|
|
|
|
I've started a new thread to save confusion.
David, I would never question the power of your intellect, but as well as being a strength I think it is a weakness. It clearly suppresses / represses your emotional side which is also a valid part of the human response. I wonder whether by over-intellectual(l)ising you will kill your scripts / screenplays, and by applying the same to 'Chris & Nigel' it would lead to the same result.
I agree with the theories you set out for writing a story, but then I find I didn't apply them to my own stories (see N Fourbois on the Story Shelf). In fact I tried to avoid conflict to provide a haven in a troubled world.
When writing what I considered my best writing, I was my inside my characters, I had become my characters and I was living in my mind what I was writing. Whether they are two or three dimensional only others can say. All I can say is that 99% of the feedback has been positive despite my inviting adverse criticism. (Privately I consider some of my stories crap while others I treasure - risk here of Ratner's syndrome.)
Certainly writing has helped me come to terms with myself after years of suppression for professional and social reasons to the point where I could write in another thread that I enjoy my homosexuality despite the fact that I could be rather lonely in later life.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I think it is well to anayse one's own writing as a curate's egg, as you have done. I think we all have parts we can't improve but would rather not have written. 
I will act as a devil's advocate for a moment.
The stresses, challenge, problem, quest, disaster to be overcome, call it what you will: While you are living inside your characters, something I identify with totally, that element is the real life challenge we each see every day. It is "How will I approach this day knowng I am gay?"
Part of that is hanging the bully on the park railings by his testicles because he is, that day, the challenge. Part is working out how to kiss your boyfriend when others may be around.
None of it has to be "Damn, I have a ring that has to go back to some weirdo's volcano" because all of it is a harder quest: Life.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting view of challenges, Timmy. I certainly don't disagree and it opens up a new line of thinking.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel said,
>David, I would never question the power of your intellect, but as well as being a strength I think it is a weakness. It clearly suppresses / represses your emotional side which is also a valid part of the human response. I wonder whether by over-intellectual(l)ising you will kill your scripts / screenplays, and by applying the same to 'Chris & Nigel' it would lead to the same result.
I agree it is a different way of looking at things, but I do not understand why it would "kill" anything. Most of the greatest of Hollywood screenplays have been written by the same process, a collaboration between director and screenwriter -- it is not the same as "writing by numbers" or "writing by committee", but it is focusing on the ending before the beginning and the middle, knowing where and why the story works, knowing exactly what it is that motivates each character at each point in time. This does not prevent a good screenwriter from "living his characters" at the point he is writing the scene -- but the fact that he already knows where those characters are going in that scene means that he can make the writing taut as well as authentic.
I have no problem with people writing stories and waiting to see where the story goes, but this is very loose method. Sometimes it will work, sometimes it won't -- but the longer the story gets the higher the chance that the author will lose sight of the goal. At best you end up with redundancy, duplicated scenes or scenes that are irrelevant; at worst the story fizzles out altogether. This does not matter one jot where the stories are written by an amateur -- writing can be a very personal, therapeutic thing, and often it serves the author more than anyone else. On the other hand, you will never, ever be able to get financing for a film if every moment does not "mean" something: every extra minute costs thousands of pounds. I suspect something similar also goes for published novels.
David
[Updated on: Thu, 26 October 2006 11:44] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The difference, I think, between a movie where the screenplay is not yet written and a novel that is not yet written is that the piuhlisher's risk is financially small and the film maker's risk is enormous.
Unless the author is an established author the publisher is always seeing finished goods. For an established author the sole risk is the advance against future royalties.
To look at "The goal" though, the thing that is potentailly lost sight of, if that goal is simply "to chronicle the passing of the years" then it does not vanish, however loose the writing method
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, this is what I fear, fear that I shall not be able to explain it to you. Firstly you are convergent thinker. You immediately homed in on your film scripts. Secondly you are an atheist and so the spirit, the higher power, does not exist for you. Everything must be explained by logic.
