Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q12,1,13: Difference between revisions

From LithoGraphica
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
18,420 edits
copy markup from Q43,19
 
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
18,420 edits
m Fiction doesn't teach us anything
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/DFy|Q=12,1,13|Q2=12113}}Vladimir Nabokov  ->  author of disturbing [[E:Lolita (Nabokov 1955)|book]] that keeps getting grandfathered in while at various times similar writings wrote any year after it get blocked. (Definitely not all of them though.)<br />
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/DFy|Q=12,1,13|Q2=12113}}Vladimir Nabokov  ->  author of disturbing [[E:Lolita (Nabokov 1955)|book]] that keeps getting grandfathered in while at various times similar writings wrote any year after it get blocked. (Definitely not all of them though.)<br />
this Item itself is Take It Seriously but at the same time I could see some very funny usages of it in Wavebuilder combinations; he may be a questionable person but he's kind of a choice [[E:Cards Against Humanity|white card]].
this Item itself is Take It Seriously but at the same time I could see some very funny usages of it in Wavebuilder combinations; he may be a questionable person but he's kind of a choice [[E:Cards Against Humanity|white card]].
</li></ol>
== Discourse around Nabokov's cursed book ==
<ol class="hue clean  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/DFy|Q=12,1,88|Q2=12188}}{{book|Lolita}} (Nabokov 1955) / Nabokov's book [censored title] {{9k|RD|Q12113}}
{{li|I=S2/Fy|Q=12,1,15|Q2=12115}}{{book|Lolita}} is just a book / {{book|Lolita}} is okay because escapism is okay  ->  <s>please do not enter {{book|Lolita}} into the first 10,000 Items. or anything that manages to be more disturbing. if it becomes necessary to some other entry, then you may enter it at a later number. I entered the "Warriors discourse" Item after 10k. these two Items show the threshold of nasty allowed, anything where the topic {{em|isn't}} "right there in your face" to where it's difficult to bury deep inside the article text can go below 10k.</s> it has been coded now.
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S">literature of ideas / the literature of ideas [https://www.writing-world.com/sf/sf.shtml]  ->  near synonym for speculative fiction; literature as simulation. seems to refer either to literal predictive-model types of stories and to Media Representation presented as a hypothetical — {{i|hey, what if these other groups of people that do exist existed?? that would be weird, huh? I forced you to learn something, gotcha.}}
{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=60,38|Q2=6038}}Fiction never speaks about reality / I am neither a reader nor writer of didactic fiction ... (Vladimir Nabokov) / It is childish to study a work of fiction in order to gain information about a country or about a social class ... (Vladimir Nabokov)  ->  I used to believe this before I was about 25. when I became a mainstream Marxist-Leninist at the age of 27, I stopped believing it. because I realized that all fiction (especially things like fantasy fiction depicting kingdoms, or PBS-style slice of life shows) is a representation of real things that happen. it's not fair to say that all fiction is "metaphors", because sometimes it intends to be a believable simulation of a literal thing that hasn't happened, and wants you to analyze it like you would analyze an anecdote about that thing happening in real life.<br />
Fiction never speaks about reality + ?? = Everything in fiction is the author's arbitrary decision<br />
Fiction never speaks about reality + hypothetical social phenomenon reader has not experienced = assertion that real thing is fictional<br />
Fiction never speaks about reality + ?? = white bread fantasy
</li><li class="field_fantasy" value="618" data-dimension="S2">Speculative fiction is often topical trash (Vladimir Nabokov)  ->  I mean, he's not wrong. he's right for the wrong reasons. but, yeah, technically. it can be.<br />
look at Harry Potter as a "what-if" about a world of wizards. a lot of the actual hypotheticals in the story are handled horribly, "introducing" social issues to a group of people who has carefully eradicated them and never had to experience them and [[E:white bread fantasy|now thinks they're innovative]]. a good author would have started writing Harry Potter, suddenly realized they had like three years more research to do, and been forced to learn a lot of stuff by writing the text, coming out with a narrative that if not great in its education is at least okay. (this happened to me, before and during Ironblood drafts. I'm confident that if I finish it, even if it's "eh" it will still be absolute worlds better than if I just did like J.K. Rowling did, wrote immediately, and tried to imagine a world that had nothing to do with anything.) education is required to represent the world, speak, and express. there are no 'authentic feelings or expressions' that exist below education. it's terrible that you can never know how much or what kind you need and the idea of universities is a joke, but that's the reality.<br />
didactic fiction + {{book|Harry Potter}} = Speculative fiction is often topical trash.
</li><li class="field_mdem" value="618" data-dimension="S2">All simulations of reality are political  ->  contentious probably. but it's one of the only things that nails Nabokov to the floor and makes it difficult to argue that art about disturbing situations is not at least open to an analysis of what it is abstractly representing or implying about that thing. the precise intention of the author doesn't matter if the point of all art can be derived from the "intent" of the written text itself to represent reality.<br />
I'm going to ruin your day with this claim: people are less critical of Nabokov than So Sorry<br />
but on the bright side: {{book|Tapers}} and {{game|Petscop}} demonstrate it's fully possible to write a relatively disturbing story without harming anyone.


