Jump to content


Rufus Tullius

Member Since 17 Aug 2015
Offline Last Active Private
*****

#13824 Rhetorical Devices Used in Literary Logic

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 08 March 2018 - 04:10 PM

What is a figure of speech?
 
Schemes and Tropes
 
These are classifications with explanations of the effects that writers and speakers use to work out solutions to difficult rhetorical problems. They are collections of successful resolutions that others have already found. BTW, it's OK to steal them, too.
 
:happy:
 
The techniques in Figures of speech are like a recipe in cooking a fancy feast for the mind and heart. Using these accumulated recipes from the past helps you in your own originality. Ask yourself what is standard or unusual in the speech. The unusual things are what we are looking for here.
 
There are two types of figures in speech: Schemes and Tropes. Basically, schemes are words used in nonstandard patterns of word order. A Tropes focus is a word or short phrase that is used in the same way. Like a pun or a metaphor. The problem with these figures lie in the danger of falling into arguments over trivial matters. More often than not it just keeps revolving round and round and we miss the point on how these speech figures can help rhetoric be more convincing. When used effectively they help make speech and writing more memorable in the mind of the reader or listener.
 
Figures of speech use words to go beyond their literal meaning. They enhance an idea or definition and make connections that can draw on images to explain another. Analogy, Irony, Metaphor, simile, and personification are all figures in speech. So are overstatements like hyperboles and understatements which deliberately restrain the  emphasis on meaning. Watch for mixed metaphors as they combine two or more images that don't blend well when mixed together.

 

Analogies are fun. They're little ideas comparing one thing to another using a familiar thing. Metaphors and similes are used to build an analogy.

 
"The structure of the universal mind is like the galaxies, stars, and planets expanding ever outward toward infinity."
 
The universal mind is compared to the constellations using "like". This is a simile. A metaphor relates it to the expanding infinity without using words like "like" or "as".
 
Graphic analogies are useful too!
 
05pmoWs.gif

 

 

 

 

Irony is a literary technique & rhetoric device that has been used for many years in speech, art and everyday life. Although irony has been used for a long time, there hasn't been an exact definition of irony. There have been hundreds of definitions suggested over the years, however, a general consensus is that:
 
Irony is a figure of speech which is a contradiction or incongruity between what is expected and what actually occurs.
 
Most of the definitions of irony are something along these lines, though there is often disagreement about the specific meaning of this term.
 
 
:Grin8:

 

 

More on IRONY here: 

 

http://forum.chicken...eading/?p=13322

 

 

How can I make a thread of this nature without including metaphors?
 
Metaphors are one of the most common types of speech. They add a sort of definition and color because they describe a comparison between two things that are most often apart except for a common characteristic that can link the two together. A noun or a verb can be described as something different. 
 
An example comparing a chef to a writer. Learning to write can be visualized with cooking skills. One must learn to bake, roast, chop, and cut. Including all the little things that go with it through practice and experience. They're great for sharpening the imagination and to give further understanding in communicating ideas 
 
Metaphors are different from similes in that they don't use terms like "like" or "as" to compare two things. Metaphors make hidden comparisons. Portraying one thing as being something else but not that something else. There is an implied implicit meaning.
 
 
 
:chuckle:

 

 

 

 

Sometimes personification gets confused with a pathetic fallacy. This is a kind of personification that provides emotional life into natural inanimate objects. For example, they reflect the nature of moods and desires into the features of the wind.
 
2f6ce4876c278f0854bd963dbc178066.jpg

 

 

Whatever is easy to remember is usually rhetorically effective. Take an Anaphora as an example: it is the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of each successive sentence. This scheme actually helps the listener remember what is said or read because of its repetitive value. 
 
A good example would be in MLK's "I have a dream" speech: 'Let freedom ring...'
 
Another scheme is the opposite of an anaphora is the Epistrophe. These are the repetition of words at the end of a sentence or clause. 
 
Lincoln used it effectively in his Gettysburg address speech: 
 
". . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
 
Notice the repetition of 'the people' at the end. He is asking all of us 'Who are "we"? 

 

 

Here's some more devices that offer rhythm and melodic meter to text and speech:
 
Epizeuxis or diacope
 
These are words or phrases that are repeated in a rapid succession within the same sentence to emphasize a point or idea. 
 
The purpose of epizeuxis is to create greater emotion to the listener or reader. Jabbing the air with emphasis, it motivates and inspires a memorable focus on thoughts and ideas through deep sentiment. 
 
giphy.gif
 
Because of its repetive nature it also inspires memorization of ideas on a sub-conscious level. These devices are used as artistic effects in lyrics, prose and poetry. How many songs have you heard that use these techniques? Have you ever considered the ideas presented in the lyrics of your favorite songs? 
 
There are two other terms that use the same technique. 
 
One is an Epistrophe
 
These are repetitive words or phrases at the end of sentences that call attention to a point of interest. 
 
The opposite of this effect brings us to the second term. 
 
Anaphora - basically the same definition as Epistrophe except they come at the beginning of sentences. 
 
anaphora.jpg
 

 

Now on to tropes: varying the definitions that words really have. There are too many tropes to really go into because some are obscure or they have become so consistent in our everyday language that we use them without even realizing it. So, with that in mind I'll just list some of the important ones I've already mentioned in previous posts.
 
