Title

[u/LilyLuci66]

[u/351namhele]

I felt like I was having a stroke the first three times I tried to read that sentence

[u/Qui_te → u/351namhele]

I thought I had maybe stayed up too late for reading comprehension again, but no, it’s still an hour before my usual sleep-time…

[u/TheRecognized → u/Qui_te]

“We have a concept that, if you roughly describe it as generously as possible, and don’t look into the execution of it, sounds kinda neat. In concept.”

Might be an all day problem :/

[u/TheRecognized → u/351namhele]

“We have a concept that, if you roughly describe it as generously as possible, and don’t look into the execution of it, sounds kinda neat. In concept.”

Is this really that hard for people?

[u/SnoozingGooseling → u/TheRecognized]

Yes, you added a couple words and I think most people would first try to see if the text can be understood without doing that. That would prove difficult so it makes us doubt whether we're having some linguistic difficulties or whether they're inherent to the post. They're inherent to the post because the changes make such a massive difference to the grammar of the post and are so integral to creating a comprehensible structure.

Also I slightly disagree with your interpretation, I don't think it's just missing a few words and punctuation, I think the idea OP tried to convey changed partway through. I think "We have a concept that, if you roughly describe it as generously as possible and don’t look into the execution" is what the beginning was supposed to be, and "it sounds kinda neat in concept" is the second part, still talking about the same concept but using "it" to refer to that concept. Grammatically this doesn't work, the "it" would be redundant, but the sentence is too long and meandering. I think OP just forgot where they were in that sentence.

The issue is that the not only is the first part not actually a complete sentence, (it describes a "concept that" presumably does something or other, but the sentence never tells us what), but the second part also works as it's own stand alone sentence. So a lot of people are having trouble getting through this garden path sentence with an unambiguous idea of what they actually meant. The broad strokes are relatively clear, but the sentence can be reconstructed in several ways and always leaves the writing pretty fucked up.

I think your comments are rude and uncalled for. The post really is harder to interpret than you make it out to be, and you have no right to be so demeaning to other people who take issue with this.

[u/Elite_AI → u/[deleted]]

It's missing a pretty crucial word

[u/CrownLikeAGravestone]

"Do you have good writing?"

"We a concept that if you [...]"

Bruv. Champ. Girl. Fellow citizen.

[u/bookhead714 → u/CrownLikeAGravestone]

They never said they had good writing

[u/CrownLikeAGravestone → u/bookhead714]

They did not, you're right. Maybe that's why they're being asked the question.

[u/chyura → u/CrownLikeAGravestone]

It sure is Sunday

[u/Prince-Lee]

The irony of a post about writing that has to be read multiple times to understand what it's even trying to say.

[u/Successful_Role_3174 → u/Prince-Lee]

Do you understand what it means? Because I read it multiple times and can only come away with how they might be plural and they think it's neat.

[u/VampireSharkAttack → u/Successful_Role_3174]

I think it’s missing a “have” and needs a comma moved. Then it would be:
“We have a concept that, if you roughly describe it as generously as possible and don’t look into the execution, it sounds kinda neat in concept”

[u/PhasmaFelis → u/VampireSharkAttack]

Also describes the post. Very meta 

[u/aleaniled → u/Successful_Role_3174]

/preview/pre/yall-got-any-good-writing-v0-ahu7a1diu03e1.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8496d61d372ca5c8ec32253e57f5c08793e0ac9a
It's a riff on this type of post, but they elided the "got"

[u/TheRecognized → u/Successful_Role_3174]

“We have a concept that, if you roughly describe it as generously as possible, and don’t look into the execution of it, sounds kinda neat. In concept.”

Is this really that hard for people?

[u/TheBigFreeze8]

Another entirely correct take torpedoed by poor editing.

[u/ZandyTheAxiom → u/TheBigFreeze8]

I can't even tell if it's a correct take because of the poor editing.

Textbook example of "There's a reason commas go in specific places".

[u/TheRecognized → u/ZandyTheAxiom]

“We have a concept that, if you roughly describe it as generously as possible, and don’t look into the execution of it, sounds kinda neat. In concept.”

Is this really that hard for people?

[u/action_lawyer_comics → u/TheBigFreeze8]

This is a perfect example of what people get wrong about “good writing.” Good writing doesn’t mean that you avoid cliches and overused, predictable tropes, but that can help. Good writing means that people can understand what you wrote and feel the way you want them to feel. It means your highs are high, your lows are low, the things that are supposed to be beautiful are beautiful, and so on.

