SultanOfSurreal wrote:
these volumes are only longer than 100 pages because of additional text in the form of commentaries and introductions,
I already addressed that. Many comments ago. Please note my previous note about
pedantry.
SultanOfSurreal wrote:
which are at best merely aids in understanding the main text itself, and at worst completely superfluous examinations of the history of its writing and influence. the actual work we refer to when we refer to "the communist manifesto" is short -- by design -- and wouldn't fill anywhere near 100 pages unless it was written in large print for a pocket-sized volume.
the point being that the communist manifesto is a rather terse and easily-digestible treatise. its predictions could easily be reduced to 10 or so bullet pointed blurbs. not that the op did it correctly. but the op is so irrelevant by this point that i can't even remember who he is, and i don't feel like looking.
so now here's a word to the wise. at some point even the most dedicated of trolls have to say, however reluctantly, "well okay." to pursue discussions like this endlessly is to defeat the very purpose of the troll. you end up chasing your own tail down the rabbit hole of being contrarian simply for the sake of it, and no one is interested in seeing that.
if you don't let anything go then you become transparent. if you become transparent no one gets angry with you.
I didn't have time to read this novel, but it's probably a good thing.
You tried to seize an
Ah-Ha moment by derailing the thread into minutia but it didn't work out. Pounding out volumes of word vomit to win some imagined battle of quantity is inane. Each backward rationalization to save a pedantic point digs you deeper than the previous.
By your choice of verbiage, manner and style of composition, it's clear you're on a learning exploration. That's fine. Just don't feign expertise when you have none to proffer.
