From: robin_listas@es.invalid   
      
   On 2025-12-30 02:46, rbowman wrote:   
   > On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 09:53:11 -0800, John Ames wrote:   
   >   
   >> And closer to our day, writers of the 19th century had a much heavier   
   >> bent towards the fancy stuff than we do; elaborate language in prose is   
   >> more disdained than not, these days. I have mixed feelings on that -   
   >> better examples of the old style (Poe, for instance, Lovecraft in his   
   >> better moments) can really absorb you in their dense, weird language. On   
   >> the other hand, it can easily go awry and turn into a sesquipedalian   
   >> slog (Lovecraft in his worse moments, a host of lesser authors whose   
   >> names we've long since forgotten.) It's a tricky business; a minimalist   
   >> style is harder to go wrong with, but it forgoes a lot of opporunities   
   >> for beauty, and mere minimalism doesn't necessarily equal elegance.   
   >   
   > I've been trying to read Spencer. He's not fancy but he does go on and on   
   > and on. 19th century people must have had more time.  His points are good   
   > but as he delves into the zygomatic arch of the King Charles spaniel my   
   > eyes get glassy.   
      
   Yes, of course they had more time. They didn't have TV. Not even radio.   
      
   --   
   Cheers, Carlos.   
   ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)