>I personally find it a joy to read Nabokov despite his wordiness, and I do not think my reading enjoyment is related to being wordy.
> [original:] Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have enjoyed them any more.
This sentence is a great example of how the main semantics of the sentence are actually the same but their subtext are entirely different. In both cases, the main point is that GP concludes that 'reading enjoyment is not correlated to wordiness'.
But in the first case, Nabokov is enjoyable despite the wordiness, whereas in the original it sounds more like it's an important part of the charm; reducing it would not improve enjoyment, and probably reduce it. It is almost opposite.
As an aside I think it's quite a dumb rule. If wordiness is bad, you'd get maximum enjoyment from a summary. Wordiness should be correlated in a more complex way to what is being told, the impression it should make, and the place within the narrative flow.
Another aside, the ChatGPT version (much more respectful of semantics, but barely more concise):
Those who emphasize this often refer to writers like Hemingway and others such as Carver. While these writers are more skilled than me, I still favor reading Nabokov. Could Nabokov have expressed his idea more succinctly? Likely, but I wouldn't have found it more enjoyable.