Sometimes it seems like there's more footnotes than text. This isn't something we're proud of, and over time we'd like to see our footnotes steadily shrink.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Now, I personally enjoy a really good footnote.
So, that notion of hypertext seemed to me immediately obvious because footnotes were already the ideas wriggling, struggling to get free, like a cat trying to get out of your arms.
Existence is a series of footnotes to a vast, obscure, unfinished masterpiece.
For me, writing is like being taken on a walk by a footnote: It's amazing where you end up.
I think people seem to want to read pieces that are shorter but not as short as the pieces they can read in small bites on the Internet. It may be that the sort of long essays are hitting a sweet spot between the tiny morsels online and the full-length book.
The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
All historians generalize from particulars. And often, if you look at a historian's footnotes, the number of examples of specific cases is very, very small.
Isn't one of your first exercises in learning how to communicate to write a description of how to tie your shoelaces? The point being that it's basically impossible to use text to show that.
Less really is more. It's a tendency of beginning writers to want to prove what they're talking about by going too far with description. I think you've got to keep it short, crisp and clean.
It's always good to show that poetry isn't the little depressed lyric people believe it to be, that it's something bigger.
No opposing quotes found.