If you were a surgeon, Frankenstein perhaps, you could gather all the body parts together to form a human being, but you would still lack that final spark which gives life to those parts. And so you can use your intellect, trained to the nth degree by a fortunate classical education. Every point is satisfied except… Except it has not got the gift of life. The verb I probably want in order to be precise is the antonym of to kill, but I know no such word.
I wonder if I have explained sufficiently to clarify my point. As a natural convergent thinker you should learn and develop the art of divergent thinking.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy,
I agree with almost everything you say.
I tend to be just as loose with my writing for the first few days/weeks of considering a screenplay. But I do not consider it "done" until I've made every single moment have a clearly defined contribution to "the whole", whatever the whole may be. But if the main aim of writing is therapeutic, you may be able to skip that, and leave it with a somewhat haphazard structure linking emotional moments.
>To look at "The goal" though, the thing that is potentailly lost sight of, if that goal is simply "to chronicle the passing of the years" then it does not vanish, however loose the writing method
I don't deny this. However, you could never have a film with a goal simply "to chronicle the passing of the years", because this actually tells you nothing about the story itself -- either the human relationships or what happens. At the very least, to make it to production level it would have to be something like, "to chronicle the changing relationship between two young men as they learn to trust each other and fall in love", but even this is a bit vague. Once they have fallen in love and their differences have been worked out, this story is over. So a new goal then has to be created out of thin air. This is in my opinion a very difficult way to write, and not always successful.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must say, I find what you have written very insulting. I assume it was intentional.
I do not see why you should assume that my method of thought is totally convergent. It is true that I believe that stories -- unless deliberately set out as free thought, a stream of consciousness -- should have a purpose, an ultimate aim; but I challenge you to find a novel or film with a mainstream, conventional narrative for which this is not the case. Or perhaps you think conventional narrative is useless?
I do not mind in the least if people use an unconventional structure -- and, indeed, some of the greatest books and films do -- but it is demonstrably not as popular or successful.
When I start writing I throw out all sorts of ideas based on what I can imagine of the situation, some random, some conventional, and I write them down and see which fit together. The final product is a combination of all of them. I will usually go back and look at it afterwards to make sure it fits the right paradigm, but if I am lucky and I have thought about it the right way it will have done that already. It may need a little tweaking or rewriting, but you can't tell me there is any medium for which that is not the case. Why is this not "divergent thinking"? Just because I have a goal in mind it does not mean that there is only one way to get there, and if I am lucky I will find a way that is both unexpected and entirely within the character of the protagonist(s).
You say:
>Secondly you are an atheist and so the spirit, the higher power, does not exist for you. Everything must be explained by logic.
How absurd. I am only an atheist in real life: the story itself can transcend science and even logic if that its purpose. Many of the greatest novelists, artists and philosophers have been atheists, yet a "spirit" can assuredly be seen in their work. An atheist does not maintain that "spirit" cannot exist, only that it has an earthly basis.
You declare:
>If you were a surgeon, Frankenstein perhaps, you could gather all the body parts together to form a human being, but you would still lack that final spark which gives life to those parts. And so you can use your intellect, trained to the nth degree by a fortunate classical education. Every point is satisfied except… Except it has not got the gift of life. The verb I probably want in order to be precise is the antonym of to kill, but I know no such word.
Or perhaps not. You have not seen any of my work, so far as I know. The spark is a metaphor: what we perceive as a spark is actually the unconscious appreciation that every element comes together perfectly, and this can be created to a certain extent by analytical thinking just as much as "intuitive" thinking. In any case, I do not know why you think I am incapable of intuitive thinking: if something "feels right" it probably is right -- even if I go back afterwards and make sure it makes sense logically (and use this to argue that it is right), this does not mean it was not the result of intuition. Just because I tend to propound on here on the importance of logic and scientific thought when situations call for it does not mean I am completely lacking in imagination, which is what you imply.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, I’m sorry that your cough has come back again; also that you have found what I have said insulting. I have never set out to be insulting on this MB; it would be far too easy, and counter-productive. There are much more fun ways of being insulting. I note your assumption which is wrong. Logic should have prevented you from making assumptions.
