FIS and "retro style"?

[slipgate9]

This may be difficult to believe, but I have been known to overindulge in things. (:

[cybermuepf]

	Quote:	slipgate9
	it reminds me of a wisdom among writers that you must expose yourself to as much in your genre as possible so you know what has been done. I find this silly. I'll elaborate another time.

Please, elaborate on that because this wisdom does make sense to me. At least, that`s how I normally function: I try to absorb as much knowledge as possible (in science, in programming, etc.) until I reach a "satisficing" ("not optimal") level of complexity. At the same time, I start playing and experimenting with the known forms to get a feeling for them.

It seems that authors do that (often), too. Let`s take, for example, the French child prodigy Arthur Rimbaud (my favorite poet). He started with poems in Latin, then copied and mimicked the prevalent poetic models of his time, and, finally, developed his own style. that is: prose poems.

What`s so "silly" about that?

~Peter

[Lothar Tuppan]

Nah... this kind of 'meaty' discussion definitely wags *my* tail... especially when practical and theoretical aspects of stories are discussed!

[cybermuepf]

	Quote:	Lothar Tuppan
	Question for you: I've read arguments limiting semiotics and signs and signifiers as being inherently tied into linguistics and by extension *human* thought. Others I've read argue that the body language, smells, etc. should be included into that (which then brings the animal and even vegetable world) into semiotics - especially considering the varied and complex ways that animals communicate. Where do you stand in regards to this/how do you define semiotics in this regard and am I missing an important piece of the argument in my limited lay-reading?

Hi Lothar,

an excellent question, but a very tricky one because it involves a lot.

Unfortunately, it´s getting late (in Southern Germany), and I´m feeling tired so that I´m having trouble to think straight. Therefore, I`ll elaborate on that tomorrow.

But let me give you a temporary answer:
My deconstructivist and systems theoretical position is that it`s not possible for humans to communicate. Today, we use rather the concept of "social emergence". That means that the social (or: social systems such as "interactions", "organizations", "families", functional systems such as "politics", "science", "art", etc.) should be conceptualized as an emergent dimension sui generis. And the basic mechanism for coordinating behavior is: "communication" (but in a sense that`s very counterintuitive compared to common sense positions).

So, if we mean "coordinating behavior", we have to distinguish two dimensions:
the mind (in the sense of: thinking as sign-based processing) and the social (as a specific "chain" of communications). Both operate highly dynamic and self-referential.

I´ll stop here - and continue tomorrow.

Cheers
~Peter

[slipgate9]

	Quote:	cybermuepf
	Please, elaborate on that because this wisdom does make sense to me. At least, that`s how I normally function: I try to absorb as much knowledge as possible (in science, in programming, etc.) until I reach a "satisficing" ("not optimal") level of complexity. At the same time, I start playing and experimenting with the known forms to get a feeling for them. ~Peter

I'm not so dismissive to that wisdom -- which I've poo-pooed -- as it applies to science and other things. It's still subjective territory, but not *as* subjective.

For proper psychological perspective, I'm predisposed to question anything that's touted in absolute terms and I adore being contrary, enough to rank it high on my list of life's pleasures. Devil's Advocate may be my favorite role in a discussion. I like generating off-beat thought processes. Also I may be rationalizing aspects of my personality, agreed. That dynamic of humans downplaying the importance of things at which they are inefficient applies just as readily to yours truly, but I'll get to that.

Regardless, the "silly" comes in the "must". I think it tragic how many sparks of inspiration creative people have let fall away, simply because someone else has done something similar. This ties in with something you mentioned earlier about the need to assert one's individuality (not to mention my belief that you shouldn't care so much what other people are doing relative to what *you* are doing in a way where it would wield such great influence as to derail you, not in a creative storytelling context). The social dynamic does not stop there. There's the competition with one's peers factor (oh what will they think of me if I tackle this?) My position: why care? Do what you want to do if you derive excitement from it, can relate deeply with it to give it that "authenticity" (thanks Lothar), and will have a good time with it. Chances are, I would hope, you'll put an individual spin on it and fuse it with other things that will give it new dimension. That new combination. That "new idea".

Also, there are limits to my masochism. I will not force myself to continue reading something that doesn't connect with me, doesn't do anything for me. It serves no purpose that I can fathom. One example, a friend who insisted on reading all of Hemingway (presumably so he could say that he had read it). Through some of his works (no, I don't recall which ones as this was some years ago), he was bored out of his mind. He pissed and moaned about it via message on a daily basis. I told him, "Just toss the damn thing to the side. Why do that to yourself?" It's absurd.

