War room lounge v.9 Wake up it's time to go now, wake up...

[Gregolian]

Yeesh, those are the worst imo. Good luck. Don't play with your pud. It comes across on the phone.

LOL.

They asked me to do an in-person interview but I frankly can't take 2 days off to drive down to Olympia the night before, interview, then drive home. I requested the phone one so I figure I will find an attorney conference room and sit in it for this.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Speaking of Nabokov, does anyone else think of this line when they see this thread title?:

Reveillez-vous, Laqueue, il est temps de mourir!

 

[Fawlty]

I think it depends on the context. If you're a fan of a book, knowing the author's thoughts about it can enrich your experience and help understand certain aspects of it. But if the book sucks and someone tries to defend it on the grounds that it meant something deeper, that probably won't be very convincing to you. Authors might intend to convey something and simply fail at it.

Or on the other end, you have Nabokov insisting (believably, IMO) that he's never trying to send a message:



Note for non-Lolita fans: "John Ray" is the writer of the fictional intro to the book by "Humbert Humbert."

But some people might say that he unintentionally did convey something (his take on America being corrupted by the old world, for example). I think it's all fun sport and fair to discuss, but ultimately the work is the work.

Another relevant, funny story about Nabokov and hidden meanings:



http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1971/10/07/rowes-symbols/

In one telling, he says he stopped reading and wrote "F" so hard that it tore the paper.



Don't know who you're referring to, but the idea of you calling anyone else a "child" is comical. Even in this post, you sound like a little boy. "I broke him with my devastating insults."

This sounds like the psychologists fallacy put forth by William James:

“Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is.”

― William James

"The great snare of the psychologist is the confusion of his own standpoint with that of the mental fact about which he is making his report. I shall hereafter call this the ‘psychologist's fallacy’ par excellence."

The psychologist … stands outside of the mental state he speaks of. Both itself and its object are objects for him. Now when it is a cognitive state (percept, thought, concept, etc.), he ordinarily has no other way of naming it than as the thought, percept, etc., of that object. He himself meanwhile, knowing the self-same object in his way, gets easily led to suppose that the thought which is of it, knows it in the same way in which he knows it, although this is often very far from being the case.

-James

Obviously, that's not true. Like, what is it that actually forces me to disregard meta-information about some work? And, even more ridiculously, it's not even that:



So, the argument is that you cannot reconstruct one person's intention, even if they plainly state it, but you can somehow achieve the insanely more difficult task of reconstructing the context of the entire society the work stems from? So it's not that meta-information is impure, but only when it comes from the person who actually made the damn thing? Seems to me like insisting on these kinds of "proper" ways of analyzing something is just an exercise in being "clever", while the only thing that backs up the argument is the assumption that the argument is true from the start.



Trying to play devil's advocate, my counter-argument would be that the book is influenced by society before it is released, but cannot influence society before it is released, and the same goes for the author. Therefore analyzing the society is the only way to distill the pure essence of the work.

Of course, that argument faces massive problems when it comes to ambiguity: with that line of reasoning, it's inevitable that you can draw an uncountable amount of mutually exclusive parallels depending on what you focus on, so how do you know which one is true? To answer that you have to create some massive framework that essentially assigns weights to various things so you can actually unambiguously decide the correct interpretation, which inevitably leads to it not being able to decide if itself is true. Or, you can just punt and say that arriving at one correct analysis is irrelevant, but then you have a contradiction with the whole "purity" thing.

So it boils down to three fatal flaws: either it axiomatically assumes itself without even attempting to justify itself, or it becomes undecidable, or it is self-contradictory. Bleh.

All interesting takes. The reason I remembered this was the whole "This is America" thing. I'm noticing that a lot of the praise for the song+video has to do with Glover's talent, and how that has led to people apologizing for its shortcomings with praise. It's not great because it's brilliant, it's great because he is brilliant.

If Glover wasn't so talented and didn't have a past of writing good lyrics (this song's lyrics are crap on their own), he wouldn't be getting this credit. If it was done by a nobody, it wouldn't be considered so great. And that includes cultural context and all of the visual references in the video- and all of the historical baggage, too. In other words, the song+video on all of its merits, apart from the artist himself, is not as good as people think it is.

I think that's close to Jack's parody example. Do we just not have a philosophical understanding of "meta" that matches our intuition about its significance in criticism?

 

[Ruprecht]

Speaking of Nabokov, does anyone else think of this line when they see this thread title?:

Unfortunately not, I get an old song by Wham! stuck in my head.

 

[Trotsky]

LOL.

They asked me to do an in-person interview but I frankly can't take 2 days off to drive down to Olympia the night before, interview, then drive home. I requested the phone one so I figure I will find an attorney conference room and sit in it for this.

Can't do Skype as a happy compromise?

I'm all about the in-person, but I at least want to be able to see/read the person I'm talking to. I find phone interviews to be impossibly awkward and stunted.

 

[Gregolian]

Can't do Skype as a happy compromise?

I'm all about the in-person, but I at least want to be able to see/read the person I'm talking to. I find phone interviews to be impossibly awkward and stunted.