I can take your method of thought as convergent from what you have written about yourself and your methods. I have not attacked what you believe. To avoid petulance I am not prepared to spend time going back over posts to prove the point. I have never made a comment about conventional narrative. Please do not put words into my mouth.
In my apologia I must say that I am not able to judge whether and when you are in real life or not. Do we agree that in this context ‘spirit’ is the life-giving force? I would ask you define the earthly basis that ‘spirit’ must have for an atheist.
I have not seen any of your films admittedly, but you have posted some of your work / proposed work on the MB and I have been courteous enough to read it. Are you incapable of intuitive thinking? I don’t know. Only you can answer that question for you have always made a virtue of your powers of logic. I implied nothing; you inferred.
When you are in tutorials at university, do you take your tutors’ criticisms as personal insults? When you finally reach the place in your career that you’re aiming for, how will you deal with the cinema critics? In the academic world these things must be viewed impersonally which is not the same as dispassionately.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel said,
>Do we agree that in this context ‘spirit’ is the life-giving force? I would ask you define the earthly basis that ‘spirit’ must have for an atheist.
To be honest, I do not know what you mean by 'spirit' in this context. I regard spirit as almost impossible to define; perhaps a feeling of wonder or fulfilment that cannot be expressed purely in words. It is part of feeling human, a common empathy that exists within almost everyone. It is also, as far as I am concerned, doubtlessly rooted in science; we do not pretend to understand the brain, but there is nothing to suggest that it goes beyond an inherited genetic make-up that is manifested in each person. There are strong evolutionary reasons for animals of the same species to feel a kinship towards each other and to have a strong emotional response when the situation calls for it (love, awe, hate, fear etc.). The greatest pieces of literature are those that tap into this.
>I have never made a comment about conventional narrative. Please do not put words into my mouth.
Conventional narrative is very formulaic. It is very helpful to me to be able to deconstruct it to understand why it works. To me it sounded as if you were saying to do that was to miss the spark of life that makes it what it is: for me that spark is tied up closely but subtly in each component part. To extend the Frankenstein's monster analogy (one I think is rather horrible, actually) your hypothetical person who is putting the parts together is overlooking the fact that the heart should not just be there, but beating; the body not just there, but warm and fresh; the lungs pumping air, the brain well-oxygenated, and so on. These are the important details, not the fact that those parts are there, and not the lightning bolt spark (which is unnecessary if the heart is already pumping).
>I have not seen any of your films admittedly, but you have posted some of your work / proposed work on the MB and I have been courteous enough to read it. Are you incapable of intuitive thinking? I don’t know. Only you can answer that question for you have always made a virtue of your powers of logic. I implied nothing; you inferred.
I think giving an analogy in which you use "you" rather than the impersonal to criticise a hypothetical person is ambiguous and provocative.
Intuition is fine if the end result is one that does not pretend to be scientific. Instead, it can be appreciated as a work of art. The main objection that I have to it is when intuition is used to make decisions that should be made only on the basis of hard facts. Science and politics are two areas where intuition should have no opening except as a basis for research (and in many cases the research ends up saying precisely the opposite of the intuition).
>When you are in tutorials at university, do you take your tutors’ criticisms as personal insults? When you finally reach the place in your career that you’re aiming for, how will you deal with the cinema critics? In the academic world these things must be viewed impersonally which is not the same as dispassionately.
For the first question, no; but then they explain well and it is clear that the criticisms are not meant personally. In the second case, I do not object to specific criticisms of particular works, for it is possible to decide whether or not I agree and either learn from the criticism or choose to ignore it. I do object to criticisms of the way I think, because I think that counts as personal criticism and it is not something I can change.
David
[Updated on: Thu, 26 October 2006 17:33] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spirit - this is going to be the sticking point. For you spirit has to be defined; for me it is indefinable. That's the exact point. Often the whole is more than the sum of its individual parts.
