|
Nerdburger_Jansen posted:Fundamentally, the book is like a person, a multifaceted creature with its own artistic form. This sentence is emblematic of the rest of your writing in this thread: self-contradictory to the point of total incoherence, substituting polysyllables in hackneyed arrangements for thought. edit in case you don't understand what I'm getting at and think I'm doing a similar thing w/ the smart-sounding polysyllables: "Fundamentally, a book is like a person" just seems wrong in a basic, definitional way. To make such a deep correspondence between book and person make sense, you would have to be a talented writer with some novel ideas. You are not and you have none. Instead, you justify this wrong-seeming statement by observing that a person is a "multifaceted creature" (hackneyed, banal, invokes image of sapient fluorite) "with its own artistic form" (wrong). Books are two kinds of art: they are museum-type Art which we appreciate for aesthetic and didactic reasons among others, and they are physical products of human ingenuity. Humans are neither of those things—again, on a very basic, definitional level, but also in either the metaphysical or theological sense. Other people have addressed the idiotic and ill-conceived Grand List of Themes, and I could go on about the incoherence of your posting, but (1) you're just a 2019 reg who will disappear in a week if history is any judge and (2) I'm not your 10th grade English teacher. 
Eugene V. Dubstep fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Jan 29, 2019 |
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:substituting polysyllables in hackneyed arrangements for thought. Bonfire of the Genres: Substituting Polysyllables in Hackneyed Arrangements for Thought Or: the title to my next self-published collection of instapoetry
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
Y'all are being harsh on nerdburger. What's the divisional point of a novel, and what's the holistic construction of it? There is meaning in a small part of it, a paragraph, a sentence, and meaning in it as a whole. Can those two be taken in contrast to each other? If they are you end up piecing together how the smaller parts of it come together to create the whole, how the individual parts provide meaning in themselves, and even how the entirety of the novel without looking to the cause and effect of the smaller parts has a meaning. All this is analysing the book, something very valuable. But when you read you're not necessarily analysing it. You're being directed, by the words, and coming up with your own understanding of it. Not as an analysis, a deconstruction of what makes the novel that particular novel, but as an experience of the novel. You can apply a particular lens to see how the novel creates its experience. You can quote passages that affected you. You can talk about literary techniques used to establish that effect. Yet the novel is still a thing (not a physical thing, but the text, as you have seen it through your reading.) To ask for anything else you're not looking at the novel but looking at its construction. I think where nerd's argument falls down is the idea that people arrange the novel as they read. A simple example is someone trying to figure out who the murderer is in a murder-mystery. In a grander example it might be who Molloy is (not just the person, but the idea of Molloy) in Beckett's story. Reading the book you're putting it to a purpose, however that purpose is entirely individual. It's why reading is a solitary endeavour. The only outcome of a book, in the first instance, is what it means to the individual reader. This is distinct from what it means to the author (or what the author intended it to mean,) and what some cold mapping of the book's themes, etc. are. These are just means of establishing a shared understanding of a novel, subsidiary to the individual's understanding. What I'm taking from nerdburger's text is that there are two very separate things being discussed here. The debate and thought about the book, commonly seen in review, critique, internet forums, etc. And the book as an individual, solitary experience. Transitioning from one to other brings imprecision, noise. For all the rigour that might be applied, there will never be as cohesive an understanding as the actual reading of the novel, because the reading comes from the individual constructing the text separate to author, other readers, etc. You could end up saying there's no point discussing what a book is about, and just say "Go read it" or you could understand that the discussion and debate is entirely separate to the novel as a thing. The reading of the novel is probably the first instance of its purpose, everything else is secondary to that and less definitive. (And in all this I'd go as far to say the authors writing of the novel is less definitive than the author's intent for the novel. There's loss at every stage, even if that loss is adding detail, fleshing out the loosely conceived intent.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:What I'm taking from nerdburger's text is that there are two very separate things being discussed here. The debate and thought about the book, commonly seen in review, critique, internet forums, etc. And the book as an individual, solitary experience. Transitioning from one to other brings imprecision, noise. For all the rigour that might be applied, there will never be as cohesive an understanding as the actual reading of the novel, because the reading comes from the individual constructing the text separate to author, other readers, etc. These are the same thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:These are the same thing And the difference is between you and me. The novel is itself, for me. The novel for you, is your novel. The novel for you and me is another thing. I'm saying the primary novel is my reading of