đŸ Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz âș thread âș 29408567 captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2021-12-04)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
Counterpoint argument based on the Japanese/Korean story structure called kishĆtenketsu:
The necessity of conflict is preached as a kind of dogma by contemporary writersâ workshops and Internet âguidesâ to writing. A plot without conflict is considered dull; some even go so far as to call it impossible. This has influenced not only fiction, but writing in generalâarguably even philosophy. Yet, is there any truth to this belief? Does plot necessarily hinge on conflict? No. Such claims are a product of the Westâs insularity. For countless centuries, Chinese and Japanese writers have used a plot structure that does not have conflict âbuilt inâ, so to speak. Rather, it relies on exposition and contrast to generate interest. This structure is known as kishĆtenketsu.
https://stilleatingoranges.tumblr.com/post/25153960313/the-s...
Also, there are numerous highly regarded, non-Hollywood films that do not rely on the traditional confrontational story arc. "Killer of Sheep" and "Patterson" are two off the top of my head.
So "Universal Structure of Storytelling" seems a bit over-sold.
Confrontation is a turn, which is the third act in this Japanese rendition, è”·æżè»ąç”. Nowadays people just want more and more of this crescendo phase of the story, as people can't sit long enough for a slow buildup of the first two phases. The four-act story is like a knock-knock joke, yet people grow up and only have time to enjoy one punch line.
_From one point of view, itâs obvious that, despite exceptions, most stories portray âgoody-baddyâ dynamicsâfrom nursery rhymes to juicy gossip, from ancient folktales to Holy Scripture, from lowbrow reality shows to award-winning documentaries. The question is, why?_
Because they are all, actually, from the same culture, as becomes obvious when reading the article. The author is a little quick to call this universal. It may be a little more "universal" than the World Series, but not much.
There are many stories where there are no baddies, and others where there are no goodies (such as Greek Mythology for instance).
This is a _huge_ problem when you see discussions on music theory as well; claims that things like Pythagorean 12 tone scales are "universal" because of the simplicity of the ratios.
My favorite is the claims of the universality of divisive rhythm; where larger units (measures, phrases, the like) are subdivided into equal portions and those subdivisions are the building blocks of all rhythm ever. I think music education has gotten to the point where plenty of people (who are used to euro-centric western music, that is) are able to comprehend that some cultures use smaller than half-step increments or other scales, but the way our rhythm works is so ingrained that trying to explain additive rhythm is almost painfully mind-expanding, even those it's very very common outside of sub-saharan africa and western europe.
This also applies to people who try to make statements about A432 or whatnot, which relies on having a _very_ narrow view of music theory as a whole
https://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/prelude.html
this work claims that the 12 tones system (IMO not a scale) seems "universal" is in fact so widespread because of the timbres in the instruments used (i.e. the haromic spectrum of strings, wind instruments, and human voice, etc).
I'd disagree with your characterization of Greek Mythology. There are "goodies," they just are not viewed that way through the lens of modern values.
Yes. This is an interesting article, and if the author had resisted the tendency to generalize and just drawn the cultural conclusions available from his research I would have enjoyed it more. Unfortunately, I think in some circles it's too politically charged to say "Western cultures," because people will react badly to that phrase.
A bit unrelated to the article -
An (initial) portion of my academic experience was researching Interactive Storytelling systems[1]. I was particularly interested in the methods for ensuring certain qualities of the plots, and modeled some constraint solving problems -
but I did had the absolutely outstanding opportunity to interact with researchers in this area, and to read the seminal works on plot structure, Aarne-Thompson's index, Propp and other very, very, very cool stuff
With no false modesty I can say that I had a 'knack' for writing from a young age, but after studying narratives in-depth, what they share, how they 'move', fabula and syuhzet, I became a much better writer - even a _technical_ writer.
Turns out explaining a formal method shares a lot in common with telling a story. One of this days I'll try to pinpoint that overlap and write about it.
[1] -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_storytelling
P.S.: this is a good resource:
http://tecfalabs.unige.ch/mediawiki-narrative/index.php/Narr...
I like to think (based on my shallow understanding of technical aspects of stories) that the basic formula of the hero's journey (a hero goes somewhere else and brings back some kind of change) is a general scheme to codify how to change things
Ramping up the abstraction (generality) to 11:
the hero is in a home (A)
the hero goes on an adventure (->)
the hero returns home but things have changed (B)
i.e. A -> B
It is probably useful to turn down the generality a little bit for this to be more usefull; but I'm most certainly NOT a storyteller.
Well, the general reasoning you applied is in fact the basis of several 'plot-based' approaches; a sequence of 'events' that change the narrative world in a certain way is chosen based on (any number of) criteria
I worked particularly on a system that involved an automated planning paradigm - so there were 'goals' that the story wanted to be met (and could be determined/influenced by an author-user) and a catalogue of abstract definitions of events as planning operators. It worked somewhat like you said, except (for practical purposes) mostly backwards (as in backwards-planning)
I unfortunately lost contact with the research area a bit, and am not familiar with how it progressed - but it certainly is interesting in a distinct way; it really lets you explore a particular creative side that many things in computer science neglect
A valuable passage from the article:
"We love the sensation of righteous indignation and the satisfying payoff of justice delivered. As the literary scholar Northrop Frye points out in The Anatomy of Criticism[1], âIn the melodrama of the brutal thriller we come as close as itâs normally possible for art to come to the pure self-righteousness of the lynching mob.â And studies back this up: people get more satisfaction out of stories in which offenders are punished rather than forgiven.
