#I don't want my craft to be driven by the principles of capitalism thank you

[venusdebotticelli]

The op of the twitter thread has an issue with books that are "a meeting that should have been an email". But the book they're describing sounds *exactly* like a barebones email, just telling you the most relevant information points in the most perfunctory and succinct way, like you have somewhere else to be and can't dedicate more than two seconds to quickly skimming this book. A book written for a reader with the mentality that your book is not worth their time, so you better make it snappy. It sounds like a miserable literary experience, both as the writer and as the reader.

It's also working on the assumption that the *only* acceptable pacing is breakneck pacing, or they're "wasting the reader's time". No stories are allowed to ever go deeper or take things slower, or to meander around different settings to create a mood, simply for the sake of art. As if different types of stories don't benefit from different styles of writing, and as if there haven't been plenty of literary movements and schools of thought throughout different cultures and periods that valued precisely that, lingering in the details to create a vivid picture. It may not be to your personal taste, but presenting it as if there's absolutely no value to it or cannot be used to great effect is disingenuous and pompous as hell. I agree that it's generally a good rule of thumb to have a reason/purpose why you want to include something, but op has decided that the only valid reasons to include anything are the ones that they personally find entertaining, and everything else is worthless.

This is how you write a textbook, not fiction that's allowed any breathing room. I entirely agree with the previous addition, especially the bit about how this sounds like the perfect method to pump out the fast-food equivalent of writing. I think op wanted to make a point about effective storytelling, about filling your every sentence with meaning and saying as much as you can in a limited amount of time/sentences, but a) doesn't seem to have a great grasp on what pacing actually is and isn't, b) not every story is under time/wordcount constraints or aiming to tell the densest, most efficient story ever, c) they got really judgemental about it and like the only way to write well is to write things that are to their own personal taste.

Ultimately, my main issue with this twt thread and the way this writing "advice" is presented, is that it's not really suggesting ways in which you can think about your work in order to help you achieve what you're going for. It's straight up just telling you what you *should* be going for, and if that's not actually your goal then you're wrong 🙄

PACING IS ABOUT LOAD BEARING WALLS.

*staples violently to my own forehead*