[slipperydippery]

What's the error? I'd hyphenate "poorly-composed" (most wouldn't these days, but they can go to hell) and I think it's a bit too wordy for what it's communicating, but I don't see what I'd call an actual error.

I would personally avoid writing that "poorly composed sentences" have an "affect"—rather than the writer having or presenting an affect, or the sentences' tone being affected—as I find an implied anthropomorphizing of "sentences" in that usage, which anthropomorphizing isn't serving enough useful purpose, to my eye, that I'd want it in my writing, but I'm not sure I'd call that an error either.

What did you mean?

> Commas and parentheses can do it all, and an excess of either is a sign of poorly edited prose.

This attitude, however, is a disease of modern English literacy.

[jibal]

> What's the error?

a) prose doesn't have intentions ... it should be "prose intended to"

b) "effect of", not "affect of"

> I don't see what I'd call an actual error.

That's a serious problem. It's downright weird that you thought he was actually talking about affect (the noun).

This is an old conversation ... I won't revisit it.

[slipperydippery]

I read it as the word aff-ect, not uh-ffect (American pronunciation; both are spelled “affect”). Noun sense of “affect”, not verb.

But it’s possible I was reading too generously and this was a botched attempt to employ “effect”, which would also fit (and better, I think).

[viccis]

>b) "effect of", not "affect of"

Oh no, oh lord lmao

I meant "affect" and not "effect." You need to learn what affect means. I'm not asking you to learn about affect theory, but ffs no part of my sentence implied it meant "effect" and not "affect." Ugh. It doesn't even make sense. What would the "effect" of "poorly composed sentences" be? Only affect makes sense there.