The "All in all"

[bricklayer]

An author is the "All in all" of a novel work.
The degree of perfection of a novel work cannot be judged by its characters.
The degree of perfection of a novel work extends to the degree to which it expresses its author's intent.

 

[Eudaimonist]

An author is the "All in all" of a novel work.
The degree of perfection of a novel work cannot be judged by its characters.
The degree of perfection of a novel work extends to the degree to which it expresses its author's intent.

I'll buy that. I think that you are headed in the right direction, at least.

A novel is a form of communication, and even if the postmodernists are right that readers "construct" their own meanings from the words that they read, a good author knows how to guide readers to grasp the intended meanings of the novel at least reasonably well.

That said, any good novel requires good characterization. That is an essential aspect of the artform. (Otherwise, you are better off writing non-fiction.) The characters are an important tool in how meaning is expressed in the novel form. So, "intent" is dependent on this, but does not sum up to this.

But I would ask the following: Is beauty important to a novel? Is "intent" enough, or is conveying your intent with artistic style required for judging a novel's degree of perfection? Imagine a novel that conveyed the author's intent very clearly, but was boring and sloppily written. Now imagine a novel that was equally good at conveying the author's intent, but was skillfully written and had characters that came to life on the page. Would the second one have a higher degree of perfection as far as novels go?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

I'll buy that. I think that you are headed in the right direction, at least.

A novel is a form of communication, and even if the postmodernists are right that readers "construct" their own meanings from the words that they read, a good author knows how to guide readers to grasp the intended meanings of the novel at least reasonably well.

That said, any good novel requires good characterization. That is an essential aspect of the artform. (Otherwise, you are better off writing non-fiction.) The characters are an important tool in how meaning is expressed in the novel form. So, "intent" is dependent on this, but does not sum up to this.

But I would ask the following: Is beauty important to a novel? Is "intent" enough, or is conveying your intent with artistic style required for judging a novel's degree of perfection? Imagine a novel that conveyed the author's intent very clearly, but was boring and sloppily written. Now imagine a novel that was equally good at conveying the author's intent, but was skillfully written and had characters that came to life on the page. Would the second one have a higher degree of perfection as far as novels go?


eudaimonia,

Mark

The characters of a novel work have no capacity to judge the novel work that contains them. The degree of perfection of a novel work extends to the degree to which that work fulfills its author's intent.

The novel work to which I am referring is this creation, and only its author has perspective to judge it.

Besides, human beings cannot even have a novel idea, let alone produce a novel work.

One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and man's ideas is that man is not the first one to have his ideas.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The characters of a novel work have no capacity to judge the novel work that contains them.

We as readers have that capacity to judge how well the writer uses the characters. Or, if you prefer, the author himself may make that judgment.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

We as readers have that capacity to judge how well the writer uses the characters. Or, if you prefer, the author himself may make that judgment.
eudaimonia,
Mark

"readers", you sleep. Wake up. We are the characters.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"readers", you sleep. Wake up. We are the characters.

Are we talking about novels or living persons? Please let me know what this thread is really about.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Are we talking about novels or living persons? Please let me know what this thread is really about.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I was careful to phrase "novel works".
Human beings cannot produce a novel work; however, our "attempts" exist to be analogous.

Although, both an author and character are finite, and therefore the difference between them is also finite;
the difference between Creator and creature is infinite, because the difference between an infinite and finite is infinite.
However, the relationship between author and character exists to be analogous to the Creator-creature relationship.

I am left to believe that the entire matter-space-time continuum was created to be analogous to its Creator.
That is to say that, it is to be the revelation of the Glory of God.
As such, creatures have no more capacity to assess the extent to which their Creator has expressed His intension than characters can an author.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I was careful to phrase "novel works".

I thought this thread was about novels. Nevermind then.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

I thought this thread was about novels. Nevermind then.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Cool.
That was fun.

 

[DaisyDay]

An author is the "All in all" of a novel work.

Often the editor is of nearly equal importance.

The degree of perfection of a novel work cannot be judged by its characters

Agreed - there is the writing itself, the plot, the theme, the ambiance. Sometimes the characters gain a life outside and beyond the author - in movies, for example.

The degree of perfection of a novel work extends to the degree to which it expresses its author's intent.

I disagree - a novel can transcend the author's intent.

 

[bricklayer]

Often the editor is of nearly equal importance.


Agreed - there is the writing itself, the plot, the theme, the ambiance. Sometimes the characters gain a life outside and beyond the author - in movies, for example.

I disagree - a novel can transcend the author's intent.

A novel can transcend its author's intent; however a novel work cannot.
Human beings cannot conceive an idea not already eternally present in the mind of God. Only a Creator can produce a novel work; a creature cannot.

