![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some writing has a different feel to it than others. Newspapers and encyclopedias are succinct; philosophers are complex, yet somehow not verbose. Gulliver's Travels and Silas Marner are chock full of details. So many details that most minds that read them today are bored.
I found an article in The New York Times that is somewhere in between Eliot and the encyclopedia. He writes about the advantages of Google and the advantages of the building known on campus as the library. You know, that building with books and computers? And the most used part of the library is that computer area? This guy's writing gets a little tedious, but it can't be skipped. It's a little like those philosophers: the writing follows a slow but complex train of thought. It takes awhile to settle into his rhythm. But would I be posting about it if I didn't think it was good writing?
You can find the article I'm talking about here. It's called "The Library in the New Age".
I found an article in The New York Times that is somewhere in between Eliot and the encyclopedia. He writes about the advantages of Google and the advantages of the building known on campus as the library. You know, that building with books and computers? And the most used part of the library is that computer area? This guy's writing gets a little tedious, but it can't be skipped. It's a little like those philosophers: the writing follows a slow but complex train of thought. It takes awhile to settle into his rhythm. But would I be posting about it if I didn't think it was good writing?
You can find the article I'm talking about here. It's called "The Library in the New Age".
