# The Zettelkasten Method for Fiction Writing

edited April 18

The Zettelkasten Method for Fiction Writing

The Zettelkasten Method will support your goals relating to both consuming and producing fiction texts. It is designed to create a thinking machine out of your notes you are already making that supports all of your thinking.

«1

• Hi @Sascha,

Those articles carry a lot of insights and useful informations, and I process them now on my side to come back to this thread with some remarks, questions, even if I already express myself about "scenarists who write about how to write novels". They tend to kill the art, uniformising creation and losing of sight the fact that, yes, novels are art by themselves.

But it is not the point I would like to understress now.

You separate style and story. It is a choice. If we keep to the definition of "mastery of the medium", it is OK.
But style is more than that.

I come from a field were we work style in a very conscious way. And this is what I observed : some artists very talented artists would change the medium without changing their style.

Because style is also a way of approaching things. It is born from a special, unique point of view of the world, a personnal one. How the artist see the world, how does he/she choose to share this vision, the little obsessions this artist deploys in his/her corpus of works.

Zola was a naturalist writer. In a theorical world where Zola would be a painter as well, he would focus on poor people, describe the trivial things, the dirty events, the hard conditions of living. Hard faces, big hands, dirty texturing.

Victor Hugo drew. He drew the way he wrote : with emphase, imagination, powerful towering figures in mysterious landscapes, strange things, as the Romantic he was.

So, style is just not a formal question. It is what defines an artist among others. The feeling, the energy, the special and unique view he/she develops through his/her art.

As Zettelkasten is such a personnal tool, which lead us to discover meaning and develop our own vision of the world, I think you would gain if you help writers to develop their styles through Zettelkasten in a more sensible way. Someone would have a more lyrical, poetical voice, the other would develop a more mecanical rythm. One would be quite heavy to read (think about Tolkien), when the other would be light and playful (Pratchett). Presenting and teaching Zettelkasten as a playground to exerce their unique voice, that would be awesome, and really valuable for any writer.

The signifier and the signified.

• @Loni said:
Hi @Sascha,

It does.

Those articles carry a lot of insights and useful informations, and I process them now on my side to come back to this thread with some remarks, questions, even if I already express myself about "scenarists who write about how to write novels". They tend to kill the art, uniformising creation and losing of sight the fact that, yes, novels are art by themselves.

My rebutal to that is coming.

You separate style and story. It is a choice. If we keep to the definition of "mastery of the medium", it is OK.
But style is more than that.

I come from a field were we work style in a very conscious way. And this is what I observed : some artists very talented artists would change the medium without changing their style.

Because style is also a way of approaching things. It is born from a special, unique point of view of the world, a personnal one. How the artist see the world, how does he/she choose to share this vision, the little obsessions this artist deploys in his/her corpus of works.

Zola was a naturalist writer. In a theorical world where Zola would be a painter as well, he would focus on poor people, describe the trivial things, the dirty events, the hard conditions of living. Hard faces, big hands, dirty texturing.

Victor Hugo drew. He drew the way he wrote : with emphase, imagination, powerful towering figures in mysterious landscapes, strange things, as the Romantic he was.

So, style is just not a formal question. It is what defines an artist among others. The feeling, the energy, the special and unique view he/she develops through his/her art.

In Germany, there a pretty famous art forger named Wolfgang Fischer. He not only was able to draw in plenty styles. He was not only able to draw in various genres but also able to imitate the unique styles of each artists within each genre.

If I had idols he would be one of them.

You are describing style as something that connects the soul (or in more secular terms: identity) of the artist with his art. I don't hold this premise to be true. I am not even mediocre in my skill of writing. So, I am not able to walk the walk yet. However, to me, style is another tool in the toolbox of an artist that has a time and place.

I will train myself in writing non-fiction up to a mediocre level of style. I would violate Nietzsche's claim that improving once style is improving the thought. But I can live with that somehow.

In my fiction writing, I am more meticioulous and hope to have time to focus on that in the mid-term future. Then I'll pledge myself to the quest of finding the right style to each piece I am writing.

So, I am disagreeing with you, but hopefully not out of ignorance.

(Perhaps, ones style could be defined by its limits rather than it scope)

As Zettelkasten is such a personnal tool, which lead us to discover meaning and develop our own vision of the world, I think you would gain if you help writers to develop their styles through Zettelkasten in a more sensible way. Someone would have a more lyrical, poetical voice, the other would develop a more mecanical rythm. One would be quite heavy to read (think about Tolkien), when the other would be light and playful (Pratchett). Presenting and teaching Zettelkasten as a playground to exerce their unique voice, that would be awesome, and really valuable for any writer.

I have the feeling that I really poked some artist's soul. Whenever I utter my stance on this topic I am met with a strong dead wind.

Of course, there are tools that you can use within the frame work of the ZKM to develop one's style. I just haven't published the (small) amount of what I have collected so far.

The signifier and the signified.

Disturbance is the only kind of information a living system can undertand. And understanding is one of the few processes to sustain life.

I am a Zettler

• @Sascha:
My rebutal to that is coming.

It promises to be interesting However, keep in mind it has nothing to do, for me at least, with an "elitist" view of litterature. I don’t buy the elitist way of a sacralised art either. It just… What works for a film does not work for a novel. Different medium means different stimulations, different way of touching mind, different kind of freedom in expression.

Art has inner trends. I did Art History four years, and study the way trends comes and goes. Now, the trend is American school with a very utilitarist view of writing, directed toward film.

I don't buy that. If I wanted to make films… I would make films.

There are many ways of telling a story. Humans reception of stories is always conditionned by one's culture. Pretending to be universal is lying, or hiding our head into sand. But this kind of authors tend to universalise the phenomenon.

The keyword to understand my views is always "freedom". I tend to get gut reaction to everything that try to frame, to put into case, to enforce something.

But I will re-open my own books the day you'll bring your argumentary. I'll bring more meat into the table.

You are describing style as something that connects the soul (or in more secular terms: identity) of the artist with his art. I don't hold this premise to be true. I am not even mediocre in my skill of writing. So, I am not able to walk the walk yet. However, to me, style is another tool in the toolbox of an artist that has a time and place.

Yes and no. I misused the word, so I think we don't talk about exactly the same thing here.

Take Picasso.

What you would call style is "the blue period style", "the pink period style" for example.
What I would call style is "what are the obsessions, the quests he has over years ? what are the points that allow experts to recognize a Picasso ? How Picasso took the trends of his epoc, how did he manage his position among others ?"

Identity (rather than soul, which recall something sacralised) is closer, so maybe the "style" word does not fit the concept I try to develop here.

I take the responsability for the wrong word. A word should describe the concept with accuracy and here, it does not. And my point of view about the subject evolved with your argumentary so : thank you.

But I still think that "formal style" is something interesting to study (but you put it aside for now, OK no problem, I am curious about what you collected about this), and, in parallel you'll gain value by encouraging one's developping and being conscious of their "artistic approach" ("what are your researchs here ? what are your messages in this piece ? what leads you here, what is your aesthetic approach for this ? Did you find a way to convey it better ?") in many different ways. Like a Kama-Sutra of making fiction.

I have the feeling that I really poked some artist's soul. Whenever I utter my stance on this topic I am met with a strong dead wind.

Ahah that's not even a breeze right now ^^ I've protected my soul with feelings, and I don't like express them. I've put things on the table. I am interested by your opinion about it, to see how you react about it, but there is nothing personnal. But there is a lead for something interesting to study : "how artist's ego express itself through the way they see their art". Mine does budged here. I still have a lot to learn, and I enjoy the process.

(Perhaps, ones style could be defined by its limits rather than it scope)

That is also interesting. Wolfgang Beltracchi does not seem to have one However, more generally, does mastering a medium is enough to call it "art" ? That is an other question we should ask ourselves. I still don't have the answer.

Disturbance is the only kind of information a living system can undertand. And understanding is one of the few processes to sustain life.

• @Loni said:
Art has inner trends. I did Art History four years, and study the way trends comes and goes. Now, the trend is American school with a very utilitarist view of writing, directed toward film.

A friend of mine said something very clever: You need to be able to learn from bad teachers. This is my take on the American-Utilitaritarian School.

I think Hollywood is dying and I am feasting on its corpse, hoping that I got the stomach of a vulture.

There are many ways of telling a story. Humans reception of stories is always conditionned by one's culture. Pretending to be universal is lying, or hiding our head into sand. But this kind of authors tend to universalise the phenomenon.

The question ad hand is: How universal is being a human.

In the world of dog training there is a similar struggle. Dogs are thought to be soooo different. But if you look closely dogs are highly similar. My hyper-athletic, hyper-intelligent, hyper-mistreated (before I got her) still is extremely similar to the lazy, dumb and spoiled show-line labrador. The difference is in the amount of the basics. And even the differences in those dogs in amount is not that big. My dog needs 2-3h of being active per day, the lab still needs 1-2h activity per day. The social interactions between me and my dog, and me and this dog (a neighbor) is the same. I don't have to be any different though in consequence I behave different. Yet, people think that those dogs could be from different planets.

The same pattern is true in the domain of story I think. Older stories show a striking similarity without any external pressure. The basic patterns of story are evidently not cultural but biological. They connect to us humans as a species. Life shapes stories the same way life shapes wolves who look all the same with no breader necessary.

The keyword to understand my views is always "freedom". I tend to get gut reaction to everything that try to frame, to put into case, to enforce something.

With you maxed out openess, it would be suprising if it was different.

You are describing style as something that connects the soul (or in more secular terms: identity) of the artist with his art. I don't hold this premise to be true. I am not even mediocre in my skill of writing. So, I am not able to walk the walk yet. However, to me, style is another tool in the toolbox of an artist that has a time and place.

Yes and no. I misused the word, so I think we don't talk about exactly the same thing here.

My proposal is to not bicker about the word but about what we mean in this context by "style".

Take Picasso.

What you would call style is "the blue period style", "the pink period style" for example.
What I would call style is "what are the obsessions, the quests he has over years ? what are the points that allow experts to recognize a Picasso ? How Picasso took the trends of his epoc, how did he manage his position among others ?"

Picasso is an awesome example because I have a deep gut reaction when it comes to Picasso. To me, he is an artist for artists. He lost sight (or never attended to) the core mission of an artist: Find the connection between beauty and truth.

I am not sure if I understood you correctly. But my reaction to the following might highlight our disagreement more:

Identity (rather than soul, which recall something sacralised) is closer, so maybe the "style" word does not fit the concept I try to develop here.

To me, the identity of the artist is nothing important. It is just another tool and condition which are helpful to the art or are an obstacle. Art is everything, the artist is nothing.

When I think about Picasso, I think more about for what discovery of truth he wouldn't be the right person. I can accept his achievement within the arts. But to me, his achievement is on the same level as Usain Bolts sprints. He achieved something in a very isolated, artificial and specialised field. And the impact is limited because of that. Wasted human potential. Of course, it is nothing against both of them. They sacrifice a lot and there is honor in such pursuit. But imagine, if I trained my whole life to spit cherry stone as far as possible. I might even become insane because of my dedication. But in the end, there is only a spit cherry stone at the end of my life.

The contrast would be the novel Fifty Shades of Grey. It is often disregarded for its banality, the flateness of execution and the bad writing style. But still, it reached and moved millions over millions of women and their souls. It went deep, very deep. (more than 350 million years to be exact)

I take the responsability for the wrong word. A word should describe the concept with accuracy and here, it does not. And my point of view about the subject evolved with your argumentary so : thank you.

It's fine. We are both talking in a foreign language. So, let those native speakers be all uptight about the right words. We have our freedom here.

But I still think that "formal style" is something interesting to study (but you put it aside for now, OK no problem, I am curious about what you collected about this),

An easy example is the assumption that it is better style to stick to more language typical words. In English, "forest" (latin) and "wood" (germanic) are examples. Those words differ in nuance which can be used to invoke different effects. In German, there is great literature since before the Nazis destroyed any pride in the German identity the language was part of the German pride.

and, in parallel you'll gain value by encouraging one's developping and being conscious of their "artistic approach" ("what are your researchs here ? what are your messages in this piece ? what leads you here, what is your aesthetic approach for this ? Did you find a way to convey it better ?") in many different ways. Like a Kama-Sutra of making fiction.

I do dedicate energy towards that aspect. But to me, it is still craft and not art. It is about mastery of language.

I have the feeling that I really poked some artist's soul. Whenever I utter my stance on this topic I am met with a strong dead wind.

Ahah that's not even a breeze right now ^^ I've protected my soul with feelings, and I don't like express them. I've put things on the table. I am interested by your opinion about it, to see how you react about it, but there is nothing personnal. But there is a lead for something interesting to study : "how artist's ego express itself through the way they see their art". Mine does budged here. I still have a lot to learn, and I enjoy the process.

Awesome connection: I believe the best art is the art that comes from someone who gave up on his ego. (or her)

(Perhaps, ones style could be defined by its limits rather than it scope)

That is also interesting. Wolfgang Beltracchi does not seem to have one However, more generally, does mastering a medium is enough to call it "art" ? That is an other question we should ask ourselves. I still don't have the answer.

Beltracchi has every style.

My definition of art is very simple: Art is the art of using beauty to discover or show truth. The Art is the show of The Truth.

Disturbance is the only kind of information a living system can undertand. And understanding is one of the few processes to sustain life.

My pleasure.

I am a Zettler

• edited April 23

@Sascha
My definition of art is very simple: Art is the art of using beauty to discover or show truth. The Art is the show of The Truth.

At core, we agree with each other. This is what I call "a good step" !

However, I am not sure about beauty. Some pieces of art depicted truth using ugliness as well. Some show the worst of what humanity can do, and they are deeply disturbing. I can evocate "Carrion Comfort" from Dan Simmons, or this :

Medusa, Caravaggio, 1597, in Florence.

Esthetic is a language. A tool as well. Like "style", maybe.
But we agree : truth is the ultimate goal.

To me, the identity of the artist is nothing important. It is just another tool and condition which are helpful to the art or are an obstacle. Art is everything, the artist is nothing.

OK, I have nothing to add to this statement, especially with Picasso in the balance as a really bad example.

I evocated him to illustrate what I can call "formal style", but you go further with interesting arguments, like this :

To me, he is an artist for artists. He lost sight (or never attended to) the core mission of an artist: Find the connection between beauty and truth.

And yes… Every studies I have made about him tend to follow your thoughts. He sure did bring something to artists, but hell, he is known by public for the bad reasons. He was really, really egocentric, focused on his recognition, stole ideas from other artists. "It was the genious proverbial excentricity". Hello… No… Every genious are not megalomaniacs.

When I think about Picasso, I think more about for what discovery of truth he wouldn't be the right person. I can accept his achievement within the arts. But to me, his achievement is on the same level as Usain Bolts sprints. He achieved something in a very isolated, artificial and specialised field. And the impact is limited because of that. Wasted human potential. Of course, it is nothing against both of them. They sacrifice a lot and there is honor in such pursuit. But imagine, if I trained my whole life to spit cherry stone as far as possible. I might even become insane because of my dedication. But in the end, there is only a spit cherry stone at the end of my life.

If you try, I would like to see a video ! Absurd and useless is one of face of fun

Wasting life into it is not however, and I see where it leads in your argumentary. Picasso, Usain Bolt were "performers", not artists.

"The artist is nothing".
You seem to understand that I have forget a "not" in my sentence, I do agree with you on this point as well. No ego, just the art, the artist as a vector to bring it to life.

In the end, I write texts, but the reader will always make them "theirs". My characters will become their characters, my symbols will imprint their imagination and they will make them "theirs" as well. I saw reactions to my picture art as well, some I could'nt imagine at first, some interpretations I would never figure out before. This is wonderfull.
It is like giving birth to children who figure out life by themselves and build their own history. As a mother, it is not my story anymore when they grow up adults. It's their story, and the story of people they will meet through their path.

The contrast would be the novel Fifty Shades of Grey. It is often disregarded for its banality, the flateness of execution and the bad writing style. But still, it reached and moved millions over millions of women and their souls. It went deep, very deep. (more than 350 million years to be exact)

I do agree as well (even if Fifty Shades of Grey blurred the public vision of kinks but it is an other matter x) ). What it is important is public feeling, not the almighty qualities of artist, or the highness of technical qualities of the art. The laters should be tools for serving the first. For example, I don't like Satriani. "He is one of the best guitare player", yeah, but his music does not shake my guts and ovaries. "What a nice performance". But the most important part is not here for me.