The oxymoran: These work because language allows for contradictions when the real world does not.

 

 

Descriptive combinations of words and phrases with opposing ideas are called Oxymoron's. They create polarity in descriptions. They are built by adding adjectives before a noun to give it a contrast in meaning. 
 
Good examples are:
 
Tragically comical.
Seriously funny.
Only choice.
Original Copies.
Happily Married.
Clean Dirt.
 
Always remember, an oxymoron is combination of two contradictory words. This differentiates it from a paradox. Paradox's contain one or more sentences and they always imply some kind of truth within. Paradox's describe things contrary to expectations.
 
With these devices hidden meanings can be conveyed in a simple manner. They create imagery within sentence structure leaving the reader to discern for themselves any implied intrigue. 

 

The Euphemism: Using 'politically correct' language to dumb down the brutal truth.

 

Suggested reading:
 
Politics and the English Language by George Orwell
 

 

 

A Euphemism is an expression that conveys a polite term for something unpleasant. They lose their literal meaning and become a tactful way to describe an objectionable term. It's a good way to test the bounds of political correctness. They can be indirect to describe something direct. Mispronouncing objectionable words can create the same type of effect. In reality, they can be as bad as the real objectionable term.

 
732euphemisms_hagy.jpg

 

 

Hyperbole is a figure of speech involving an exxagerated idea to accentuate a real situation. It's an amusing device used to create contrast between a normal description and one with an overstatement. 
 
anigif_enhanced-29742-1411142780-1.gif
 
Not only can hyperboles be found in our oral statements and in literature but they're also important in media ad campaigns. Visual hyperboles have become commonplace on the TV screen. They're amplified graphically to encourage people to buy products. The research in this area has been sparse.
  
c5bd8b11f61c87a3610447e2bd930027.jpg  

 

 

..and the antidote...Litotes

 

 

Meiosis is defined as using little understatements to minimize the reputation of somebody. Especially when used in giving the impression that something is weak or tawdry in importance. It's a method of speech to give information that diminishes one emotional response in order to insert another in its place. Its effect produces sarcasm and sardony with its descriptions of mannerisms and tone. It's the opposite of hyperbole because it's the kind of irony that deliberately makes the object of ridicule appear foolish and misleading. 
 
Meiosis is closely related to Litotes. These are figures of speech using an understatement in which "an affirmative is expressed by negating its opposite" using double negatives or opposing statements. Such as "this is no mean feat". Litotes use understatement to high light importance rather than minimize it. It attracts attention to an idea by ignoring it. Avoiding to name the object straightforward by using discretion. Talking about something negatively can sometimes be the best way to make it appear positive. 
 

 

This is by no means a complete listing of all the figures of speech available. I'll be posting more within this category in the future. Hope to see you then, too...
 
:Flying:

  • 1


#13816 Rhetorical Devices Used in Literary Logic

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 07 March 2018 - 12:58 PM

 

The art of argumentation can be used against those who don't appreciate it's forms and structure as an art for distraction.
 
Skillful argumentation is an antidote to productive communication.  It offers a way to eliminate bickering, anger, fear, and all the trash that prevents decent control of oneself. It's both an informal and formal method of debate leading to agreement by examining claims and justification by focusing on the interaction of argument, Itself!.
 
I'd like to think humanity has upgraded itself since Homer, Aristotle, and the countless others who began the art of conversation. Setting conditions of claims and evidence and shifting it all around with inference and warrants. The whole point of reasonable argument is to look for resolution.  This only works, of course, with reasonable people. Closed minds and using physical force can obviously kill any argument, anytime!

 

 

 

:Grin8:

 

Five star thread OP!

 

:hangingfromastar:   :hangingfromastar:   :hangingfromastar:   :hangingfromastar:   :hangingfromastar:

 

 

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

 
Rhetorical appeals and their uses:
 
Ethos refers to how trust worthy a person is. Ethos is used to appeal to a moral philosophy or reliable integrity. It attempts to signify credibility within the speaker.  It is effective as a strategy because it automatically inserts belief in the speakers credibility because of a higher educational or moral being. A doctor is good example. People hold a doctors power of reasoning in high regard. Same with a judge because a certain trust is automatically implied. It can used to challenge the reliability or moral stance in an argument. 
 
Pathos is another powerful device. They appeal to emotions. It's always loaded with vivid illustrations that trigger emotional buttons. The speaker wants the listener or reader to be persuaded by the emotional value this type of argument can generate. Packed with sympathy and empathy they dim the analytical processing of rational thought. The more people react to this type of rhetoric the more they become least likely to ask the big question(s). Like WHY? In many instances they're used in calls to action within a group or society.
 
Logos denotes an appeal to logic and reasoning. Logos is tricky because it relies on theories and abstract language. They include definitions, factual data, and statistics. Including learned comments by authoritative sources and Ethos driven opinions. Logos tries to give the best sources and reasoning. Appeals are taken as matter of facts and are useful in persuading others to believe a conclusion. 
 

