quote:Originally posted by MerlionEmrys: I think another key here, is to avoid proscription...
And of course there is intent. Deep down I feel like if someone writes something and says it's a story, it is-other people can decide whether or not they like it, but if that thing about the baby shoes can be a story, seems to me like anything can.
What about jokes? Do you want to say that if someone calls it a joke, it will be a joke?
Actually, I can tell you rules that a joke should follow. And you might find exceptions, but it's more likely (I think!) that if a joke doesn't follow my rules I can improve on it. Yep, that's totally subjective. But one joke ended with the dialogue tag! That has to be a no no.
Stories (and books) are too complicated to have a simple answer like jokes. But maybe there is something to find.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact of an objective truth is that a self or cohort believes it self-evident. If others disagree, that, too, is the fact of an objective truth.
I believe I'll work woodwares. I do, an objective truth and fact, though not known as truth or fact by many; some, yes.
I believe in an origination deity. I don't, actually, though an objective truth for many, is a falsehood from me, though not as might be inferred, instead, I know, for an objective fact.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:As long as you're not trying to make objective value judgements about subjective stuff (which all forms of art/expression/literature/music/films/whatever the heck are) then I don't care about the rest.
Anything a person puts sincere effort into is worthwhile, on at least some level.
posted
Emma-just prefacing by saying everything I'm about to say isn't, in my mind, primarily related to the "what is a story" thing, we're going off on something more specific.
quote: Let me try again. Suppose you as author have deliberately created some issue, like a conflict or problem, and the reader is reading to see how that issue is resolved. Then I think there's an obligation to resolve the issue.
I want to just agree with this, but I can't, fully. Or at least not in every circumstance.
I will say, that in Western culture, most of the time in the situation you describe, by far the most common reader expectation will be for a resolution of the issue, especially if you're casting the net of what counts as "resolution" pretty broadly, and I feel relatively certain you are. I would maybe say resolve, or at least "address". Now, a story may raise more than one such issue/conflict/problem, especially in something novel length, and may easily fail to take care of all of them, but again, the expectation will usually be that the one presented as central will be resolved.
I agree that the example you give of the book ending with the standoff is a pretty crappy thing for an author to do, and seems like they were just trying to be "special", rather than really following some sort of artistic vision. There is a sort of social contract thing that goes on between author and reader. It can be fuzzy unsure, but sometimes it isn't. If you present a piece as clearly being a "conflict resolution" story, with nothing else besides, and then just fail to resolve the conflict-or again, at least address it, such as by making it clear it cannot be resolved or whatever) you have let your reader down.
Nobody would have been happy if Sam and Frodo had just been left standing on the slopes of Orodruin.
I'm a big fan of East Asian storytelling, and they tend to have a higher percentage of stories that are sort of open ended without a definite conclusion, but even then often its partly because such a conclusion wasn't necessarily "advertised"...but I do think it can vary a bit by culture and tradition.
quote: What about jokes? Do you want to say that if someone calls it a joke, it will be a joke?
I'd say that anything that creates laughter/smiles/humorous reactions and was intended as such is a "joke" (and a case could probably be made that the intent isn't even needed-a thing is a "joke" to anyone that finds it funny.)
But, the word "joke" is easier, because it's about something with a single, specific, known goal-to create a humorous reaction.
quote:Stories (and books) are too complicated to have a simple answer like jokes.
Exactly.
quote: But maybe there is something to find.
Perhaps. But what? And to what purpose?
I have things I want to say, and ideas in my head that insist on being released in the form of writing. All of them fit at least some definition of "story"-most of them fit many. Some few don't fit some of the narrower definitions (some of my work is not character-oriented and may not fit the definitions of those that feel character-arc stories are the only kind that exist-but again, all that really is is an expression of personal taste, and anyone reasonable sets out in this knowing they aren't going to fit everyone's taste.)
Ultimately the definition of "story" just has very little bearing on what I'm going to do or not do.
Really, this is more about how to deal with those instances when we encounter someone who has a significantly different from the average definition.
Posts: 226 | Registered: Oct 2018
| IP: Logged |
Sophistry indicates, basically, lying. I don't lie, unless it's to save a life or such.