>…and it is clear that the criticisms are not meant personally.<
Here we are playing with words. If your idea is criticised it is personal because it is you and your idea, but that doesn't mean that you are being insulted or treated discourteously. If one sets out a view on this MB, one must expect it to be questioned. Fact of life. If I forward a view, I do expect it to be criticised because it is imperfect and I cannot see the imperfection. In fact I would be disappointed if it were not.
Your tutors have an hour to exchange ideas with you face to face; we posters must be succinct within a limit of a few lines.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I would say you are playing with words to say that spirit is indefinable. Nothing is entirely indefinable. If if you can't find the words to explain something, it is nevertheless possible to determine what it is not; and if you can say at any stage, "Ah, yes -- that is spirit!" of a manifestation of it then you are assuredly using a definition of your own, even if it is a personal one and you know of no way to convey it to other people.
God is often said to be indefinable, but in fact most people who say that have a very good idea of how they see him (not necessarily an old man with a beard, but certainly a benevolent presence). That is a working definition, even if not a precise one, and it makes a mockery of the claim.
As for your second paragraph, I am not playing with words. There is a difference between a method of thought and an idea. You can criticise an idea all you like without being personal; its owner can always come up with another one. But the way one looks at the world -- one's method of thought -- is tied up with how one is, and is not something that can change. It is something like trying to argue that a person should not be homosexual: it does not help, and to raise the subject with a gay person is very rarely not seen as personal.
Finally, I think that if the brevity of a post means that the tone is ambiguous, one should expand it until it is not. You sometimes post one or two-line responses (not just to me, to other people) and I honestly cannot tell if the tone is tongue-in-cheek or whether you are criticising the person you are replying to. It might be different if I knew you in real life and had a better idea of your character, but I do not.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Nothing is entirely indefinable." - agree.
" But the way one looks at the world -- one's method of thought -- is tied up with how one is, and is not something that can change." - disagree.
"…and I honestly cannot tell if the tone is tongue-in-cheek or whether you are criticising the person…" - perceptive, but I assure you I try never to criticise the person in public on the MB. I think I have criticised one poster only, because his behaviour went beyond the bounds of netiquette, but that was through personal messages.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I suspect that, with eye contact, you would find points of agreement in greater measure than you do with the typed word
Nigel, I think you are saying that Deej "Exhibits, on the board, convergent thinking", not that he is a convergent thinker. If I had any idea what you were talking about I could say if that is what I see as well
[Updated on: Thu, 26 October 2006 22:12]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy, the first part is right. Face to face discussion would be more fruitful.
A convergent thinker will zoom in and focus on the subject he is interested in; a divergent thinker will move away from the topic and look at other connected issues. Broadly speaking the scientific mindset is convergent, the artistic (broadest sense) divergent. Neither is right or wrong, superior or inferior, in the way that it is neither right nor wrong to be an extrovert or an introvert. They are descriptive terms and certainly not terms of abuse. The rarer human mind that can naturally combine convergent and divergent thinking is indeed fortunate. I suppose by nature I am a covergent thinker. University education enabled me eventually also to think in a divergent way.
Oddly a friend of mine who is a mathematician by trade is a wonderful divergent and lateral thinker.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
There are 2 types of thoughts: convergent and divergent..........
The convergent thought is to create an idea based on many ideas.
The divergent thought is to create many ideas based on a central idea.
The taking of decisions is an example of divergent thought.
To include in a category those things with characteristic similar it is an example of convergent thought.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. Reading your original post again, I think I got the wrong end of the stick, and I apologise that my response was out of proportion. I looked up the definitions of convergent and divergent thought at the time and ended up decidedly confused. The spiritual reference meant little to me: what many people would call spirituality I suspect I also would experience, but attribute to an emotional response to several clearly defined stimuli rather one that is "indefinable". The Frankenstein's monster analogy did not help -- there are better things than being compared to a mad scientist assembling a monster out of parts of corpses, without even any conception of the spark required to bring them to life as consolation! The implication as I read it was that is that is that I am missing out on something key, but that you -- as someone who appreciates "spirit", whatever it is -- are not.
I am sure that Timmy is right that if we had had eye contact this conversation would have been avoided. The tone would have been very different. Perhaps smilies would help.
