21–30 of 54 posts
Wow, thanks for the unrequested spoilers. You’d think an article about storytelling might be a little more careful.
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.
Interesting read! Here's the the template mentioned for powerful antagonists: “Antagonists 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.” I disagree. The above describes someone like a Bond villain, which are easily dealt with, o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, a…
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". Ironi…
> If you happen to be blessed with muscle, don’t throw it around. If you happen to be a great hunter or a dazzling beauty, don’t 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.
> From one point of view, it’s obvious that, despite exceptions, most stories portray “goody-baddy” dynamics—from 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, a…
Interesting read! Here's the the template mentioned for powerful antagonists: “Antagonists 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.” I disagree. The above describes someone like a Bond villain, which are easily dealt with, o…
Is banding people together and creating powerful memes behavior that marks an antagonist, though?
> 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.
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, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ ... 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?
> The necessity of conflict is preached as a kind of dogma by contemporary writers’ workshops and Internet “guides” 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 general–arguably even philosophy. Yet, is there any truth to this belief? Does plot necessarily hinge on conflict? No. Such claims are a product of the West’s insularity. For countless centuries, Chinese and Japanese writers have used a plot structure that does not have conflict “built in”, so to speak. Rather, it relies on exposition and contrast to generate interest. This structure is known as kishōtenketsu.
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.