Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] theory

Expand Messages
  • Vincent Ferre
    ... you something important that your intellect is merely trying to analyze afterwards. There is no point in evolving a personal criteria of literary quality
    Message 1 of 5 , May 9, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      David Bratman wrote:

      >it's more likely that your intuitive feeling is telling
      you something important that your intellect is merely trying to analyze
      afterwards. There is no point in evolving a personal criteria of literary
      quality unless it helps explain what you like and dislike, and why. All my
      own high-flown theories of what is good or bad in fantasy I've derived
      inductively, by reading books and noting what works and what doesn't. To
      create a theory of what's good and apply it rigidly, describing books as
      good or bad by means of this pre-existing theory in isolation of whether
      you liked them or not - that would be the worst sort of criticism.

      Ok, but what does �what works and what doesn't� mean, here ?
      and there might be a "third way" ;-) between rigid theory and pure
      intuition, don't you think ? things are not that simplistic !

      Vincent
      _________________________________________________________________________
      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
    • Vincent Ferre
      Good evening [this mail didn t go through the first time] ... you something important that your intellect is merely trying to analyze afterwards. There is no
      Message 2 of 5 , May 11, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Good evening [this mail didn't go through the first time]


        D. Bratman wrote :
        >it's more likely that your intuitive feeling is telling
        you something important that your intellect is merely trying to analyze
        afterwards. There is no point in evolving a personal criteria of literary
        quality unless it helps explain what you like and dislike, and why. All my
        own high-flown theories of what is good or bad in fantasy I've derived
        inductively, by reading books and noting what works and what doesn't. To
        create a theory of what's good and apply it rigidly, describing books as
        good or bad by means of this pre-existing theory in isolation of whether
        you liked them or not - that would be the worst sort of criticism.

        Ok, but what does �what works and what doesn't� mean ?
        and there might be a "third way" ;-) between rigid theory and pure
        intuition, don't you think ?
        things are not that simplistic !

        Vincent

        _________________________________________________________________________
        Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
      • David S. Bratman
        ... Of course not. And nowhere did I tout pure intuition. Theory must derive from experience, not in isolation, that s all. First you discover what works,
        Message 3 of 5 , May 11, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          At 12:38 AM 5/11/2001 , Vincent Ferre wrote:

          >Ok, but what does �what works and what doesn't� mean ?
          >and there might be a "third way" ;-) between rigid theory and pure
          >intuition, don't you think ?
          >things are not that simplistic !

          Of course not. And nowhere did I tout pure intuition. Theory must derive
          from experience, not in isolation, that's all. First you discover what
          works, then you evolve a theory to explain it. If that theory adequately
          predicts (before you've read a new book) what works (as you discover when
          you read it), you've got a good theory. If not, it needs more work.

          Here's what I said:

          >it's more likely that your intuitive feeling is telling
          >you something important that your intellect is merely trying to analyze
          >afterwards. There is no point in evolving a personal criteria of literary
          >quality unless it helps explain what you like and dislike, and why. All my
          >own high-flown theories of what is good or bad in fantasy I've derived
          >inductively, by reading books and noting what works and what doesn't. To
          >create a theory of what's good and apply it rigidly, describing books as
          >good or bad by means of this pre-existing theory in isolation of whether
          >you liked them or not - that would be the worst sort of criticism.

          David Bratman
        • WendellWag@aol.com
          In a message dated 5/11/01 2:18:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... I think in fact that what both David and I are saying is actually somewhere between rigid
          Message 4 of 5 , May 12, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 5/11/01 2:18:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            ferretolk@... writes:


            > Ok, but what does “what works and what doesn't” mean, here ?
            > and there might be a "third way" ;-) between rigid theory and pure
            > intuition, don't you think ? things are not that simplistic !
            >
            >

            I think in fact that what both David and I are saying is actually somewhere
            between rigid theory and pure intuition. I think something like the
            following happens whenever you've experienced sufficient examples of any art
            fom over time: I suppose I've seen something like 3,000 movies in my life.
            (Hey, I'm 49. It's not that much.) I wanted to react to them with a more
            sophisticated response than saying "Oh, wow" at each new film I see. I found
            myself explaining to friends why I thought one film was good and another was
            bad and which previous movies each was related to (and sometimes what books,
            etc. they were related to.) Eventually I began writing down these responses
            as reviews. As I began to have a body of reviews, I could look back on them
            and see what principles I was using to evaluate the films. I saw that what I
            was doing was creating a theory of Story and genre to explain my reactions to
            films. I presume David has gone through roughly the same process. After he
            had read hundreds of fantasy books and tried to explain his reactions to them
            in reviews, eventually he began to create theories to tie together his
            criticisms.

            Wendell Wagner


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David S. Bratman
            ... found ... what I ... reactions to ... them ... Something like that. With the added proviso that one s theories may lead one to conclude that one likes or
            Message 5 of 5 , May 12, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              >At 01:01 PM 5/12/2001 -0400, Wendell wrote:

              >I think in fact that what both David and I are saying is actually somewhere
              >between rigid theory and pure intuition. I think something like the
              >following happens whenever you've experienced sufficient examples of any art
              >fom over time: I suppose I've seen something like 3,000 movies in my life.
              >(Hey, I'm 49. It's not that much.) I wanted to react to them with a more
              >sophisticated response than saying "Oh, wow" at each new film I see. I
              found
              >myself explaining to friends why I thought one film was good and another was
              >bad and which previous movies each was related to (and sometimes what books,
              >etc. they were related to.) Eventually I began writing down these responses
              >as reviews. As I began to have a body of reviews, I could look back on them
              >and see what principles I was using to evaluate the films. I saw that
              what I
              >was doing was creating a theory of Story and genre to explain my
              reactions to
              >films. I presume David has gone through roughly the same process. After he
              >had read hundreds of fantasy books and tried to explain his reactions to
              them
              >in reviews, eventually he began to create theories to tie together his
              >criticisms.

              Something like that. With the added proviso that one's theories may lead
              one to conclude that one likes or dislikes a certain kind of book, and then
              one finds the opposite on actually reading them. Which means one's
              theories need further revision or development. (Actual examples: I thought
              I'd dislike fairy-tale retellings: turned out I liked them. I thought I'd
              enjoy a lot of Tolclones: turned out I didn't.)

              David Bratman
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.