Yesterday, I saw some book friends arguing about the merits of the two books "Return to 1977" and "I Was Kicked by Time Roundabout".

Of course, this shows that they value and care about my work.

So no matter which one they each like, I'm happy.

But I also have to say that I actually don't think there is much need for such a comparison.

Because don't look at the rebirth of the city, but in addition to the different eras, the two books are completely different in terms of rebirth methods, story cores, plot lines, settings, and selling points.

It's not a type, and there's no way to compare it at all.

The only similarity is that because it is not a routine cool article, it has been questioned a lot in the creative process.

Just like when I wrote "Return to 1977", many people questioned the slow pace, the necessity of biography, the unnecessary experience before rebirth, the setting of the protagonist, and even the incorrectness of the article.

Now in turn, some people also question the fast pace of "I Was Kicked by Time Roundabout", question the flaws of the protagonist, question the lack of details, and question how it is different from "Return to 1977......

In my opinion, it is precisely these differences that make the work express its unique meaning and value, and it is also the need for the expression of the work.

(First statement, the next words, not complaints, just talk about your own experience)

In fact, it was only after the results of "Return to 1977" that I really realized the difficulty of innovation.

Although all along, the difficulties faced by this choice are not unprepared.

But in the past, I only thought that the difficulty of innovation only existed in the difficulty of creation, the time and energy required to write a routine essay several times that of the routine, and the difficulty of getting immediate returns for the effort.

But now I realize that I actually think it is simple.

Our social environment, our online system does not encourage innovation at all.

Merchants want money, naturally want traffic, be fast, be full, be stimulating, exaggerated, eye-catching, and have a wide audience......

Recommendations and drainage mechanisms are all determined by this.

Readers are the same, reading books only to see the excitement.

Few people are willing to really focus on the core of an article.

Even many people are completely instinctive to attack everything in life that is different from what they imagined.

As long as it is written differently than they imagined, whether it is good or bad.

They are insulted like a hate, and they are not responsible for what they say anyway.

It's no longer a matter of not supporting, but simply not tolerating the existence of "heresy".

In this regard, I only know of a special historical period in which such extremes existed in batches.

If I have to give a realistic example, I'm afraid it is very similar to the waste green who is now red and the Swedish environmental princess.

And although most people shout that the model is single and they want to see innovative articles, do they really need to innovate?

I'm afraid that whether it is a business or most readers, "to innovate" is just a slogan and a superficial formality.

The essence of chasing is that they only need a little "brain" to upgrade the cool text mode.

But he never considers the fixed mode and expression of this routine text, the major flaws that exist, and how to change it.

They also gave a narrow definition to the online text.

But I don't understand the word "online article", which is just an expression of the way the article is disseminated.

In this case, if there is still a glimmer of hope for a truly innovative work to be born and survive.

I'm afraid it's just waiting quietly, insisting day after day, pinning on the word-of-mouth fermentation of good works that purely rely on chance to retain readers.

It's a pity that the "gale" that attacks indiscriminately without warning may overturn your entire ship.

Even this last chance is a matter of luck.

Now "Return to 1977" is like this, which can only be seen in the qq reading app.

Although the boat has not completely capsized, the oar of the "starting point" has been lost.

So I can only post a new article "I was kicked by the time roundabout" at the starting point, hoping to rely on this new ship to move forward against the old ship.

This is the pitiful part of innovation, and the facts have proved that the existence of the book is the right way for online texts to make profits.

Short, flat and rough is king.

As for me, it's too late to regret it.

But fortunately, I can still think about it, although my ability is not as good, I am still resisting.

So I have to thank you for all the book friends who have been on the starting point and QQ reading app and supported by genuine subscriptions.

You give the most and are full of understanding.

In stark contrast to those filthy people who don't spend a penny but love to point fingers.

If it weren't for you, I might not have been able to hold on to it, and you are all my code word power.