New Malstrom article - Secret to the “Casual”

[steven787]

dib8rman said:

steven787 said:

Oh my god, I shouldn't have read more...

Ironically, you can combine the two. Academics write many, many books. None of them are read. Why? They are so steeped in academic style as the masses don?t want to slog through that. Their content is also not what people care to know. After their ?brilliance? fails to create a best-selling book, they just declare that the masses are ?idiots? and that those best-selling books are written in a ?casual? style (written in a retarded way, dumbed down, for the masses).

As a student of international affairs who goes to every conference that I can get into,  I must say: this guy is talking out of his ass.  Every diplomat, politician, and business person I meet is extremely well read.

The masses are the masses for a reason, because they choose not to pull them selves up.  Acedemic writing is there for all to read, and is a means for pulling oneself up.  Games are a diversion.  Two different things altogether.

 

This guy is a dumbass who is promoting illiteracy.

You do realize that he's speaking about what has happened and not what is intended?

Also your passing off what you believe as what another person really meant to say, which is just arrogance. In fact most of your inserts above were just personal attacks to challenge the credability of his writing by morphing his sentence into what you believed then attacking what you believed and placing the blame back onto his sentence.

He sais he is happy he writes for casuals, the context claims he's relating this to gaming in that a product geared towards the so called casuals is actually trying to target everyone.

He goes so far as to refference Shakespeare which I believe was the definition to his point. Unless your going to say Shakespeare was against the education of people - to which logically I'd have to argue as people needed to understand the language he delivered his product in order for him to make money. That's what that entire article is about: making money.

 

If you read my first post you'll see that he doesn't write for casuals.

Example.

But let us take this idea further. With books, we know there are tons of ‘literature’ and elitist type books where the author is attempting to create ‘art’. However, the best sellers are made for ‘casuals’ and lack ’serious’ literary writing. From the elitist view, these best sellers are ‘dumbed down’ for people. From the consumer’s point of view, they just want a good story to perform a job such as something to occupy them while riding a plane or on a beach. They have nothing against the ‘literary’ books except the prose is so thick, and so many obstacles of the author trying to use countless ’symbols’, that the story is difficult to get at.

Broken down:

But let us take this idea further.

1. Unecessary, a casual reader doesn't read articles with fluff.
2. What is with all this "us"?
   

With books, we know there are tons of ‘literature’ and elitist type books where the author is attempting to create ‘art’.

1. We know? If we know, then why are you telling us. 
2. "With books... there are books." Redundant, improper use of preposition. 
3. "...the author attempting to create ‘art’." Who is he to assume what an author is trying to accomplish?  Who is he to decide which is art or 'art'?
   

However, the best sellers are made for ‘casuals’ and lack ’serious’ literary writing.

1. Why are casuals and serious in quotes? Is he quoting somebody?  Is it a title of a piece that isn't divided into chapters or acts? Are they hypothetical?  As far as I can tell the words are being used exactly as they are meant to be.
2. We are discussing writing of books, not the making of.
3. The conjunction of "are made for 'casuals' and lack 'serious' literary writing" is very unclear.
   

 

From the elitist view, these best sellers are ‘dumbed down’ for people.

1. Who are these elitists?  Popular and lay writing have a very particular purpose.  Any rational writer I've met (which I have, met writers) understands the need for clarity and succinctness when informing or entertaining people of average reading ability.
2. He keeps mentioning bestsellers, and reiterating his main point with out providing any evidence.  Who are these elitists? What do they say? What are some examples of bestsellers that are dumbed down?
   
3. The books are dumbed down. The books are not "dumbed down".  And for god's sake, use the proper quotation mark.
   

From the consumer’s point of view, they just want a good story to perform a job such as something to occupy them while riding a plane or on a beach.

1. Exactly my point, if he is writing for casuals then he is not a doing a very good job because it is too long, too redundant, and too unclear.
2. The sentence is too wordy.  A casual reader just wants a book to occupy there time...
   

They have nothing against the ‘literary’ books except the prose is so thick, and so many obstacles of the author trying to use countless ’symbols’, that the story is difficult to get at.

1. "Nothing except" is a double negative and shows that the writer hasn't thought out his thesis and doesn't know how to proof read.  Double negatives are not very clear to inexperienced or casual readers.
2. He uses bad grammar.  He uses big words.  He uses odd sentence structure.
3. My version: "'Academic, high brow, and advanced books are too wordy, too abstract for people to enjoy for light reading.
4. Consumers? I think he means readers.
   
5. This sentence is condescending to those readers he trying to defend.

 

Why should I take this guy seriously?  He can't clearly explain his point.  He misuses the tools which are the tools he is trying to explain.

He is happy he writes for casuals?  I can't imagine a single casual gamer or reader reading through 3400 poorly written words on the video game industry.

 

His writing is not casual, it is bad.  He is trying to sound intelligent by using odd sentence structure, fancy language ("story to perform a job"), and ten dollar words (ex: consumers, prose, obstacles, elitist). 

John Grisham and Tom Clancy are casual, they are fantastic.  This guy's writing comes off as arrogant and unrefined.

(Edit: I am not a casual writer, I write dense texts about US-Iranian politics.  I already know that my writing comes off as elitist.  It works for what I do.)

(Edit2: Shakespear wrote for everyone, but he did not make it accessible, easy, or dumbed down.  Shakespear also used proper english for his time period and vernacualar when appropriate, as do today's popular writers.)