The text on openingsources.com making but fractional sense at first sight, an effort was made to add some depth and purpose to it, but that aspiration had soon to be abandoned, and I had to settle for mere grammatical accuracy and correctness. This is the cross a pedantic know-it-all has to bear; to be forced to notice the poor grammar of others and correct it even when uninvited. 'It's supposed to be random and loose', you tell me? I don't care, I don't like it. Give me order or give me... well, 'death' is a bit strong, but you'll find me somewhere down that road. Don't judge me, I chose nothing. Free will is an illusion.
Who's in charge of the text, you want to know? I am, until I lose interest. Which happens pretty damn fast, probably due to my non-existing interest in the weird ideas of internet people. Collaborative literature is kindergarten playtime chaos, at least when the contributors haven't been put through a filter. Let Hemingway, Bronte and Orwell write something together, and I'll read it. Until then, leave me out of it. By the way, there's probably about a 60% chance I didn't understand the purpose of this whole exercise. That'll teach me to show up.
I know - "Stauning, or Chaos"...
ReplyDeleteSeems to me you got the point of the exercise quite well - critical intelligence is always welcome. I would be interested in your opinion of the non-collectively authored hypertexts, though...