An easy example is the assumption that it is better style to stick to more language typical words. In English, "forest" (latin) and "wood" (germanic) are examples. Those words differ in nuance which can be used to invoke different effects. In German, there is great literature since before the Nazis destroyed any pride in the German identity the language was part of the German pride.

What a waste, for the language. Irrationnal, nothing to do about this, except of cultural stance as an artist.
I know Grimm brothers, and of course Goete and enjoy reading him, do you have any German writers to recommand ? I essentially read German researchers in Archeological field when I was student.

I don't know if sticking to typical words is the good approach. Words carry meaning, concept sonority, imaginary and ethymology as well, so we can have many criterias to choose words, and a word is always is relation with others. But it was maybe only a piece, an example among a whole idea ? I like the " Those words differ in nuance which can be used to invoke different effects." part.

I don't know if you have an equivalent in German, in French we talk about "lexical fields" which take in account every words linked to a specific topic. It can be "navigation", but also "feelings", or whatever you like or need. I really like this tool, because it creates relationships between words, meanings, and utilisation with consciousness. For example, I may use a word from religious lexical field for a character in grief like "pray" and "supplice" to express that her pain is also metaphysical, her world has lost meaning.

Move in to the next part.

The question ad hand is: How universal is being a human.

Indeed.

In the world of dog training there is a similar struggle. Dogs are thought to be soooo different. But if you look closely dogs are highly similar. My hyper-athletic, hyper-intelligent, hyper-mistreated (before I got her) still is extremely similar to the lazy, dumb and spoiled show-line labrador. The difference is in the amount of the basics. And even the differences in those dogs in amount is not that big. My dog needs 2-3h of being active per day, the lab still needs 1-2h activity per day. The social interactions between me and my dog, and me and this dog (a neighbor) is the same. I don't have to be any different though in consequence I behave different. Yet, people think that those dogs could be from different planets.

While I would love humanity to look more alike dogs for their empathy and loyalty (and see every dogs treated like you seem to treat your girl), I don't think that truth applied to dogs are applied for humans. Humans form tribes with cultural patterns… and difference in symbols utilization. Symbols are not always universal. Crows, snakes, trees, spiders, clouds, sky…

I've found a (french…) study about nature of love and love expression : they differ according to origin and cultural roots. Even something universal like "mother love" differs in intensity, expression, imaginary and symbol from two cultural field. Romantic relationship does not carry the same as well. Philia, Eros, Agapê, Stroge for Greeks differ also according to culture.

What about the "Show don't tell" automatic recommandation ? If emotions like "fear", "anger," "joy", "sadness", "disgust" and "surprise" seem to be universal, their expressions are not. A smiling face from some Asian country does not carry the same meaning than an European one, or Amercain, African, Latino American. "Family" does not totaly carry the same meaning, symbols and representations for my latino family than the typical french family either.

The same pattern is true in the domain of story I think. Older stories show a striking similarity without any external pressure. The basic patterns of story are evidently not cultural but biological. They connect to us humans as a species. Life shapes stories the same way life shapes wolves who look all the same with no breader necessary.

Do you refer to John Campbell ? It comes from Psychanalytic field, where they create their own substance. If inspiration is inspiration, Science is still science. And the Monomyth of Campbell, like some of Bachelard works, don't show a very scientific mind. They take what they want to take, create something and say "that's is the truth !". No, guys, this is an original creation with deep inspiration, but not an scientifical truth. Can I recommand you Mircea Eliade ? He wrote about myth in a broad approach, made comparison between mythes, in a rigourous way.

A friend of mine said something very clever: You need to be able to learn from bad teachers. This is my take on the American-Utilitaritarian School.

I think Hollywood is dying and I am feasting on its corpse, hoping that I got the stomach of a vulture.

That's a cynical way of presenting things ahah ! But OK, as long as you don't let yourself to be framed in their way of seeing things (but you'll answer me you will be OK, won't you ? ;p).

I am really carefull when it comes to ideas and things I let enter into my body, so I would change the representation here. The American Utilitarian School is a machine, and I dismember and dissassemble it to understand why and how it does not work. That would be the only lessons I would like to learn. Bad teachers usually ends up screaming at me in despair while I'm leaving their classroom (and those are always interesting stories to tell, but this is not the subject). I don't have time to waste.

• @Sascha said:
To me, the identity of the artist is nothing important. It is just another tool and condition which are helpful to the art or are an obstacle. Art is everything, the artist is nothing.

Andrei Tarkovsky said, "The artist exists because the world is not perfect."

I conclude that the artist is not nothing.

Erdős #2. ZK software components. “If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking.” -- Leslie Lamport. Replies sometimes delayed since life is short.

• @ZettelDistraction
Andrei Tarkovsky said, "The artist exists because the world is not perfect."

I conclude that the artist is not nothing.

It is an interesting quote indeed.
But the key word is "world" here.

While sfast refers to artist identity expressed through art in the sentence you've quoted, Andrei Tarkoovsky does not say anything about how identity constructed itself.

The author talks about a relationship, and the artist's relation with the world, a subject we still haven't talked about.

World is no perfect. So here come the artists.

Andrei Tarkovsky suggests that the need of being artist comes from the imperfection of the world. As feelings and thinkings towards an imperfect world develop, the artist make art. Is it for fixing it, enhancing it, making things more beautiful ? We don't know. At this point, I don't know if it is true or not, but I want to play with it in my head.

If I take myself as reference… It applies in a strange way.

Artists interact with the world. Always.

Thank you for sharing this quote !

Erdős #2. ZK software components. “If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking.” -- Leslie Lamport. Replies sometimes delayed since life is short.

• @Loni said:

@Sascha
My definition of art is very simple: Art is the art of using beauty to discover or show truth. The Art is the show of The Truth.

At core, we agree with each other. This is what I call "a good step" !

However, I am not sure about beauty. Some pieces of art depicted truth using ugliness as well.

Ah, yes of course. Ugliness is the great resistance, always present to make the artist strong. I need to correct myself:

Art is the art of using beauty in the search of Truth of Life and ugliness as the Truth of Death.

It is like giving birth to children who figure out life by themselves and build their own history. As a mother, it is not my story anymore when they grow up adults. It's their story, and the story of people they will meet through their path.

Though, I like this comparison and agree I think this is a right thing but not the right thing.

The focal point here is the way how you create art. Publication, the audience etc. all that is way, way in the periphery. I directed my comment on "the artist is nothing" towards the act of creating itself.

Refering to Beltracchi: He created perfect art in my opinion because he took fairly easy challenge artswise. There was already a truth uncovered. He just had to find the tools to express the tools. The art was perfect because it was 100% dedicated to the truth (in this case: The nature of various artist's work).

If you don't have the benefit of already knowing the truth it becomes more difficult of course. Here, all the literature on how to write story and what story actually is comes into play to me. I don't have the benefit of Beltracchi just needing to find the historically correct paint and use it to paint a historically correct stroke.

Instead, I need to find the objective nature of love (biological, behavioral, social, etc.), the existential nature of love and the psychogical correct way to present it to write the love scene at hand.

Those levels of the nature of love are in us already and everything is at play anyways. So, it is possible to find part of the truth by intuition (if you are mature personally). But this is not my way. I want to merge every level of the nature of love in this particular story line consciously without commiting the worst sin: Betray. It is the greatest danger of consciousness which you can see demonstrated in the ideal member of the intelligenzija class: The intellect void of any grounding in being truthful to the world.

I don't feel tempted to fall into the trap of the urinal as art. But the devil alway enters the home when you feel the safest.

I was a bit imprecise since I didn't think those toughts frequent enough and I at the limits of my language skills in English. Trying to sumarise:

True art is born when you are truthful in the moment of creation -- not to yourself, since you need to give up on you to be able to let art happen as you. The Sufi might call it Ma'rifa.

Coming back to style: This is why I don't have any interest in the individuality of artist's other than as a means to learn how to create a certain effect if I try to understand what art is. Personally, I am only invested in learning such things about people I like.

The contrast would be the novel Fifty Shades of Grey. It is often disregarded for its banality, the flateness of execution and the bad writing style. But still, it reached and moved millions over millions of women and their souls. It went deep, very deep. (more than 350 million years to be exact)

I do agree as well (even if Fifty Shades of Grey blurred the public vision of kinks but it is an other matter x) ). What it is important is public feeling, not the almighty qualities of artist, or the highness of technical qualities of the art. The laters should be tools for serving the first. For example, I don't like Satriani. "He is one of the best guitare player", yeah, but his music does not shake my guts and ovaries. "What a nice performance". But the most important part is not here for me.

We have a little to much agreement for my temperament here.

An easy example is the assumption that it is better style to stick to more language typical words. In English, "forest" (latin) and "wood" (germanic) are examples. Those words differ in nuance which can be used to invoke different effects. In German, there is great literature since before the Nazis destroyed any pride in the German identity the language was part of the German pride.

What a waste, for the language. Irrationnal, nothing to do about this, except of cultural stance as an artist.

The Germans are very strange people. My soon to be wife (Turkish with kurdish ancestory) and I (decendant of re-imigrants with a quarter east-european and a quarter celtic/scottish) decided to found a new kingdom in Germany named "Das neue Großkurdenreich russlanddeutscher Tradition". German will be the official language. (She isn't aware of my imperialistic plans..) So, perhaps in a couple of generations a new safe haven for the German language is born. I invested to much into the German language. So, this is my rescue plan for my life's work.

I know Grimm brothers, and of course Goete and enjoy reading him, do you have any German writers to recommand ? I essentially read German researchers in Archeological field when I was student.

My favorite German writer is William Quindt. Especially, Der Schwarze Jaguar and Bambino.

There is one book that is famous for its history: Ludwig Rainer, Stilkunst. Ludwig Rainer plagiarised a lot. Since he was member of the NSDAP (as a consequence of his job) and plagiarised a specific jew a lot it came under the critique. The result of my research is that he basically plagiarised from a lot of people and basically created a collage of the best parts of a number of sources. Interestingly, it is better than the original works which he used. This is what Eugen Roth said according to Wikipedia:

The poet Eugen Roth, a friend of Reiners, recommended Reiners' book. He praised Reiners for his "wealth of knowledge," for the "superior wit of his delivery," for his "excellent book." However, he also called him an "after-work and Sunday writer" whose stylistic art was "fed from at least as many of his own sources as from foreign ones."

I don't know if you have an equivalent in German, in French we talk about "lexical fields" which take in account every words linked to a specific topic. It can be "navigation", but also "feelings", or whatever you like or need. I really like this tool, because it creates relationships between words, meanings, and utilisation with consciousness. For example, I may use a word from religious lexical field for a character in grief like "pray" and "supplice" to express that her pain is also metaphysical, her world has lost meaning.

Yes, of course. To me, this is another field in which truth is the governing principle while beauty follows. I especially like your example since I think today we still act religious while denying the religious impuls.

The question at hand is: How universal is being a human.

Indeed.

In the world of dog training there is a similar struggle. Dogs are thought to be soooo different. But if you look closely dogs are highly similar. My hyper-athletic, hyper-intelligent, hyper-mistreated (before I got her) still is extremely similar to the lazy, dumb and spoiled show-line labrador. The difference is in the amount of the basics. And even the differences in those dogs in amount is not that big. My dog needs 2-3h of being active per day, the lab still needs 1-2h activity per day. The social interactions between me and my dog, and me and this dog (a neighbor) is the same. I don't have to be any different though in consequence I behave different. Yet, people think that those dogs could be from different planets.

While I would love humanity to look more alike dogs for their empathy and loyalty (and see every dogs treated like you seem to treat your girl), I don't think that truth applied to dogs are applied for humans. Humans form tribes with cultural patterns… and difference in symbols utilization. Symbols are not always universal. Crows, snakes, trees, spiders, clouds, sky…

I've found a (french…) study about nature of love and love expression : they differ according to origin and cultural roots. Even something universal like "mother love" differs in intensity, expression, imaginary and symbol from two cultural field. Romantic relationship does not carry the same as well. Philia, Eros, Agapê, Stroge for Greeks differ also according to culture.

What about the "Show don't tell" automatic recommandation ? If emotions like "fear", "anger," "joy", "sadness", "disgust" and "surprise" seem to be universal, their expressions are not. A smiling face from some Asian country does not carry the same meaning than an European one, or Amercain, African, Latino American. "Family" does not totaly carry the same meaning, symbols and representations for my latino family than the typical french family either.

I agree 100%. However, you now just give differences which states that there are differences. The question can only be answered in quantities and not qualities.

Are we different or similar? This question can only be answered if we supply it with points of references. There are a lot differences between us genetically.

But if we share 60 percent of our genome with bananas how different are we from any living species really?

I think it is safe to assume that we don't feel just 40% away from bananas. A natural reaction might be to object to the scale of genetic differences being the correct way to assess those differences.

So, giving my claims of similarity a point of reference: To me, we people are so similar that I even feel that I don't remember the last new person who looked so distinct that I haven't had an aready existing category of looks. Meaning: I am only at a point in my understanding that I just enjoy talking about the differences and similarities by pushing back on everything to increase the likelyhood of the other person pushing back against my claims.

The same pattern is true in the domain of story I think. Older stories show a striking similarity without any external pressure. The basic patterns of story are evidently not cultural but biological. They connect to us humans as a species. Life shapes stories the same way life shapes wolves who look all the same with no breader necessary.

Do you refer to John Campbell ? It comes from Psychanalytic field, where they create their own substance. If inspiration is inspiration, Science is still science. And the Monomyth of Campbell, like some of Bachelard works, don't show a very scientific mind. They take what they want to take, create something and say "that's is the truth !". No, guys, this is an original creation with deep inspiration, but not an scientifical truth.

No, not just Joseph Campbell. I like him but I treat him just like you: A heavily inspired, in real stories rooted, speculation on one of the basic patterns of human story. To me, this is plenty to be inspired from. But I am refering to 7 Basic Plots by Christopher Booker which is a way more mature book in my view. It suffers of course from the same lack of scientific approach.

Can I recommand you Mircea Eliade ? He wrote about myth in a broad approach, made comparison between mythes, in a rigourous way.

I am always open to book recommendations. I have one book by him on my reading list. Which are the ones you recommend?

A friend of mine said something very clever: You need to be able to learn from bad teachers. This is my take on the American-Utilitaritarian School.

I think Hollywood is dying and I am feasting on its corpse, hoping that I got the stomach of a vulture.

That's a cynical way of presenting things ahah ! But OK, as long as you don't let yourself to be framed in their way of seeing things (but you'll answer me you will be OK, won't you ? ;p).

I am no more cynical than the vulture observing the poor dying animal in the desert. But don't worry.

1. Artistically speaking, I have the stomach of a vulture.
2. I never aligned myself with the Capitol and very surely never will.

I am really carefull when it comes to ideas and things I let enter into my body, so I would change the representation here. The American Utilitarian School is a machine, and I dismember and dissassemble it to understand why and how it does not work.

A quote by a mixed (very good parts and very boring, too):

And, furthermore, because of Hollywood's bias toward entertainment only, the stories are corrupted rather than advanced, their hidden wisdom is polluted or leached out rather than enhanced or intensified.[33][#bonnet2006]

[#bonnet2006]: James Bonnet (2006): Stealing Fire from the Gods, USA: MIchael Wiese Productions.

I don't do anything much different from you. I just don't see Hollywood as a machine that can be dissassembled but as a sick and dying living being that needs to be digested before it can be part again of nature and Being.

Hollywood hold the world's stories captive for decades and perhaps soon even more than a century. They are doing something right and with all my disgust for the Capitol, I accept the truth.

@ZettelDistraction said:

@Sascha said:
To me, the identity of the artist is nothing important. It is just another tool and condition which are helpful to the art or are an obstacle. Art is everything, the artist is nothing.

Andrei Tarkovsky said, "The artist exists because the world is not perfect."

I conclude that the artist is not nothing.

I prefer one plumber over a thousand artists.

Art is something that anyone can and should do. But the modern world is so twisted that we externalise beauty (and ugliness) by division of labor. Instead of our desks being build by an artisan carpenter we have IKEA furniture and snobs discussing a urinal.

I dare to correct Tarkovsky:

The artist exists because the world is not perfect.

Thank you both for this discussion so far. I rarely have the chance to discuss arts and now I am even blessed with depth and wit.

I am a Zettler

• @ZettelDistraction said:

@Sascha said:
To me, the identity of the artist is nothing important. It is just another tool and condition which are helpful to the art or are an obstacle. Art is everything, the artist is nothing.

