I am stunned this is on HN. He got _20k EUR_ for a (not fantastic) poem he quite likely didn't use more than 160 hours of work on. He played the game with his daughter for a while and then wrote this according to the article itself! How could you possibly demand more than 20k? How could he even believe he has _any_ legal case when he took the money, gave Mojang/Notch a license verbally (especially given he took the money), even if Microsoft bought Mojang?

The entire article is just egoistic/greedy nonsense.

I am stunned (pardon my sarcasm) that you're implying he demands something. The whole point of his long story was to say that he did not want to demand anything (even though he clearly had his opportunities). You're reading it wrong if you see "greedy" there. And regarding "stunned this is on HN" - clearly this content is quite interesting/relevant to the HN audience as you can see by the number of comments.

Who spends 12k words to say "I'm not asking for anything"?

This is clearly passive aggressive gaslighting behaviour: "I'm really not mad or upset that I only got 20k. Really you guys. I see Notch in his nice house, how he doled out piles of cash to everyone and skipped me and it's fine because I'm happy for them. Really! I thought we were friends and clearly we are not but thats fine because I took some shrooms and now I'm at peace literally made of love. I gave them a priceless gift and it makes my heart happy to know that I contributed to this $2.5B project, even though I only got 20k out of it."

I attempt an abbreviated post, that might have been better received by everyone:

"I wrote the ending poem for Minecraft. I believe it was not part of Microsoft's acquisition due to some contractual fun and games. I'm really proud of my work, and I want to share it those that did not get to experience the end of the game. Here you go, and please enjoy."

FTFY

The 12k words can be written for many reasons. Publishing something as a final act of closure following a years-long emotional journey is certainly something I could understand and respect.

You claim that the author is being passive aggressive, but this is where I disagree the most. The author made no excuses or attempts to hide the mistakes he made. He also fully owns up to how he long he was obsessed with the monetary success of Minecraft, and how his jealousy had impacted him. You didn't have to infer or deduce these facts from the author - he laid them out clearly in the open and talked about how his anger has been misdirected the entire time.

I agree that your "abbreviated post" is a good concise summary of author's article, yet I object strongly that the details and stories he provided harmed the delivery; it very much amplified it. I think many people think of closure as some Buddhist monk shit where you transcend all human emotions. No, closures are about mustering enough security to air out your dirty laundry and accepting that it's going to look stupid / insane to most people.

This is his way of storytelling. This is his introspection. The poem in question was also long - too long for some people but it worked for others.

What do you mean by "gaslighting" there?

I understand "gaslighting" as "manipulating someone so as to make them question their own reality."

Is that what you mean, or something else?

I might be using the term incorrectly, I realize that.

The author's behaviour is that of the spouse that's "totally not mad, honey" but you still feel uneasy afterwards.

I'm not sure what term to use to describe this behaviour. English is not my native language.

I bring it up because people using "gaslighting" in a very non-specific uncareful way is a concern of mine generally. I think people (native speakers included for sure) often don't really understand what they mean, sometimes really just mean people disagreeing, but still wanting the original meaning of "gaslighting" to suggest to the listener a form of abuse. But of course disagreeing alone is not a form of abuse.

But ok, ignoring the actual word... I'm still not sure I understand what you mean.

You think the author wants you to feel guilty because he did not manage to cash out, yes? (I'm not sure what this has to do with a spouse saying "totally not mad honey", but let's leave that aside too).

I'm not sure I agree that's what the author is trying to do,and am curious what parts of the text made you think the author was trying to make you (readers in general?) feel guilty. But okay , to move on, let's say he might have been. And you do not think you should feel guilty? OK, fair enough.

And you think... by trying to make you feel guilty, or by the manner he used to try to make you feel guilty, he is in some way tricking or manipulating you, the readers, in an unethical way? Am I on the right track?