I suppose I ought to point out that I treat fiction as one of the “Grammars” in P, and I include the “archetypes, plots, and sentences” (the grammar(logic) of fiction) in the book. It might be helpful or disheartening to see all the forms of human communication reduced to algorithmic format, tied back to geometry, but it provides extraordinary clarity just like all the sciences help provide extraordinary clarity across phenomenon that otherwise appear incomprehensibly different.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Writing Fiction and The Grammars
I suppose I ought to point out that I treat fiction as one of the “Grammars” in P, and I include the “archetypes, plots, and sentences” (the grammar(logic) of fiction) in the book. It might be helpful or disheartening to see all the forms of human communication reduced to algorithmic format, tied back to geometry, but it provides extraordinary clarity just like all the sciences help provide extraordinary clarity across phenomenon that otherwise appear incomprehensibly different.
-
The Zone Requires Free Association without External “infection”
The Zone Requires Free Association without External “infection” https://t.co/6Fweh1nh5e
-
The Zone Requires Free Association without External “infection”
—“A man of immense creativity and endless ideas, Balzac was yet a creature of habit; indeed, a fixed routine was a large part of his success. He isolated himself from the world so that he could concentrate on his writing. He did this in two ways: first, by staying in his home with the blinds drawn,§- and second, by working at night while the world slept. Unless you distance yourself from the ceaseless distractions of the everyday world, like most successful writers (Conrad locked himself into a room, Salinger wrote in a concrete bunker, Fleming completed all the Bond novels in a Jamaican hideaway), unless you take steps to isolate yourself from the madding crowd, distractions are liable to make sustained work impossible. But perhaps even more than isolation, Balzac’s secret was coffee. His procedure was to keep himself alert during the wee hours of the night with murderously black and concentrated and above all thick-brewed coffee, which he made in a big coffeepot and sipped while he worked. He was so fond of coffee that he devoted a chapter to it in a scientific treatise on modern stimulants, singing its praises in glowing terms “[C]offee is a great power in my life,” he confessed. “I have observed its effects on an epic scale.” It kept him awake at night and enabled him to write. It stimulated his creative powers. It allowed him to marshal his thoughts. It gave him so many ideas he could barely keep up with them and his fingers flew across the pages, writing novel after novel at breakneck speed.”—
-
The Zone Requires Free Association without External “infection”
—“A man of immense creativity and endless ideas, Balzac was yet a creature of habit; indeed, a fixed routine was a large part of his success. He isolated himself from the world so that he could concentrate on his writing. He did this in two ways: first, by staying in his home with the blinds drawn,§- and second, by working at night while the world slept. Unless you distance yourself from the ceaseless distractions of the everyday world, like most successful writers (Conrad locked himself into a room, Salinger wrote in a concrete bunker, Fleming completed all the Bond novels in a Jamaican hideaway), unless you take steps to isolate yourself from the madding crowd, distractions are liable to make sustained work impossible. But perhaps even more than isolation, Balzac’s secret was coffee. His procedure was to keep himself alert during the wee hours of the night with murderously black and concentrated and above all thick-brewed coffee, which he made in a big coffeepot and sipped while he worked. He was so fond of coffee that he devoted a chapter to it in a scientific treatise on modern stimulants, singing its praises in glowing terms “[C]offee is a great power in my life,” he confessed. “I have observed its effects on an epic scale.” It kept him awake at night and enabled him to write. It stimulated his creative powers. It allowed him to marshal his thoughts. It gave him so many ideas he could barely keep up with them and his fingers flew across the pages, writing novel after novel at breakneck speed.”—
-
Writing Characters: Sorry but Yes, Females and Males Speak (very) Differently
Writing Characters: Sorry but Yes, Females and Males Speak (very) Differently. https://t.co/rv1VDs6cvu
-
Writing Characters: Sorry but Yes, Females and Males Speak (very) Differently.
