Better yet, when revising, don’t forget to cut. The latter portion of this is quite good (starting around “Like many readers”), that whole intro could probably be scrapped without hurting the main part.
I disagree. The article is meant to be persuasive to nonmaterialists. The intro makes it clear that the author really understands and sympathizes with why someone would find it hard to credit materialism. That’s an effective way to get the reader to want to hear the rest of the argument.
Yes, that was my idea. So, respecting the symmetric difference of the audiences who would appreciate each half, I’m making the second half its own post. Thanks again to everyone for the input.
Better yet, when revising, don’t forget to cut. The latter portion of this is quite good (starting around “Like many readers”), that whole intro could probably be scrapped without hurting the main part.
I disagree. The article is meant to be persuasive to nonmaterialists. The intro makes it clear that the author really understands and sympathizes with why someone would find it hard to credit materialism. That’s an effective way to get the reader to want to hear the rest of the argument.
Yes, that was my idea. So, respecting the symmetric difference of the audiences who would appreciate each half, I’m making the second half its own post. Thanks again to everyone for the input.
I agree with you, and I’m on it. The first half is really for a smaller audience...