Quote: Original post by TechnoGoth
Well, I haven't been around much these days but I noticed this topic so I felt I had leave a comment on it.


I personally found the introduction a little hard to read, espcially the magic aspect it was rather confusing and I didn't understand what your where trying to say at first. But after thinking about it I think I finally understood the point you where trying to get across about magic. What your talking about in terms of magic is not so much casual relations as it is the the abstract connection to tangable result or the lack there of.

You could throw in a little paragraph to that effect in order to better connect the Teleology paragraph to the one before it.

Something simple like

Science is about concrete connections to tangable results.
"A rock can be carved into an arrow head."
While, Magic is about abstract connections to tangable results.
"Painting the arrow head red will make it go faster."
And like magic, writing allows us to turn abstract ideas into a finished work.

But there are abstract sciencey things too, like gravity and magnetism. If I turn this little knob on the electromagnet, the loaded dice will fall in my favor.

Quote: 3) Lastly, don't be afraid to break out of the paragraph box. To many of these style of books are left overly restricted by their rigid adherence to formal writing structure.

By using what instead, bulleted lists or something? I was kind of wondering, with that paragraph about all the ways fiction functions like magic ritual, whether it would be more useful as a list. But I decided that it would be best as both a regular paragraph AND a list in a sidebar. [smile]

Quote: Original post by Zenphobia
Philosophy is the study of the justification of beliefs and putting those beliefs into a working system of reality, where as science is based on empirical knowledge derived through observation and expirementation built upon the idea of disproving hypothesis. Philosophy deals specifically with ideas, science deals with data.

That's a vast oversimplification. Humans deal with both data and ideas in everything we do, so all human endeavors deal with both. No one would do any science experiments if they didn't have the philosophical belief that an experiment was the best approach to learn something, and that learning was desireable, and that the particular issue under study was the one most worth investigating. The act of inventing a hypothesis to test is an act of philosophizing. When people philosophize they draw on scientific data they have read about as well as personal experience (which is semi-scientific data because it did happen but not under controlled circumstances).

If you look at the historical roots of science and philosophy, no distinction was made between the two until the 1800s - before that alchemy was founded on astrological beliefs and scientific thought was heavily contaminated by religious philosophy. So I would say, the difference between science and philosophy is that science is philosophy plus testing, and science has discarded those philosophies which testing proved to be false and ignores those philosophies which are untestable.

Quote: I was under the impression that you were a professional that could see the solution to your problems once the problems were pointed out. If you want me to actually do the work and correct your mistakes for you, well, that costs money.

This forum is a community for writers to help each other through mentoring and trading constructive criticism. If you don't want to help other people and be helped in return I'm not entirely sure why you're here. It is of course your right to give as much or as little as you want, but I personally believe strongly in mentoring, and that's why I have spent 5 years (without pay) being the moderator of this forum and trying to help all the people who come here to learn. I have found that even thought there is no money involved, in helping other I have helped myself. Explaining something to someone else is a great way to clarify your own thoughts about it, and the helpful explanations I have written for this forum are providing the material I am attempting to gather into this book.

Quote: The point was, an acclaimed Anthropologist disagrees with your organization of magic and religion (and you weren't even sure where you got your definition).

The point was, it doesn't matter _where_ a definition comes from, it matters _why_ a definition came from, which I remembered and explained to you.

Quote: I have my English degree, I took a course in rhetoric, I'm perfectly capable of choosing my own vocabulary, grammar, and rhetorical devices. I happen to like rhetorical questions, and have in the past found them to be a very effective way of opening a speculative discussion on a particular topic. (I'll emphasize again that it is NOT my goal to 'take control of' or persuade the reader.)

Quote: A book is not a discussion, a discussion involves the exchange of ideas between at least 2 parties. Obviously, you're reader can't talk back.

Actually the reader can and does talk back, it's the book which can't hear and respond to the reader's comments and questions. It's true that books cannot truly be discussions. But its also true that discussions promote learning more than lectures, and so an author writing non-fiction should try to imagine what their reader's comments and questions will be and answer these in the text, making the writing as much like a discussion and as little like a lecture as possible.

Quote:

Quote: My opinion is that rhetorical questions are fun because they encourage creative speculation in the reader and help the book seem more interactive and less didactic.