Let's say two people read a particular novel. One concludes it is worthless. The other loves it. Does either have the right to tell the other they are absolutely, objectively wrong?
Also, and this is not meant to be an accusation of anything by or to anyone, but, to me, saying that some creative works have worth, universally, and others universally do not, that type of thinking, is not that extremely far from, and is of a related species to the sort of thinking that leads to the idea that some people have worth and others do not.
Which is why I react as I do when people try to apply objective universal value judgments to art/creativity/literature/film/whatever terms you want to use.
Posts: 226 | Registered: Oct 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sophistry is a type of argument, assertion, etc., that formulates reasoning by accepted deductive or inductive logic organization practices though based upon invalid assumptions and concludes invalid conclusions.
The Earth is a flat platter, once a widely believed objective global truth, has long since been proven invalid and a false fact. Luddites persist in sophist assertions and specious arguments the Earth is flat.
quote:Anything a person puts sincere effort into is worthwhile, on at least some level.
Based on that, if I sincerely try to kill you, because I believe it right, it has value. Jim Jones was sincere when he poisoned the Cool-Aid. What value did sincerity have in giving that act valuae?
I'm certain you don't support such things as valuable goals. So having stated it as you did had to be made for cause. So the sophistry comment has validity and merit.
quote:Not at all. Sincere belief.
One thing I've noticed over the years, is that a sincere belief in anything, no matter how strongly held, has nothing to do with the accuracy of that belief. Some, on seeing such a statement, might see a sophistic tilt to that remark, which is why I tend to favor objective argument.
Posts: 263 | Registered: Dec 2016
| IP: Logged |
Sophistry indicates, basically, lying. I don't lie, unless it's to save a life or such.
Again, more sophistry. Of course you lie, everyone lies. If we didn’t, there wouldn’t be a cohesive society. It is also a common trope in so many stories. And you deliberately misrepresent the meaning of the word sophistry you are trying to rebut, another sophist trait. Sophistry is not lying.
And:
quote:Which is why I react as I do when people try to apply objective universal value judgments (sic) to art/creativity/literature/film/whatever terms you want to use.
And even more sophistry. My, you are good. But I find the basis of your opinions, the arguments in support of them and the conclusions of the majority of your arguments to be specious, fallacious and misleading. As well as essentially irrelevant to any discussion of prose or rhetoric.
quote: Based on that, if I sincerely try to kill you, because I believe it right, it has value. Jim Jones was sincere when he poisoned the Cool-Aid. What value did sincerity have in giving that act valuae?
Context. I'd already made this statement once referring to creative works, I didn't feel I needed to re-iterate the slash-filled qualification that I was referring to the types of things we're discussing-creative works, literature in particular.
I don't really understand why the idea that some people's tastes and opinions are objectively wrong and don't count and that some people's creative efforts are irrelevant and worthless needs to be defended and validated, but there are many things in the world I don't understand.
This has been a good, mostly civil discussion, but since I have already, whether anyone choose to believe it or not, sincerely stated my thoughts, views and ideas about the things we've been discussing and since I don't wish it to turn into anything else, I am bowing out of the thread, unless it be to discuss the original fragment.
Posts: 226 | Registered: Oct 2018
| IP: Logged |
quote:Context. I'd already made this statement once referring to creative works,
Naaa. After sophistry, the second most popular troll-trick is the old: you misunderstood what I said because...so it's all your fault."
When I saw that deep purple prose that was supposedly the opening to a story, I figured it was either the work of someone without a clue of how to write for publication, or that of someone wanting to argue for argument's sake. Nothing after that has changed my mind.
I would strongly suggest that this thread be purged.
Posts: 263 | Registered: Dec 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow! This thread seems to have moved pretty far from its original purpose. It appears to be more about arguing about how to argue at the moment--which really isn't about the story fragment at all.
What ever happened to the rule about keeping comments about the story, not the poster?
Oh, and it's usually considered bad etiquette to hijack someone else's thread. If a thread raises a question about something else, don't we usually start a new thread for that question?
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