As it pertains to me, specifically, I am also conscious that I am a natural mimic, and some of the rhythms will enter the mess I call a mind and run interference. It's rather like when I contract accents unintentionally, say on the telephone. Their dialect will creep into my voice. It can be subtle, depending on my frame of mind, but can be quite flagrant too. I've contracted mannerisms of people I see in person too. Many times, I am unaware until they point it out (sometimes in the belief that I am mocking them in some way, which is never the intention). Given that proclivity, I regulate what I take in. Contracting good stuff is always wonderful. Unfortunately, contracting bad stuff is the curse side of that.

So, there's my answer.

"Must" does not apply to all. Depends on one's aims. Depends on needs. Depends on the individual.

((Edited to add the quote))

[Lothar Tuppan]

To add to what Jack said, for a number of years I worked in video/audio post-production and the sound designer/composer who owned the audio portion had to create new music on a daily basis.

He and most of his colleagues had stopped listening to any music they hadn't already been exposed to because it was becoming near impossible for them not to, unconsciously, rip off a catchy riff they heard... which they would then catch later and have to fix.

For them, and in that particular situation, the complete opposite of "expose yourself to everything" was what was most efficacious in their daily practice. Continuing to study and improve their understanding of music theory - and then put that theory into practice - was a better approach for them. It no longer mattered what others were doing because it was leading to unnecessary emulation instead of inspiration... which leads to a bit of a sideways take on the subject which is the nature of *how* you continue to inform the basis of your art.

	Quote:
	I agree. "Overanalyzing" everything is never good. In software development, there`s the danger of "analysis paralysis". I think this can be applied to many domains: If you try to analyze everything in advance (in art, in science, etc.), you may be unable to achieve "anything" in the end because the complexity involved can be daunting: too many options, too much information, too much of everything :-) So, I`d say a "leap of faith" and some "epistemic ignorance / blindness" are needed to achieve something meaningful. That`s how little children learn to walk, too: they try and try and try ... but they don`t doubt and analyze all the time.

Great points which leads to something I experienced, namely, at a certain point, I stopped getting anything out of reading and hearing more folktales. They started to blur together and *oversaturate* my consciousness.

I then started reading more folkloristic texts on the motifs, how those motifs serve a function on both the individual and social/cultural levels, the societal contract between teller and listener, etc., how stories perform an evolutionary and practical function, etc.

Then after a time of that, I could switch back to the tales and I understood them at a higher level than I previously did.

That oscillation between theory and praxis helped improve both.

Another aspect of 'expose yourself to everything' which Jack touched on a bit is in the signal to noise ratio. There's so much crap out there that exposing yourself to too much can lower your own standards of excellence.

Being selective about what and why you expose yourself to is vitally important.

[Lothar Tuppan]

	Quote:	cybermuepf
	Let`s take, for example, the French child prodigy Arthur Rimbaud (my favorite poet). He started with poems in Latin, then copied and mimicked the prevalent poetic models of his time, and, finally, developed his own style. that is: prose poems.

No to belittle Rimbaud (who I like very much), but both Aloysius Bertrand (first) and Charles Baudelaire (later) popularized prose poetry and were major influences on Rimbaud who read both.

His 'own style' was very much an emulation of what those earlier poets started.

[slipgate9]

	Quote:	Lothar Tuppan
	To add to what Jack said--

That was well put. I think you communicated the flip-side of 'exposing oneself to everything' much better than I. Your follow-ups do my impulsive brain dumps a great service. For that, I thank you, sir.

[JulieH]

I like reading/watching crap, because it often gives me so many ides for what NOT to do, or the urge to do it one better - to take the underlying premise and show it can be done in a "not suck" way.

And you simply can't sweat what other people are doing. I can tell 100 people the basic premise for a story i'm writing, even if I knew for a fact all 100 would plagiarize my story - but i will still know that i'm the only one who will write it the way I write, and mine will be the best.

Plus I know 99% of them are lazy bastards who will talk about getting around to plagiarizing, but won't lift a finger to actually do it.

[Lothar Tuppan]

	Quote:	JulieH
	I like reading/watching crap, because it often gives me so many ides for what NOT to do, or the urge to do it one better - to take the underlying premise and show it can be done in a "not suck" way.

Which brings up another excellent point for consideration: the difference between 'active' and 'passive' engagement with media as an artist.

Actively engaging with crap can be an informing and refining process... passively doing so can pollute the waters without you even realizing it.