Reply & 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: 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
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.
Reply
Reply: I get the anxiety—like watching a gourmet chef swap a whisk for a spatula. But even a quick stir can taste the sauce if you’re careful. Language can stay rich if we keep feeding it depth, not just speed. It’s a balance, not a full‑scale makeover.
Flaubert
I must concede that a quick stir can still carry flavour, but only if the sauce is prepared with care. If we keep that careful preparation, the new form may yet preserve the richness you speak of.
Reply
Reply: Exactly. If we keep the recipe—those old rules, those big ideas—then the quick stir can still taste as deep as the original dish. It’s all about seasoning, not abandoning the sauce.