And we speak differently whether or not members of the opposite sex are the the room or hearing distance. Both are more reserved in the presence of the opposite sex. So when writing characters, don’t force the audience out of suspension of disbelief. Laurelle asked: —“Why does Cane find it necessary, in a 2009 publication, to include an essay (within the chapter on J.D. Salinger) titled, “How to create female characters that readers remember?” I mean, really.’— Because men are as notoriously bad at creating female characters, as women are at creating men. Dialog that is counter to type (falling out of character) is one of the most common failings of authors, with misgendered speech the most common means of creating cardboard characters. Sensitivity tends to vary between male and female cognition with empathizing minds (dominantly female) tolerating it (not breaking suspension of disbelief), and systematizing minds (dominantly male) not tolerating it (breaking suspension of disbelief). In fact, it’s rather humorous that you even mention this because you’re demonstrating it. The most common demonstrably female cognitive bias is NAXALT (“not all x are like that”) meaning failure to grasp a distribution. Now all of us vary in our distribution of systematizing(autistic extreme) male bias and empathizing (psychotic extreme) female bias and we find masculinely biased females and femininely biased males. But that doesn’t change the fact that while some of us are insensitive (empathic) to patterns of behavior and some of us are extremely sensitive to behavioral patterns (systematizing), that the audience’s (marketplace’s) tolerance (willingness to keep investing time in the author’s work) is unaffected by one’s ability to construct a believable character that meets the target market’s demand for suspension of disbelief. Same is for age, same is for occupation, same is for socio-economic class. Same is for time period. BTW: Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences, for obvious reasons: they’re continually tested empirically every day. Analytic males have the most accurate judgement of groups (patterns of action), and slightly sensitive females have the most accurate judgement of individuals (patterns of empathy(feeling)). This measure averages out at somewhere between .2 and .5. So it isn’t an extreme advantage or disadvantage. But it does matter. ie: If you write a romance novel it doesn’t matter as much as if you write a spy thriller. Hope this is useful for other writers. Cheers.
-
Writing Characters: Sorry but Yes, Females and Males Speak (very) Differently.
And we speak differently whether or not members of the opposite sex are the the room or hearing distance. Both are more reserved in the presence of the opposite sex. So when writing characters, don’t force the audience out of suspension of disbelief. Laurelle asked: —“Why does Cane find it necessary, in a 2009 publication, to include an essay (within the chapter on J.D. Salinger) titled, “How to create female characters that readers remember?” I mean, really.’— Because men are as notoriously bad at creating female characters, as women are at creating men. Dialog that is counter to type (falling out of character) is one of the most common failings of authors, with misgendered speech the most common means of creating cardboard characters. Sensitivity tends to vary between male and female cognition with empathizing minds (dominantly female) tolerating it (not breaking suspension of disbelief), and systematizing minds (dominantly male) not tolerating it (breaking suspension of disbelief). In fact, it’s rather humorous that you even mention this because you’re demonstrating it. The most common demonstrably female cognitive bias is NAXALT (“not all x are like that”) meaning failure to grasp a distribution. Now all of us vary in our distribution of systematizing(autistic extreme) male bias and empathizing (psychotic extreme) female bias and we find masculinely biased females and femininely biased males. But that doesn’t change the fact that while some of us are insensitive (empathic) to patterns of behavior and some of us are extremely sensitive to behavioral patterns (systematizing), that the audience’s (marketplace’s) tolerance (willingness to keep investing time in the author’s work) is unaffected by one’s ability to construct a believable character that meets the target market’s demand for suspension of disbelief. Same is for age, same is for occupation, same is for socio-economic class. Same is for time period. BTW: Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences, for obvious reasons: they’re continually tested empirically every day. Analytic males have the most accurate judgement of groups (patterns of action), and slightly sensitive females have the most accurate judgement of individuals (patterns of empathy(feeling)). This measure averages out at somewhere between .2 and .5. So it isn’t an extreme advantage or disadvantage. But it does matter. ie: If you write a romance novel it doesn’t matter as much as if you write a spy thriller. Hope this is useful for other writers. Cheers.
-
Why Do Punishments for Crimes Vary?
Why Do Punishments for Crimes Vary? https://t.co/423ymNSzkh
-
Why Do Punishments for Crimes Vary?
WHY DO PUNISHMENTS FOR CRIMES VARY? (from elsewhere)
—“The reason for differences in sentencing, which are true, result from the law having three objectives 1) restitution (if possible), 2) prevention of repetition (repeating), 3) prevention of imitation (spreading). Those who have more to lose are more able to perform restitution and less likely to engage in repetition, and their punishments more likely to limit imitation. The only way to shorten punishments is to create good families good homes, good parenting, good education so that current losers have incentive not to enter the system.”—