←back to thread

231 points frogulis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
AIorNot ◴[] No.44567752[source]
Eh, People on their phones can’t be bothered with following plot lines everything has to be telegraphed
replies(4): >>44567761 #>>44567776 #>>44567831 #>>44568143 #
hosh ◴[] No.44568143[source]
I am confused by the use of the term, telegraphed or signpost. I am not even sure I understand what this literalism is about.

Coming from a martial art background, telegraph means reading the subtle signs that comes before an action in order to anticipate, intercept, and counter it within the same tempo. It can also mean exaggeration of the signs, letting slip one’s intentions as an error in execution, or deceiving someone by falsely telegraphing intentions. They all come before the action, whereas the examples in this article seems to talk about things coming after the action.

replies(1): >>44571440 #
phyzome ◴[] No.44571440[source]
"Telegraph" is a bit of an unfortunate word because when used metaphorically it has come to have two almost diametrically opposed meanings. I think that's what's tripping you up.
replies(1): >>44575386 #
1. hosh ◴[] No.44575386[source]
Ok, given that then I think the next thing that is tripping me up is that the author of the New Yorker article is writing in a way that is itself being very literalist.

I read through the whole article looking for something that is insightful, but it feels as if the author is beating a dead horse the way the examples does the same. Maybe experiencing that is the point, but I can't help but thinking it was all a waste of time.