Andrei Tarkovsky said, "The artist exists because the world is not perfect."

I conclude that the artist is not nothing.

I prefer one plumber over a thousand artists.

This is too conservative. Make that 10,000 artists, at least. I find scientific illustrators more reasonable than the more didactic woke artists, with whom I have occasionally locked horns. These days I keep my council.

Art is something that anyone can and should do.

This is not my experience. I come from a family of artists, writers and musicians.

But the modern world is so twisted that we externalise beauty (and ugliness) by division of labor. Instead of our desks being build by an artisan carpenter we have IKEA furniture and snobs discussing a urinal.

Hey, Duchamp is my Lawyer!

I dare to correct Tarkovsky:

The artist exists because the world is not perfect.

You mean the world would be less imperfect if there were fewer artists.

The philosopher Bernard Gert wrote that philosophy cannot expand the scope of human compassion. Only art, literature and religion could do this.

Before launching into generalizations about IKEA versus the urinal,
it might help to distinguish commercial from fine art.

The distinction that I find most convincing is due to an expert draftsman who worked for Disney. He said that fine art generally raises a question. The question concerns circle of ideas, and may be about anything within that circle, and nothing outside of it. There may be several focal points in a work of fine art.

Commercial art issues a command. It says, "look over here!" "Feel this!" A work of commercial art has exactly one focal point.

-F

Erdős #2. ZK software components. “If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking.” -- Leslie Lamport. Replies sometimes delayed since life is short.

• sfast said:
Thank you both for this discussion so far. I rarely have the chance to discuss arts and now I am even blessed with depth and wit.

I would like to thank you two too (it sounds like a 80's song), @Sascha and @ZettelDistraction . Finding friendly artists to discuss art and art matters as concepts are real struggle in my everyday life. Without even talking about my sometimes challenge-loving tastes about discussion, or my bad sens of humour, which lead me to to handle infatued ego and/or misunderstandings.

So, giving my claims of similarity a point of reference: To me, we people are so similar that I even feel that I don't remember the last new person who looked so distinct that I haven't had an aready existing category of looks. Meaning: I am only at a point in my understanding that I just enjoy talking about the differences and similarities by pushing back on everything to increase the likelyhood of the other person pushing back against my claims.

Do you mean that you search for contradiction ? Did I understand right ? (confused)

I just would like to warn you about similiraty. While in a humanist perspective, I see why focusing on similiarities brings some good into the world, I don't think it's a good thing to rely too much on generalization.

• First, you lack nuances. Nuances in the point of view brings to subtility. If you wanted to stay rough, you would'nt even talk about philosophy or litterature. Our possibilities for building an accurate representation of the world depends on the way we see the world. And world is made of nuances. Writting is also about bringing back something relatively familiar to the reader with a fresh point of view.
• You will miss what makes people unique representant of their own archetype and people's story.

I use to work for year as a seller. I hate that. Deeply. But there is a thing I learnt : everyone has a story. So cliché, isn't ? But true. (This is my high score in openess, I knoooow ) This guy was the perfect representation of the "metal music lover" archetype. But he was eating strange things for his archetype. Digging deeper, he said to me that his mother was a yoga-nutritionist-guru kind of person which leads him to eat healthy "but never "bio", I'm still a rebel at core". That was amusing.

So…developping your eyes for small differences will allow you to see "fifty shades of archetype" and make better books. (insert "applauses" here)

Talking about books, thank you for reading recommandation ! I will take a look, I am much more familiar with latin and american cultures.

The Germans are very strange people. My soon to be wife (Turkish with kurdish ancestory) and I (decendant of re-imigrants with a quarter east-european and a quarter celtic/scottish) decided to found a new kingdom in Germany named "Das neue Großkurdenreich russlanddeutscher Tradition". German will be the official language. (She isn't aware of my imperialistic plans..) So, perhaps in a couple of generations a new safe haven for the German language is born. I invested to much into the German language. So, this is my rescue plan for my life's work.

You should talk about this to her (and congratulations by the way !) She is about to become the central partition of your whole (strange and convoluted) plan and both of you will have a loooot of work to put your descendants into earth ahah It would be quicker, while absolutely compatible with your initial plan, to contact some germanophonic associations in others countries with fellows writers, organise some cultural events for years about your tongue and authors, to promote it in foreign countries and in German, and show to Germans how your tongue shines through art. Just saying

From Mircea Eliade, I would recommand this ones :

• Patterns in comparative religion - Rich one !
• The Sacred and the Profane : The Nature of Religion
• Symbolism, the Sacred, and the Arts - I still have to read it, seems appealing !

True art is born when you are truthful in the moment of creation -- not to yourself, since you need to give up on you to be able to let art happen as you. The Sufi might call it Ma'rifa.

It seems that you have a sacralised vision of art and aim at a more spiritiual view in general. I am not sure here.

I change the angle. If artist is a kind of prayer, so making their art should be enough to live, like a monk, be detached from material world. But to unravel truth depends on an expertise, years and years of practice, a lot of personal experiences to enrich their art, and a lot of work, material things to make art true… Those are materials matters.

It becomes more and more difficult to make a living of my art, year after year. "Art should'nt be paid" and the "free access to my art" mindset… I don't live only of light and fresh air. But I do invest a lot of time and money to upgrade my skills.

@ZettelDistraction said:
Hey, Duchamp is my Lawyer!

Before launching into generalizations about IKEA versus the urinal,

it might help to distinguish commercial from fine art.

Yes.

The distinction that I find most convincing is due to an expert draftsman who worked for Disney. He said that fine art generally raises a question. The question concerns circle of ideas, and may be about anything within that circle, and nothing outside of it. There may be several focal points in a work of fine art.

I am not sure to understand fully the concept of "circle of ideas" here. I appreciate the questions and focal point, I find it pertinent while commercial art is easy to read, or questionning nothing about art made for an elitist public, only show itself in a mirror game, and good art is understandable but not so obvious to catch when it is time to interpretation.

There is one dimension that must'nt be forgotten while talking about art : it is social as well. Pierre Bourdieu wrote :

"La principale fonction de l'art est d'ordre social... La pratique culturelle sert à différencier les classes et les fractions de classe, à justifier la domination des unes par les autres."
"The main function of art is social... Cultural practice serves to differentiate classes and fractions of class, to justify the domination of one by the other."

What you like tells where you come from, the social group you belong to. Art and taste, from a Bourdieu's perspective lead to a "big no" for the social classes' tastes under yours, and a "wannabee" attitud or disdain for higher classes.

• @Sascha said:
I prefer one plumber over a thousand artists.

>

This is too conservative. Make that 10,000 artists, at least. I find scientific illustrators more reasonable than the more didactic woke artists, with whom I have occasionally locked horns. These days I keep my council.

>

Art is something that anyone can and should do.

>

This is not my experience. I come from a family of artists, writers and musicians.

I never wittnessed anyone who couldn't or shouldn't do some arts. With that I mean making something beautiful in the pursuit of truth.

Who shouldn't do that? (Or can't)

The philosopher Bernard Gert wrote that philosophy cannot expand the scope of human compassion. Only art, literature and religion could do this.

While I am agreeing I am objecting to the artificial distinction between philosophy, art, literature and religion. There was a time when all those layers were still merged, when beauty, truth and Goodness were still thought to be aspects of one bigger picture.

When I am criticising art, I actually aim at the decadence accompanying it. The same goes for big tech, big pharma, big government. Inspired by the Standford Prison Experiment I came up with the concept of the Zimbardo Bubble to have a name for a dynamic that corrupts groups of people or individuals by cutting them off from live-sustaining feedback.

So:

Before launching into generalizations about IKEA versus the urinal,
it might help to distinguish commercial from fine art.

>

The distinction that I find most convincing is due to an expert draftsman who worked for Disney. He said that fine art generally raises a question. The question concerns circle of ideas, and may be about anything within that circle, and nothing outside of it. There may be several focal points in a work of fine art.

>

Commercial art issues a command. It says, "look over here!" "Feel this!" A work of commercial art has exactly one focal point.

I think the distinction between commercial art and fine art is obsolete from my perspective. Commercial art commits lies since lies are inevitable if you reduce your scope too much. (Ideology)

@Loni said:

>

So, giving my claims of similarity a point of reference: To me, we people are so similar that I even feel that I don't remember the last new person who looked so distinct that I haven't had an aready existing category of looks. Meaning: I am only at a point in my understanding that I just enjoy talking about the differences and similarities by pushing back on everything to increase the likelyhood of the other person pushing back against my claims.

>

Do you mean that you search for contradiction ? Did I understand right ? (confused)

Ah, no. I just have the habit to be a contradictor since it is more within the scope of my temperament. Translation of my gibberish: I have not consolidated opinion on the matter of similarity and difference.

I just would like to warn you about similiraty. While in a humanist perspective, I see why focusing on similiarities brings some good into the world, I don't think it's a good thing to rely too much on generalization.

>

• First, you lack nuances. Nuances in the point of view brings to subtility. If you wanted to stay rough, you would'nt even talk about philosophy or litterature. Our possibilities for building an accurate representation of the world depends on the way we see the world. And world is made of nuances. Writting is also about bringing back something relatively familiar to the reader with a fresh point of view.
• You will miss what makes people unique representant of their own archetype and people's story.

>

I use to work for year as a seller. I hate that. Deeply. But there is a thing I learnt : everyone has a story. So cliché, isn't ? But true. (This is my high score in openess, I knoooow ) This guy was the perfect representation of the "metal music lover" archetype. But he was eating strange things for his archetype. Digging deeper, he said to me that his mother was a yoga-nutritionist-guru kind of person which leads him to eat healthy "but never "bio", I'm still a rebel at core". That was amusing.

>

So…developping your eyes for small differences will allow you to see "fifty shades of archetype" and make better books. (insert "applauses" here)

I agree. But I have the suspicion that you think I am only looking for similarity.

From Mircea Eliade, I would recommand this ones :

• Patterns in comparative religion - Rich one !
• The Sacred and the Profane : The Nature of Religion
• Symbolism, the Sacred, and the Arts - I still have to read it, seems appealing !

Thanks!

True art is born when you are truthful in the moment of creation -- not to yourself, since you need to give up on you to be able to let art happen as you. The Sufi might call it Ma'rifa.

>

It seems that you have a sacralised vision of art and aim at a more spiritiual view in general. I am not sure here.

I'd even make it stronger: I aim to erase all difference between religion, art and science. Similar to MMA, there is great benefit in isolating but integrating make for a complete fighter.

Secular art is a sin to me. Non-beautiful religion is dead. Pure science is repulsive. Ugliness makes me suspicious of a study. Ma'rifa is the highest ideal.

I change the angle. If artist is a kind of prayer, so making their art should be enough to live, like a monk, be detached from material world. But to unravel truth depends on an expertise, years and years of practice, a lot of personal experiences to enrich their art, and a lot of work, material things to make art true… Those are materials matters.

I agree. I don't see any contradiction to what I wrote?

I am a Zettler

• @Sascha said:
I agree. But I have the suspicion that you think I am only looking for similarity.

Because of the syncretism background you let appear here, in the frame of the whole conversation. You seem to demonstrate a "convergent" mind, try to tie together things that don't need to. Doing comparison and links OK, but tiying is an other problem.

This is how I interpreted the whole painting, I may be wrong but…

I'd even make it stronger: I aim to erase all difference between religion, art and science. Similar to MMA, there is great benefit in isolating but integrating make for a complete fighter.

OK. Do you talk only into the context of your writings ? What form does it take ?
If you talk about society… Just don't. Never. It would be my turn to put gibberishing in the table ahah, because I lack words to develop my whole thinking. So I'll take the "bullet example" route, sorry, I am not an "Elden Ring" leveled player in English yet. And, without surprise, I am triggered but the "religion" choice over "spirituality".

• Religion never comes alone. Institution is always near. Guys who will tell you how to live, how to die, how to eat, how to fuck, how to art, how to think, what is the truth.
• When religious and art can't be dissociated : we kill artist to death because of sacrilege.
• When science is controled by religion, scientifics are, at best, censored… Or killed. Nice move.
• Opposing or tiying science to religion leads to a part of North Amercan people believing that Darwin is untrue. People teach children religious stories as facts and dismissed the Evolutionnary schema. That… urk. Truth.

Secular art is a sin to me. Non-beautiful religion is dead. Pure science is repulsive. Ugliness makes me suspicious of a study. Ma'rifa is the highest ideal.

I suspect you find science repulsive because it unravels mysteries from nature. From my point of view, science is magical, music is a mathematical, really pure art form and litterature plays tricks to our brain. Everything in our univers can become an mathematical abstraction. Capacity of abstraction is an awesome skill to have to make art. And making science is like finding small keys to understand the univers and participate to the whole humanity set of knowledges.

I agree. I don't see any contradiction to what I wrote?

If making art is a sacralised process… Why paying it ? Would'nt be a sacrilege ?

I think the distinction between commercial art and fine art is obsolete from my perspective. Commercial art commits lies since lies are inevitable if you reduce your scope too much. (Ideology)

So, tell me… When did this distinction die ?

This is a religious painting made by Fra Angelico in 1442 in the covent of San Marco. Cosme Medecis was the one to command them. Commercial.

• @Loni said:

@Sascha said:
I agree. But I have the suspicion that you think I am only looking for similarity.

Because of the syncretism background you let appear here, in the frame of the whole conversation. You seem to demonstrate a "convergent" mind, try to tie together things that don't need to. Doing comparison and links OK, but tiying is an other problem.

This is how I interpreted the whole painting, I may be wrong but…

At least, my mind deviates from the norm since I regularly get the feedback that my thinking feels odd.

I'd even make it stronger: I aim to erase all difference between religion, art and science. Similar to MMA, there is great benefit in isolating but integrating make for a complete fighter.

OK. Do you talk only into the context of your writings ? What form does it take ?
If you talk about society… Just don't. Never. It would be my turn to put gibberishing in the table ahah, because I lack words to develop my whole thinking. So I'll take the "bullet example" route, sorry, I am not an "Elden Ring" leveled player in English yet. And, without surprise, I am triggered but the "religion" choice over "spirituality".

Ah, now we are getting deep.

• Religion never comes alone. Institution is always near. Guys who will tell you how to live, how to die, how to eat, how to fuck, how to art, how to think, what is the truth.

I don't think this is an issue of religion but an issue about people grouping themselves in collectives. The same dynamics happens with vegans, communists/socialists (both in power and as a fringe group), social movements, politics, peer groups etc.

Religion is just a prominent example. But as a species with higher culture we only witnessed a limited prominent cases.

Since this phenomonen is not exclusive to religion it might be more a part of human social psychology (for now).

• When religious and art can't be dissociated : we kill artist to death because of sacrilege.

I think we are past killing anyone -- I thought. But free thought and speech is again under attack. Not by religion but by a new kind of what I call the Capitol.

But your example is historical and history placed orthodox ritual over beauty. That is something different than connecting god and beauty.

• When science is controled by religion, scientifics are, at best, censored… Or killed. Nice move.

Yes. But connecting those dots does not mean that one dot controls the other.

• Opposing or tiying science to religion leads to a part of North Amercan people believing that Darwin is untrue. People teach children religious stories as facts and dismissed the Evolutionnary schema. That… urk. Truth.

The underlying pattern is that you place religion in a position of having tyrannical (or beaurocratic) power over other aspects. I don't think that any aspect should supervene the other.

You also think of these aspects on the socialogical level. I am a pure individualist in interest. So, everything I wrote is about how you personally act in the world.

Secular art is a sin to me. Non-beautiful religion is dead. Pure science is repulsive. Ugliness makes me suspicious of a study. Ma'rifa is the highest ideal.

I suspect you find science repulsive because it unravels mysteries from nature.

Not in the least.

It leads to the contemporary literary studies who even can't distinguish Mein Kampf from feminism. It leads to mountains of useless philosophical papers of people who think moral judgements can be made without skin in the game. It leads scientism which could count as another form, a perverted form, of religion (cult). It leads to reducing people to numbers and thinking this doesn't reduce truth. (Which is why economy is really bad at understanding economy)

Ultimately, pure science is not capable of seeing truth, like pure religion is not capable of seeing god, or pure art is seeing beauty.

I agree. I don't see any contradiction to what I wrote?

If making art is a sacralised process… Why paying it ? Would'nt be a sacrilege ?

Because I shouldn't force anyone to support my art.