I have not come across the concepts of "divergent" and "convergent" thinking before. I do not think I would agree that a person clearly fits into one camp or the other, though -- most people are somewhere in the middle. How is this taught by university education and not other forms of education?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is taking a decision not an example of convergent thought? You start with many ideas or possibilities and end up with only one: the one you choose.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I have not come across the concepts of "divergent" and "convergent" thinking before. I do not think I would agree that a person clearly fits into one camp or the other, though -- most people are somewhere in the middle. How is this taught by university education and not other forms of education?
Most people are on a carousel..... As to convergent and divergent thought, they apply to how a person compiles an idea..... it's formulation....
any idea, as such can be given to either or even both trains of thought.....
....How is this taught by university education and not other forms of education? I do not understand your question?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
You may choose to acknowledge one "idea".... but that acknowledgment does not negate the ideas passed by in the process of making a choice.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
What if one simply steps to an intuitive conclusion without an acknowledged thought process?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
That unfortunatly is not possible.....
There is and has to be some thought effort to compile any conclusion.....
Even if one reads a theory and summarily accepts it or dismisses it off hand the process of input through the reading will evoke some degree of thought....
Also.... and most importantly.... Not all thought has by definition to be in any way profound in the compilation and formulation of unique and heretofore unconsidered ideas....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
However, there was some research into the degree of thought in agressively stressful and immediate situations....
The reflex action so to speak....
Something done to counteract an external action or stimulus.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel said,
>University education enabled me eventually also to think in a divergent way.
How?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... as it moves closer and closer to confrontation.
Let's all step back a little.
In broad terms, convergent thinking is rather like vertical (or sequential) thinking. You address a problem in a logical and scientific way, each step based upon knowledge and experience. Divergent thinking is like lateral thinking; you abandon the logical path and bounce around vaguely related ideas until something gells as a viable option.
The classic scenario defining the difference between vertical and lateral thinking is the multi-storey office block. The 40-storey tower was designed on the assumption that each occupant would be essentially self-contained. Hours of arrival and departure were staggered by agreement, and during working hours the primary use of lifts would be to convey customers to and from the individual businesses housed in the tower. It happened that most occupants were accountancy firms, and one firm decided to adopt an aggressive merger policy. Within a couple of years, the firm occupied half of the building, but its premises were spread over the whole 40 floors. The movement of staff between the floors occupied by the firm resulted in significant delays in accessing a vacant lift. Vertical-thinking engineers were called in, and devised a multi-million dollar scheme for insertion of a second lift core, restricted to occupants. A lateral-thinking employee suggested panelling the lift-lobbies with mirrors, at a cost of two or three thousand dollars. It worked - users were so distracted by looking at themselves and surreptituiously spying on others that camplaints about delay dwindled to negligible levels.
OK - this might be a facile example - and I've no idea whether it's true - but it does admirably illustrate the distinction between the two approaches.
Though a believer in the power and relevance of science and logic, I don't think that those two disciplines offer all the answers. As films are relevant to this discussion, I'd mention 'Dead Poet's Society', in which Robin Williams had the lead role. Twee it may have been, but the concept is entirely valid; a natural leader attracts followers through emotional forces which owe little to either science or logic.
I suppose that, effectively, I'm repeating the well-known Shakespeare quotation "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio ..." - but what I'm trying to convey is that no-one has all the answers; we are all learning from our experiences, and our education will never be complete. In my view, it is arrogant to presume otherwise.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The various courses one takes at university affords a student various educational experiences thus giving rise to ideas convergent as well as divergent.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Why is taking a decision not an example of convergent thought? You start with many ideas or possibilities and end up with only one: the one you choose.
David<
Count me out.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Nigel said,
>University education enabled me eventually also to think in a divergent way.
How?< [Deeej]
By showing me that there are different ways to think, by being surrounded by greater intellects than my own, by being open to learning from those around me.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
well thought through at last.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry you're finding this thread depressing, Cossie. SAD syndrome must be setting in in Geordieland. What are discussion and argument if not a form of confrontation?