</li></ol>
</li></ol>
Line 11: Line 35:
<ol class="hue clean  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
<ol class="hue clean  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">


{{li|start=y|I=S2/Fy|Q=12,1,15|Q2=12115}}{{book|Lolita}} is just a book / {{book|Lolita}} is okay because escapism is okay  ->  please do not enter {{book|Lolita}} into the first 10,000 Items. or anything that manages to be more disturbing. if it becomes necessary to some other entry, then you may enter it at a later number. I entered the "Warriors discourse" Item after 10k. these two Items show the threshold of nasty allowed, anything where the topic {{em|isn't}} "right there in your face" to where it's difficult to bury deep inside the article text can go below 10k.
{{li|start=y|I=M3/MX|Q=60,42|Q2=6042}}Why do narratives exist? {{9k|RD|Q60,42}}
 
{{li|I=F2/STM|Q=60,38|Q2=6038}}Fiction doesn't teach us anything (AronRa) / There is no didactic fiction {{9k|RD|Q6038}}


</li></ol>
</li></ol>


== Ideologies or fields ==
== Ideologies or fields ==
<!--
<ol class="hue clean terse  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
<ol class="hue clean terse  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
{{li|start=y
{{li|start=y
     |I=S1/BM|Q=51,85|Q2=5185}}{{TTS|BM|B.M.}} / postmodern philosophy
     |I=S1/Fy |Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|Fy|Fiction}} / literature of ideas
</li></ol> -->
{{li|I=S1/Fy |Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|Fy|Fiction}} / didactic fiction
{{li|I=S1/DFy|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|Fy|Fiction}} / "literature communities" and censorship
{{li|I=Z1/DFy|Q=12,1,13|Q2=12113}}{{TTS|Fy|Fiction}} / Vladimir Nabokov
</li></ol>


== Wavebuilder combinations ==
== Wavebuilder combinations ==
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">


{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/ES|??}} | -- | -- }}  <!-- en: Along With, Produces  ??  ?? -->
{{WaveBuild| {{E:Q618/Fy|??}} | -- | -- }}  <!-- en: Along With, Produces  ??  ?? -->


</dl>
</dl>

Latest revision as of 05:32, 3 October 2026

Main entry

  1. Vladimir Nabokov -> author of disturbing book that keeps getting grandfathered in while at various times similar writings wrote any year after it get blocked. (Definitely not all of them though.)
    this Item itself is Take It Seriously but at the same time I could see some very funny usages of it in Wavebuilder combinations; he may be a questionable person but he's kind of a choice white card.