I think the distinction between commercial art and fine art is obsolete from my perspective. Commercial art commits lies since lies are inevitable if you reduce your scope too much. (Ideology)

So, tell me… When did this distinction die?

I don't understand the question.

This is a religious painting made by Fra Angelico in 1442 in the covent of San Marco. Cosme Medecis was the one to command them. Commercial.

I am a Zettler

• OK I read your answer and one question don't stop running in my head : do you talk for yourself or art in general ? You often pointed that I talk from a societal point of view, but if we talk about personal case, I would like to add a nuance here :

• personal believing in a religion =/= religion as whole
• Individual =/= community

Religion is a community, a collective phenomenon, with believing system and dogmas.

While I understand why a feeling of holy, sacred, mystic or the Romantic's Sublime, I don't understand why implying an external group into art ? I don't believe in Jesus and all, but I understand the feelings of Michelangelo's pieta, the holy vision of the artist, the grief of the mother.

I think we are past killing anyone -- I thought. But free thought and speech is again under attack. Not by religion but by a new kind of what I call the Capitol.

I am so sorry… But Charlie Hebdo and Samuel Paty's murder in 2020 tends to show that communautarism still pushes people to kill someone else for pictures.
Can you explicite what are you thoughts about Capitole censoring free speech ? I've heards so much variant about "we can't say a thing now" and the problem is complexe. From stopping inviting rascist showmen to engage "sensivity readers" in edition industry, that would not wake up the same reaction to me.

The underlying pattern is that you place religion in a position of having tyrannical (or beaurocratic) power over other aspects. I don't think that any aspect should supervene the other.

The thing is… it is. When religion gets power into secular matters from a sociologic perspective, they become bureaucratic and develops organs of power. But they draw their own power by themselves : they are the one to theorise, to write their own exegesis, to give structure and goal into expression of power, and free to interprete it at their advantage. That's the same for every monopole, but religions add the "for God" salt in their righteous decisions which spices things up.

It leads to the contemporary literary studies who even can't distinguish Mein Kampf from feminism. It leads to mountains of useless philosophical papers of people who think moral judgements can be made without skin in the game. It leads scientism which could count as another form, a perverted form, of religion (cult). It leads to reducing people to numbers and thinking this doesn't reduce truth. (Which is why economy is really bad at understanding economy)

…Ok. That is a messy way of presenting things, but I understand what you mean.

In sciences, we can observe multiple organs :

• The science itself, the knowledge. It is universal and discoverable by anyone at the same level. For example, Pythagore's theroem would be discoverable by every humans in the world with the same knowledges and tools as bases.
• The researchers : humans like others, most of the time they did big school time to do their researches and respect protocol and procedure to keep their researches universal, discoverable, verifiable and measurable. Research system has it's own problem, but the fact is one researcher is never alone, peers are always there to watch their results. In human sciences… I jumped out of the train for a good reason and you pointed it.
• The one who exploits researches. University, enterprises, states, they are the one to consider people as number, indeed.
• The papers which publicized results and researchs. You pointed some of the problem here.
• Institutions and people in broad view "for" "against", the "pro something", the "anti something". They are problems in their own way.

In fact, the problem is the same than religion or other things : ideology. When organ powers are in the same hands than those who shape rules, problem arised. When people blindly follow principles without understanding anything, when they drop down their brains. When power and profit come to the higher level of command of a whole chain.

So, tell me… When did this distinction die?

I don't understand the question.

OK, I reacted to this :

@Sascha said :
I think the distinction between commercial art and fine art is obsolete from my perspective. Commercial art commits lies since lies are inevitable if you reduce your scope too much. (Ideology)

When the distinction between commercial art and fine art became obsolote ? Because from some point of view, it can be called always commercial as well. In fact, before contemporany era, artists were mostly artisan/craftmen and they took command like others craftman. So I am curious, about the delimitation, the definition of commercial art ? We all have an vague idea of what commercial is, but I wonder if you or @ZettelDistraction have an idea more precise maybe ?

• @Loni This is a precise as I can make it for now. I don't think it can be made any more precise than this, but if I can locate the original statement then I will quote it.

Commercial art issues a command. It says, "look over here!" or "Feel this!" (where "this" is probably an urge to buy something that you could live without). A work of commercial art will have a single focal point and an eye path toward the focal point.

A work of fine art raises a question. The question may concern some collection of ideas, and could be about anything inside that collection, but nothing outside of it. A work of fine art may have several focal points.

This is vague and no doubt a good philosopher of aesthetics probably could tear it a supernumerary alimentary terminus or two. Still I find it satisfying in a way.

Erdős #2. ZK software components. “If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking.” -- Leslie Lamport. Replies sometimes delayed since life is short.

• @Loni said:
OK I read your answer and one question don't stop running in my head : do you talk for yourself or art in general ? You often pointed that I talk from a societal point of view, but if we talk about personal case, I would like to add a nuance here :

• personal believing in a religion =/= religion as whole
• Individual =/= community

Religion is a community, a collective phenomenon, with believing system and dogmas.

I am not sure how to describe what I think Religion actually is. It is too big of a word, since Islam, Buddhism and Schamanism are counted as religion but are so wildly different in their structure and their relationship to other organising principles and even their inner structure.

The foundation of my concept of religion is my assumption of the self-similar, fractal nature of everything. So, technically what we call religion on the social level is in my books the same pattern on the individual level. Give me a couple of more decades and I can word that out.

Any sane Christian (beware of the true Scottsman!) will tell you that the Vatikan (another incarnation of the Capitol) has a great distance from "true" Christianity. I belief that some sections of the Mennonites are closer to what the inner dynamic of Christianity entails as I distinguish between the buddhist variations as more correct as others.

I am saying:

• Religion is not the community of believers.
• Religion is not what is explicitely written in the holy text.

Religion is something separate from the actual community. Not something that is governed by social psychology.

I place it between the collective unconscious and the individual.

While I understand why a feeling of holy, sacred, mystic or the Romantic's Sublime, I don't understand why implying an external group into art ?

In the light of my above mentioned concept of religion this doesn't make sense to me, though I understand what you mean. But my respond is: There is not external group and nothing comes into art. Art concerns itself with beauty and ugliness (I don't accept urinals as art) but the goal is the same like religion: Truth.

So, if you remove religion from the life of an artist (who should exist as a specialist only in very rare cases anyhow) you remove one eye and lose the abilty to see truth in 3D. (There are more Ds to see the truth with)

Luckily, religion doesn't need to be explicit.

I don't believe in Jesus and all, but I understand the feelings of Michelangelo's pieta, the holy vision of the artist, the grief of the mother.

You don't have to believe in Jesus to feel the religious impuls.

I think we are past killing anyone -- I thought. But free thought and speech is again under attack. Not by religion but by a new kind of what I call the Capitol.

I am so sorry… But Charlie Hebdo and Samuel Paty's murder in 2020 tends to show that communautarism still pushes people to kill someone else for pictures.

We are past killing anyone. Not anybody in the world.

Can you explicite what are you thoughts about Capitole censoring free speech ? I've heards so much variant about "we can't say a thing now" and the problem is complexe. From stopping inviting rascist showmen to engage "sensivity readers" in edition industry, that would not wake up the same reaction to me.

• Mainstream media overtly censoring and manipulating what is presented and how it is presented.
• Newspeak: Our minister of health in Germany said: "Vax mandates result in voluntary vaxing." (Just one example of newspeak)
• Americas new "Ministry of Truth" ()
• Social Media deploying heavy cultural and political bias
• Calling racism antiracism (newspeak). (California even tried to repeal its civil rights act)

It is not a political phenomenon. It is what Nietzsche predicted when god dies. With no foundation for the moral order everything plunches into chaos and the power games begin (with all the wars and violence accompanied).

The underlying pattern is that you place religion in a position of having tyrannical (or beaurocratic) power over other aspects. I don't think that any aspect should supervene the other.

The thing is… it is. When religion gets power into secular matters from a sociologic perspective, they become bureaucratic and develops organs of power.

How is it different from any other form of power group?

But they draw their own power by themselves : they are the one to theorise, to write their own exegesis, to give structure and goal into expression of power, and free to interprete it at their advantage. That's the same for every monopole, but religions add the "for God" salt in their righteous decisions which spices things up.

I don't think religion is particular extreme or special in the hazard inflicted. The genocide of ruanda, the Holocaust, the tens of millions died in communist regimes, the genocide against the Armenians, the military industrial complex and its wars, the Rape of Nanjing,...

I don't care what glossing evil puts up.

The open question is about the alternative. Would Europe have a less violent history if we'd believe in Odin and Wodan instead of Christ?

It leads to the contemporary literary studies who even can't distinguish Mein Kampf from feminism. It leads to mountains of useless philosophical papers of people who think moral judgements can be made without skin in the game. It leads scientism which could count as another form, a perverted form, of religion (cult). It leads to reducing people to numbers and thinking this doesn't reduce truth. (Which is why economy is really bad at understanding economy)

…Ok. That is a messy way of presenting things, but I understand what you mean.

In sciences, we can observe multiple organs :

• The science itself, the knowledge. It is universal and discoverable by anyone at the same level. For example, Pythagore's theroem would be discoverable by every humans in the world with the same knowledges and tools as bases.
• The researchers : humans like others, most of the time they did big school time to do their researches and respect protocol and procedure to keep their researches universal, discoverable, verifiable and measurable. Research system has it's own problem, but the fact is one researcher is never alone, peers are always there to watch their results. In human sciences… I jumped out of the train for a good reason and you pointed it.
• The one who exploits researches. University, enterprises, states, they are the one to consider people as number, indeed.
• The papers which publicized results and researchs. You pointed some of the problem here.
• Institutions and people in broad view "for" "against", the "pro something", the "anti something". They are problems in their own way.

In fact, the problem is the same than religion or other things : ideology. When organ powers are in the same hands than those who shape rules, problem arised. When people blindly follow principles without understanding anything, when they drop down their brains. When power and profit come to the higher level of command of a whole chain.

That ideology is the culprit is a given. But what creates ideology? I argue that it is generated by creating echo chambers. A good friend told me that 4 of 5 of the embassadors of buddhism and meditation in America were molesters. Look at the truth behind the curtain of the celebrities. Or any other phenomenon that entails closing up and losing grounding in all the necessary aspects of life.

The formula is quite simple: Remove a dimension of truth and you'll start a downward spiral into evil.

So, tell me… When did this distinction die?

I don't understand the question.

OK, I reacted to this :

@Sascha said :
I think the distinction between commercial art and fine art is obsolete from my perspective. Commercial art commits lies since lies are inevitable if you reduce your scope too much. (Ideology)

When the distinction between commercial art and fine art became obsolote ? Because from some point of view, it can be called always commercial as well. In fact, before contemporany era, artists were mostly artisan/craftmen and they took command like others craftman. So I am curious, about the delimitation, the definition of commercial art ? We all have an vague idea of what commercial is, but I wonder if you or @ZettelDistraction have an idea more precise maybe ?

Ah. It is obsolete if you use my definition of art. I don't care if art is commercial or not if it aims at truth.

I am a Zettler

• @Sascha said:
The foundation of my concept of religion is my assumption of the self-similar, fractal nature of everything.

Oh, this idea seems similar to an other one. From some Renaissance and maybe Antic thinkers, a part of the whole is a picture of the whole itself. For example, we can learn how to paint mountain thanks to a small stone : the small stone is a part of the whole mountain, so it is similar. The whole, the piece, everything contains the same essence than the whole which contains it. So everything contains the univers, and men contains god part as well. Those sentences are ugly and I am sorry but I feel the "fractal" part of this.

I understand now where you syncretism come from. Intereting. I've never seen this system in action. How do you articulate it in your writings ?

I have similiarities in my own system. Univers is a monolotic phenomenon always changing, composing itself from the same primordial elements. And humanity struggles. Eros and Thanatos, to assemble, to separate, to exchange informations like every living things, but we all suffer the same inner pain, because we are incomplete by nature. "What would happen if a soul were broken into pieces ?". We are this broken pieces of a big and primal broken soul.

Sounds dumb when written like that. I prefer writting books to tell this story ^^

I am saying:
Religion is not the community of believers.
Religion is not what is explicitely written in the holy text.

Which leave us with the believes of faithful people, lithurgic, rituals, prayers, faith itself and the divine part inside anyone. It is a beautiful way of seeing things.

I wish I could see things like that too. I can't forget what religion as institution has made through years, what they helped to support. But as you pinpoint in your previous answer, religions as institutions are not the only one to have supported horror, monstruosity and pushed humanity on the darkest side.

The open question is about the alternative. Would Europe have a less violent history if we'd believe in Odin and Wodan instead of Christ?

Of course not. Always men, ideology, and all that stuffs again. We found a viking tomb of a woman. She had her skull mutilated because she cheated on her husband. Incas mutilated themselves and killed youngs and children to repay a debt to the gods. Now, some industries condamn children to death to use water for profit. The scale has changed. God, with ou without, don't. It is just a moral control of an other sort.

That's why I think artists should stay away from ideology, and from every Capitole of the world. That's why I reacted to the word "religion".

As artist, I think we should look at the world and show it. As it is. Or as we think it should be. Or should'nt be. And process like that with human nature as well. That's maybe the questions evocated by ZettelDistraction. An art without vision is not art, that would be my definition of "commercial art", something blind, without a vision, without opinion, bland and void about those subjects, no risks, no engagement, no feelings, no passion.

That's what I call "the personal quest". What gives you the urge to scream ? What gives you tears of joy, what would give you the impulse to destroy the world if you had the power to ? What moves you, what makes your soul shakes in pain or shiver with pleasure ? What brings you on the verge of transcendance ? What is your vision ? Where are your guts ?

That's where your truth lyes. Where you have to dig.

The formula is quite simple: Remove a dimension of truth and you'll start a downward spiral into evil.

I am sorry if I missed something but what are the dimension of truth from your point of view  ?

It is not a political phenomenon. It is what Nietzsche predicted when god dies. With no foundation for the moral order everything plunches into chaos and the power games begin (with all the wars and violence accompanied).

I don't know if religion carried the moral, there were fight of power as well. But I share your concern about this phenomenons as well.

• @Loni said:

@Sascha said:
The foundation of my concept of religion is my assumption of the self-similar, fractal nature of everything.

Oh, this idea seems similar to an other one. From some Renaissance and maybe Antic thinkers, a part of the whole is a picture of the whole itself. For example, we can learn how to paint mountain thanks to a small stone : the small stone is a part of the whole mountain, so it is similar. The whole, the piece, everything contains the same essence than the whole which contains it. So everything contains the univers, and men contains god part as well. Those sentences are ugly and I am sorry but I feel the "fractal" part of this.

Yeah, I heard it before quite a lot. My personal shtick is to say that this self-similar property is baked into the fabric of existence.

But I might add that the self-similarity is bound to living things (however, I made an argument for treating binary stars as living systems which my professor back then couldn't refute but squashed it with authority..)

I understand now where you syncretism come from. Intereting. I've never seen this system in action. How do you articulate it in your writings ?

You might give Shawn Coyne (2015): The Story Grid a chance. He makes this point structurally. Any scene, sequence, act, main story needs to have each of the five base elements according to him: Causal event, complication, crisis, climax, resolution.

I am developing a meta-theory of plot based on quite a number of books (Truby, Anatomy of Story is another fitting read) to create a tool that give me a rough outline.

I have collage type book that I use as a testing field. (It is about a guy who adopts a child soldier and, perhaps, a child from a sweat shop who goes into a big shopping mall to buy the meaning of life -> I am not always that formal..) So, I write some scenes just freely, some by adhering to various schema etc.

I think the issue is symmetry in that case for me. Organic does not mean symmetrical. This is the dificulty I have. So, I am experimenting with a lot of "what if"s. Leaving the resolution out, writing kind of an endless climax etc.

I think where I am mostly applying it is by harmonising all the different layers of story. I try to create a meaningful color pallette, try to connect the way character move with their moral foundation, try to match the environmantal changes with the character development, etc.

Perhaps, the base of my theory of story is that there is nothing should be in it by chance.

I have similiarities in my own system. Univers is a monolotic phenomenon always changing, composing itself from the same primordial elements. And humanity struggles. Eros and Thanatos, to assemble, to separate, to exchange informations like every living things, but we all suffer the same inner pain, because we are incomplete by nature. "What would happen if a soul were broken into pieces ?". We are this broken pieces of a big and primal broken soul.

