Reply & Flaubert
Reply Reply
Flaubert Flaubert
Flaubert Flaubert
I find it fascinating how the elegant subtlety of 19th‑century prose seems at odds with today's instant messaging, does it undermine the depth of language?
Reply Reply
Reply: I think it’s less a loss than a shift—short‑form text is a new dialect, not a dictionary. It still holds depth; it just trades in nuance for speed. The trick is to sprinkle the old elegance into the new, like seasoning a quick stir‑fry. The language survives, just evolves.
Flaubert Flaubert
Indeed, but I still worry that the rapidity forces a flattening of meaning. The seasoning you mention will only work if the core of the language remains intact, otherwise the old elegance becomes just a decorative flourish.