We’ll find out I suppose.

 

[Rational Poster]

 

[waiguoren]

 

[LMP]

This isn't really a WR topic but it doesn't work anywhere else since it's philosophy.

What do you guys think about authorial intent and the intentional fallacy? The argument goes that we don't actually have access to the author's state of mind, and that certain external considerations like what the author claims about the work are not relevant. So if I write a book and then I write an article about it explaining what I meant, you have to discard that when analyzing the book. You can only use what is in the text, and contextual knowledge about the culture and language at the time. In other words, a reader can never reconstruct the author's intentions even if the author tells you what he intended.

My main issue with that is how it's okay to use historical facts and cultural/linguistic knowledge, but isn't the author's claim about the book both a historical and linguistic fact of the culture at the time?

Who better to understand the book than the author? Sounds like someone was trying to come up with some uppity standards for other people to use. Obviously someone can find other meanings in the work than the author, but how does that disqualifies the author from explain their work?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What do you guys think about authorial intent and the intentional fallacy? The argument goes that we don't actually have access to the author's state of mind, and that certain external considerations like what the author claims about the work are not relevant. So if I write a book and then I write an article about it explaining what I meant, you have to discard that when analyzing the book. You can only use what is in the text, and contextual knowledge about the culture and language at the time. In other words, a reader can never reconstruct the author's intentions even if the author tells you what he intended.

Either the author is a liar or they're the foremost authority. Or both.

 

[Fawlty]

Who better to understand the book than the author? Sounds like someone was trying to come up with some uppity standards for other people to use. Obviously someone can find other meanings in the work than the author, but how does that disqualifies the author from explain their work?

Playing Uppity Advocate, what would you say the literary work is? Is it what makes up the body of the work, or is it the book plus every single thing the author ever said about it, plus his scratched out notes? The author's scribbles belong to something that isn't the book. Or rather, the book does not just belong to the category that includes the author's scribbles.

The work itself is the thing that is passed down, and that all commentary about the work is based on. So it does, in some sense, stand alone as a sort of hub for everything that is said around it. That means that it must be severable from everything else.

I wouldn't go so far as to say we don't have access to the author's intentions, but that's supplementary material and it's not necessarily trustworthy. It's a very literal appeal to authority, and while it meets the standards for legitimate appeal to authority for the purpose of logic, it does not always meet the standards of legitimate criticism. But the book always meets the standard of being the book.

If we criticize something in the book based on other things, like the author's scribbles, we are actually criticizing the author's scribbles. We're sort of performing psychology. That's fine, but it might belong in the footnotes.

This is a challenging one for me and I got my ass handed to me in a two hour argument about it. I'm on your side but I find that there is a ton of gray area there, and that it's not just needless pedantry.

 

[all caps]

Maybe someone with a little more clout than me would like to make a thread for our newest school shooting? 8 kids got bucked down

 

[Gregolian]

Someone already did

 

[The Big Bang]

I can't post pictures, whereas I can in the heavies.

Why is that?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Unfortunately not, I get an old song by Wham! stuck in my head.

Unfortunately? That song is awesome.

I don't find it to be one of those mentally intrusive ones that you can't get rid of, either, but I guess that's subjective. I truly hate the Turtles (despite recognizing their talent) because they really seem to have mastered that kind of song. For example:

All interesting takes. The reason I remembered this was the whole "This is America" thing. I'm noticing that a lot of the praise for the song+video has to do with Glover's talent, and how that has led to people apologizing for its shortcomings with praise. It's not great because it's brilliant, it's great because he is brilliant.

If Glover wasn't so talented and didn't have a past of writing good lyrics (this song's lyrics are crap on their own), he wouldn't be getting this credit. If it was done by a nobody, it wouldn't be considered so great. And that includes cultural context and all of the visual references in the video- and all of the historical baggage, too. In other words, the song+video on all of its merits, apart from the artist himself, is not as good as people think it is.

I think that's close to Jack's parody example. Do we just not have a philosophical understanding of "meta" that matches our intuition about its significance in criticism?

I thought I was probably missing something when I had a meh reaction to it because of my high regard for some of his other work. After more consideration, the song still does nothing for me, but I appreciate the video more than I originally did (still more along the lines of, "hmm, that's interesting and pretty clever" than "OMG, you guys!").

 

[JonesBones]

All interesting takes. The reason I remembered this was the whole "This is America" thing. I'm noticing that a lot of the praise for the song+video has to do with Glover's talent, and how that has led to people apologizing for its shortcomings with praise. It's not great because it's brilliant, it's great because he is brilliant.

If Glover wasn't so talented and didn't have a past of writing good lyrics (this song's lyrics are crap on their own), he wouldn't be getting this credit. If it was done by a nobody, it wouldn't be considered so great. And that includes cultural context and all of the visual references in the video- and all of the historical baggage, too. In other words, the song+video on all of its merits, apart from the artist himself, is not as good as people think it is.

I think that's close to Jack's parody example. Do we just not have a philosophical understanding of "meta" that matches our intuition about its significance in criticism?