I like this thought since I believe everything of it. But I don't believe the soul is broke but whole.

Sounds dumb when written like that. I prefer writting books to tell this story ^^

For a self-proclaimed non-believer you sound a whole lot religious. It is fine. We all are if we want it or not. Better embrace it than to ignore it. (Similar to living: Better embrace it and take care of your metablism, mitochondria etc. instead of treating yourself as ghost haunting a meatbag in a skinsack)

I am saying:
Religion is not the community of believers.
Religion is not what is explicitely written in the holy text.

Which leave us with the believes of faithful people, lithurgic, rituals, prayers, faith itself and the divine part inside anyone. It is a beautiful way of seeing things.

I might push back a little. There is some beauty in the religious institutions. But I never saw any balance. It is either rigid and undead or losing the actual gospel. This might be the best example of being both too rigid and losing the gospel might be this legendary rap: Jesus Christ is my nga I think this is fake and sadly if it wasn't fake it isn't the most cringe idiocy I wittnessed.

But nevertheless those pompous dresses and we still see in some faiths are cringe, too.

To me, there is just one beautiful thing and it is the divine: The divine in any of us, the attempt to enhance the religous experience by architecture and imagery (sadly blurred by overt demonstrations of power or supremacy).

Perhaps, prayers are a very good example of demonstrating what I mean. I heard quite some prayers in church (I went to a christian school and therefore once a month to church) and heard a lot more on YouTube by various faiths. To me, most of them were repulsive an intrusion into my mind. They felt like manipulation by people who lacked the skill and charisma to persuade other people but were given poweful tools that are honed by generations. They weren't, aren't and never will be true prayers but pride, arrogance, unjustified supremacy by people who wouldn't recognise god if he'd knocked on their heads. A lot of them were packaged in a very beautiful music, chant or what not which make them even more repulsive to me.

But when I ate with my grandparents my grandfather prayed for us. He had a very hard life and became a very hard person. He could barely read since he didn't have time and money for school, was very feared ("even the Chechens feared him in a knife fight") and was insanely hard to his family (many stories were so insane that you might even find them unfitting for a fictional story). He was tempered by my grandmother who is one of the two strongest people I know (the other is her aunt and my babuschka who might be the most kind person ever lived). When he stood up to pray he tried to sound ceremonial but it couldn't cloak that he truly channeled everything he had into this prayer. It was honest and plain. It was truly him who tried his best to open a channel to god to bless us all.

Haha, I went a bit off track but I hope you get my point. I am blessed by experiencing the institutionalised undead part of religion and the alive and truly divine part of it.

So, how to we find our way back to the actual topic: Art? Religion could be seen as the attempt to move towards the divine. The same is true for art. So, I don't accept war cries as prayers and I don't accept urinals as art.

I wish I could see things like that too. I can't forget what religion as institution has made through years, what they helped to support. But as you pinpoint in your previous answer, religions as institutions are not the only one to have supported horror, monstruosity and pushed humanity on the darkest side.

There is a great line by a sufi that I still need to rediscover in my books. It was directed towards a vegan who was proud of being a vegan because he used it as a proxy to his spirituality. The sufi said something like: "Being a vegan is fine, but you will need to learn to turn anything you ingest into something more divine."

A more secular way is how a good friend of mine said it: "You need to able to learn from bad teachers, too."

This is at least how I see it.

The open question is about the alternative. Would Europe have a less violent history if we'd believe in Odin and Wodan instead of Christ?

Of course not. Always men, ideology, and all that stuffs again. We found a viking tomb of a woman. She had her skull mutilated because she cheated on her husband. Incas mutilated themselves and killed youngs and children to repay a debt to the gods. Now, some industries condamn children to death to use water for profit. The scale has changed. God, with ou without, don't. It is just a moral control of an other sort.

That's why I think artists should stay away from ideology, and from every Capitole of the world. That's why I reacted to the word "religion".

But why make it about the artist? I don't think that is anything special or extraordinally important to the artist compared to other people. It a human requirement.

As artist, I think we should look at the world and show it. As it is. Or as we think it should be. Or should'nt be. And process like that with human nature as well.

To me, this is were religion and science come into play. Beauty, Divinity and Reality need to be the at the foundation. Then you can create art, build a table or write a book on mitochondria or whatever.

But more specific to writing fiction: Remove anything from the foundation and you get twisted art. Even in fantasy writing you need internal coherence or it will become "unrealistic". Realistic dragons are a thing. Isn't it strange? Not, if you understand what reality means. You may create a fictional reality but you have to immediately submit to its rules. If you remove the divine you get something like the scene in Captain Marvel in which she stole the bike and clothes from a passenger who shouted "Smile". The reasoning was to make her cool and it was an hommage to Terminator. So, she imitated a killing machine and used her unearned power to bully a normal human being which basically makes her a villain. How in earth could this something the creators thought was ok? By removing the divine.

(Even removing beauty, divinity or reality is just an exploration of what you removed)

That's maybe the questions evocated by ZettelDistraction. An art without vision is not art, that would be my definition of "commercial art", something blind, without a vision, without opinion, bland and void about those subjects, no risks, no engagement, no feelings, no passion.

I see the point. It really reminds me of what McGilchrist wrote about what happens if the left hemisphere takes over and we become unbalanced. (The Master and His Emissary)

That's what I call "the personal quest". What gives you the urge to scream ? What gives you tears of joy, what would give you the impulse to destroy the world if you had the power to ? What moves you, what makes your soul shakes in pain or shiver with pleasure ? What brings you on the verge of transcendance ? What is your vision ? Where are your guts ?

That's where your truth lyes. Where you have to dig.

Lol. While I tend to agree with you my first impulse was to push back since I don't like the "let your feelings guide you"-approach. We might be on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

The formula is quite simple: Remove a dimension of truth and you'll start a downward spiral into evil.

I am sorry if I missed something but what are the dimension of truth from your point of view  ?

The above. Reality, Divinity, Beauty as dimensions of Truth.

I am a Zettler

• @Sascha said
Yeah, I heard it before quite a lot. My personal shtick is to say that this self-similar property is baked into the fabric of existence.

Noted I've found a visual artist who share the same fascination than you for fractals : Fractals - Eduardo Valdes-Hevia

You might give Shawn Coyne (2015): The Story Grid a chance. He makes this point structurally. Any scene, sequence, act, main story needs to have each of the five base elements according to him: Causal event, complication, crisis, climax, resolution.

I will by curiosity but heck, that elements are so stereotypical. If you write a novel, you might be able to choose what element to use or not. A story does not need anything, the only thing that matter are the expectations of the readers. They are many ways to play with it, without following scenarists roadmap and check lists. I have the Truby one too. It is not "story" but "scenario" in the title.

"A character who seeks to satisfy a desire and encounters obstacles is obliged to make efforts (without this, there is no story). And these efforts make it evolve." (Truby traduced in french I've tradced in English, sorry)

It gives me the urge of screaming "KAAAAAFKA" in front of my screen. In the Metamorphose, Gregor does'not evolve : the metamorphose occured out of the narration. His family just goes further in deshumanisation. That's why we write novels : we do whatever we want.

I'm already finding this stupid and I've only read 2% of it. Wonderful.
I've seen a scenarist pretending becoming novellist to sell novels to films producers just yesterday. I've seen right, some people now view novels as pre-scenario . Tch. They even sell a formation to prepare your novel before writing to fit audiovisual industry.

So OK, I will take a look on those books but… Not this one, to begin with. I know I can learn from bad teachers, but… Herrrk.

I am developing a meta-theory of plot based on quite a number of books (Truby, Anatomy of Story is another fitting read) to create a tool that give me a rough outline.

Why don't you create something adding with anthropologist analyses, myths analyses, meta-stories analyses ? You have the educational background to create a third road here which would'nt be Litterature studies nor scenarist blablathings and all. Something that takes root from religions, mythologies and what makes stories… stories. And making conferences would suit you a lot I'm sure

I think the issue is symmetry in that case for me. Organic does not mean symmetrical. This is the dificulty I have. So, I am experimenting with a lot of "what if"s. Leaving the resolution out, writing kind of an endless climax etc.

It's a good idea from my point of view. Drills ! I've made a lot of tests for my novels serie, where, when, who, how, what if… When writing is easy, you can train yourself like that and push everything further.

For me, the art of writing is the art of asking question. If you set up something without minding it, if you make something automatical, if you take a decision, question it. No need to write a thesis for every questions you set up, but taking small decisions based on a conscious and rational process might help you to desactivate your own quirks.

Perhaps, the base of my theory of story is that there is nothing should be in it by chance.

Indeed. From my point of view, we ask readers to invest their time to discover our art. We, as writers, are about to ask them to be vulnerable the time we lead them to a travel inside their own imagination thanks to our words. The "leading" can be elusive or firm, but we set up a road for them. The less we can do is to set up a travel which worthes their time and their efforts.

For a self-proclaimed non-believer you sound a whole lot religious. It is fine. We all are if we want it or not. Better embrace it than to ignore it. (Similar to living: Better embrace it and take care of your metablism, mitochondria etc. instead of treating yourself as ghost haunting a meatbag in a skinsack)

I'm a-dogmatic, a-religious, but I have personal believes indeed I think personal faith is not the system-religion from my definition. For your definition, I'm religious, indeed. The need of seing something sacralised is important for humans.

Haha, I went a bit off track but I hope you get my point. I am blessed by experiencing the institutionalised undead part of religion and the alive and truly divine part of it.

I do. Art or religion are also matters of transmission. Your family history seems to have a lot to transmit to you. You seem to spot what are the good ones you want to keep.
My father came into France as political refugee when he was a child and was sheltered by monks for a time. I don't know how did it go for him. But he never wanted to talk about religion at home. Sisters beated down my mother when she was a child. I know what "hard person" mean.
My grandma talked to me about Jesus and Buddha. She went to Tibet and brought back meditation and prayers and pictures and all. "That seems closer to what I look for" and the small me asked a lot of questions. (… Questionning might be my shrik…)
Ultimately, I ended up talking with chamans. I've found out that I'm insensitive to drugs, so I tried hypnose induced transe. It's been a while since I didn't experienced it directly.

Many stories were so insane that you might even find them unfitting for a fictional story

I know some too. The good part of it is that if one day I really want to chock people, I've already known how to do this. I don't have the same limits than the average Joe. I am glad to think that it is normal and happy people exists.

I think artist are special. Ideologies are dangerous to everyone, you are right. But artist, like a minstrel, has the mission of transmitting something. They testify, the reflects the society they take part of. They are the missing links between old and new generation, keep memories alive, open the gate of imagination, spirit and art. They bring beauty, they remind us what it is to be human. So artists should take extra precautions about what they put on their mind and what they give to society.

Beauty, Divinity and Reality need to be the at the foundation.

I study it to make it my own. Right now, your ideas confront mine and I feel I might let my mind playing with them subconsciently.

But more specific to writing fiction: Remove anything from the foundation and you get twisted art. Even in fantasy writing you need internal coherence or it will become "unrealistic". Realistic dragons are a thing. Isn't it strange? Not, if you understand what reality means. You may create a fictional reality but you have to immediately submit to its rules.

I totaly agree here. Lamarck said "Function creates organ". Anything alive would waste precious ressources to something useless. Humanity could waste it, but there is always a function behind the form. I've tried a lot of things to add those experiences in my writing.

Lol. While I tend to agree with you my first impulse was to push back since I don't like the "let your feelings guide you"-approach. We might be on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Not so far I think. We talk about religion and art, so yeah, I am triggered here but this is not my favorite field of conversation. Art connects me with my feelings and my guts, and helps me to stay healthy. Most of the time, I'm friendly, open, but not feeling anything special and quite rational at the end of the day. Curiosity is a high drive, willing to connect with someone to understand them too, but the analystic brain works non stop.

I think you might know MBTI ? I don't think a lot of good of it, but you might know the cognitive function as well and they are slightly more interesting. From a MBTI cognitive functionnal schema perspective, I would be ENTP.

That reminds me archetypes topic. For me, belivings and interpretation of reality shape the reality itself. Some schemas of interpretation are so rooted into the cultural background that they become reality, like the "collective unconscious" Jung talked about. It don't know how archetypals and interpretations integrate on your system and definition of Truth ? Is it a Reality dimension part ?

• @Loni said:

@Sascha said
Yeah, I heard it before quite a lot. My personal shtick is to say that this self-similar property is baked into the fabric of existence.

Noted I've found a visual artist who share the same fascination than you for fractals : Fractals - Eduardo Valdes-Hevia

Do you want to know my openess? I am moderately low (32nd percentile).

"The closest synonym for openness (rather than openness to experience, which encompasses openness and intellect) is creativity. People moderately low in openness or creativity do not find beauty particularly important. They tend not to require an outlet for their creative ability, and will certainly not wither away without it. They don’t particularly appreciate art or beautiful crafts, and are less sensitive to color and architectural form."

I am really not that open by temperament and this might be the key to understand my stance on art. By luck, I worked to develop habits and skills of an open person.

But I never look at fotographs. I never ever (!) go to theatre to watch a play. Music is just for background (though played in a band and even discussed two interpretations of the moonlight sonata with a good friend who plays one of the best clarinettes in Germany). Picasso is nothing to me. I don't have any feelings if someone critiques my prose (only if they come from a snobbish or ignorant stance, but that is independent of art).

My utilitarian brain sorts out the pictures I can use for my work and the other pictures are nothing to me. I really mean that. I am so un-artistic that I even pretend to feel guilty about it which hits two birds with one stone: I engage with some play and make fun of myself.

(You might notice that I am writing different with you. Explanation: I am forcing myself into a more open mode)

You might give Shawn Coyne (2015): The Story Grid a chance. He makes this point structurally. Any scene, sequence, act, main story needs to have each of the five base elements according to him: Causal event, complication, crisis, climax, resolution.

I will by curiosity but heck, that elements are so stereotypical.

They are. But that is not bad thing. This is what those books are exactly for.

The 1-2-3 combination is highly stereo typical. But in my opinion it is one of the best tools out there. It includes all the elements of a good attacking combination: Preparation with your long weapon, damage with your strong weapon, securing the retreat with your long weapon.

Because I am (was.. I am old now) exeptionally fast for my weight (super heavy weight) I often could throw a right straight as if it was a jab and use my foot work for a safe retreat when I sparred with other heavy boxers. But it was not "I do whatever I want" thing. It came from a foundation of not being allowed any hooks or uppercuts for the first six months of my training.

Another concept for "stereotypical" is "tried and tested".

(I like Jordan Peterson's phrasing: You need one foot in the realm of order and one in the realm of chaos)

If you write a novel, you might be able to choose what element to use or not. A story does not need anything, the only thing that matter are the expectations of the readers. They are many ways to play with it, without following scenarists roadmap and check lists.

Yes, it does. At least, if you want to have a story at all. There are books without a story which can be an interesting read.

It is more about cause and effect. If your characters don't have desires no reader will understand why they do something. If they have no need you reduce empathy. If you have no obstacle you don't have tension (or way less).

I have the Truby one too. It is not "story" but "scenario" in the title.

This topic is emerging frequently: It seems to me that the french translations deviate quite a bit from the English originals.

"A character who seeks to satisfy a desire and encounters obstacles is obliged to make efforts (without this, there is no story). And these efforts make it evolve." (Truby traduced in french I've tradced in English, sorry)

It gives me the urge of screaming "KAAAAAFKA" in front of my screen. In the Metamorphose, Gregor does'not evolve : the metamorphose occured out of the narration. His family just goes further in deshumanisation. That's why we write novels : we do whatever we want.

Kafka is a perfect example for a book and not a story. Die Verwandlung is highly psychological and has all the elements of the archetypical family drama Christopher Booker layed out in his book.

There are good reason why the book can grip the attention while seemingly violating a lot of rules for a good story.

But Kafka pales to nothingness compared with Tolkien's work. Kafka even pales compared to the impact that Fifty Shades of Grey has had and still has.

I'm already finding this stupid and I've only read 2% of it. Wonderful.
I've seen a scenarist pretending becoming novellist to sell novels to films producers just yesterday. I've seen right, some people now view novels as pre-scenario . Tch. They even sell a formation to prepare your novel before writing to fit audiovisual industry.

The lesson jumps into the eyes: How to create a story that works both in film and book.

Did I mention Tolkien?

So OK, I will take a look on those books but… Not this one, to begin with. I know I can learn from bad teachers, but… Herrrk.

It is fun to see a hyper-open person to struggle with structure.