The unstoppable moralism of stories has a big upside for within-group bonding. But the universal grammar of stories can also be paranoid and vindictive. Stories show us problem-drenched worlds and encourage us to turn on the people who are lousing things up. In other words, to proliferate narratives is to proliferate villains. To proliferate villains is also to proliferate rage, judgment, and division."
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_of_Criticism
_The golden rule of hunter-gather life is pretty simple:_
Oh please. There are at least as many "hunter-gather lives" as there are tribes, and probably more, and it's very likely the author knows about none of them. This is rubbish of the highest order.
so the author said something which can be nitpicked, therefore the entire article is rubbish?
I guess we all do this to a certain extent given that there's so much content to parse through and anything that will allow us to quickly dismiss something lets us use that energy for something else
> _so the author said something which can be nitpicked, therefore the entire article is rubbish?_
I'm sorry, but yes. This shows the author wasn't thinking and is intellectually lazy and incurious -- like if he was laying out bigoted theories in the first paragraph, and making whole deductions out of it.
This is actually bigoted, by the way: to declare that there is just one way to live the life of a hunter-gatherer, and that it's "simple".
As I see it (as someone fascinated with this phenomenon), this is somewhat of an example of what the author is talking about.
The claim:
>> The golden rule of hunter-gather life is pretty simple
...post-processing, is perceived as:
> There are at least as many "hunter-gather lives" as there are tribes, and probably more, and it's very likely the author knows about none of them.
...dropping "the golden rule of".
Ironically, this is followed up with:
> This shows the author _wasn't thinking and is intellectually lazy and incurious_ -- like if he was [laying out bigoted theories in the first paragraph], _and making whole deductions out of it_.
I wrote more about a theory I have about this phenomenon in a recent thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29430192
You're playing with words. The rest of the paragraph in TFA does describe the _life_ of hunter-gatherers, not just one "golden rule" (which is never enunciated).
> _If you happen to be blessed with muscle, donât throw it around. If you happen to be a great hunter or a dazzling beauty, donât flaunt it over others. Be one of the good guys, in other words._
This is completely gratuitous and unsubstantiated. It's ridiculous. And then there is more of the same.
Agreed on that one can interpret the author's stance as bigoted because there is a cultivated myth here which is sentimental and all about how stories pre printing press were all about banding tribes together. People love this myth because it fits the mold of 'techno-optimism'. They were of course also about kinda boring things like record keeping about crops, but westerners ignore that and say those aren't stories because they don't have characters or something. As if we can generalize about things for which we have absolutely no record in many cases. Also as if western people invented the concept of a narrator (implied in this article but I've heard it elsewhere).
> Oh please. There are at least as many "hunter-gather lives" as there are tribes
It seems the author is extrapolating game-theoretic choice beyond what they've experienced to examine it's generality
Agreed the phrasing is more than unfortunate, though to try and pull good from it; the author's game-theory probably does apply; and the rule of seeking the best for society at the disadvantage of self is probably the missing key here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29416606
(The break down of distributed society)
You have heard that it was said, âEye for eye and tooth for tooth.â ... But I tell you, love your enemies
Or, unhelpfully, the Code of Hammurabi:
If a man proceeded by force and deflowered the virgin slave-woman of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.
If a man knocked out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out half a mina of silver.
If a man knocked out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
My question would be: does game theory ever enable the golden rule?
I wouldn't say that this article is about the universal structure of stories, it's really about the universal purpose (or reason) common to stories in most (all?) cultures.
IMO, the universal structural aspect is about how to tell good stories (hero's journey and such), however this article is actually about how storytelling in all cultures brings us together as a group and the actual universal about stories described in the article is moralism (good vs bad).
For it to be "all cultures", one would need to spend more time in cultures different then our own.
Interesting read! Here's the the template mentioned for powerful antagonists:
âAntagonists should be hyper-individualistic bullies. They should threaten the social order and induce righteous indignation in protagonists, incentivizing them and their peers to band together, fight back, and finally affirm their prosocial values.â
I disagree. The above describes someone like a Bond villain, which are easily dealt with, or whose legacy quickly dissipates after they are dead. The really dangerous antagonist is one who creates powerful memes and bands together their followers against the established order.
Defining them this way dissociates antagonists from simplistic , because the "evil" antagonist of today is tomorrow's charismatic leader, as happens many times in life.
Is banding people together and creating powerful memes behavior that marks an antagonist, though?
No, it is as the author argues the effect of stories with clearly defined antagonists and protagonists.
I find many popular shows are quite moralistic, but I'm not sure if that's cause or effect. Are they popular because we like moralistic stories, or because story-tellers want to moralize us? Many 'indie' shows, often European, are much more ambiguous and reflective of real life.
This is especially noticeable in formulaic sitcoms. Any time a character lies, cheats, etc, they will get caught in the worst way possible. At some base societal level it's "correct" to punish the bad guy and reward the good guy. Our stories reflect this attitude.
Well, for a sitcom, they get caught in the _funniest_ possible way, which usually turns out to also be the worst (and funniest _because_ it's worst). Humor drives, not morality.
Wow, thanks for the unrequested spoilers. Youâd think an article about storytelling might be a little more careful.
Read Nietzsche's writing on the distinction between Apollonian revelation and Dionysian satiation in narratives and you will never need to worry about spoilers again. I think the relevant material is in The Birth of Tragedies.
The reason those examples are used is because they're widely consumed stories. This is an article on literary analysis, not a fan discussion board for TV shows.
Norms for spoiler tagging would be awful in articles like this.
I blame myself for not having watched Breaking Bad yet.
Quillette is garbage:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/
You really need a better source if you want to undermine perfectly reasonable websites that are maligned simply because they challenge the narratives of ideological bullies on the web.