Interesting Sci Fi essay

[DotCommunist]

.

 

[Santino]

*stamps on now-empty cloak that used to contain a post by Dot_Communist*

 

[DotCommunist]

While a particular piece of prose may be poetic(al) - in fact, may in certain cases be indistinguishable from a poem - that does not mean that we should, in general, be forced to describe all beautiful prose as poetic. My point is that prose can be beautiful without thereby necessarily being poem-like, just as a sound can be beautiful without being a song or song-like.

The particular, accidental ('accidental' to be understood as 'non-essential' rather than mere happenstance) similarity of some prose to some poetry is not an argument for a universal, essential linking of all beautiful language to a single criterion for such beauty, to wit: some kind of information/beauty calculus that you equate with poetry. Don't call me a mindless philosopher.

so do I take you to mean that it is the intent of the author that decides what is and isn't poetry?

If so I entirely disagree. I take that bartez cunt's view on this, the author is dead and the decision is entirely down to the reader. And I'm fast running out of star wars references here.

 

[DotCommunist]

*stamps on now-empty cloak that used to contain a post by Dot_Communist*

sadly I haven't become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

 

[Santino]

so do I take you to mean that it is the intent of the author that decides what is and isn't poetry?

If so I entirely disagree. I take that bartez cunt's view on this, the author is dead and the decision is entirely down to the reader. And I'm fast running out of star wars references here.

Where on earth did I even begin to approach suggesting the merest hint of anything at all to do with authorial intention?

Um... open the blast door?

 

[sojourner]

sadly I haven't become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

Bet it's on your christmas list though, isn't it?

 

[mrsfran]

Overtired and showing off.

 

[sojourner]

Overtired and showing off.

Tell him to get the tea on then

 

[mrsfran]

He doesn't make tea, he's a scruffy-looking nerf-herder.

 

[kyser_soze]

Where on earth did I even begin to approach suggesting the merest hint of anything at all to do with authorial intention?

Um... open the blast door?

That's sounds like something from H2G2 but I'm fucked if I can remember where...ah yes, Mr Prosser, decendent of Gheghis Khan after being asked to lie in the mud.

Presuming you're carrying on with the muffled SF references in your posts anyway...

 

[sojourner]

he's a scruffy-looking nerf-herder.

Is that a SF reference?

 

[kyser_soze]

Is that a SF reference?

*shocked*

Leia's description of Han in Empire Strikes Back, just before she snogs her brother.

 

[DotCommunist]

Where on earth did I even begin to approach suggesting the merest hint of anything at all to do with authorial intention?

Um... open the blast door?

you have entirely lost me Alex. I shall re-read without the cider glasses and try to divine what you iz on about. I think you're saying we can't describe beautiful language as poetry automatically, if so I say yeah I can. Cause I'm the reader.

but I'll re-read without the 'aid' of cider and see if I'm right. I bet I am.

This is not a trap

 

[sojourner]

*shocked*

Leia's description of Han in Empire Strikes Back, just before she snogs her brother.

*backs away slowly*

 

[Santino]

you have entirely lost me Alex. I shall re-read without the cider glasses and try to divine what you iz on about. I think you're saying we can't describe beautiful language as poetry automatically, if so I say yeah I can. Cause I'm the reader.

but I'll re-read without the 'aid' of cider and see if I'm right. I bet I am.

This is not a trap

You're entitled to call anything you like by any word you like. But if you want someone else to buy into your ontology you have to demonstrate that it describes entities in a valuable way. Why rid yourself of a richer vocabulary for describing the virtues of different kinds of writing just so you can use the word 'poetic' when you fancy? If you are going to be that careless with your denotations why not go the whole hog and just clap your hands when you see something you like? Double-plus good, yes?

 

[DotCommunist]

You're entitled to call anything you like by any word you like. But if you want someone else to buy into your ontology you have to demonstrate that it describes entities in a valuable way. Why rid yourself of a richer vocabulary for describing the virtues of different kinds of writing just so you can use the word 'poetic' when you fancy? If you are going to be that careless with your denotations why not go the whole hog and just clap your hands when you see something you like? Double-plus good, yes?

oh I see, what your saying is that my denoting of something as poetic has no more validity than anyone elses denoting of it as prose or whatever other label the hypothetical other person wants to put on it. It's true but not particularly helpful, unless you want me to define poetry and make a close examination of the text I described as poetical every damned time. Which I decline to do, young skywalker, cause it's pretty well accepted that prose combining elegance of form and function is described as poetic.

