).
So my argument is that changing the way the page presents itself would do a disservice: it would cease to attract those who would generally find the book interesting and start to attract the attention of those who would feel it\\\'s a waste of time.
My apologies if I\\\'ve come across too strong; I just feel very strongly about this book not being misrepresented.
EDIT: They took away the \\\"book about a book about a movie about a labyrinth\\\" quote!? The HELL!?
