If you intend to accuse my style of something, be more substantive - I just rechecked what I wrote and, yes, I had to correct a 'could' into a 'can'. For the rest, I do not see anything wrong.
You state you "«feel»", but in a discussion board you should elaborate.
If I didn't know better, I would say you just threw a prompt into some overgrown Word document macro and copypasta'd its output.
-- the article seems to convey the idea of the emergence of grounds for further degradation of quality in the material used for printing books, and I observed that in some territories the "build" quality (for publishers with the highest output) is already dire, using other territories as a parameter. So, "worse than that it will be either a challenge (vertically, for the publishers already going for "pulp fiction" quality) or a further spread (horizontally, for the publishers that still tried to avoid "pulp fiction" quality)"
-- the article seems to stress the issue of "verbosity vs scarcity", and focus on that "literature for spare time" in which "the longer the text, the merrier" is more frequent than in intentional artistic literature, where text length varies from a few megabytes, but very exceptionally, to possibly very little (I noted in a different recent post that texts seem to vary from ~100k to ~1000k at the quintiles) - to write huge texts is much more frequent in works with the sole purpose of filling gaps in an "entertainment market". So, I noted that it is an odd presentation that which brings books as a topic but seems to focus on "attempted blockbusters" (which may be prominent in quantity but will not match what a book, i.e. "«the codified way to convey information and wisdom»", represents).
What I originally wrote does not seem that complicated to me - at least, not unnecessarily: it matches what its intended content is. You are not "at McDonalds", "where chewing is an effort you are spared": real world, relative effort is part of the game. When you "read" something, you have to be an active part in understanding, you are called to "fill in the gaps". I mean, you would be right in accusing of making it overly complicated if there existed ways to express what I wrote - but exactly that - in a different way; whereas, what I wrote was exact (though incomplete, to keep within a reasonable amount of text).
And if something is not clear, just ask.
--
Edit: also (speaking in general, really not necessarily about the present exchange): one can note a phenomenon of "people who simply cannot read, unless the message and its form are the simplest" - this, out of experience. This is extremely worrisome, in the social context. One can also note that some seem to be embracing an idea according to which, "if they don't understand, the problem must be in the message" - which is differently but equally worrisome. These are signals that should call for the highest concern.
> and to me, boring
We are not here "to avoid making you bored"...
--
Edit:
> overly verbose
Well, in a way, but that comes because when one is asked for clarifications one tends to be more "complete" in the writing, leaving "less gaps to be filled by the reader". The verbosity is there because the original shorter expression was not clear to some.
--
Edit2:
> the way you communicate
I would say, it's (also) "the way I think". From reflection to expression it's pretty literal (apart from the hassle of picking the most proper terms).
This is not the problem here.
> - this, out of experience. This is extremely worrisome, in the social context. One can also note that some seem to be embracing an idea according to which, "if they don't understand, the problem must be in the message" - which is differently but equally worrisome. These are signals that should call for the highest concern.
The highest concern for everyone reading this thread has been your pompous writing style (think in SNR terms if the word "pompous" is too loaded/offensive)
But feel free to believe everyone is lying and only you know the truth.
Oh, also:
> the truth
Well, show it then.
As I was posting (the initial, original post), I was actually a bit concerned about "you are saying that publications from the UK and USA already often feel a bit cheap in their make, and you are noting that the article's author indicates a book crisis but heavily remains in the "entertainment" area: that is probably not the most insightful of posts" (it was meant to be an initial kernel for possible further development), and instead there has been an uproar about the style. Oh well.
> It is difficult being a deep thinker manytimes
I would not regard myself as a particularly «deep thinker» - I could not measure and rank that, the level is that which it is - though I have a mandate to that for academic and other reasons, but I am seeing strange directions, exacerbated by social networks, involving people claiming rights to judge through basic emotional reactions, and dismissals of whatever is not immediately digestible (and more). That "everything" requires an effort was a basic tenet, in a past society.