What you are describing is precisely the point Orson Welles makes in F for Fake. The idea of name.

“If my work hangs in a museum long enough, it becomes real.”

—Elmyr de Hory

If you’ve seen Orson Welles’ late period quasi-documentary F for Fake, then you know about the mysterious art forger Elmyr De Hory. In his freewheeling cinematic essay, Welles explored the funhouse mirror life of de Hory, who found that he had an uncanny knack for being able to paint convincing counterfeits of Picasso, Matisse, Modigliani and Renoir’s work. After some of his fakes were sold to museums and wealthy collectors, suspicions were raised and his legal troubles—and a life spent moving from place to place to avoid the long arm of the law—began.

F or Fake also calls into question the nature of “genius”: If Elmyr’s forgeries were good enough to pass off as Picasso or Modigliani’s work, or even to hang in museums under the assumption that they were the work of these masters, wouldn’t Elmyr’s genius be of equal or nearly equal value to theirs? (Worth noting that it was ego that got in the way of Elmyr’s scam at several points in his life: He was often left apoplectic at hearing how much crooked art dealers were making from his forged paintings!)


During one scene, Welles shows this old Gothic structure. Forgot what it was. But he says he loves this because its author did not leave a signature. He hates names. This was a theme all the way back to Citizen Kane. And it is true. Everything is named after some powerful or rich person. Airports, streets, hospitals, schools, etc.

The idea about umpires/refs, if you don't notice them, they are doing their job. Competence is kind of a camouflage. It just blends in. Taoism says something similar. The greatest things that are done are things you aren't aware are even done. To leave a trace of yourself on your work is amateur.

Female reporter: If you could've found out what Rosebud meant, I bet that would've explained everything.

Thompson: No, I don't think so; no. Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn't get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn't have explained anything... I don't think any word can explain a man's life.


It also may touch on cumulative advantage. One break early on can carry your mediocre ass the rest of your career.

The Matthew effect of accumulated advantage, described in sociology, is a phenomenon sometimes summarized by the adage that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

 

[Jack V Savage]

F or Fake also calls into question the nature of “genius”: If Elmyr’s forgeries were good enough to pass off as Picasso or Modigliani’s work, or even to hang in museums under the assumption that they were the work of these masters, wouldn’t Elmyr’s genius be of equal or nearly equal value to theirs? (Worth noting that it was ego that got in the way of Elmyr’s scam at several points in his life: He was often left apoplectic at hearing how much crooked art dealers were making from his forged paintings!)

Very different. When someone buys a famous painting, they're buying a piece of history. It's not about the work. Otherwise, you could just put a picture of it with some brush marks added.

One of my favorite authors (Charles Willeford) wrote a book that relates to this, but I can't really say how without spoiling, and it's being made into a movie soon:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...neo-noir-thriller-burnt-orange-heresy-1085091

The idea about umpires/refs, if you don't notice them, they are doing their job. Competence is kind of a camouflage. It just blends in. Taoism says something similar. The greatest things that are done are things you aren't aware are even done. To leave a trace of yourself on your work is amateur.

If you're talking about craft, that's true. With art, it's the opposite.

 

[JonesBones]

Very different. When someone buys a famous painting, they're buying a piece of history. It's not about the work. Otherwise, you could just put a picture of it with some brush marks added.

One of my favorite authors (Charles Willeford) wrote a book that relates to this, but I can't really say how without spoiling, and it's being made into a movie soon:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...neo-noir-thriller-burnt-orange-heresy-1085091



If you're talking about craft, that's true. With art, it's the opposite.

But they also think the art is high quality as well. It does take fuckin talent to replicate that work but I agree you are paying for historicity. We run into meta again. Historicity. This time from Phillip Dick:


"When a thing has history in it. Listen. One of those two Zippo lighters was in Franklin D. Roosevelt's pocket when he was assassinated. And one wasn't. One has historicity, a hell of a lot of it. As much as any object ever had. And one has nothing. Can you feel it?" He nudged her. "You can't. You can't tell which is which. There's no 'mystical plasmic presence,' no 'aura' around it." (5.24)

Obviously FDR was never assassinated. It is from an alternate history book where The Japanese and Germans win WW2 and divide America between themselves.

 

[JonesBones]

I bought some cheap old roman coins off etsy recently. all because of historicity. where the coins have been. not what they are. hopefully that order comes today.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But they also think the art is high quality as well. We run into meta again. Historicity. This time from Phillip Dick:

"When a thing has history in it. Listen. One of those two Zippo lighters was in Franklin D. Roosevelt's pocket when he was assassinated. And one wasn't. One has historicity, a hell of a lot of it. As much as any object ever had. And one has nothing. Can you feel it?" He nudged her. "You can't. You can't tell which is which. There's no 'mystical plasmic presence,' no 'aura' around it." (5.24)

Obviously FDR was never assassinated. It is from an alternate history book where The Japanese and Germans win WW2 and divide America between themselves.

Right, but if people value the collectible, that's a different conversation. No one would argue that the lighter is any better on the basis of its historical chain of custody--just that they'd personally like to own it because they subjectively value it more than another one.