(I’ve translated the comment from Chinese using google translate so apologies if I have misunderstood anything.)
Thank you, Kenn, for taking the time to read the book and to comment.
The book is intentionally written in a reflective, essayistic style rather than in a tightly argued academic format. Although I do have formal academic training, this project was a conscious departure from scholarly density and technical structure. I wanted it to be accessible, personal, and philosophically open rather than heavily theorised. That choice clearly doesn’t work for every reader. If someone is expecting a high-density academic work, the book may indeed feel too light or repetitive. The repetition in the first part, in particular, is stylistic. It’s an attempt to circle around a core idea from different angles, but I accept that it may not land as intended for everyone. In any case, I appreciate the honesty.
Thank you, Kenn, for taking the time to read the book and to comment.
The book is intentionally written in a reflective, essayistic style rather than in a tightly argued academic format. Although I do have formal academic training, this project was a conscious departure from scholarly density and technical structure. I wanted it to be accessible, personal, and philosophically open rather than heavily theorised.
That choice clearly doesn’t work for every reader. If someone is expecting a high-density academic work, the book may indeed feel too light or repetitive. The repetition in the first part, in particular, is stylistic. It’s an attempt to circle around a core idea from different angles, but I accept that it may not land as intended for everyone.
In any case, I appreciate the honesty.
Even sharp criticism is part of the dialogue!