I would say that yes, a lot of my problems with the article are based on what I want to read instead of what I read. I do not think that is a wrong way to form opinions on a given thing. If I want toast and get grapefruit, I am going to have a problem. The grapefruit is not what I want. I may still eat it but maybe not all and it won't be the same or probably as enjoyable. It is not wrong to want certain qualities from the content you read (or anything).

I found what I read to be lacking. It did not sufficiently interest me and I did not think it did much effectively except string together short character descriptions laced with a dismal, but ultimately not that interesting plot line.

As for the narrator, sure, he is an alcoholic with major depression. However he is also a writer of some sort, and from a writer I expect an engaging story. It is hard to have an engaging story when your narrator isn't very dynamic because he refuses to address his own emotions, experiences, and psyche.

To make a greater point: when I am reading a story, as all such articles are, I am interested in the story because it is extraordinary. This is the nature of telling stories. To defend the narrator by saying that he is not exceptional, or that I should not expect him to be so because of his mental health issues, is to admit a major weakness in the story.

if I was interested in the stories of people who only live up to my minimal expectations based on potentially limiting life circumstances I wouldn't bother reading articles about them; I would just raise my head and look around. Sure, the writer has mental illnessess, but he's a writer. therefore, I expect him to be good at that and to me, that means his stories should be engaging.

I appreciate you posting the article, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, that I'm being insulting to you or the writer by not liking it, or that I shouldn't share my thoughts on how it could be better. Hubski is about discussing. That doesn't mean always liking.