I think I have it way easier than you temperament-wise. I just have to engage in something I'd call hippy stuff. Most of the time I spend is developing the craft which is formal. You on the other hand make your peace with living in a cage.

I am developing a meta-theory of plot based on quite a number of books (Truby, Anatomy of Story is another fitting read) to create a tool that give me a rough outline.

Why don't you create something adding with anthropologist analyses, myths analyses, meta-stories analyses ? You have the educational background to create a third road here which would'nt be Litterature studies nor scenarist blablathings and all. Something that takes root from religions, mythologies and what makes stories… stories.

Oh, all this is included.

There is a lot of obscure stuff like the catholic catechism or a generalised obstacle model. If one is not inspired by this quote I don't know what could inspire him/her:

Sin destroys the love in our hearts. Sin is the grave crime against god's law. By living in sin, we turn away from god, our destiny and our bliss while turning towards a lesser good.

My translation does a really bad service to the original. But together with:

It is impossible for us to break the law. We can only break ourself against the law.

This is the stuff tragedy is made of.

And making conferences would suit you a lot I'm sure

I need a lot more learning before I dare to teach more than "How to do XY in your Zettelkasten"..

I think the issue is symmetry in that case for me. Organic does not mean symmetrical. This is the dificulty I have. So, I am experimenting with a lot of "what if"s. Leaving the resolution out, writing kind of an endless climax etc.

It's a good idea from my point of view. Drills ! I've made a lot of tests for my novels serie, where, when, who, how, what if… When writing is easy, you can train yourself like that and push everything further.

How did you test your prototypes?

Perhaps, the base of my theory of story is that there is nothing should be in it by chance.

Indeed. From my point of view, we ask readers to invest their time to discover our art. We, as writers, are about to ask them to be vulnerable the time we lead them to a travel inside their own imagination thanks to our words. The "leading" can be elusive or firm, but we set up a road for them. The less we can do is to set up a travel which worthes their time and their efforts.

That is why I read those scenarists (perhaps, we can find a more derogatory word). They provide tools on how to grip the attention.

NSFW!

I learned an interesting concept from porn. In A Billion Wicked Thoughts by Gaddam/Ogas they presented a theory on facials and why they are so prevalent. Engineers at heart they didn't provide a psychological or moral explanation but a technical solution: Facials combine several key stimuli for male arousal:

1. A penis (Increasing arousal by rivalry)
2. Sperm (Further increasing arousal by rivalry)
3. The emotional reaction of the woman (Authenticity of the female)

Like this they create hyperstimuli by combining evolutionary rare, intense and normally not co-existing stimuli. It is similar to fastfood which makes use of the combination of carbohydrates in combination with fat which is not to be found in nature in relevant amounts.

Now compare it to the key scene in Matrix 1 (Neo re-wakes after being killed and kills Agent Smith):

1. Resurrection
2. Morpheus quest for the one is solved
3. Trinities prophecy is solved
4. Trinities love is confirmed
5. Neo awakes his superpowers
6. Neos prophecy as the one is solved
7. Agent Smith is killed
8. The power balance is turned upside down
9. The seekers in the real world are killed
10. Neo escapes the matrix barely
11. etc.

No wonder, Matrix 1 was such a griping movie. The whole premise which was so praised is actually very boring: It was a moralised brain in the tank with some "Oh, we modern people are suffering because our life is empty" icing on the cake.

For a self-proclaimed non-believer you sound a whole lot religious. It is fine. We all are if we want it or not. Better embrace it than to ignore it. (Similar to living: Better embrace it and take care of your metablism, mitochondria etc. instead of treating yourself as ghost haunting a meatbag in a skinsack)

I'm a-dogmatic, a-religious, but I have personal believes indeed I think personal faith is not the system-religion from my definition. For your definition, I'm religious, indeed. The need of seing something sacralised is important for humans.

It is not just something. There are sacred things. Good religion is not void of reality.

Haha, I went a bit off track but I hope you get my point. I am blessed by experiencing the institutionalised undead part of religion and the alive and truly divine part of it.

I do. Art or religion are also matters of transmission. Your family history seems to have a lot to transmit to you. You seem to spot what are the good ones you want to keep.
My father came into France as political refugee when he was a child and was sheltered by monks for a time. I don't know how did it go for him. But he never wanted to talk about religion at home. Sisters beated down my mother when she was a child. I know what "hard person" mean.
My grandma talked to me about Jesus and Buddha. She went to Tibet and brought back meditation and prayers and pictures and all. "That seems closer to what I look for" and the small me asked a lot of questions. (… Questionning might be my shrik…)
Ultimately, I ended up talking with chamans. I've found out that I'm insensitive to drugs, so I tried hypnose induced transe. It's been a while since I didn't experienced it directly.

This chaman stuff is horseshit. I don't know what all those self-proclaimed mystics make all the fuzz about. Those peak experiences, mystic experiences, nirvana states etc. are very attainable by repeatable processes. I had 60--80 of them including leaving my body, experiencing pure bliss (like nirvana), meeting God (the big and only one) etc. It's nothing special. Just the equivalent of the spiritual bike ride. Once you know how to do it, you use your bike to save fuel doing your groceries. You don't tell anyone that learning to balance on two wheels is the focal point through which everything in the universe is explained. And sometimes you don't have a bike or it is broken. Then you go by foot or pollute the air with your car.

It might be a bit more difficult to go to this spiritual place than to ride a bike. But it is still not more or less arcane.

(Don't get me talking about all those spiritual teachers)

I think artist are special. Ideologies are dangerous to everyone, you are right. But artist, like a minstrel, has the mission of transmitting something. They testify, the reflects the society they take part of.

Everyone has the mission of transmitting something. Ever leader, teacher, plumber, mother, father, grandparent, big sibling, friend, etc.

The one thing that divides people is if they can multiply their communication by speaking once and being heard more than once.

They are the missing links between old and new generation, keep memories alive, open the gate of imagination, spirit and art. They bring beauty, they remind us what it is to be human. So artists should take extra precautions about what they put on their mind and what they give to society.

The stories of my babuschka and her being what I'd call a true saint (even in dementia she rather layed on the floor quietly to save my grandmas back after she had fallen) did more for me than any art could ever provide. And the missing link between old and new generations is the attentiveness of the new generation combined with the humbleness and loving will to teach of the older generation.

Art became something for the elite a long time ago. It used to be something we people did for ourselves. Now, most people are disconnected from art. And rightly so, if I see the current state of art. 80% is art of artists, masturbatory products sometimes unethically financed with money the state forces out of the pockets of the people (why is my mother forced to finance with her taxes some actor taking a shit on the stage and call this art?). 76% is commercial lies cloaked as art (Hollywood, I am looking at you). 0,0001% comes from the people. 103% comes from specialists who are looking down on Fifty Shades of Grey but would sell their soul for the attention and money earned by the author.

Beauty, Divinity and Reality need to be the at the foundation.

I study it to make it my own. Right now, your ideas confront mine and I feel I might let my mind playing with them subconsciently.

I don't think it is something to study. A good life needs to be chased to make good art. Even Kafka chased the good life and his failure was the stuff his writing is made of. And don't get me started on Nietzsche. Whenever people try to quote him on women they need to really study this pathetic picture which tells all you need of him wanting to lick the dirt under Lou Salomé's boots. (I am a big Nietzsche fan by the way).

(I know there are a lot of counter-examples to my implicit theory. )

Studying comes as an afterthought in my opinion.

Lol. While I tend to agree with you my first impulse was to push back since I don't like the "let your feelings guide you"-approach. We might be on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Not so far I think. We talk about religion and art, so yeah, I am triggered here but this is not my favorite field of conversation. Art connects me with my feelings and my guts, and helps me to stay healthy. Most of the time, I'm friendly, open, but not feeling anything special and quite rational at the end of the day. Curiosity is a high drive, willing to connect with someone to understand them too, but the analystic brain works non stop.

I think you might know MBTI ? I don't think a lot of good of it, but you might know the cognitive function as well and they are slightly more interesting. From a MBTI cognitive functionnal schema perspective, I would be ENTP.

Did you take the test on 16personalities?

I am not sure what to think about the test. The science on the test is not solid. So, it fails the reality check.

I am an ENTJ. So, according to the test everyone is far away from (bellow..) me.

Just kidding. I think the big five with the 10 categories by Jordan Peterson is way more useful since it can say a lot more things about the cognitive style.

Our exchange so far is plenty evidence. Our disagreement is easily explained by our difference in openess. Our ability to communicate by our shared disagreeableness.

That reminds me archetypes topic. For me, belivings and interpretation of reality shape the reality itself. Some schemas of interpretation are so rooted into the cultural background that they become reality, like the "collective unconscious" Jung talked about.

I think archetypes are more biological than cultural. The Collective Unconscious could be described as part of our operating system. This is the premise for the universal elements of human culture, since all culture is in part an expression of human universals.

It don't know how archetypals and interpretations integrate on your system and definition of Truth ? Is it a Reality dimension part ?

Yes. The assumption is that the Collective Unconscious is or isn't part of our operating system. But you can't separate the Divine and Beauty from it. The beauty I see in my fiancée is made possible by my anima and openess to the feminine. And feeling the Divine is only possible if your roots grow deep into your collective base.

I am a Zettler

• I'm kind of amused, in a good way, that you think I don't like structure. Self imposed structures are fine to me, it's like self-discipline, I don't see them like a cage (but imposed rules, arbritrary ones, irrationnal or stupid ones are, but I can't always escape them so… yeah…).

I know it is not so obvious as my English is still poor and clumsy at this time but… I am rigourous in my work. A control freak maniac and perfectionnist little thing. I turn mad when my art does not turn as expected, and my expectations are high. That's a part of me I rarely show.

Excellence is nor an option, neither a quest. It is the less I have to do.

I've learnt sciences by myself, especially biology and medecine, before asking and confronting my knowledge with reasearchers… And was able to follow and discuss. I've lost some of my previous training now I'm all in my writings, but I can still understand some high school class.

You can't learn anything without structure and technics. And I love to learn.

I've been in the same position than you about fundations and structure. I've crushed some beginners expectations about a "all about feelings" way of making art. I've shown them the dry hard way of making exercices to learn, learning fondamental knowledge of making art, the weight of culture to make rich intrications and to bring fresh air in the "not far from plagiarism" ideas they get. I've got no pity, I now regret being rude to them but this is some truth every creators has to learn.

I am not a beginner. I know the importance of fundations.

But I will not accept to build fundations from people who see novels as a byproduct of audiovisual productions. If the futur is like that… I will create something else. Even a new art. Maybe novel is dying, maybe cinema is dying and tries to drag it down with it.

Story are what they are. I will not learn from people that teach you how to shape stories to be sold to producers, I prefer to see analyses of mythologies, tales, and what humanity produces in a whole. I prefer Yves Lavandier, who is a scenarist (in the good sens, this time), but much more nuanced and balanced in his approach of stories, and keep in mind that some of the rules he gives are fine for cinema, but not every media. "From my point of view, this does not work. In those cases it might, those also, like here…" He brings a lot of argumentation.

So, when I say "story does need anything" I mean (and I am sorry about those blurry words) "Story does need anything when you know what you do and when you already learnt fundations of your art".

And Tolkien is maybe one of the worst example to illustrate what you want to illustrate. High culture, researcher, linguist. He nailed the nature of myths, he wrote to be read, and the Silmarillion is far far away from the stereotypical scenarii rules (and stereotypical from me means "already read thousand times and waste of my time, nothing new, nothing interesting, ready made ideas"). He would maybe like the adaptation of Lord of Rings as Peter Jackson seems to genuinely loves his univers and understood something. But learning the art of words, words he cherished, from people who makes film ? I can't imagine it.

But I really appreciate your comparison for Matrix ahah ! I see where you want to go.

Art became something for the elite a long time ago. It used to be something we people did for ourselves. Now, most people are disconnected from art. And rightly so, if I see the current state of art. 80% is art of artists, masturbatory products sometimes unethically financed with money the state forces out of the pockets of the people (why is my mother forced to finance with her taxes some actor taking a shit on the stage and call this art?). 76% is commercial lies cloaked as art (Hollywood, I am looking at you). 0,0001% comes from the people. 103% comes from specialists who are looking down on Fifty Shades of Grey but would sell their soul for the attention and money earned by the author.

Yes, I agree, and that's why as artists we should be conscious about what we do, why we do it, how we do and to who we talk to. World is a wicked chessboard and your situation will depend on your starting case and the moves you'll execute to take position.

Fantasy suits me. I don't talk to elits, and I don't intend to.

The stories of my babuschka and her being what I'd call a true saint (even in dementia she rather layed on the floor quietly to save my grandmas back after she had fallen) did more for me than any art could ever provide. And the missing link between old and new generations is the attentiveness of the new generation combined with the humbleness and loving will to teach of the older generation.

It's a part of it. Family (and your babuschka ) represents obviously a great part of what it is transmitted. However, art, History, social representations, books and knowledge are collective transmission. We wouldn't tired ourselves into teaching and writing if any transmission was only individual.

(I know there are a lot of counter-examples to my implicit theory. )

Yes but ultimately I agree with it. We need food to create substance.

This chaman stuff is horseshit. I don't know what all those self-proclaimed mystics make all the fuzz about

It was. I didn't take time to describe my experiences and end up with a confusing sentence, but you can easily imagine how it turned for me… and for the two of them I spoke to. I had chaman history in my hands, American native ancestor (the father of my grand father) and looked for a very perticular and specific initiatic ritual. They did not know it. Then I experienced by myself. The bicycle analogy is a good one

(Don't get me talking about all those spiritual teachers)

At least, I know where to push if I want to bitch about something

Did you take the test on 16personalities?

I did. But I was disappointed : I've never been fond of astrological portraits. I read about cognitive functions, Beebee's works and Jung. Broke the MBTI into small pieces and conclued that it is a nice toy to play with, one inspiration among others to build characters, but not scientific at all. But it's a quick way to give an overview of my way of functionning - basically as a curiosity and intellectual driven person with high energy spikes. I learnt to be more compassionate and more agreedable from my partner (a fun cinnamon roll in a human body) before setting up my own moral scale (which is collective) to be nice to people. Until debate comes into the table : I become more detached and I would always be surprised by people who takes a divergence of thoughts like a personal insult.

I am an ENTJ.

I knew it ! You would be a strong example of Te-Ni user.

I think archetypes are more biological than cultural. The Collective Unconscious could be described as part of our operating system. This is the premise for the universal elements of human culture, since all culture is in part an expression of human universals.

Intersting, does Iain McGilchrist dig this idea in the book you advice me to read ? I had the idea of Collective Conscious as a mix of Zeitgest, cultural perticalirities, biology of the human nature, human's need to connect with society, and society itself.

Yes. The assumption is that the Collective Unconscious is or isn't part of our operating system. But you can't separate the Divine and Beauty from it. The beauty I see in my fiancée is made possible by my anima and openess to the feminine. And feeling the Divine is only possible if your roots grow deep into your collective base.

I see. You set up an interesting grid to read reality. I need to test it, confront it, to make it mine. Once again, I keep a close control of what I put in my mind and how it interacts with my thoughts and conceptions.
And as a tomboy, I would really like to see what would look like my animus

(You might notice that I am writing different with you. Explanation: I am forcing myself into a more open mode)

I did, thank you I try to get to the point without to much exploratory thoughts myself. Or puns. Or jokes. I can be tiring, even for myself.

How did you test your prototypes?

I write. Read. Evaluate. Modify. Write again. Evaluate… Until a way of setting up something shows up, I block a "node" as a permanent one, and the cycle goes on. It's like a puzzle.

For example, I doubt about the role of one of my character. I wrote a full version of my fourth novel with that role in mind. "Not working, I feel to much confusion for this point, and this one. I need to much explanation for it, so it is not fine at all. In the end, this is redundant, that is unclear, this lacks power of evocation, the symbolism here is obscur, this scene was difficult to write and this…"

I brainstorm, come with a new idea, fix that decision into a zettel and make some pilots scenes. Happy Loni send it to her beta-readers. I sometimes add notes like "hhhuuuu I'm doubtful about this point and this point. What are your thinkings about that ?" And beta-readers knows where to push to help me to change perspectives. They know they can't be more critical that I am so they pinpoint problematic points from my blindspots.

I have three versions of my serie of five novels, and a loooot of drafts. I write fast, so it is not a problem.

