Well, sure, but he's describing people who have known him a long time.
>Yesterday, I got told by someone I really care about
>The day before that, one of my very closest friends and someone who I love like family told me
If these people are as close to the author as he claims, then this assumption-projection thing I don't think would hold up. They don't need to backfill with assumptions about "what would a rich guy think" because they should know the author well enough not to have those kinds of gaps.
People, the author included seem to think it’s wrong in some way that the author is not just assumed to be an absolute authority on his work, though I think it’s quite appropriate and that this example illustrates exactly why you would want the author to provide his oppinion and statements in a manor that is referencable.
If he had been allowed to simple change the page at will, then he could at any time in the futur decide to change the statement after the fact of what the inspiration was, as it stands now even if he change me his mind the New Yorker story can be referenced as a fact that he at that time made these claims.
No, he indicates his familiarity with that specific story (unless the author was writing two stories on the same community within weeks of each other) and not just the author. He was interview for that story and judged it likely to be positive. Therefore we have two people's opinion of the story, that both have partial information is irrelevant.
I don't know if I agree with this. The author might be incorrectly projecting his feelings onto other people. There are a fair number of people in the world who know exactly what they're doing.
I don't think him claiming he's keeps getting misunderstood is necessarily an indictment of him. Sometimes the misunderstanding comes from readers having a particular mindset, so they see everything through the lense of their preconceptions, which might not match up with what the author was thinking.
After rereading it I think that's probably a fair interpretation. I guess I was thrown off from the fact that the author was the subject of the first sentence and therefore made it seem personal.
Here, try this: he both thinks that you are not stupid and that "nobody" would confuse who wrote the book (evidently, the second thought was shown to be factually incorrect).
Not so hard--I, however, think you're being silly.
That makes it sound completely naive but I think that conclusion would be too rash. it seems like the author has some audience in mind. Perhaps himself after trying a page builder.
I don't see how that context changes anything. It's not a quote from a character or, apparently, an intentionally unreliable narrator, and there's nothing to indicate that it's not a sincerely held belief by the author.
Okay, but the "you" in this sentence doesn't transfer to other readers. It's you when you read it, but when I read it, it's me. And I don't believe him.
>Yesterday, I got told by someone I really care about
>The day before that, one of my very closest friends and someone who I love like family told me
If these people are as close to the author as he claims, then this assumption-projection thing I don't think would hold up. They don't need to backfill with assumptions about "what would a rich guy think" because they should know the author well enough not to have those kinds of gaps.
reply