Quote:
Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
You're giving your own opinion an incredible amount of weight. You seem ready to say that [insert name of revered and influential writer from two centuries ago] isn't as good as [insert name of author you'd prefer to read] simply because you think so. I happen to hate Dickens, but I also understand he's necessary.
|
Huh? Where did I compare writers across eras? Or say anything at all about what I like to read or not read? I said I don't care about the author's struggles or lack thereof (except as a matter of idle curiosity). I don't care if this book took the author twelve years to finish or that book took the author twelve months--I care only about the final product.
Quote:
|
I can't fathom why you'd infer that from what I said. No offense, but if that's how carefully you read, then I can understand why it doesn't matter to you how carefully people write.
|
Really? Sounds to me like you think the more time a writer can devote to writing, without the pesky distraction of a day job, the better the writer's output will be, as though time automatically equals improved quality.
Furthermore, your inference that I don't care about how carefully people write is way off base. What I don't care about is how long it takes them to write carefully and well--that will vary with the individual. The process that the writer goes through to produce the book is irrelevant. I only read and then judge the book itself.
The rest of your comment has nothing to do with what I said. Nowhere have I defended the wholesale dissemination of copyrighted material.