it, anything else is more; more clear or more muddied; a more precise and true reading and a less personally true reading; the author's novel as she intended it, the author's novel as she wrote it and the author's novel as she read it. All of this adds noise to one understanding and clarity to another. But that's all post-happening. The now more noisy understanding existed at one point. The words had that effect. Yet, if it created meaning that doesn't go away even in the person saying, "I misunderstood." The effect has been wrought. The message whether intended or not has been sent. The author, for all the craft and theory and planning and plotting can only shape so much. They can never be aware of the full effect of their text. This isn't to say it's pointless in doing any of those things as the author, or pinning them down as the reader, just that that's one aspect of it and controlling it can only go so far. This, of course, is all based on a good faith reading. That we are reading the same language at the most basic level. It's just once you start ratcheting it up there's no solitary true understanding of a base language. Ultimately, for me, I doubt the level of control ascribed to author, even moreso when readers come into it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:And the difference is between you and me. The novel is itself, for me. The novel for you, is your novel. The novel for you and me is another thing. I'm saying the primary novel is my reading of it, anything else is more; more clear or more muddied; a more precise and true reading and a less personally true reading; the author's novel as she intended it, the author's novel as she wrote it and the author's novel as she read it. I mean, yeah, criticism is about exploring significance in the subjective experience. Criticism is not about changing or modifying your interpretation, its about exploring it. like, what you are laying out is the fundamental basics of post-modern and post-structuralist criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I mean, yeah, criticism is about exploring significance in the subjective experience. Criticism is not about changing or modifying your interpretation, its about exploring it. That's because it's what I'm reading about now, and grappling with myself and in my writing. So you have my deepest (and sincere) apologies for blabbering on about the latest thing I've read and seeing it everywhere. To a hammer, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
Nerdburger's an idiot because he's decided that thinking about any specific aspects of a novel at all means you're missing the forest for the trees by experiencing only a small part of the text, even though you've read the drat thing and have already experienced it in total.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Nerdburger's an idiot because he's decided that thinking about any specific aspects of a novel at all means you're missing the forest for the trees by experiencing only a small part of the book, even though you've read the drat thing and have already experienced it in total. Thank you for explaining this succinctly, for me, reading like a dingus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
You're not supposed to understand anything about a book you read. Just unthinkingly let it all wash over you and make you kinda feel things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:You're not supposed to understand anything about a book you read. Just unthinkingly let it all wash over you and make you kinda feel things. I'm reading a book where I'm in an ocean of thinking and feeling things. It's sad that I'll only end up with a little vial of the ocean water at the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
I honestly have no idea where Nerdburger is going with any of that, but I looked up the surrealist manifesto and it includes a condemnation of realistic prose. Like the kind BotL always slams modern fantasy for using. I have no loving clue. Would like an explanation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:So you have my deepest (and sincere) apologies for blabbering on about the latest thing I've read and seeing it everywhere. To a hammer, etc. Nah its ok, sorry if I came off as a dick. I just worried you were trying to reinvent the wheel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
this is the worst argument I’ve ever seen on this forum
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
chernobyl kinsman posted:this is the worst argument I’ve ever seen on this forum what about the time the wrestling forum had to ban talking about hotdogs because it would lead to days long arguments
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Didn't know that TBB was the wrestling forum, but in retrospect, I can't say I'm surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
ahem TBB is a subforum
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Nerdburger_Jansen posted:And so applying this to the Tolkien comment, of course there is some reaction against the industrial revolution in the Lord of the Rings, but this is just not what makes the work interesting, and missing this is going to make you miss what's interesting about fantasy. So what you're saying is there a wrong way to read fantasy, and thematic analysis is one of the wrong ways to read fantasy? Seems like nonsense to me. Do whatever you want after you read the book to come to a greater understanding of it. Why circumscribe the ways people engage with a text? What does that accomplish?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
If you comprehend absolutely any element of a book, no matter how trivial, you have enaged with a theme. There is no way for a human reader to avoid it. The alternative is that people somehow read words on a page and feel things because of the words independently from understanding the words, which is nonsense.
Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Ccs posted:So what you're saying is there a wrong way to read fantasy, and thematic analysis is one of the wrong ways to read fantasy? I'm not quite getting the kickback against nerds big long list of themes. It's a good demonstration that there's some material there worth studying, that its not just a hollow series of events with no purpose. And unless I've misunderstood, he's not advocating for list-based criticism. (god imagine trying to write a similar list for mistborn, you'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel by the third bulletpoint) The kickback against the giant thing I get though. That was, uh, a weird point to make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
That's not what he said? His long list of themes was to point out that you shouldn't study themes because none of those little themes encompasses the entire book experience. Nerdburger_Jansen posted:It makes as little sense, then, to appreciate it through the lens of themes in this way, as it does to appreciate a person in this way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Wasn't it his argument that making such lists is pointless because they can never be exhaustive? That's the non-sequitur regarding thematic analysis I struggle with. Man, there sure is a lot of noise and misunderstanding in a discussion about what texts do, don't, should and shouldn't communicate. Lex Neville fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:I'm not quite getting the kickback against nerds big long list of themes. It's a good demonstration that there's some material there worth studying, that its not just a hollow series of events with no purpose. And unless I've misunderstood, he's not advocating for list-based criticism. chernobyl kinsman posted:discussing one aspect of the text does not preclude there being other aspects to the text. the map is not the territory. an analysis that contains all the meaning of the original text would be the text itself. this is basic New Critics, Cleanth Brooks poo poo. Nerdburger_Jansen posted:The long post above was in address to this. Multiplying themes doesn't solve the problem, but only highlights it if you take that approach seriously. Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
"Theming" is a terrible verb by the way
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Lex Neville posted:"Theming" is a terrible verb by the way
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
that's what I kept thinking of
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Nerdburger's set up an absolutely meaningless goal and acts like he's smarter than everyone else for understanding that it's futile. Nerdburger_Jansen posted:So, I'm going to demonstrate that analyzing the Chronicles in terms of what themes it has is not an interesting critical enterprise, by showing what you would need to do for this to be coherent. Your solution to the problem that environmentalism isn't a consistent overarching theme in the Chronicles is to posit that it is one among many. Impotence is another. OK, fine, let's take that logic through to its conclusion. chernobyl kinsman posted:you seem to be looking for one single analysis that encompasses all possible meanings within the text, and that is a priori impossible. Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
It's funny because, in a roundabout way, he almost came to the the conclusion himself that at no point in thematic analysis is the objective to create some kind of exhaustive list of themes, but then he did a 180 and concluded that since such a list cannot exist, thematic analysis has no merit... Almost.
Lex Neville fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
frida kahlo said it best in her letters to Diego Rivera telling him that the surrealists were all effete man-children who liked to sit around tugging their dicks
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
proto-goons then
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:(god imagine trying to write a similar list for mistborn, you'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel by the third bulletpoint) The more I hear about how empty these books are, the more I kind of want to read one, just to see if they're honestly the black holes that they sound like. Then I remember I own good books and have no excuse to track down bad ones, so, y'know, it all evens out
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Related to this, I want to look at another meaningless goal that he uses to avoid engaging with people who have a clue. Ah, that's kind of weird. Thanks for the explanation! Antivehicular posted:The more I hear about how empty these books are, the more I kind of want to read one, just to see if they're honestly the black holes that they sound like. You're better off playing Dishonored. The only fun bit of Mistborn are the occasional acrobatic wizard-fights, and there are better ways to experience them than in text. The bit that really sours me in Mistborn is (*checks the wiki because of course there's a loving wiki*) Feruchemy. Feruchemists can "store" attributes in metals. So a Feruchemist could spend weeks pouring strength into his jewelery, and hobble around as a frail old man, and then suddenly cash in all that strength and start punching through buildings. A major point of this is that Feruchemists can can store memories as well. They've developed an elaborate nomadic culture, sending people out into the world to learn things, and then they all sit around reciting what they've learned so other people can memorise them. When I first read about this I really liked the idea. It's oral history turned up to 11, where even the youngest Feruchemist will have been able to memorise and use a hundred lifetimes of memories. Imagine how weird their psychology would get, walking around with all those memories that aren't their own. But a Feruchemist can't access the memories while they're in their jewellery. They have to pull out the memories, think about them a bit, and stash them back in. But they also need to remember which bit of jewellery they've stashed it in. So they have another piece of jewellery, an Index, where they store the memories of where they've stored their memories. It's a library. He's invented the loving library.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:The more I hear about how empty these books are, the more I kind of want to read one, just to see if they're honestly the black holes that they sound like. There's surely a place for popcorn books if you just wanna read something fun and easy. I have not read Sanderson tho, the first Expanse book was the last one I read in this vein. I tried listening to a podcast about writing that has Sanderson and it was pretty  how he embraces formulaic writing and recommends that others do the same. And encouraging SFF writers to thoroughly explain unimportant things in their invented worlds, that was just atrocious.^^another key Sanderson idea is "take something familiar and give it a fantastic/weird twist." So the memory library fits right in. Notably there is not much fantastic or weird about any of this. my bony fealty fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:I tried listening to a podcast about writing that has Sanderson and it was pretty StonecutterJoe posted:An average novel is 90k words. A WoT or Sanderson doorstopper is a few times that, but let's look at that for a baseline. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
pokemon is genre fiction
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
I remember that post. It's not gotten better over time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
pikachode posted:pokemon is genre fiction Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:There's surely a place for popcorn books if you just wanna read something fun and easy. I have not read Sanderson tho, the first Expanse book was the last one I read in this vein. Mistborn isn't even fun popcorn. The characters are bland, there's no fun villain who you love to hate, the fights turn into a game of Twister, and the magic "system" is just a list. Half the twists require some magical bullshit that appears at the last minute, and the twists that don't are obvious half a book previously and just make the characters look dumb. It's amusing to me that Sanderson is held up as the king of magic systems, when (even if you like magic systems) his are by far the most boring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Mistborn isn't even fun popcorn. The characters are bland, there's no fun villain who you love to hate, the fights turn into a game of Twister,
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 23:32
|
|