Hacker News Reader

Comment by thecopy | Hacker News Reader

Am i the only one who is irritated by sentences like "In 1970, a plane got fed up with its pilot so it hatched an audacious plan. First, get rid of the pilot. Second: land. Third: enter history. The result was amazing."

Especially irritating the the last sentence "The result was amazing".

Is there a word for describing this type of writing in English?

View on HN

To me it generally came across as "self-indulgent" where authors write for themselves more than the readers. Cynically I can just imagine the author thinking "oh yes that's clever" while writing this part... And with AI in the media these days, it may just confuse readers. And for what, to fit in some fancy anthropomorphism?

But I don't think I'm using the term quite right, this seems to be a more specific issue in fiction.

Over-the-top, sugary fluff.

Bad writing.

"Tongue in cheek"?

Maybe. As an anecdote, I see it as well in some of Elon Musks tweets, i.e. "I’m starting a candy company & it’s going to be amazing".

Schlocky

Clickbait.

That was my first reaction to. But it isn't clickbait as you ware already reading the article, you could of course argue it baits you into reading on.

As I see you can split the question/answer in two, first the anthropomorphising of the plane and the events that happened. And second, something I see a lot on sites like "Hack a day", seems to me like the need to add more to the story, because the journalist otherwise cannot justify publishing it as a story. As it would only be a summary of the events already documented in the sources.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com