Discourse around Nabokov's cursed book

  1. Lolita (Nabokov 1955) / Nabokov's book [censored title] / (9k)
  2. Lolita is just a book / Lolita is okay because escapism is okay -> please do not enter Lolita into the first 10,000 Items. or anything that manages to be more disturbing. if it becomes necessary to some other entry, then you may enter it at a later number. I entered the "Warriors discourse" Item after 10k. these two Items show the threshold of nasty allowed, anything where the topic isn't "right there in your face" to where it's difficult to bury deep inside the article text can go below 10k. it has been coded now.
  3. literature of ideas / the literature of ideas [1] -> near synonym for speculative fiction; literature as simulation. seems to refer either to literal predictive-model types of stories and to Media Representation presented as a hypothetical — hey, what if these other groups of people that do exist existed?? that would be weird, huh? I forced you to learn something, gotcha.
  4. Fiction never speaks about reality / I am neither a reader nor writer of didactic fiction ... (Vladimir Nabokov) / It is childish to study a work of fiction in order to gain information about a country or about a social class ... (Vladimir Nabokov) -> I used to believe this before I was about 25. when I became a mainstream Marxist-Leninist at the age of 27, I stopped believing it. because I realized that all fiction (especially things like fantasy fiction depicting kingdoms, or PBS-style slice of life shows) is a representation of real things that happen. it's not fair to say that all fiction is "metaphors", because sometimes it intends to be a believable simulation of a literal thing that hasn't happened, and wants you to analyze it like you would analyze an anecdote about that thing happening in real life.
    Fiction never speaks about reality + ?? = Everything in fiction is the author's arbitrary decision
    Fiction never speaks about reality + hypothetical social phenomenon reader has not experienced = assertion that real thing is fictional
    Fiction never speaks about reality + ?? = white bread fantasy
  5. Speculative fiction is often topical trash (Vladimir Nabokov) -> I mean, he's not wrong. he's right for the wrong reasons. but, yeah, technically. it can be.
    look at Harry Potter as a "what-if" about a world of wizards. a lot of the actual hypotheticals in the story are handled horribly, "introducing" social issues to a group of people who has carefully eradicated them and never had to experience them and now thinks they're innovative. a good author would have started writing Harry Potter, suddenly realized they had like three years more research to do, and been forced to learn a lot of stuff by writing the text, coming out with a narrative that if not great in its education is at least okay. (this happened to me, before and during Ironblood drafts. I'm confident that if I finish it, even if it's "eh" it will still be absolute worlds better than if I just did like J.K. Rowling did, wrote immediately, and tried to imagine a world that had nothing to do with anything.) education is required to represent the world, speak, and express. there are no 'authentic feelings or expressions' that exist below education. it's terrible that you can never know how much or what kind you need and the idea of universities is a joke, but that's the reality.
    didactic fiction + Harry Potter = Speculative fiction is often topical trash.
  6. All simulations of reality are political -> contentious probably. but it's one of the only things that nails Nabokov to the floor and makes it difficult to argue that art about disturbing situations is not at least open to an analysis of what it is abstractly representing or implying about that thing. the precise intention of the author doesn't matter if the point of all art can be derived from the "intent" of the written text itself to represent reality.
    I'm going to ruin your day with this claim: people are less critical of Nabokov than So Sorry
    but on the bright side: Tapers and Petscop demonstrate it's fully possible to write a relatively disturbing story without harming anyone.

Related

  1. Why do narratives exist? / (9k)
  2. Fiction doesn't teach us anything (AronRa) / There is no didactic fiction / (9k)

Ideologies or fields

  1. pronounced Fiction / literature of ideas
  2. pronounced Fiction / didactic fiction
  3. pronounced Fiction / "literature communities" and censorship
  4. pronounced Fiction / Vladimir Nabokov

Wavebuilder combinations

pronounced P: pronounced Wave-builder: forms result [Item]
--
along with [Item]
?? (pronounced proposed / Fy)1-1-1
forming from [Item]
?? (pronounced proposed / Fy)1-1-1
--
--
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q12,1,13&oldid=46556"