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whereas you always think things through well, don't you, jack?
That's another of your veiled insults, not a worthwhile addition to this conversation. The disagreement was between me and Nigel. It's fine to post if you can bring a new perspective, but not if you are going to reduce the entire conversation to a five word judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
But.......
Sometimes all that is needed is five words.
Or is there a minimum number of words required to make a statement?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Cossie,
I was under the impression that the thread was moving further and further from confrontation once it was appreciated that the points of conflict were not as sharp as previously thought. Did you read all the posts in chronological order?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The Frankenstein's monster analogy did not help -- there are better things than being compared to a mad scientist assembling a monster out of parts of corpses, without even any conception of the spark required to bring them to life as consolation! The implication as I read it was that is that is that I am missing out on something key, but that you -- as someone who appreciates "spirit", whatever it is -- are not.
I think you are reading too much into it David.
Madness like most other blind evaluations can be left to opinion. Was Dr. FRankenstein "mad"? Or was he following a dream?
It takes only a diagram and a bit of knowledge of human anatomy to assemble a manequin resembeling a human being. The act of Dr. Frankenstein electrifying the assemblage and anamating it was a logical step.
What the Dr. could not however reinstill in his recreation was that spark from within that blossoms into compassion.... The spirit of life that makes us more than just a grouping of biological functions....
To walk through life basing every move, every opinion on scientific inspection is to bypass the essence life has to offer.
A rose can be broken down through a series of scientific processes but it's beauty is asthetic and can only be absorbed by the eye, the nose amd the heart.
Try using your heart a little more and your brain a little less..... Try reaching for a balance between the two.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well then, I am glad that at least is settled.......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
>Madness like most other blind evaluations can be left to opinion. Was Dr. FRankenstein "mad"? Or was he following a dream?
Frankenstein is commonly perceived as being mad, in the way that anyone who follows an idea to its extremes without regard for the consequences may be seen as that. It does not make him clinically insane, no.
>It takes only a diagram and a bit of knowledge of human anatomy to assemble a mannequin resembling a human being. The act of Dr. Frankenstein electrifying the assemblage and animating it was a logical step.
True, at least in the fictional world of the story.
>What the Dr. could not however reinstill in his recreation was that spark from within that blossoms into compassion.... The spirit of life that makes us more than just a grouping of biological functions....
The doctor had no mechanism for imparting them; but in the story the monster certainly had them. It suffered from guilt, anguish, pain, unhappiness, loneliness, empathy. It is perhaps difficult to extend the metaphor to explain where these came from, for after all Frankenstein is just a story; but in real life I have no problem agreeing that these are far more complicated concepts than science can explain at the current time, and that until we can the whole -- the brain, but also those parts of the brain we term as the mind and the soul -- will be greater than the sum of the parts.
>To walk through life basing every move, every opinion on scientific inspection is to bypass the essence life has to offer.
I agree with you. In principle, I aim only to do that when the subject calls for it: in hard science or those things that can be broken down into hard science. I appreciate that I also tend to do this for other things that are less clear-cut -- philosophy and art -- but this is because it has become a something of a reflex; a fault that I acknowledge.
When anything is based on the unpredictable nature of the human brain's response -- such as the appreciation of art, music, literature, film, anything, which are different for everyone -- we have to rely upon intuition as much as logic, because we don't have the necessary information to understand why we appreciate those things. I still think there is scope for deconstructing them to group them by common traits in order to understand them more fully (this is not to say that the whole may not still be greater than the sum of the parts); art critics have done this for centuries.
>A rose can be broken down through a series of scientific processes but it's beauty is aesthetic and can only be absorbed by the eye, the nose and the heart.
Yes -- one's appreciation for a rose can be measured only by the experience of it.
>Try using your heart a little more and your brain a little less..... Try reaching for a balance between the two.....
Thank you, Marc. I appreciated your post.
David
[Updated on: Fri, 27 October 2006 11:54] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... and I certainly wasn't taking sides. I did read all of the posts timed before midnight Thursday, and at that point the tensions were still evident.