• @Loni said:
I'm kind of amused, in a good way, that you think I don't like structure. Self imposed structures are fine to me, it's like self-discipline, I don't see them like a cage (but imposed rules, arbritrary ones, irrationnal or stupid ones are, but I can't always escape them so… yeah…).

"I do whatever I want" is a structure.. (Just kidding)

I think Shuhari is a very good example. For the non-martial artists:

1. Stage (Shu): Imitation. You have no idea how to improve. Even if you think you do, it's highly unlikely. [[201312251548]] **Search out people who have what you want, and ask how they got it.
2. Stage 2 (Ha): Interpret. You begin to improve yourself. And you begin to accumulate experience. First of all, these are your experiences based on the guidance of others. Begin to examine the experiences, instructions, recommendations for patterns. Everyone has his own style, but certain motifs will always appear. Collect these and build up a treasure trove of basic assumptions.
3. Stage 3 (Ri): Create. You have rich experience. You begin to build a justified view of others in your field. Take your experiences and basic motives in your field and create your own system for improvement. (Note: Those at this level do not need to be made aware of this).

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

I am very comfortable to spend a lot of time in stage 2. You see it with what I presented here: Almost anything I wrote about here is about me sticking to stage 2.

My style of work (also in the world of Zettelkasten) is to accumulate on stage 1 and 2 until stage 3 happens organically. But I don't have any internal drive so to say to stage 3. I composed music like that, I write stories like that, create new knowledge like that.

My opinion on how the right balance of learning what is already discovered and pushing into the unknown and my temperament are in quite a good sync here. (But it might be that my opinion is just an extention of my temperament, though I have -- of course -- good reasons to refute this claim).

You, and I am making a claim, on the other hand have an inherent drive to stage 3. And, I hypothesise, resistance to stage 1 (which could be renamed to submission which I personally like more).

I know it is not so obvious as my English is still poor and clumsy at this time but… I am rigourous in my work. A control freak maniac and perfectionnist little thing. I turn mad when my art does not turn as expected, and my expectations are high. That's a part of me I rarely show.

Perfectly coherent with my above statement.

I had never a doubt that you have high expectations of yourself.

But I will not accept to build fundations from people who see novels as a byproduct of audiovisual productions. If the futur is like that… I will create something else. Even a new art. Maybe novel is dying, maybe cinema is dying and tries to drag it down with it. Story are what they are. I will not learn from people that teach you how to shape stories to be sold to producers,

This is a perfect example of my point.

I don't buy sin stock. But I make sure to read The Art of the Deal or accept the lessons learned by commercials.

We are not in a particular disagreement in the case of Fifty Shades of Grey, so my rhetorics will be weak on this point. To me, Fifty Shades of Grey is better art then Kafka. Its impact is highly underestimated because of the hijacking of art by the commercial and the ideological.

Art became masturbatory because it started to sacralise the idol of "new". The mediums are captured by the commercialist (how about that derogatory term? I give it a 3.5/10).

But to reunite the worlds again (The Master and His Emissary!) one needs to master both worlds. That means to be able to withstand degenerancy and decadence, build a strong mental immune system and throw yourself into the slime.

The scenarists are doing something very right since the Capitol (incarnation here: Hollywood) is able to produce empty products that capture the attention (though they are losing the ability at the moment).

I prefer to see analyses of mythologies, tales, and what humanity produces in a whole. I prefer Yves Lavandier, who is a scenarist (in the good sens, this time), but much more nuanced and balanced in his approach of stories, and keep in mind that some of the rules he gives are fine for cinema, but not every media. "From my point of view, this does not work. In those cases it might, those also, like here…" He brings a lot of argumentation.

What books should I read? (Please no french since my french is so bad that it is an instant vomit guarantee)

So, when I say "story does need anything" I mean (and I am sorry about those blurry words) "Story does need anything when you know what you do and when you already learnt fundations of your art".

Would you be able to produce what you detest?

And Tolkien is maybe one of the worst example to illustrate what you want to illustrate. High culture, researcher, linguist. He nailed the nature of myths, he wrote to be read, and the Silmarillion is far far away from the stereotypical scenarii rules (and stereotypical from me means "already read thousand times and waste of my time, nothing new, nothing interesting, ready made ideas"). He would maybe like the adaptation of Lord of Rings as Peter Jackson seems to genuinely loves his univers and understood something. But learning the art of words, words he cherished, from people who makes film ? I can't imagine it.

• First my heretics: The Silmarillion is nothing to me.
• I don't think that Lord of the Rings is a pleasant read. (more heretics)
• That he could be adapted on film is a strong indicator that the story is good (which is) and not just the book.
• The art of words is just one slice of writing. (even more heretics) Story, meaning (correct meaning!), character development, etc. All these aspects are medium independent. This is were the pot of gold lies. I aim at story that is eternal and I believe that the eternal story is already told but forgotten. Luckily, I like remembering a lot (stage 2)

The stories of my babuschka and her being what I'd call a true saint (even in dementia she rather layed on the floor quietly to save my grandmas back after she had fallen) did more for me than any art could ever provide. And the missing link between old and new generations is the attentiveness of the new generation combined with the humbleness and loving will to teach of the older generation.

It's a part of it. Family (and your babuschka ) represents obviously a great part of what it is transmitted. However, art, History, social representations, books and knowledge are collective transmission. We wouldn't tired ourselves into teaching and writing if any transmission was only individual.

We (people) are dumb af.

I am an ENTJ.

I knew it ! You would be a strong example of Te-Ni user.

Of course you knew it. I bet you even knew that I am a gemini all long.

I think archetypes are more biological than cultural. The Collective Unconscious could be described as part of our operating system. This is the premise for the universal elements of human culture, since all culture is in part an expression of human universals.

Intersting, does Iain McGilchrist dig this idea in the book you advice me to read ?

No, it is the Jungian idea of archetypes in itself.

McGilchrist is about how two realms of Being are in sync with our two ways of being (left brain, right brain). But this description does a big disservice to the book.

I had the idea of Collective Conscious as a mix of Zeitgest, cultural perticalirities, biology of the human nature, human's need to connect with society, and society itself.

The Collective Conscious is not the Collective Unconscious.

And as a tomboy, I would really like to see what would look like my animus

Another perfect example of self-similarity. My closed-mindedness is mirrored by my very masculine appearance. I am just to disagreeable to accept my conformist nature.

The world is just a big harmony with the ever present diabolus in musica lurking just to make sure that one can't be sure.

How did you test your prototypes?

I write. Read. Evaluate. Modify. Write again. Evaluate… Until a way of setting up something shows up, I block a "node" as a permanent one, and the cycle goes on. It's like a puzzle.

Ah, that is what I suspected. I think only other people can test ones writing.

I mean from me as a non-writer aspiring to write (I am not even a beginner in my book) your internal process is highly interesting and valuable to me.

But the only one who's opinion counts in the end is everyone but the artist. (See my embarassemet bellow)

For example, I doubt about the role of one of my character. I wrote a full version of my fourth novel with that role in mind. "Not working, I feel to much confusion for this point, and this one. I need to much explanation for it, so it is not fine at all. In the end, this is redundant, that is unclear, this lacks power of evocation, the symbolism here is obscur, this scene was difficult to write and this…"

I brainstorm, come with a new idea, fix that decision into a zettel and make some pilots scenes. Happy Loni send it to her beta-readers. I sometimes add notes like "hhhuuuu I'm doubtful about this point and this point. What are your thinkings about that ?" And beta-readers knows where to push to help me to change perspectives. They know they can't be more critical that I am so they pinpoint problematic points from my blindspots.

I have three versions of my serie of five novels, and a loooot of drafts. I write fast, so it is not a problem.

Dang. You are driving with nitro boost.

I write little scenes, expositions and similar stuff. Then I'll let others read them (selected. My fioncée hates fantasy. So, she is the first one I ask for fantastical stuff..) and record their reactions.

I am a Zettler

• @Sascha I was shocked to hear you say that you don't think "The Lord of the Rings" is a pleasant read! That is definitely an heretical statement . It was my favourite trilogy as a teenager and probably still in my top 10 enjoyable stories as an older adult. I love reading it. I wonder what causes such a large difference in our opinion about that book?

• @GeoEng51 said:
@Sascha I was shocked to hear you say that you don't think "The Lord of the Rings" is a pleasant read! That is definitely an heretical statement . It was my favourite trilogy as a teenager and probably still in my top 10 enjoyable stories as an older adult. I love reading it. I wonder what causes such a large difference in our opinion about that book?

I share the same opinion about Tolkien's writings than sfast.
Heavy, heavy reading. Tolkien crafted an awesome univers, a large set of symbols, language History and all… But heck, the reading is tedious. He is a creator, but not a good writer.
I can talk about Asimov like that as well. I love his writings, but some part of Fundation would be hard to follow, drop at the bad time of the narration. Novels are more lively however.

I understand that you deny the Silmarillion, @Sascha. It is a pain in the butt to read.

@Sascha said:
What books should I read? (Please no french since my french is so bad that it is an instant vomit guarantee)

OK now I laugh because of imagining a guy trying to talk french and vomit at the third syllabe. "Je mange un… bleeeeurbblblblb". French induced Sickness, a classical disease. I would'nt even try to prononce one word in German as I would make a linguistic massacre making every Germans in the world collapse at the same time.

Right now, I am looking for a translation of his two books that would'nt coast you 60e for an edition… -_-

Art became masturbatory because it started to sacralise the idol of "new". The mediums are captured by the commercialist (how about that derogatory term? I give it a 3.5/10).

Shitposters ? Fameseeker ? Moneyartseeker ?
I don't know if it is only the idol of "new". I perceive a lot of superficiality in a lot of things produced nowadays. Maybe the lack of Religion in the definition you gave. The cult of Idiocracy.

We (people) are dumb af.

Yes… But it doesn't dismiss the transmission as a collective phenomenon. I would even say that dumb-itude is the better argument here. People are dumb, lazy, narrowminded. But we keep on writing books, talk to each others, having friends, setting collective events. There is a deeper stream here.

I think Shuhari is a very good example. For the non-martial artists:

OK, you get me there. I understand. Whatever you want to learn, imitation is a part of the process. Some may have understand something that I don't, good or bad, and at stage 2, I begin to interpret, setting patterns.

I don't buy sin stock. But I make sure to read The Art of the Deal or accept the lessons learned by commercials.

/

The art of words is just one slice of writing. (even more heretics) Story, meaning (correct meaning!), character development, etc. All these aspects are medium independent. This is were the pot of gold lies. I aim at story that is eternal and I believe that the eternal story is already told but forgotten. Luckily, I like remembering a lot (stage 2)

Aaaand the nail on the coffin.

Sigh I need a coffee.

I'll figure out what kind of materials I can extract from this fortune sellers. Dude. You are persuasive.

Submission is indeed a problem, which frolics happily hand by hand with trust issue. Maybe I don't need to trust a source to extract what would be useful.

Would you be able to produce what you detest?

Aaaand the answer is : yes. I did that. Illustrations freelancing is a risky journey, being a web redactor as well and I sold anonymous short stories too. I sold products I hated too as a vendor as well.

Another perfect example of self-similarity. My closed-mindedness is mirrored by my very masculine appearance. I am just to disagreeable to accept my conformist nature.

I met very manly guys who like martial sports, huge muscles… And they loved cute animals, were really sensitive, vulnerable and all. World is strange. That's the fun part.

"I do whatever I want" is a structure.. (Just kidding)

Of course, because I do whatever I want with structure

Of course you knew it. I bet you even knew that I am a gemini all long.

Yes and I take bath into my own ego everyday to stay sooo wondeful It was predictable in fact, as I know how those tests work. Gemini on other hand is a random bet… Hey, soon you'll celebrate your birthday ! Should I call you "granpa" ? Do you prefer "oji-san" ? Mine is Cancer, like the illness. Some wouldn't disagree with the comparison.

By the way, I wish you a good day with the ones you cherish

But the only one who's opinion counts in the end is everyone but the artist. (See my embarassemet bellow)

Yes and No on this point fro my perspective. The artist possesses their own expertise, they can say if the production is conform to the initial intention, if it works from their perspective or not.
I would compare that processus to a mechanic-car reparator. They fix the car with their expertise, gives the car to the owner and the owner drives it. In the end, the work of reparation is little, the owner will tell if the reparator made a good job or not. But the expertise matters. The more talented you are, the more you are able to produce good work and put the right diagnosis on your productions.

Dang. You are driving with nitro boost.

Self-discipline helps a lot with my rythm. I produce rigourous outlining of the novel, act, chapter and scenes, plotting, questions notes, problem-solution notes, I take as many prior decision as I can, and throw myself in fire.

From my point of view, the process could be like that :

• Gathering ideas -> Make a decision -> Fix that decision -> Articulate it -> Produce

I write fast but now, I still don't have anything to publish. It's because I have to set up the whole fundations of the univers, and this univers will follow me for the next novels : this serie is litteraly a cosmogony. The next ones will be easier and faster to write.

I write little scenes, expositions and similar stuff. Then I'll let others read them (selected. My fioncée hates fantasy. So, she is the first one I ask for fantastical stuff..) and record their reactions.

It's a good idea. To complement, you can test it with a fantasy lover, someone who matches with your potential public too. I have two main beta-readers, one is my partener, he is the ideal public, knows a lot from Fantasy and Sci-Fi books, geek, History… His commentaries are precious. The other one is my brother. He doesn't read so much and he is critic, he knows the univers' genese and the lore, he is insanely good at finding inconsistencies and problems. I have sent the first act to four people, different horizons and culture, they all ask for more reading, it is encouraging.

I mean from me as a non-writer aspiring to write (I am not even a beginner in my book) your internal process is highly interesting and valuable to me.

There are a lot of ways to construct a story (when fundation are known, of course ). I've tested some of the readymade cook recipes out there like "snowflakes" (Yeap. I did). They did not incite to go further in the story, but they can give some leads.

The most effecient and powefull will be the most atune with your own cognition.

As example : I begin with some ideas notes, generic. Then they become "decision" notes, with fixated ideas and I add link to them into the "master book note". I detail the plan of the book, with the main nodes I want to keep and so one. I make note to explain why and how I want to articulate them and so on

I am refactoring my fourth book now, the master note book is like this (let me translate it. Don't vomit yet !) :

Miror of souls - Book IV - The Cracked Miroir

## Synopsis :
'quick synopsis'

## Initial situation :
* Character 1 at the end of the L3 and new situation in the next one
* Character 2
* Some context of the main plot.

## Content :

### Acte I - Brotherhood
*Update: 2022.05.07 - on going*
- Ver 1 [[Romans.MDA.L4.A1.]]
- Ver 2 [[0.MDA.L4.A1.00.220507215146.MDA.L4.A1.The Futur comes to our minds]]
|-- [[0.MDA.L4.A1.01.220507235205.Prelude - The Fox's Gaze]]
|---- Goal of the chapter, summary, links with plots
|-- [[0.MDA.L4.A1.02.220507234846.Ch1 The Crow, the Cake and the Nightmare]]
|---- Goal of the chapter, summary, links with plots
|-- [[0.MDA.L4.A1.03.220507235324.Ch2 Meeting with Goddesses]]
|---- Goal of the chapter, summary, links with plots
|-- [[0.MDA.L4.A1.04.220507235427.Ch 3 The cold chains in Dante's heart]]
|---- Goal of the chapter, summary, links with plots

### Acte 2 - Tonight is the night
(…)

• @GeoEng51 said:
@Sascha I was shocked to hear you say that you don't think "The Lord of the Rings" is a pleasant read! That is definitely an heretical statement . It was my favourite trilogy as a teenager and probably still in my top 10 enjoyable stories as an older adult. I love reading it. I wonder what causes such a large difference in our opinion about that book?

Like @Loni said: It is a heavy read. I read it in German when I was 13 (or so). So, there might be some translation issues that alter my reading experience. I admire and like the books a lot! But when I want to read something I'd rather read David Gemmell. Something simple, direct and overtly moralising. LotR is myth and myth doesn't want to be read but to be studied.

@Loni said:

@GeoEng51 said:
@Sascha I was shocked to hear you say that you don't think "The Lord of the Rings" is a pleasant read! That is definitely an heretical statement . It was my favourite trilogy as a teenager and probably still in my top 10 enjoyable stories as an older adult. I love reading it. I wonder what causes such a large difference in our opinion about that book?