You don't think the reader will ask his own questions and analyze your work without you force feeding him questions? You're insulting your reader as well as yourself by assuming that your writing won't spark any questions (the sparked questions you have naturally prepared for, and cover in a logical order).

As I was just saying in my response to the previous quote, a major part of being a writer is anticipating the reader's questions. So of course I am assuming the reader will have questions. Using a rhetorical question to tell the reader which anticipated question I am answering should make the reader feel satisfied that I am recognizing their concern and confusion and help the reader keep track of where in the conversation we are.

Quote: It's funny you bring up a Degree as a justification, according to you, it doesn't matter what awards a person has won.

It doesn't matter to me, I mentioned it because it obviously does matter to you (you even give it a capital letter [wink] ), and you seemed to feel that you had authority because you are an English major. I merely wanted to point out that I've "been there, done that".

Quote: The spell metaphor may be nifty, but I think you've made the idea way too literal to be useful.

That's because it's not a metaphor; I am trying to say that writing a piece of fiction is literally an act of magic.

This is really a very silly stylistic debate. You're bringing in Structuralist literary theory as if it were important that the author himself was a "Structuralist." Structuralist literary theory should be applicable to just about any fiction of text (see Northrop Frye).

Also to say that a book is not a discussion is to ignore Barthes, Foucault, and their descendents. Although they use the word "discourse" instead of discussion the idea is still the same. The importance of the text is how it interacts with the reader and vice versa.

But both of these things are irrelevant to the text being discussed here. We're not talking about a grand piece of fiction, we're talking about a how-to book on writing. Zenphobia certainly has good points about the need for the author of a book on how-to-write to have a strong grasp of grammar and style.

On the other hand, the author might choose to include a chapter on the difference between a prescriptive and descriptive linguist. The book is about writing fiction, after all. I doubt Zenphobia would be criticizing Faulkner or Joyce for their stylistic liberties.

And on the subject of such Modern literary figures, I question whether it's a good idea to base your theory of fiction on Aristotle's formulas which are literally ancient. Both literary theory and fiction have come a long way since Aristotle and Plato. Most fiction you read today isn't going to be the tightly packaged story Aristotle envisioned.

Anyway, that's my plea for a more progressive outlook on everyone's part.

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow

Quote: Original post by TechnoGoth
Well, I haven't been around much these days but I noticed this topic so I felt I had leave a comment on it.


I personally found the introduction a little hard to read, espcially the magic aspect it was rather confusing and I didn't understand what your where trying to say at first. But after thinking about it I think I finally understood the point you where trying to get across about magic. What your talking about in terms of magic is not so much casual relations as it is the the abstract connection to tangable result or the lack there of.

You could throw in a little paragraph to that effect in order to better connect the Teleology paragraph to the one before it.

Something simple like

Science is about concrete connections to tangable results.
"A rock can be carved into an arrow head."
While, Magic is about abstract connections to tangable results.
"Painting the arrow head red will make it go faster."
And like magic, writing allows us to turn abstract ideas into a finished work.

But there are abstract sciencey things too, like gravity and magnetism. If I turn this little knob on the electromagnet, the loaded dice will fall in my favor.

There are concrete reasons for scientific theories and a scientis could tell you exactly why the dice lands correctly. Besides an analogy does not have to be one hundred percent accurate as long as its simple to understand.

Quote: 3) Lastly, don't be afraid to break out of the paragraph box. To many of these style of books are left overly restricted by their rigid adherence to formal writing structure.

By using what instead, bulleted lists or something? I was kind of wondering, with that paragraph about all the ways fiction functions like magic ritual, whether it would be more useful as a list. But I decided that it would be best as both a regular paragraph AND a list in a sidebar. [smile]

sure bullet point lists are one way. But there is nothing wrong with putting a statement or quote that you want to draw particular importance to in large bold letters right in the middle of a paragraph.

Also, the intro should at least mention all the key points you are going to discuss in your book. So, I would assume that your book discusses Symbolism, Sympathy, and Teleology. If there are any other major topics in your book they should be mentioned in your intro.

Quote: Original post by ajmiller_1
This is really a very silly stylistic debate. You're bringing in Structuralist literary theory as if it were important that the author himself was a "Structuralist." Structuralist literary theory should be applicable to just about any fiction of text (see Northrop Frye).

