If Mort Divine ruled the world

What does the transition from orality to literacy have to do with fiction? Or do you mean something else?

Fiction arose as an autopoietic (systems theory term, not literary) response to the affordability and accessibility of print technologies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. First, printing gave birth to an excess of pamphlets and small books on propriety, etiquette, religious observances, travel narratives, slave narratives, autobiographies, memoirs, pedagogical tools, dictionaries, and other texts we'd refer to as nonfiction. The seventeenth century did witness the publication of some clearly fictional romance narratives, but these were few and far between, and often extensions of post-medieval tales. Robinson Crusoe, often pointed to as one of the first English novels (a problematic identification, but useful), was basically a hybrid travel narrative and memoir (and was originally marketed as nonfiction before it was revealed to be fiction). Samuel Richardson's Pamela drew on pedagogical writings about feminine propriety. That these stories were "made up" reflects a shift in social consciousness toward language and print media. It might be posited that the emergence of "the novel" is an expected symptom of the proliferation of print in the 17th-18th centuries. These texts reveal a lot about not only social conventions and mores, but also about the industry of print at the time.

It's also worth pointing out that these writers were among the first to comment on what kind of literature they were producing. Many of them included prefaces to their works that meditated on what kind of "novel form" they were working with. Originally, that's what "novel" really means: a new and unspecified form. It's difficult for us today to imagine a world in which written fiction about common, everyday themes didn't exist. In oral cultures, the poems that were passed down speak of heroes and legends, not ordinary people. The same goes for medieval romances. Only with the novel, and with fictionality, do we finally get narratives about regular people--that is, people who were reading novels.

I don't mean to dismiss this summeraly, but I did basically read all of this in the critique you linked. I'm still not sure how this makes a point related to my other comments.

Sure, I think that makes sense. I could launch into a long response to that quote, but I actually don't really think it's necessary. I get the point being made.

The only thing I'll say is that Kurtz is also, of course, a horrible person. Even if we're made to wonder about his character, we can still see him as the kind of person we shouldn't desire to be.

Well I appreciate that you understand my point wrt my general disinterest at this point in my life for fiction; I was never asking for or expecting agreement. I wouldn't expect you to have interest in the things I'm interested in (and v.v.), career wise.I do appreciate you providing personally a source putting into so many words my perspective.

Unfortunately, I know nothing of Kurtz, and aren't even curious tbh. If it's anything like most "acclaimed novels" of the 20th or 21st century, everything is either "hollow" with respect to critical acclaim, or are boorish when popular.
 
I don't mean to dismiss this summeraly, but I did basically read all of this in the critique you linked. I'm still not sure how this makes a point related to my other comments.

Maybe I don't understand your question when you asked what my comments had to do with fiction. Simply put, you don't get fiction (generically speaking) until you get literacy. The oral poetry of Homer et al isn't considered fiction by literary standards; fiction and fictionality are tied to the rise of the novel and print media.

Also, what critique did I link?
 
Maybe I don't understand your question when you asked what my comments had to do with fiction. Simply put, you don't get fiction (generically speaking) until you get literacy. The oral poetry of Homer et al isn't considered fiction by literary standards; fiction and fictionality are tied to the rise of the novel and print media.

You were talking about the link between poetry and philosophy first and then jumped to fiction.

Also, what critique did I link?

Critique might not be the right word by your perspective but: Catherine Gallagher's "The Rise of Fictionality":
 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/uncomfortable-truth-baltimore-democrats-blame

you can’t solve a problem you don’t acknowledge exists. The many candidates aspiring to be the Democratic party’s presidential nominee have said little about west Baltimore’s sky-high murder rate or deep poverty nor proposed policy interventions to ameliorate it. It’s no surprise the city has turned into a political piñata for the president, given the Democratic party’s failings in governing it and lack of imagination in addressing its problems

With all the stats in the article to boot: Holy shit, actual journalism in the Guardian, and by someone at UC Berkeley even.
 
You were talking about the link between poetry and philosophy first and then jumped to fiction.

Ah, got it.

Philosophy appears when you have literacy, but not necessarily print technology. When writing first appeared, it was only performed by a select (and educated) few. Fiction only appears when literacy becomes common and widespread. It's basically the next step, I was trying to say--a response to the actual media of print, rather than just the act of writing.

Critique might not be the right word by your perspective but: Catherine Gallagher's "The Rise of Fictionality":

Oh right, sorry. For some reason I was thinking of a hyperlink as opposed to a quote. The entire piece is fascinating though, and can be found online (which perhaps you did).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
To prosecute requires evidence strong enough to either A. Convince the charged to cop a plea or B. To convince a jury. Apparently they didn't think they could do either.
juries are idiots
my whole fucking point was that the prosecutors didn't give a shit about whether or not he was guilty
the charges got dropped because he became supreme court justice
and the charges would not have gotten dropped if he hadn't gotten the job

convincing a jury to convict an innocent person happens every five fucking minutes in the USA
 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/uncomfortable-truth-baltimore-democrats-blame

With all the stats in the article to boot: Holy shit, actual journalism in the Guardian, and by someone at UC Berkeley even.

National liberal activists have been diligent in shining a light on Baltimore’s well-known police brutality and misconduct – the city’s own gun control taskforce was disbanded due to corruption – but activists seem less concerned about ordinary homicide, which takes a far greater number of lives.

B-b-but that's a whataboutism, if there's a problem you're never ever allowed to talk about other problems because that's unlogical n shiet. We can totally have a national conversation about both issues separately, though we'd prefer not to.
 
so she's trying to convince the specific people that voted for Trump the first time that voting for him a second time would be bad
i kinda get that
but wouldn't it be easier to get the specific people that are never in a million years going to vote for the republican canditate to jump up and vote
 
there's already people that voted for Trump that will vote against him next election
the people who have Trump Derangement Syndrome includes people who actually voted for him
 
67645370_2446708912229987_9115149757327605760_n.jpg
 
Probably just your typical mutt burger. Doesn't look Hispanic to me tbh, more Alpine or something; I know Swiss and South German people that look a bit like him. His twin sister looks really Jewish though.