You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Stabilizer comments on Open thread, January 25- February 1 - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: NancyLebovitz 25 January 2014 02:52PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (316)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Stabilizer 25 January 2014 07:10:14PM 4 points [-]

Just to be clear: you're worried that you aren't sloppy enough?

If so, for us non-artists, can you explain how 'sloppiness' can be a good thing?

Comment author: gothgirl420666 25 January 2014 11:06:53PM *  2 points [-]

Sorry, I communicated poorly. I meant [introducting] lack of sloppiness into my work. That's not what I meant. I'm too sloppy.

Comment author: Stabilizer 26 January 2014 03:51:03AM 5 points [-]

You should edit the original question. People seem to be answering the wrong question below.

Comment author: Manfred 25 January 2014 08:29:21PM *  0 points [-]

I think it's a metaphor thing. Like, in writing, if you say "The shadow of a lamppost lay on the ground like a spear. He walked and it pierced him like a spear." What more description of the scene do you need than that? In fact, talking about the color of the path or what kind of trousers our character was wearing would be counterproductive to the quality of the writing.

One could view sloppiness in art in the same way - use of metaphor that captures the scene without the need for detail.

And no, of course it's not a biological limit.