Re: A response to Walt

[Bob <mantic@brightok.net>]

Walt wrote:

>...You mention Erasmatron: Is it not obvious that creating the Erasmatron
> required Chris to analyze the nature of character interaction in stories
> with far more clarity and detail than any academic literature course would
> ever attempt? ...


Not to me.

	The Erazmatron reminds me a little bit of tamagotchi and a little bit
of RPG systems. It seems to have a psychological/sociological influence.
The organization of rules into a sort of RPG style structure strikes me
as potentially very powerful for simulation purposes. However, it does
not avail any means of recognizing plot devices and structure -- not
even those that are defined in literature studies.
	I feel that Mr Crawford has contributed one of the most useful systems
for the definition and manipulation of character, and even dramatic
situations in IF/IS here. But the Erazmatron is not a system facile at
handling conventional story structure.


Wally wrote:

>> (along with new elements, perhaps) into something new. You mention
>> Erasmatron: Is it not obvious that creating the Erasmatron required
>> Chris to analyze the nature of character interaction in stories with
>> far more clarity and detail than any academic literature course would
>> ever attempt? If we get

> Allow me to point out that (as much as I love chest-thumping) you're wrong
> on this point; literary studies has already wasted its time with an
> extended period in which dogmatic structural analysis and an obsession
> with flowcharts and graphs were the order of the day. Just wanted to
> provide today's friendly reminder that the jargon-heavy writing of many
> literary critics/philosophers doesn't render useless or invalid the
> unbelievable insights to be gained from the best critical writing (same as
> the best fiction). Losing faith in literary criticism because of a bad
> experience reading The New Criticism in college is like being turned off
> of contemporary fiction because of Stephen King.


That's a good point.

	Although I see no need to go hunting down the 'good' critical writing,
I have not spent time on a deep study of the subject. I am prejudiced
against the notion very much as you suggest. My initial efforts at
fiction writing lead me to Literature courses and groups. For me, this
proved useless, costing me time and money, giving me no insight into the
task of writing fiction, and actually putting notions in my head that
would later have to be removed rather painfully. My disdain is strong.
	But, just because I have a critical eye reserved for the critics does
not mean that I can effectively argue against a valid point. If the tool
works, use it.


								--Bob