I'm an intellectual snob! · 11:07pm Sep 11th, 2014
If you're after word of my writing progress: Stars Shine Forth is progressing a little slower, after a minor re-jig of part of the plot to account for previous unexpected changes in direction. These characters will insist on doing their own thing. Should be another week, all things being equal.
This is mostly a rant, so please excuse it.
I've been in a few debates - friendly debates probably? I dunno - over the last few weeks on various matters related to media and that vast and wonderful field of What Things Are. You've likely seen my previous blogs on the subject of Canon and taking media literally (or perhaps you haven't, but that's not a problem as such). I wrote those in order to explain a few things without constant interruption, which is what tends to happen in a live discussion - and as I've noticed before, I often don't react well to interruption.
The issue that keeps coming up - the focus of this rant - is that it's all treated as opinion. Maybe. I mean there are definite debates to be had about the validity or otherwise of the death of the author and which particular metatextual framework you might use to analyse a piece of media, but that all takes place within a particular sphere of knowledge. By that I mean it's a debate between people who know what they're talking about. Maybe I'm just getting old, but when I see people disagreeing with me over certain subjects - on which I have very specific knowledge - I get pretty pissed off. I have education in this shit, people. I have a masters degree that included pretty extensive study of how media works from an analytical standpoint. It's an MSc too, because we also covered the technical and engineering side of things. In my case it was specifically computer animation, but the BSc I got prior was in the more general electronic imaging and media communications. I produced, directed, filmed, wrote script, engineered sound, and I engaged in what we affectionately referred to as "media bollocks" - dissection, deconstruction, semiotic analysis and all that jazz.
I may not work in the industry, but I could slide in there quite neatly. I know how media production works. I know how to take it apart and examine its thematic framework and its technical limitations. Simply put, when I decide to drop a steaming pile of opinion upon you regarding certain elements of this show that we all love, chances are I'm speaking from a position of knowledge and that I actually do know what I'm talking about.
So yeah, I guess I'm an intellectual snob.
Kind of a novel experience for me...
Now sit down, shut up and listen to my dispensed wisdom you little shits.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled pony pogrom.
Internet anonymity has its bonuses and its negatives. This is one of the negatives. People have no real reason to believe you when you say you have an education in something.
If they met you in real life, chances are they'd believe you.
2447313
Mother Russia does not tolerate fools. Just gonna steal your joke here...
>>The Blog
I see where you're coming from, but the internet is never so kind as to give anyone any respect whatsoever. It's just a thing you've kinda got to get used to. If someone does treat you with respect, however, make sure to highlight that person with several neon "This person is a model citizen of Mother Russia!" signs, so you know who not to kill when you do your nightly pogrom. Ponygrom? Hrm, gonna have to come up with something better.
At any rate, don't let it get to you. If you do, you've got to pay for ammo for your RPK. OR ELSE.
I agree with your rant, and have the same peeves myself.
Except mine are about Psych and information analysis.
I mostly agree; there's definitely plenty of people in any field content to throw out the most novice arguments that are evidently already refuted in one's own eyes, and thus you either get bogged down constantly rehashing something pedantic, or you let them crow victory that is unearned. Neither is very satisfying.
At the same time, one need not have an MS to argue with some degree of authority or knowledge in issues like this. I mean, take Econ - depending on how you cleave politically, one group of PhDs seems far more sensible than another, oftentimes, and the disciples of said PhDs then seem more knowledgeable and practical than PhDs in the other camp. Or with literature, one can do all sorts of analysis because the pool is so damned broad, and there really is no one right answer.
Like your bit about literal frameworks I just went through; I agree with the vast majority of it, but there's bits I would chew on a touch were we in a room talking together. I may not have a Master's, but I'm willing to wager I can make a good case for some facets of literalism - though not all, especially given I'm not an adherent of it myself. I'm far more a disciple of 'The only canon that ultimately matters is headcanon' because nobody else can force you to consume a body of media through their interpretive framework. If you want to believe Celestia is secretly a tyrant, you are free to do so. Few will side with you, but in your own head, hey. You're Princess, God, or King.
Very funny. Not. And, yes, you probably are a snob. And there's no guarantee that anything you spout is wisdom. If what you said was out of knowledge, then it's not really opinion and if it's opinion then it isn't knowledge itself but it's either based on knowledge or it isn't.
That said, it's the internet and there's no particular reason to believe that you have something because you say you do, etc, etc. You could be an oxford professor who's very well read and studied, but no one can actually see you. Being an intellectual snob probably leads to people thinking that you know a little bit and that everything else that you say is total bullshit.
2449534
For what's it's worth, the educated don't deserve to state things and be the authority without proof or argument any more than the uneducated do. You have a nice piece of paper on the wall, but unless you are willing to give someone a thorough explanation or admit that they don't have enough basic knowledge to understand it and not bother arguing with them then any conversation between you and them is simply an argument about WHO is right not about WHAT is right. -- It's also worth examining what's actually knowledge (the rate of terminal velocity?) versus collectively agreed upon opinion.
