"I couldn’t count the number of times he told me what he was about to say, what his terms were and, in particular endless rehearsals of what wasn’t saying."
I refer to this 'style' "format"…. as the lack of git (the programming repository suite of functions developed by Linus Torvald) for books.
The lack is especially obvious for the essay that is put together for/by publishers as a book. It would be better if we could just fork a project, and add a bit, without all going over what we know/agree stuff.
While going over the field as we know it to set up the writer's position-- is not the same as "telling you what I am going to tell you, then tell you, then tell you what I've told you" format, it usually is the way it is done. They share the inefficiencies.
I suspect it comes out of a sense of the book (no doubt expected by all parts of the market in both supply and demand) that the book has to be some whole, some microcosm, some bible of the peeps, such that we end up with TL;DR reviews in order to cope.
I could get more reading done if I didn't have to skim over some section of an introduction to a topic I am up to speed on, just in case they have something new. Why do book creators have to assume a year 10 level of knowledge with a postgraduate level of interest. I exaggerate, but ...
Wikipedia states that the Nazis believed Delmer was an MI6 agent. Certainly, he was an anti-nazi advocate throughout WW2, and, in one of his over-the-air broadcasts, vehemently rejected Hitler's July 1940 "peace offer" - and without authorisation. Of course, in a wilderness-of-mirrors terrain things are never what they seem.
Thanks for that last tweet, Nicholas, quite delightful.
Yes, it's hilarious!
"I couldn’t count the number of times he told me what he was about to say, what his terms were and, in particular endless rehearsals of what wasn’t saying."
I refer to this 'style' "format"…. as the lack of git (the programming repository suite of functions developed by Linus Torvald) for books.
The lack is especially obvious for the essay that is put together for/by publishers as a book. It would be better if we could just fork a project, and add a bit, without all going over what we know/agree stuff.
While going over the field as we know it to set up the writer's position-- is not the same as "telling you what I am going to tell you, then tell you, then tell you what I've told you" format, it usually is the way it is done. They share the inefficiencies.
I suspect it comes out of a sense of the book (no doubt expected by all parts of the market in both supply and demand) that the book has to be some whole, some microcosm, some bible of the peeps, such that we end up with TL;DR reviews in order to cope.
I could get more reading done if I didn't have to skim over some section of an introduction to a topic I am up to speed on, just in case they have something new. Why do book creators have to assume a year 10 level of knowledge with a postgraduate level of interest. I exaggerate, but ...
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/10-years-of-git-an-interview-with-git-creator-linus-torvalds
Wikipedia states that the Nazis believed Delmer was an MI6 agent. Certainly, he was an anti-nazi advocate throughout WW2, and, in one of his over-the-air broadcasts, vehemently rejected Hitler's July 1940 "peace offer" - and without authorisation. Of course, in a wilderness-of-mirrors terrain things are never what they seem.