The role of the editor, writing, plot, theme and ambiance are imperceptible to the characters themselves. Such things are perceived only by the readers, unless such perceptions are condescended into the character by its author.

The relationship between creator and creature is not at all akin to the relationship between author and reader; it is akin to the relationship between author and character. God is not revealing His glory to us; He is revealing His glory through us.

 

[jayem]

IHowever, the relationship between author and character exists to be analogous to the Creator-creature relationship.

OK, I get it.

Though I see the roles reversed. Humans are the Creators. God is a character in the novel we authored. There are many different versions of the story. But in general, like many writers, we based our character on ourselves. So he has all of our flaws and contradictions.

 

[bricklayer]

OK, I get it.

Though I see the roles reversed. Humans are the Creators. God is a character in the novel we authored. There are many different versions of the story. But in general, like many writers, we based our character on ourselves. So he has all of our flaws and contradictions.

Although truth exists, there is always more than one way to look at anything, and we are all left to believe something.

 

[DaisyDay]

A novel can transcend its author's intent; however a novel work cannot.

Since a novel may be a novel work, then it can.

Human beings cannot conceive an idea not already eternally present in the mind of God. Only a Creator can produce a novel work; a creature cannot.

Only if you define a novel work as that which cannot be created by a creature. Very few people will agree with that novel definition.

The role of the editor, writing, plot, theme and ambiance are imperceptible to the characters themselves. Such things are perceived only by the readers, unless such perceptions are condescended into the character by its author.

Sometimes authors do so condescend, especially in modern writing.

The relationship between creator and creature is not at all akin to the relationship between author and reader; it is akin to the relationship between author and character.

Sometimes the characters get away from the original author and go on to have lives beyond the written work - in movies, for example.

What is a novel without readers?

God is not revealing His glory to us; He is revealing His glory through us.

What a piece of work is a man, How noble in Reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel! in apprehension how like a god, the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals - and yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?​

 

[DaisyDay]

Although truth exists, there is always more than one way to look at anything, and we are all left to believe something.

What do the comatose and brain-dead believe?

Many of us believe in mutually exclusive things.

 

[bricklayer]

What do the comatose and brain-dead believe
Many of us believe in mutually exclusive things.

I have never inquired of the comatose or brain-dead.

Many of us do believe in mutually exclusive things; and although the truth exists, there is always more than one way to look at anything, and I've never inquired of anyone who is left to believe nothing.

 

[Beechwell]

The characters of a novel work have no capacity to judge the novel work that contains them. The degree of perfection of a novel work extends to the degree to which that work fulfills its author's intent.

But that is a fundamental difference between characters in a novel - which only exist as concepts in the minds of the readers and the author - and actual beings with a mind of their own.
If, say a gifted biologist somehow managed to create a new lifeform, or a programmer could write a program that develops actual intelligence, those creation could very well be able to judge the process that created them.
I would also make the claim that in such cases the creator would have a respnsibility towards the creation, rather than the other way round. To paraphrase the Little Prince: "You become responsible forever for what you’ve created."

Besides, human beings cannot even have a novel idea, let alone produce a novel work.

One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and man's ideas is that man is not the first one to have his ideas.

That is just your perception, though; one which I would disagree with. You'd probably justify it with your idea that every cause contains all properties of that its results/creations. But even a cursory glance at emergent properties of complex systems should disprove that idea.

 

[bricklayer]

But that is a fundamental difference between characters in a novel - which only exist as concepts in the minds of the readers and the author - and actual beings with a mind of their own.
If, say a gifted biologist somehow managed to create a new lifeform, or a programmer could write a program that develops actual intelligence, those creation could very well be able to judge the process that created them.
I would also make the claim that in such cases the creator would have a respnsibility towards the creation, rather than the other way round. To paraphrase the Little Prince: "You become responsible forever for what you’ve created."


That is just your perception, though; one which I would disagree with. You'd probably justify it with your idea that every cause contains all properties of that its results/creations. But even a cursory glance at emergent properties of complex systems should disprove that idea.

All emergent properties are pre-existent. They come to be, but they don't come to exist.

Being is actualized existence. Many ideas exist that have no capacity to be. They can be said, but they cannot done. Such are our attempts to sit in judgment of our Creator.

 

[Beechwell]

All emergent properties are pre-existent. They come to be, but they don't come to exist.

Then the complex can be a property of the simple. And you still don't need complex starting conditions/creators to get something complex*.


*Granted, I use the term "complex" somewhat loosely, lacking a generally accepted definition of what "complexity" actually entails.

 

[bricklayer]

Then the complex can be a property of the simple. And you still don't need complex starting conditions/creators to get something complex*.

On the contrary, necessary being is simple actuality; contingent being is a complex of potentiality and actuality.
God is simple; we are complex.