Hacker News Reader

Comment by taurknaut | Hacker News Reader

Damn I could have gotten the "no fluff" version by looking at wikipedia or just googling.

Why do people expect their non-fiction reading to be entertaining? That's not the point and I inherently don't trust your judgement if that's what you're looking for. At some point you've got to provide insight.

View on HN

Wikipedia won't inform me about the social media and email dynamics at a car manufacturer. Just the email response alone was entertaining and informative: self-aware humor-encrusted legalese that is very human. I can appreciate it for what it is: great PR work from a professional. Wikipedia is pretty humorless, it probably wouldn't even acknowledge the subtext.

I can't say I care without any recourse to remediation.

"Informative" and "entertaining" are both valid goals for non-fiction writing (and, indeed, fiction writing, if you squint enough to recognize that it can convey "information about how people think/feel/act"). Arguably, the ideal would be to achieve both; but, achieving either is perfectly fine.

Most non-fiction aims to inform, and most fiction aims to entertain, but either can do either.

There’s a reason that storytelling is so powerful: The best information delivery is one you’ll remember. The two have a synergistic effect.

There isn't that much to know about this tape. It's just a spicy tape, and it's probably not very toxic. "The point" here is the story - the tweets and emails, the thought process.

I really liked it, and clearly a lot of people here liked it too! You're free to dislike it, but that doesn't make it pointless. There's more to humanity than pure, unadulterated facts (however important and interesting they really are!)

I, for one, appreciate having a little whimsy in my life, as a treat.

It's entertaining when reading is entertaining. This was a great "read while eating lunch at work" read because it was entertaining.

I didn't really care too much about rodent-repelling tape before reading and don't care much now. It was the entertaining writing that brought value for me.

> At some point you've got to provide insight.

Why though? Seinfeld had nine seasons of no insight and it did okay.

I can't say I've ever watched much seinfeld, but Curb Your Enthusiasm regularly has stimulating social insights.

But would you have thought to research how a specific car manufacturer's spicy anti-rodent tape tasted in the first place?

There's an element of discovery in this article, as well as being entertaining and informative. Her writing is—subjectively and objectively—uncommonly good.

I just don't care. I hate my car. I resent relying on it. Whether it works or not is something for my employer to care about.

I would gently suggest that you are simply not in natural audience for a blog post like this, and that's okay.

I hate cars but I enjoyed this post. The author is a food critic, the post has very little to do with cars.

It's not the hating cars part that makes this article unsuitable to this commenter. It's the way they responded.

This is one of those times where "I bet you're fun at parties" is a perfectly justified response to the (G?)GP [1]. This story is funny, well-written, succinct. Liz would be a hit at parties. GP would not be invited again.

[1] do we prepend great- when referring to parent comments more than two levels (GP) up? Or do we just say GP and rely on context?

What is the sort of person who is in this audience?

Anyone who likes a story for its own sake

Probably people who aren't miserable, antagonistic, contrarian, and argumentative!

I can't believe you just called a blogpost about eating rodent repellent "nonfiction reading"!

It's very much nonfiction. She really did lick the tape!

...why not? Is this inaccurate?

I read entertaining nonfiction all the time. Not everything has to be an algebra textbook. Try Ben Macintyre if you like spy/war stories.

Cold take. This is quality writing. I learned about something and was thoroughly amused the entire time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com