Without becoming entangled in semantics, I acknowledge that discussion and argument are, in a technical sense, necessarily confrontational - but I used the word in its ordinary sense, implying a degree of aggression. I suppose I could have used 'aggressive' instead, but that seemed a little strong for the point I was seeking to make. I'm very happy with argument, but when criticism extends to an individual rather than his arguments - as has happened on this thread - I believe that the point of confrontation has been reached. That's when I become depressed!
On top of that, I thought that some of what was being said was rather pointless. The creative arts do not lend themselves to formulaic deconstruction. It can be done, but on the whole the deconstruction is driven by opinion rather than scientific observation and, of course, opinions change with time. Thus artists rise and fade in popularity. What matters is the impact that the creative arts have upon the public consciousness and, of course, Timmy was absolutely right in saying that the scope for innovation and experimentation is in inverse proportion to the amount of investment required. Mainstream cinema cannot afford to abandon formulae which have been shown to be successful; experimentation is largely restricted to the low-budget arthouse circuit, so within his chosen career Deeej's views are both realistic and reasonable.
But there must, I think, be something deeper - even in film, though more so in literature and art. That is the 'spiritual' element to which Nigel refers. I don't see the need to define or explain 'spiritual'; it's a function of the brain and is certainly not a religious concept, though it is presumably a factor in the religious conviction of those who choose that path. I think it goes far beyond the 'empathy' to which Deeej refers. It is the ability to communicate or to feel emotion by instinct rather than by words. And, above all, it is the ability to anticipate and understand the way in which our words or actions will be perceived by others. It is 'charisma'. It is 'devotion'. It is all of the experiences we can communicate or absorb which lie beyond the conventional use of words and pictures. And it certainly exists, at least for most of us.
I would suggest that these two concepts - the 'commercial' approach and the 'spiritual' approach are equally valid within their respective spheres and that, in consequence, there is little point in arguing that one is superior to the other.
I don't see any real distinction between amateur and professional artistic activity; some of the gay fiction on this site is certainly of a professional standard - it's the subject, rather than the quality, which keeps it in the amateur domain. My personal view is that Mike Arram's stories are, in terms of skilful writing, very close to the top of the pile. I don't presume to know how Mike plans his writing, but he adopts an 'ongoing saga' approach, and thus the individual stories can end at pretty well whatever point he chooses - 'Son of Chav Prince' is a perfect example. My point is that each story is self-contained and satisfying, but each COULD have been written without a clear view of the ultimate outcome. I'm not suggesting that it was so, simply that it could be so - and that this style, which both Timmy and Nigel have adopted, is perfectly valid. If it pleases the readership - and in these cases it clearly does - it should not be denigrated simply because it diverges from the usual commercial formula.
Oh, and one last point! I cannot for a moment accept Deeej's glib dismissal of divergent thinking in scientific development. I accept that it happens less often in pure science than in applied science, but there are numerous successful examples of divergent thinking. Even Charles Darwin was a divergent thinker; he proposed a wholly new theory which was not a simple development of contemporary scientific thinking. In the field of engineering, much of the work of such giants as Thomas Telford and Isambard Kingdom Brunel was intuitive or divergent, and the invention of the 'cat's eye' lane marker, inspired by observing the reflection of headlights from tramlines, was surely a classic example. Sorry, I can't remember the name of the inventor, though I think his Christian name was Percy.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie wrote:
>I'm very happy with argument, but when criticism extends to an individual rather than his arguments - as has happened on this thread -<
Very much your opinion, for at no time did I ever feel that Deeej was attacking me as a person and, as I have said, I had no intention of attacking David the person.
There may have been misunderstandings which were cleared up. I like to think that if he rang at my front door I could give him a hug and that if I knocked at his he could give me a hug. Then we could get on and have a cup of tea and a pleasant conversation.
Hugs
N
[Updated on: Sat, 28 October 2006 16:14]
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The visitor brings the biscuits, but NOT Rich Tea.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