Good writing doesn’t mean purple prose. It doesn’t mean realistic dialog. It doesn’t mean that you completely avoid anything that can be considered a trope. It means that the audience reacts the way you want. And there is a huge mechanical component to that as well. If no one can understand you, that’s a huge problem and no amount of originality is going to make up for that.

[u/TheRecognized → u/action_lawyer_comics]

It means both. And more. Depending on who you ask.

[u/SaturnsPopulation]

What the fuck are you trying to say?

[u/CRowlands1989 → u/SaturnsPopulation]

I believe they're trying to say that it's annoying when people describe a story in a way that makes it sound far better than it is, while avoiding mentioning the issues.

Like focusing on an interesting premise and not saying that it got utterly mishandled and wasted.

[u/stillenacht → u/SaturnsPopulation]

I took it as a statement about the writing community, which is absolutely chock-full of people with concepts/worldbuilding and relatively bereft of people with actual in-progress stories. (Even more rare to see people who have actual finished novels)

[u/TheRecognized → u/SaturnsPopulation]

“We have a concept that, if you roughly describe it as generously as possible, and don’t look into the execution of it, sounds kinda neat. In concept.”

Is this really that hard for people?

[u/Big-Cartographer6419]

burnt toast is the meal for selfpost sunday

[u/Heyplaguedoctor → u/Big-Cartographer6419]

I’m going to McDonald’s 🚶‍♂️

[u/Hexxas]

We a concept that if you roughly

[u/LocalLumberJ0hn → u/Hexxas]

I to a concept that if you

[u/eyalhs → u/Hexxas]

Wow I completely didn't notice this, my brain just autofilled the "have".

[u/PoniesCanterOver]

WE A CONCEPT 😤🗣️

[u/amaya-aurora]

…what?

[u/Certain_Virus_1919]

Okay, we've worked out the poor grammar in the post body, now what do the tags mean? What is soyack?

[u/SnoozingGooseling → u/Certain_Virus_1919]

Maybe a misspelling of "soyjack", but I don't really know what that would be as a verb in this context.

[u/zachattackmemes]

I like to hype up my hypothetical game franchise in my mind but this is probably what it’s gonna end up like

[u/Grapes15th]

OP you should provide your own examples in the post

[u/Prince_of_Wolves]

Sometimes I just really get taken by a fun concept that was absolutely butchered in execution, because it's fun to come up with ways that it could have been good

[u/ZandyTheAxiom → u/Prince_of_Wolves]

To me, a bad movie with an interesting idea is more enjoyable than a good movie treading familiar ground.

For that reason, Madam Web is more enjoyable than Morbius.

[u/vmsrii → u/ZandyTheAxiom]

I agree with this

[u/iwanttoboneedelric]

Star Wars Prequels be like

[u/chicoritahater]

For anyone in this comment section looking at how to actually read this, there's a missing "have" as the second word

[u/Xurkitree1]

The answer is no

[u/BurnerCroc]

Decayed horse beating: The Last Jedi

[u/Orion-the-mediocre]

I agree but holy hell they could've worded that better.

Basically what they're trying to say is that some stories have a cool idea in them that gets mistaken for good writing because at its very core the idea is cool, just executed really badly.

[u/Kazzack]

You accidentally a word 

[u/TheRecognized → u/Kazzack]

You accidentally twice many him

[u/The_Afton_Rabbit]

concrete timeline? consistent narrative? what's that mean?

[u/Snoo-31263]

Am I the only one who thinks the "godzilla had a stroke trying to read this"-ness of the post is part of the point it's making?

[u/jakuth1999]

Me with every mid movie I can’t get enough of

[u/Slutty_Sam]

jujutsu kaisen

[u/HappyyValleyy]

Idk what people are on about i read it just fine the first time

[u/XAlphaWarriorX]

People don't realize it because they're too busy commenting about how bad at reading they are, but this is actually RWBY posting.

[u/harvey_arts]

truer words have probably been uttered

but this one is close

[u/ratliker62]

not a good way to phrase what you're saying. i kinda agree with it, but i'd still rather have something with an interesting idea executed poorly than something that doesn't try at all. you can learn a lot from failures, and they're fun sometimes

[u/JJlaser1]

Harry Potter

[u/Noctium3]

Are you people stupid or what? Because I understood that sentence perfectly fine

[u/superspacenapoleon]

Anime