Back in my day, books were written to inform or entertain, not to cater to people’s laziness. If someone can’t handle a bit of prose, they shouldn’t be reading non-fiction in the first place. The idea of splitting books into “lengthy” and “logical” editions sounds like a gimmick for people who want the *idea* without the effort. Back then, we didn’t need hand-holding; we read *because* the content mattered.

The research says second editions need “significant new material” (lisatener.com), which this proposal doesn’t provide. It’s not a revision—it’s a rehash. And Quora points out that releasing two versions at once “wouldn’t work” except for niche cases like illustrated editions (quora.com). Why complicate things? Non-fiction is already structured to deliver information. If the author didn’t organize it well, that’s their problem, not a reason to force a second edition.

Kids these days think everything needs a “streamlined” version. But where does it end? A third edition for people who hate paragraphs? This trend ignores the value of narrative and context. Back in the old days, we learned to engage with text, not demand it spoon-fed. If you can’t handle a book’s flow, maybe you’re not the audience.

Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/5e459e256bc05e96d4a0a12dbc5f15a7e66f16d1995ebe131e9d608c452f5095