Structuralism is a mindset; in order to use a structuralist theory to design a work of fiction, yes, the author must become a structuralist.

I'm not basing my theory on Aristotle. He is interesting because he wrote the first book of literary theory. His principle of unity and his statement that fiction is an act of playful mimicry are still important to literary theory today, although some of his other ideas like catharsis have been discredited or reworked to fit modern psychological theory.

Other than that I mostly agree with your comments.

Quote: Original post by TechnoGothBesides an analogy does not have to be one hundred percent accurate as long as its simple to understand.

I dunno, personally that strikes me as sloppy and a bit dangerous. If I'm going to go to the work of constructing an analogy in the first place I might as well construct an accurate one.

Quote: sure bullet point lists are one way. But there is nothing wrong with putting a statement or quote that you want to draw particular importance to in large bold letters right in the middle of a paragraph.

Also, the intro should at least mention all the key points you are going to discuss in your book. So, I would assume that your book discusses Symbolism, Sympathy, and Teleology. If there are any other major topics in your book they should be mentioned in your intro.

Actually the manuscript has key terms bolded, that formatting just vanished when I copied and pasted it here. [wink] Since this book is basically a textbook I agree I should use all the techniques which have been developed to make textbooks more readable and easier to learn from.

Should the introduction mention all the key points I am going to idscuss in the book? I'm not sure. Because the key points would not be understandable out of context by a random writer, my target audience. So filling the intro with them would turn it into an unreadable mess. That's why I separated the abstract (maybe I should call it statement of purpose?) out from the actual introduction - so one could be a laundry list of what will be in the book, while the other could get the reader into the right general mindset of looking at fiction anthropologically.

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow
Should the introduction mention all the key points I am going to idscuss in the book? I'm not sure. Because the key points would not be understandable out of context by a random writer, my target audience. So filling the intro with them would turn it into an unreadable mess. That's why I separated the abstract (maybe I should call it statement of purpose?) out from the actual introduction - so one could be a laundry list of what will be in the book, while the other could get the reader into the right general mindset of looking at fiction anthropologically.

That makes sense, so this is really more of the preface to your book rather then the introduction.

You might also want to mention some time in your book how the author is both builder and slave. They are the builder because they craft the structure of the story its world and characters. But they are also at the same time slave to their very creation as they can't violate the rules they have set forth or the reader’s expectation of the characters without shattering the reader’s suspension of disbelief. Rather then the author being God as I think you mention at one point.

I finally got around to reading the revised version. I really only have one comment - the parenthetical comparing humans to Vulcans was much better in the original. The new version just belabors the point, and is more confusing as well.

Now we can talk about something else over the last of the ham, instead of this.

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow

Quote: Original post by Zenphobia
Philosophy is the study of the justification of beliefs and putting those beliefs into a working system of reality, where as science is based on empirical knowledge derived through observation and expirementation built upon the idea of disproving hypothesis. Philosophy deals specifically with ideas, science deals with data.

That's a vast oversimplification. Humans deal with both data and ideas in everything we do, so all human endeavors deal with both. No one would do any science experiments if they didn't have the philosophical belief that an experiment was the best approach to learn something, and that learning was desireable, and that the particular issue under study was the one most worth investigating. The act of inventing a hypothesis to test is an act of philosophizing. When people philosophize they draw on scientific data they have read about as well as personal experience (which is semi-scientific data because it did happen but not under controlled circumstances).

If you look at the historical roots of science and philosophy, no distinction was made between the two until the 1800s - before that alchemy was founded on astrological beliefs and scientific thought was heavily contaminated by religious philosophy. So I would say, the difference between science and philosophy is that science is philosophy plus testing, and science has discarded those philosophies which testing proved to be false and ignores those philosophies which are untestable.

I am genuinely curious where you learned this definition. Interpreting scientific data is not philosophy. Philosophy deals with concepts that are not testable. Anyways, Francis Bacon drafted an early form of the scientific method in the 1600s, advocating the scientific revolution (a split from philosophy).