 

[sojourner]

You're entitled to call anything you like by any word you like. But if you want someone else to buy into your ontology you have to demonstrate that it describes entities in a valuable way. Why rid yourself of a richer vocabulary for describing the virtues of different kinds of writing just so you can use the word 'poetic' when you fancy? If you are going to be that careless with your denotations why not go the whole hog and just clap your hands when you see something you like? Double-plus good, yes?

I'm almost swayed

 

[Santino]

oh I see, what your saying is that my denoting of something as poetic has no more validity than anyone elses denoting of it as prose or whatever other label the hypothetical other person wants to put on it. It's true but not particularly helpful, unless you want me to define poetry and make a close examination of the text I described as poetical every damned time. Which I decline to do, young skywalker, cause it's pretty well accepted that prose combining elegance of form and function are described as poetic.

On the contrary, almighty Jabba, I am saying your denoting is less valid because it is sloppier and less useful for articulating what is and is not good about different literary phenomena. And describing something as poetry is acceptable as a metaphor, or as a slightly more sophisticated version of wagging one's tail, but if you are to be in the business of wordsmithery then you should choose your tools with more care than the average moisture farmer.

 

[Dillinger4]

On the contrary, almighty Jabba, I am saying your denoting is less valid because it is sloppier and less useful for articulating what is and is not good about different literary phenomena. And describing something as poetry is acceptable as a metaphor, or as a slightly more sophisticated version of wagging one's tail, but if you are to be in the business of wordsmithery then you should choose your tools with more care than the average moisture farmer.

 

[sojourner]

average moisture farmer.

I'm having that

 

[Santino]

I'm almost swayed

That's because my words are chosen with care and precision instead of DotCommunist's Humpty Dumpty, words-mean-what-I-tell-them-to-mean approach.

 

[sojourner]

That's because my words are chosen with care and precision instead of DotCommunist's Humpty Dumpty, words-mean-what-I-tell-them-to-mean approach.

I hate myself for this, but I applaud both approaches

 

[DotCommunist]

On the contrary, almighty Jabba, I am saying your denoting is less valid because it is sloppier and less useful for articulating what is and is not good about different literary phenomena. And describing something as poetry is acceptable as a metaphor, or as a slightly more sophisticated version of wagging one's tail, but if you are to be in the business of wordsmithery then you should choose your tools with more care than the average moisture farmer.

If I am writing a close reading essay i would choose my words with the accuracy usually reserved for the offing off wamp rats in beggars canyon. However when describing a piece of polemical writing that combines powerful meaning with skilled use of language, I the reader have the right to call it poetry. I think you have some very Imperial views regarding the use of language.

 

[DotCommunist]

That's because my words are chosen with care and precision instead of DotCommunist's Humpty Dumpty, words-mean-what-I-tell-them-to-mean approach.

you take the draconian view that language labels and the usage thereof are fixed. You have given in to your hatred.

 

[Santino]

you take the draconian view that language labels and the usage thereof are fixed. You have given in to your hatred.

Meaning and use change over time, but they do not change just as we please.

Your overconfidence is your weakness.

 

[sojourner]

Your overconfidence is your weakness.

Ooo, that's what reading Homicide does to you - you start talking like you're in the interrogation room and doing your opening monologue


I might be overreaching myself with this

 

[DotCommunist]

Meaning and use change over time, but they do not change just as we please.

Your overconfidence is your weakness.

within context the personal usage of language in unorthodox ways does not lessen it, nor can my use of poetic be described as incomprehensible. It's an accurate description of language that is as beautiful as it is capable as a conveyor of information. I find your lack of comprehension disturbing

 

[Santino]

within context the personal usage of language in unorthodox ways does not lessen it, nor can my use of poetic be described as incomprehensible. It's an accurate description of language that is as beautiful as it is capable as a conveyor of information. I find your lack of comprehension disturbing

It's not incomprehensible, but it does suggest a possible weakness in your literary ontology, a weakness I investigated when I pointed out that poeticality was not the only way of understanding literary success, and a weakness that you confirmed when you chose to stand your ground and defend a conceptually limited view of how language can be successfully deployed, rather then allowing yourself to utilise a more sophisticated system in which the notion of poetry would be only one possible mode of literary qualities among many. I am afraid it is you who are mistaken, and about a great many things.

 

[DotCommunist]

bumping this to point out that this so-called santino has missed the essentially controlling nature of linguistic labelling and advocates a trad approach to literature. General Grievous

 

[Santino]

Fuck me, I was clever back then. Before the dark times. Before the Coalition.