/lit/ - Literature

>>21738440
> but storytelling takes a scientific approach as well.
No, it doesn’t. And no, Rupi Kaur’s poems are not better than the Divine Comedy.

>>21738448
Almost all of art history and its teaching methods demand a scientific and technical approach, almost indistinguishable from any other craft. Proper techique, common artistic theories (composition, colour, proportion), and the expectation of personal growth and improvement, should all be important aspects of an artistic background.

>>21738480

Based understander. We are very late to a thoroughly had conversation. Some catch up, but most lack the humility to shut the fuck up and learn.

>>21738480
Depends what you mean by scientific. The artistic craft existed before the modern scientific method.

>>21738480
Those things aren't true and you're not describing anything close to a scientific process. You have a very "winging it at a book report" style of thinking and writing that I seriously suggest you make an effort to move past from

>>21738440
This is such good advice. If you are a good teacher, you can take something complex and make it simple so that a child can understand it. Reread the gospels with this in mind and you’ll understand Jesus’ divinity.

>>21738480
>historical method
C'est un spook

>>21738573
You sound like an offended redditor.

>>21738573

>>21738440
>Does this apply to storytelling too?
Of course it does
Just look at the Dark Souls series of games and the simpleton cult following it spawned

>>21738637
>>21738642
Retards

>>21738440
Huh, what about all those complicated science articles that need to be complicated to prove things? This is such a stupid statement. Some things need to complex. Simplicity is a luxury and privilege for people who don’t have to do any real legwork.

>>21738695
>Some things need to be complex
He didn't say they don't. Just that, when possible, people should strive to make something easier for others to understand.

>>21738440
Yes. Don't add complexity without purpose.
Sometimes using a word few people know is simpler than using simple language. What is the simplest way to convey something depends on context.

>>21738440
I'm not sure about "simplicity" but transparency definitely. For example DFW said a book should be like having a conversation with a really smart friend, which is probably why he combined high and low culture/speech in his work

>>21738440

>"An idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity. A physicist tries to make it simple; an idiot, anything the more complicated is, the more he will admire it. If you make something so clusterfucked he can't understand it, he's gonna think you're a god cause you made it so complicated nobody can understand it."


SIMPLISTIC REDUCTION; HE IS CONFLATING COMPLEXITY WITH COMPLICATEDNESS/DIFFICULTY, AND WHAT IS SIMPLE IN FORM IS OFTEN COMPLEX IN SUBSTANCE.

DAVID FOSTER WALLASS.

>>21738806
Pretty much this despite the tripfagginess and formatting. A big theme in Wallace's stuff but one that's most explicit in the Pale King and This is Water is the idea of finding beauty and meaning in the mundane or banal

>>21738806
I like what the name fag sayeth.

I think at the end of the day, there are only a few fundamental stories to tell. Less than thirty probably. The real challenge is retelling a story in a unique way, that is engaging. Complexity or simplicity are empty categories. What matters if its gripping. And not all stories and styles are going to appeal to everyone. I feel like OP has some sort of "it's popular therefore good" assumption built into it, which makes it a truly plebeian take. Shit like War and Peace is pretty simple really. There isn't much plot, just people going to war and talking. But it's complex in that there is a lot of simple things happening and there is a quality to the ideas it communicates.

>>21738440
Quite the opposite.

>>21739548
How?

>>21738440
> The universe is bizarre, complex, and astoundingly vast
> Therefore, the Creator was an idiot.

>>21738440
Do you prefer brutalist or gothic architecture?

"Whatchu know bout rollin down in the deep?
When your brain goes numb, you can call that mental freeze
When these people talk too much, put that shit in slow motion, yeah
I feel like an astronaut in the ocean, ayy"

Here, I added epic background music for your post

>>21738695
>Huh, what about all those complicated science articles that need to be complicated to prove things?
Most of them are deliberately obtuse to conceal their own fraud and stupidity and to appear like they deserve their grant money.

>>21741157
forgot my pic

>>21738440
I'm down with this so hard, it explains why beavis and butthead is the pinnacle of comedy and civilisation

>>21738480
you're a fag

>>21738440
What a retarded quote holy shit, physicists absolutely admire the complexity of the universe, while someone like a christcuck tries to trivialise it down to "a wizard did it". Similarly, complex literature is enjoyable as a testament to the depth and power of human genius, while a retard would write-off complex literature "pretentious" and carry on reading genre shit

>>21738440
It does apply to storytelling. However, this passage is wrong. The simplicity and discreetness of a work or a design do not mean that it is better than a grand and intricate clusterfuck if the later is much more dense and consistent. The density of function and meaning plus the practicality expressed in a more well-fit form are measures of the mastery. Think of an enginerred piece that never breaks because it complies with the laws of consistency for that material, think of a mechanism that is made with many such pieces, think of a collection of many functional mechanisms fit together so every part is interwoven with one another and immune to the wear of time. This is the perfection. Apply this as a metaphor for any creation.

>>21738695
One of fundamental principles of modern science is Occam's razor.

>>21741183
It's possible you'll some day post something that's not braindead if you work hard to improve yourself but not for at least 10 years.

>>21738573
I suspect this is the same anon who told me to move past my writing style a few months back. Youre a strange fella

>>21738440
Feigned complexity is lame, yes. But depth? Now there's something special.

>>21738806
>BOLD, DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS IN ALL CAPS MAKES ME RIGHT

Your take on his take is a simplistic reduction, cvmgvzzler

>>21738480
That only applies to fine arts. Craft is not always vital in modern art.

>>21741218
Yeah, well, on paper I suppose it is.

>>21741540
sad post

>>21738440
Wrong.
Physicists try to unearth the fundamentals which make them the exception that proves the rule.

Fundamentals of economics: supply and demand of resiurces. A decrease in one equals an increase in the other. But when you build off of that fundamentals you get Nobel prize level economics, which is not simple.

Same thing with mathematics.

TL/DR; knowing e=mc2 and a five minute video on quantum physics won't make you a physics professor.