[Koshkin]

The attention deficit in action. (Not to blame you personally, this is what the modern communication style does to us in its pervasiveness, and the delicious "long form" characteristic of the "olden times" is no longer easily digestible by anyone with the prolonged exposure to texting and such; even when it comes to email, people often have enough patience to only read the first sentence.)

[codeulike]

Sorry can you explain that again a bit more briefly?

[akiselev]

The 21st century in a nutshell: too long; didn't read.

[ryandrake]

Modern technology makes people's brains impatient.

[kridsdale1]

I’m sorry I lost interest by word three.

[klyrs]

take longer; don't relent

[claytongulick]

Care to elucidate?

[watwut]

To be fair, more readable 19 century texts definitely exists. Not every writer was writing in such convoluted way.

[Apocryphon]

> Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off—then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

"Not every writer was writing in such convoluted way."

Sure there were. But unless they're Mark Twain or Ambrose Bierce, they're probably not much worth reading.

[jeffjobs4000]

I find this passage to be far more readable than the Scarlet Letter one posted above. Sure, it's long, but it's developing the character.

Before screens, people must have gotten far more enjoyment from authors painting mental pictures in tiny detail.

We have HD video as an option now. A long description of a rose bush doesn't do it for me unless it's needed for the actual narrative.

[SyzygistSix]

What is different about literature is that things are being described through the viewpoints of particular people.

[watwut]

> But unless they're Mark Twain or Ambrose Bierce, they're probably not much worth reading.

I strongly disagree. Being convoluted does not make the text more worth reading. It makes it more fun for one kind of reader. That is about it.

Being well written and pleasant to read does not make the text, whether fiction or real like account less worthy.

[Apocryphon]

Right, but much great writing from that era was convoluted, like the work of Herman Melville.

[cpr]

Are you kidding me? The greatest American novel of all time? Not worth reading?

[Apocryphon]

I was dismissing the previous post that claimed that "more readable" - less "convoluted" - 19th century texts existed by saying such texts are probably not worth reading, as the much more complex works are heralded as classics of English literature.