I share the same opinion about Tolkien's writings than sfast.
Heavy, heavy reading. Tolkien crafted an awesome univers, a large set of symbols, language History and all… But heck, the reading is tedious. He is a creator, but not a good writer.
I can talk about Asimov like that as well. I love his writings, but some part of Fundation would be hard to follow, drop at the bad time of the narration. Novels are more lively however.

I understand that you deny the Silmarillion, @Sascha. It is a pain in the butt to read.

@Sascha said:
What books should I read? (Please no french since my french is so bad that it is an instant vomit guarantee)

OK now I laugh because of imagining a guy trying to talk french and vomit at the third syllabe. "Je mange un… bleeeeurbblblblb". French induced Sickness, a classical disease. I would'nt even try to prononce one word in German as I would make a linguistic massacre making every Germans in the world collapse at the same time.

Haha. I'd be fine. It is your ears that would get a vomit inducing stimulus. But serious: I can understand some text roughly. But reading complicated stuff is not possible for me.

Right now, I am looking for a translation of his two books that would'nt coast you 60e for an edition… -_-

Who gives a f about money? I am here for legacy and not for money.

We (people) are dumb af.

Yes… But it doesn't dismiss the transmission as a collective phenomenon. I would even say that dumb-itude is the better argument here. People are dumb, lazy, narrowminded. But we keep on writing books, talk to each others, having friends, setting collective events. There is a deeper stream here.

No, I can't dismiss it. I read the bible, buddhist and hindu texts etc. I'd be contradicting myself. But the missing part of the transmission is the evolutionary pressure by oral tradition. This mutating, filtering, selecting and re-application that is typical for oral tradition is the key mechanism of creating the awesome stories we have today.

As artists (now I count myself as one), we just throw another child in the meatgrinder hoping that it has some tough skin.

I think Shuhari is a very good example. For the non-martial artists:

OK, you get me there. I understand. Whatever you want to learn, imitation is a part of the process. Some may have understand something that I don't, good or bad, and at stage 2, I begin to interpret, setting patterns.

A martial arts background is not always a strength. It also creates a backdoor in ones heart. ;D

The art of words is just one slice of writing. (even more heretics) Story, meaning (correct meaning!), character development, etc. All these aspects are medium independent. This is were the pot of gold lies. I aim at story that is eternal and I believe that the eternal story is already told but forgotten. Luckily, I like remembering a lot (stage 2)

I'll figure out what kind of materials I can extract from this fortune sellers. Dude. You are persuasive.

It is not me who is persuasive. I am just paraphrasing (barely stage 2) what we eternally need to reminded. (However, one of my nicknames in university was woman whisperer. My trick to seem interested: Just talk to people who tell interesting stuff.. What a genius move..)

But I don't think I persuade anyone to anything. My main job is to help the natural unfolding of ones self-development. That is all I do. You persuaded yourself.

Submission is indeed a problem, which frolics happily hand by hand with trust issue. Maybe I don't need to trust a source to extract what would be useful.

Religion is for trust. We all gonna make it, brah.

Would you be able to produce what you detest?

Aaaand the answer is : yes. I did that. Illustrations freelancing is a risky journey, being a web redactor as well and I sold anonymous short stories too. I sold products I hated too as a vendor as well.

Awesome!

Another perfect example of self-similarity. My closed-mindedness is mirrored by my very masculine appearance. I am just to disagreeable to accept my conformist nature.

I met very manly guys who like martial sports, huge muscles… And they loved cute animals, were really sensitive, vulnerable and all. World is strange. That's the fun part.

It is not about what you love. It is about your ability to bring out the cuteness. And there is one tool that is above all: stinky feet after a long, long walk.

Of course you knew it. I bet you even knew that I am a gemini all long.

Yes and I take bath into my own ego everyday to stay sooo wondeful It was predictable in fact, as I know how those tests work. Gemini on other hand is a random bet… Hey, soon you'll celebrate your birthday ! Should I call you "granpa" ? Do you prefer "oji-san" ? Mine is Cancer, like the illness. Some wouldn't disagree with the comparison.

I sometimes force my fioncée to call me Grandmaster which sounds even better in German. Maybe Oji-Sama?

I think my true astrological sign is arsehole. But nobody is updating the catalogue.

By the way, I wish you a good day with the ones you cherish

I treat everybody with the same.

In German, we have a nice saying: Haste heute einen Clown gefressen?

But the only one who's opinion counts in the end is everyone but the artist. (See my embarassemet bellow)

Yes and No on this point fro my perspective. The artist possesses their own expertise, they can say if the production is conform to the initial intention, if it works from their perspective or not.
I would compare that processus to a mechanic-car reparator. They fix the car with their expertise, gives the car to the owner and the owner drives it. In the end, the work of reparation is little, the owner will tell if the reparator made a good job or not. But the expertise matters. The more talented you are, the more you are able to produce good work and put the right diagnosis on your productions.

In all honesty, I this is what I think, too. But I think art needs some overcorrection and I like overly brass-neckedness.

And I always breakfast a clown to make sure that I am set for the day.

I write fast but now, I still don't have anything to publish. It's because I have to set up the whole fundations of the univers, and this univers will follow me for the next novels : this serie is litteraly a cosmogony. The next ones will be easier and faster to write.

I will have the same issue with my fantasy novel (which I started with 8). My plan to circumvent this issue is to write some short stories.

I write little scenes, expositions and similar stuff. Then I'll let others read them (selected. My fioncée hates fantasy. So, she is the first one I ask for fantastical stuff..) and record their reactions.

It's a good idea. To complement, you can test it with a fantasy lover, someone who matches with your potential public too.

I think that does not align with my primary mission to annoy people.

But yeah. I will build on the beta process that I am currently using for the second edition of the Zettelkasten Method. I messed up the process a little bit and there is to much downtime for the beta readers (who rightly complain). But the next iteration of the process will allow me to have 40-60 beta readers at the same time on each section.

So, I am going a different route. My role model is rubens and his manufacture.

There are a lot of ways to construct a story (when fundation are known, of course ). I've tested some of the readymade cook recipes out there like "snowflakes" (Yeap. I did). They did not incite to go further in the story, but they can give some leads.

What could you learn from the snowflake method?

I am refactoring my fourth book now, the master note book is like this (let me translate it. Don't vomit yet !) :

Miror of souls - Book IV - The Cracked Miroir

## Synopsis :
'quick synopsis'

## Initial situation :
* Character 1 at the end of the L3 and new situation in the next one
* Character 2
* Some context of the main plot.

## Content :

### Acte I - Brotherhood
*Update: 2022.05.07 - on going*
- Ver 1 [[Romans.MDA.L4.A1.]]
- Ver 2 [[0.MDA.L4.A1.00.220507215146.MDA.L4.A1.The Futur comes to our minds]]
|-- [[0.MDA.L4.A1.01.220507235205.Prelude - The Fox's Gaze]]
|---- Goal of the chapter, summary, links with plots
|-- [[0.MDA.L4.A1.02.220507234846.Ch1 The Crow, the Cake and the Nightmare]]
|---- Goal of the chapter, summary, links with plots
|-- [[0.MDA.L4.A1.03.220507235324.Ch2 Meeting with Goddesses]]
|---- Goal of the chapter, summary, links with plots
|-- [[0.MDA.L4.A1.04.220507235427.Ch 3 The cold chains in Dante's heart]]
|---- Goal of the chapter, summary, links with plots

### Acte 2 - Tonight is the night
(…)


Do you keep old versions?

I didn't use this yet myself: I will try to construct a playbook approach. But instead of different choices a reader can make the links will lead me to different versions of each scene. In the end, I will generate something similar to this flow diagram. My hope is to find the golden thread for the book in the end.

I am a Zettler

• Haha. I'd be fine. It is your ears that would get a vomit inducing stimulus. But serious: I can understand some text roughly. But reading complicated stuff is not possible for me.

That sounds like a Terry Gilliam film scene, someone who vomits through its ears with nice jets. Pschit pschit. Awefuly painful, I imagine but… hilarious in a strange way.

Did you know that I write poems sometimes ? Totally obvious, isn't it ?

So, this is the legacy of Sfastick II of Prussia : "Writing drama : A comprehensive guide for playwrights and scriptwriters - Yves Lavandier". I've found the original publisher of Lavandier, and this publisher is the only one to practices reasonnable prices for the english version. It should be read with it's complement, Constructing a Story. They don't take credit card and they have to be contacted to buy it. Tell me if you want to buy them and you have a problem with the french seller, I'll help, Frenchies are not always at ease with English. Wine, cheese and croissant are more appealing, maybe.

I have begin the Truby's book last night. I can easily understand it while no I did'nt sleep in the last 24h (let's all sing "insooomniaaaas are cool")… Let's say it is because it is just the beginning. It is not false by itself, gives a lot of practical advices, like recipes for now.

What could you learn from the snowflake method?

A way to quickly set up a story. Not in deep overview, but a way to quickly draw some sketch of the event course. When I have some nodes, but need to fill the blanks and search for logical and natural evolution between them. I don't keep every idas I generate through the snowflake method, but I obtain a quick overview to answer to my question : "does it work ?".

It is not about what you love. It is about your ability to bring out the cuteness. And there is one tool that is above all: stinky feet after a long, long walk.

Your girl is cute ! She seemed so happy with stinky feet, she came back at a puppy state. Bring out the cute is a super power.

Food and sweet talk worked fine with my playful parrot .

In German, we have a nice saying: Haste heute einen Clown gefressen?

In France, we have exactly the same expression. A declinaison of it implies the use of the word "blow"… French is elegant, of course

So, I am going a different route. My role model is rubens and his manufacture.

I would just warn you about too much informations input can blurry the relevance. And I have learnt that the background of the commentator could be important too. It is something I have learnt from my art school, but also in historiography class. I don't know how you plan that… I would maybe question the whole big group with a normalized questionnaire, and keep some "special" beta readers whom I would know every parameters needed to interpret their commentaries. As a really simple example, a "It was cool" does not mean the same thing for my partner than for my bro. For the first, it is a 6/10, for the later it is a 8/10. Vasari was overly critical towards Rafaelo, because this painter did not please the sponsor he wrote for. Input are far more interesting with context. Marketing does that too.

I feel closer to Da Vinci. Or Michelangelo, who slept into his workshop without any consideration for his health. It's kind of extrem, but art was really above anything for him.

Do you keep old versions?

Yes, I do keep the old version of preparatory notes, until I finish to write the next version of the chapter. It helps me to remember motivation behind my choices, my process. I write every question-answer-problem-solution sequence, so it gives a lot of information from my past-self. I keep every version of the novels as well in separate folders. When I begin corrections of a chapter, I create a new document and a dedicated folder for versionning too.

I didn't use this yet myself: I will try to construct a playbook approach. But instead of different choices a reader can make the links will lead me to different versions of each scene. In the end, I will generate something similar to this flow diagram. My hope is to find the golden thread for the book in the end.

Is it a way of brainstorming ? How do you remember which path you choosed ? How do you intend to find this golden thread ? You'll need Ariane to help, a way to circulate between them and to visualise the whole plan. Master book note did that for me. Maybe a table with every notes and annotation may help to sort the "good" "bad" "interesting" "potentialy explosive" "shut up an take my money" choices.

Note name Pro con Potential
Note name Pro con Potential
• The Do-Whatever-I-Want perfectly demonstrated in music:

I am a Zettler

• I'm a Jazz player ! \o/ No one will come at my funeral, but I will play with Duke Elligton and Miles Davis, youhou !

• @Loni said:

Haha. I'd be fine. It is your ears that would get a vomit inducing stimulus. But serious: I can understand some text roughly. But reading complicated stuff is not possible for me.

That sounds like a Terry Gilliam film scene, someone who vomits through its ears with nice jets. Pschit pschit. Awefuly painful, I imagine but… hilarious in a strange way.

You'd like my novella War in the Mall. Shameless spoiler: There is a big war between the cheese and the saucage seller that decides on the meaning of life.

So, this is the legacy of Sfastick II of Prussia : "Writing drama : A comprehensive guide for playwrights and scriptwriters - Yves Lavandier". I've found the original publisher of Lavandier, and this publisher is the only one to practices reasonnable prices for the english version. It should be read with it's complement, Constructing a Story. They don't take credit card and they have to be contacted to buy it. Tell me if you want to buy them and you have a problem with the french seller, I'll help, Frenchies are not always at ease with English. Wine, cheese and croissant are more appealing, maybe.

Thanks!

I have begin the Truby's book last night. I can easily understand it while no I did'nt sleep in the last 24h (let's all sing "insooomniaaaas are cool")… Let's say it is because it is just the beginning. It is not false by itself, gives a lot of practical advices, like recipes for now.

This is all you can get from these kind of books. I like to pair each element with an effect. For example: Putting the motivation of the villain early in the story can humanise or dehumanise him. It can create a similar effect like putting the end in the beginning (like American Beauty) but on a different layer (psychological but not plot-wise).

To me, these books offer a lot of tools. Especially those like Truby/Coyne. Booker on the other hand offers a in-depth analysis on the psychological/archetypical layer and needs more transformation for my personal tool box.

What could you learn from the snowflake method?

A way to quickly set up a story. Not in deep overview, but a way to quickly draw some sketch of the event course. When I have some nodes, but need to fill the blanks and search for logical and natural evolution between them. I don't keep every idas I generate through the snowflake method, but I obtain a quick overview to answer to my question : "does it work ?".

Ah, I see. Same for me. I like to unfold an idea with several different approaches. This gives my a feel for what remains constant and therefore is potentially closer to the soul of the idea.

It is not about what you love. It is about your ability to bring out the cuteness. And there is one tool that is above all: stinky feet after a long, long walk.

Your girl is cute ! She seemed so happy with stinky feet, she came back at a puppy state. Bring out the cute is a super power.

The sad story behind this pic is that she tyrannised me to the death until I decided to work from my bedroom (back then she was allowed on the bed). I thought the wanted company. But she slept within a minute.. I bet if I would have sneaked out she would have returned to obnoxious mode.

Food and sweet talk worked fine with my playful parrot .

Cute. But my dog is bigger.

In German, we have a nice saying: Haste heute einen Clown gefressen?

In France, we have exactly the same expression. A declinaison of it implies the use of the word "blow"… French is elegant, of course

So, I am going a different route. My role model is rubens and his manufacture.

I would just warn you about too much informations input can blurry the relevance. And I have learnt that the background of the commentator could be important too. It is something I have learnt from my art school, but also in historiography class. I don't know how you plan that… I would maybe question the whole big group with a normalized questionnaire, and keep some "special" beta readers whom I would know every parameters needed to interpret their commentaries. As a really simple example, a "It was cool" does not mean the same thing for my partner than for my bro. For the first, it is a 6/10, for the later it is a 8/10. Vasari was overly critical towards Rafaelo, because this painter did not please the sponsor he wrote for. Input are far more interesting with context. Marketing does that too.

Already considered. I never heard of this mass approach and I like to make it work.

In the end, it will be one of the more later steps with the classical beta reading approach in the beginning. Or something unforseeable happens.

I feel closer to Da Vinci. Or Michelangelo, who slept into his workshop without any consideration for his health. It's kind of extrem, but art was really above anything for him.

Do you keep old versions?

Yes, I do keep the old version of preparatory notes, until I finish to write the next version of the chapter. It helps me to remember motivation behind my choices, my process. I write every question-answer-problem-solution sequence, so it gives a lot of information from my past-self. I keep every version of the novels as well in separate folders. When I begin corrections of a chapter, I create a new document and a dedicated folder for versionning too.

I am not so sure about that myself. I never had the need to have an old version of anything whatsover. I can recall old stuff good enough to reproduce it or don't mind to re-create it.

I also believe there is a best version and iterations generally go in the direction of improvement. So, I like to increase iterations and testing. Then keeping versions becomes to cost intensive but not longer necessary.

I didn't use this yet myself: I will try to construct a playbook approach. But instead of different choices a reader can make the links will lead me to different versions of each scene. In the end, I will generate something similar to this flow diagram. My hope is to find the golden thread for the book in the end.

Is it a way of brainstorming ? How do you remember which path you choosed ? How do you intend to find this golden thread ? You'll need Ariane to help, a way to circulate between them and to visualise the whole plan. Master book note did that for me. Maybe a table with every notes and annotation may help to sort the "good" "bad" "interesting" "potentialy explosive" "shut up an take my money" choices.

Note name Pro con Potential
Note name Pro con Potential

I didn't test the aproach yet. But I am confident to operate by recall. But a structure note would be my tool of choice (propably containing GraphViz or Mermaid)

I am a Zettler