Reading for content or not.

[Greatermaximus]

How many people need to do this? Is how it's written more important than what's written?

[krissy]

how it's written affects context
so i think it's often one and the same thing

[Shorty]

I'd say that most of the time I read for content. But if something is written by an author or something that I really enjoy, that will give me more incentive to read it. Having said that, how something is written can determine much of the content, like krissy said.

[Calliope]

H0w many ppl nd 2 du dis? Iz h0w > writing?

[Shoeberto]

I think it's context-dependent.

If I'm reading Realtime Rendering, I don't want flowery exposition making it harder for me to understand physical lighting models.

But if I'm reading The Fellowship of the Ring, I'd lose a big part of the atmosphere if the environments were described in a cold and lifeless manner.

[Mikztsu]

I'm not sure if I understand this. :) what kind of books we are talking about here. But wouldn't it be like hiring the best director for movies vs the sort of bad who adds content without good delivery? Can this be compared? If so, answer is obvious to me.

[Night Fury]

All I've been reading at the moment are academic essays. I like reading them, however my one gripe with a lot of them are how... uninteresting they are. They lack pizazz. I'm not entirely reading it for entertainment but it being entertaining helps me understand, and appreciate the content and arguments being made. I hate reading something that drivels on and on without really making a point too. I like my academic texts to be succinct and enjoyable - they must have tone.

[Teek]

I don't quite understand what you all are taking about. Is this a style versus substance debate?

[CimminyCricket]

For me everything is about how it is written. I have read books by my favorite author grudgingly simply because it wasn't written in a way that I had come to expect from that writer. I also hate learning, so when I have to read a book to learn it better be written in a way that makes it seem interesting and keeps in mind that I'm new and not someone who is totally knowledgable in the subject before me.

[SammieBabe]

All I read anymore is non-fiction history, so it is mostly content driven. However, so writers handle their delivery of facts and events better, and they are a lot easier to read. I'm more likely to use then as sources, and read their other books.

[Unbreakable Will]

Usually a one-in-the-same issue but there are the differences between fiction and non-fiction genres. Like Shoe said, if I'm reading for knowledge I'd rather not have the author lose the factual information in allegory or fantastical comparisons, I would expect that they would get to the point clearly. For fiction works it's entirely different and I'd prefer more well-versed and imaginative based descriptive writing.
Just depends.

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

All I've been reading at the moment are academic essays. I like reading them, however my one gripe with a lot of them are how... uninteresting they are. They lack pizazz. I'm not entirely reading it for entertainment but it being entertaining helps me understand, and appreciate the content and arguments being made. I hate reading something that drivels on and on without really making a point too. I like my academic texts to be succinct and enjoyable - they must have tone.

The sad part is that not all academics are actually good writers. Do not get me wrong, they get syntax and everything but are otherwise poor writers. Some write in such dense and obscure manners that it is really hard to understand even when the case is that you are actually interested in the material. Then some authors are just more interesting/easier to grasp in their native tongue. :/

As for the question at hand: both.

[Night Fury]

All I've been reading at the moment are academic essays. I like reading them, however my one gripe with a lot of them are how... uninteresting they are. They lack pizazz. I'm not entirely reading it for entertainment but it being entertaining helps me understand, and appreciate the content and arguments being made. I hate reading something that drivels on and on without really making a point too. I like my academic texts to be succinct and enjoyable - they must have tone.

The sad part is that not all academics are actually good writers. Do not get me wrong, they get syntax and everything but are otherwise poor writers. Some write in such dense and obscure manners that it is really hard to understand even when the case is that you are actually interested in the material. Then some authors are just more interesting/easier to grasp in their native tongue. :/

As for the question at hand: both.

A million times what you just said. It's like.... sometimes I think I'm reading something, that someone has had published purely because they have a PhD or something, and it's soooooooo dull! They will write about 3 pages and make.... 1 point through that whole section. Urgh u_u

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

I know! I get that there is a push to publish if you want tenure and stuff, but some people cannot write. Like I do not mind if you take a while to get to your point or to develop it. That is okay, as long as you make the reading enjoyable along the way. Some people seriously write a page of jargon and make one point that you could express pretty simply with one or two sentence is clear English.

I am more forgiving for translations, though sometimes sadden. Some authors are just better in their native language--they play with words more that do not always carry over in English.

[Greatermaximus]

What is the best way to present something? What gets me into Final Fantasy is that it's original and interesting enough. In terms of its distance from modernization. Though they say that's the main challenge of every writer I consider it a weakness.

That's why Final Fantasy VIII is a real turn off. You could call it anything else but a final fantasy if it weren't for the GF's. Am I only proving the set-up is the most difficult part?