With regards to canon, I am of the opinion that once you adhere to certain parts of an existing canon you are being an objectively bad writer to then exclude parts of the story and adhere to headcanon that doesn't line up with the canon without some build up to it. It's like saying gravity is never affected by magic (and can't be) and then saying "oh, but it does over here in this special anti-canon zone where magic type Z exists" and then you move over 2 feet and magic type Z disappears and the canon reasserts itself. Basically it's inconsistency that's the issue. You can't focus on hard realities and then magic your way out of inconvenient plot holes, etc.
An example, maybe not a particularly good one, is to start your story immediately after some canon stuff from MLP, the show, and then declare Celestia a tyrant out of the blue. For one, it simply doesn't make any sense and for two you now have to explain how and why she's been doing such a job of looking like a nice, merciful, beneficient, wonderful, self-denying leader. It begins to strain the belief of the reader, particularly if your reason for it is that she's somehow always been a tyrant or wanted to be. In order for this concept to be a good story, you have to create a whole back story of why she's not behaved tyrannically thus far or what recently drove her insane, mad, tyrannical, etc.
E.g. Maybe the yammering of the nobles and the ridiculous requests of the peasantry have finally driven her off her rocker and she's decided that democracy/parliamentary monarchy doesn't work, period, and that the solution is an absolute monarchy/dictatorship/etc is the only way and that in order to maintain order certain unwanted elements of the society need to be suppressed, purged, etc. All that would explain nicely why she might one day decide to just quit recognizing the noble class and strip them of their titles and privileges and maybe some of their land and wealth.
2452583
Because it's 3 AM and I am tired, I will simply say that I'm fairly confident I could take any episode as the beginning point and cast Celestia as a tyrant, either the entire time, or simply about to become such. The nice thing about creativity is you get good at being able to find those holes anywhere.
That said, appeal to authority isn't itself proof of anything, but it's commonly accepted in many fields that, yea, a degree is one way you establish credibility, which is why nobody in power takes econ advice from random posters on Reddit.
2453824
If you have a degree, it won't say "Morning Sun" on it. Also I really disagree with you on that first point and in most cases I'd probably say that it was bad story, probably with reasons too. Just because you "can" doesn't mean it wouldn't deserve a "trollfic" or "random" mark because it really doesn't make any sense.
2454317
If I wanted to, I could verify what I have degrees in. Isn't that hard; people do it online all the time. And again - it depends on author. Most stories, period, are bad stories, because writing, like art, is a talent that one must cultivate and very few do.
2454650
Except that you'd have to cease to be anonymous. So long as your real identity and your online identity remain separate then there is no particular reason to believe that you have a degree short of regular proof of knowledge. You could even post a photocopy/picture of your paper, but of course if we cannot verify that the named individual and you are the same person then it is of no use. If the reader is uneducated, then, no matter what you say, it may very well come across as an attempt to make them believe that what you say is correct rather than merely conveying facts.
That's a stupid statement. For one, it necessarily assumes that you are the arbiter of what cultivation of writing is and and that you can tell who is or isn't doing so and how much effort is put in. Further, one does not cultivate talent. Talent is something inherent that you have, skill is what you cultivate. Also, since none of us have read "most stories", to say that most are bad is at best an informed guess and at worse absolute bullshit.
I don't think that stories = writing. You could have interesting ideas and maybe okay at fitting them together, but be terrible at writing. Poor grammar and incorrect use of words can make a nasty mess and be very confusing even if the writer has reasonable ideas.
For what it's worth, art is expression and whether it is good or bad is largely a matter of taste and opinion. Of course you can speak objectively about technique and perhaps style, but it doesn't cease to be art and your opinion and someone else's might differ widely about how good it is.
2468605
There are ways to retain anonymity while providing verification through a 3rd party. Reddit does this all the time.
Next, talent and skill are close enough in meaning that trying to claim there is a meaningful distinction is both the height of pedantry and entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Third, you do not need to read half of all stories to make a claim 'Most stories = bad'; you need a sufficient sample size at which point you can make a reasonable extrapolation. And yes, stories = writing. The idea/plot is only one element of the craft, along with word choice, grammatical structure, and so forth. Narrative conventions exist for a reason, and few people are capable enough to recognize when ignoring them improves their piece.
Lastly, tone down the condescending tone in your posts. It only makes you look like a smug jackass.
2469401
That does require that the third party be at least as trustworthy as you and probably more so.
No matter what you say, talent is not the same as skill. Some people are pretty good at things the /first/ time they do them. The rest of us have to work for even that level of being good at something.
Also, extrapolation is a wonderful tool, but it can be wrong and there is still the question/debate of what is a reasonable sample size.
I may look like a smug jackass, but you look AND sound like one, therefore you ARE one. If anybody is condescending here, it is you.
2470939
What I am is annoyed, because having someone going for the tiny, irrelevant details and ballooning them into something much larger is irritating.
Talent and skill may not be rigidly the same thing. In colloquial terms, their definition is close enough to use interchangeably in many areas.
As for being an ass? That happened the moment you turned it from polite disagreement to 'That's a stupid statement'. At any rate, I have been plenty foolish in remaining engaged with this, so I shall bow out.
2472037
I still disagree.