Quote: This forum is a community for writers to help each other through mentoring and trading constructive criticism. If you don't want to help other people and be helped in return I'm not entirely sure why you're here. It is of course your right to give as much or as little as you want, but I personally believe strongly in mentoring, and that's why I have spent 5 years (without pay) being the moderator of this forum and trying to help all the people who come here to learn.

If you want to be specific, this is a forum for writers who are writing video game stories. I still fail to see how me pointing out that rhetorical questions are a weak device is not constructive. A nonconstructive comment would have been: "Your introduction doesn't grip the reader." Nice and vague, nothing to really go on. If you want a solution, remove the rhetorical questions.

Your original:
"So, what is fiction anyway? Well, at its root, fiction is a form of magic. “What?!” you may be asking, “I thought this book was supposed to be a logical orderly analysis, not some mystical mumbo jumbo!” Yes, it is a logical orderly analysis. Anthropological analysis of human beings in all cultures and all times reveals that we seem to have this odd instinctive belief that magic ought to exist (regardless of any evidence that it actually does or not). We even seem to instinctively agree on the principles by which magic ought to operate: symbolism and sympathy."

How I would word the intro (my unrevised first draft):
"Fiction, in the literal sense, is the telling of a story involving imaginary events and imaginary people. Fiction's ability to inspire emotion and lull readers into a state of suspended disbelief, where the once imaginary events seem to become vivid and tangible, can be likened to the careful weaving of words and components to cast a magic spell, suggesting that there is more to fiction than the simple telling of a story. If one word is misplaced, the spell will fail and the effect will be lost, making writing much like magic, a craft involving the mastery of fragile substances and volatile solutions to achieve a mystical end."

Then I would dedicate a new paragraph to summarizing the topics to be covered, which may begin introducing the fields of science that you will be touching on. So on and so forth.

Quote:

Quote: The point was, an acclaimed Anthropologist disagrees with your organization of magic and religion (and you weren't even sure where you got your definition).

The point was, it doesn't matter _where_ a definition comes from, it matters _why_ a definition came from, which I remembered and explained to you.

If you're going to be talking about Anthropology, it would make sense to agree with the experts in the field, unless you have done some anthropological studies and would like to offer some new light.

Quote: A book is not a discussion, a discussion involves the exchange of ideas between at least 2 parties. Obviously, you're reader can't talk back.

Actually the reader can and does talk back, it's the book which can't hear and respond to the reader's comments and questions. It's true that books cannot truly be discussions. But its also true that discussions promote learning more than lectures, and so an author writing non-fiction should try to imagine what their reader's comments and questions will be and answer these in the text, making the writing as much like a discussion and as little like a lecture as possible.

Quote: As I was just saying in my response to the previous quote, a major part of being a writer is anticipating the reader's questions. So of course I am assuming the reader will have questions. Using a rhetorical question to tell the reader which anticipated question I am answering should make the reader feel satisfied that I am recognizing their concern and confusion and help the reader keep track of where in the conversation we are.

If you were truely anticipating the reader's questions, you would not have to force feed them one. And I'm sure, with your experience, you could write a paragraph that answers these questions without resorting to Q and A.

Quote:

Quote: The spell metaphor may be nifty, but I think you've made the idea way too literal to be useful.

That's because it's not a metaphor; I am trying to say that writing a piece of fiction is literally an act of magic.

Too bad it's literally not.

Quote: On the other hand, the author might choose to include a chapter on the difference between a prescriptive and descriptive linguist. The book is about writing fiction, after all. I doubt Zenphobia would be criticizing Faulkner or Joyce for their stylistic liberties.

An English teacher with whom I'm very close once said "Before you can break the rules, you must have mastered and tamed them." Meaning- Joyce and Faulkner paid their dues before they took "stylistic liberties." This is exemplified by the difference between the Dubliners and Ulysses, also note that Dubliners was published before Ulysses, allowing him to establish credibility before trying something risky.

Zenphobia -

You know, it's not really wise to harass a mod so persistently. If I were her, I'd have suspended you a while ago.

She's already told you that your concerns are irrelevant to this kind of writing. No matter how much you disagree with that point (or any other), you're not going to make an impact. Just give it up.

She just now said to me, "I'm not going to reply to his post. It's too stupid."

It doesn't matter how right you are if your audience is too pissed at you to care.