 

 

ethos--pathos--logos.png

 

I'm going to change the order here because I think it presents these terms in a correct form to better understand how construction on good arguments can hold water.

More on Logos:

Logos means an utterance or a 'word'. All arguments are constructed of the words themselves and how they fit together. It focus' on the abstract and rational part  of reasoning. Logos doesn't rely on emotions, moral values, and feelings to construct an argument. It is based on the If/Then statements in the syllogistic blue print.

Examples: This product is good. Therefore you should buy it. This person is good as a candidate for office. Therefore you should vote for him.

More on Ethos:

Appealing to the character of the speaker or writer. It also includes general ethical and moral systems. Ethos includes references to principles in behavior that cannot be proven by syllogisms alone. It relies on a shared or assumed moral or ethical system. But, logic needs to be in place because a listener or reader needs to follow a cause and the effect it creates. The human component has to be included or else you run the risk of getting anyone to care about the subject being deliberated. This is where Pathos comes into play...

More on Pathos:

This is the last note in this triad of reasoning. Pathos is always included in an argument. It can be a major or minor component in its delivery. Even when you're just looking for the facts alone there is at least enough pathos inside it to ask the listener to pay attention because it is important.

Pathos is like adding yeast to the sterile flour of logic. It helps it to grow and rise by putting a human face on difficult issues of discussion. Including bits of gossip in your dialog is useful because people are always interested in what others are doing and are more likely to pay attention to the ethics involved.

Points to consider:

All arguments include logos, ethos, and pathos. The hard part is adding them in the right proportions. The trick is to choose an effective balance. Lawyers like to say "when the facts support your case, argue facts. When the law supports it, then argue law. And when neither the facts nor the law work, pound on the table to support your point with pathos.

When analyzing rhetoric, people should be wary of pathos because it often has the effect of short circuiting reason. But, ignoring it completely is very dangerous because in larger bureaucratic groups and impersonal corporate structures it's easy to forget about individual human rights and suffering...

 

:Flying:


  • 1


#13802 Rhetorical Devices Used in Literary Logic

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 05 March 2018 - 07:11 PM

Chaining syllogisms together can lead an audience wherever the writer wants them to go. But, what about when the first premise of a syllogism is only implied or outright suppressed? Sort of like a quasi-trust: only two elements can speak a time? That is an Enthymeme. Suppressing the first premise in a syllogism doesn't necessarily weaken the claim. It only works if it's something everyone can agree on.

An enthymeme is hard hitting and in your face because it asks the question "Can we at least agree on this...". Knowing your audience helps to identify whether or not to use an enthymeme. If you can get your audience to agree right off the bat then a narrator can string along the audience to agree on just about anything. By using effective jargon, tricky alliteration and fancy witticisms; this sends the audience soaring with cadences of rhetorical sounds waving directly to the brain. If an 'actor' can start with an effective enthymeme, and use logic in a correct manner, the audience can be led to a conclusion through the force of logic alone. Even if the conclusion is ridiculous.

Finding effective enthymemes in smaller groups is much easier to do than larger ones. Simply because not all the larger movements of thought can agree on any premise whatsoever.

Remember Rodney King? "...can't we all just get along?"

Not everyone wants to 'get along'...

With any major political theme it's virtually impossible to find a common enthymeme to start a coalescence towards agreement. Suppressing premises are the name of the political, scientific, and even the religious games being foisted on the public. This has always been done since the days when rhetoric was first thought up. Using the basic syllogism and constructing our thinking process' to find answers is a foundational point that people should never forget.

The hardest part to finding an all inclusive enthymeme: Figuring out where the shared assumptions are, even from a hostile audience, is the key to opening doors to civil conversations that result in agreeable conclusions.

An enthymeme is only a starting point. All arguments start with them but watch the longer chain of logic that follows. Watching the argument as a whole will help you figure out where things don't fit. But, it's a two edged sword to say the least. Devious fuckery is always afoot:

"if it doesn't fit, you must acquit"

oj.jpg

:chuckle:

If you want to know more about how an effective speaker can get through to a hostile audience check out the speech MLK gave in Birmingham. He brought them all into his sway simply because there was "injustice in Birmingham".

 

What is the suppressed first premise...

 

???

 

:dovepeace:              

               :Egg-icon:


 

 

Here's a related fallacy for enthymemes

 

Petitio Principii - begging the question. This one is everywhere in the media. Begging the question doesn't mean asking a new question. It really means that a speaker or writer is asking the audience to acknowledge your main point. It's a subtle device that uses adjectives and adverbs to do the logical dirty work in the sentence. This fallacy is related to the enthymeme. It assumes you share the same claim the speaker is making even when you don't.

Example: All people are against wasteful spending. Right? What question is really being begged here? Ask yourself what kind of spending is wasteful. Not all spending is wasteful. You're never told what spending cuts will be made. Just the enthymeme "all people are against wasteful spending."

Notice how the adverb or adjective is doing all the work: 'Wasteful" spending. The real question should be what kind of wasteful spending is important. Looking for the adjectives and adverbs gives you the knowledge to catch these little tricks in the rhetoric. Then all you need do is say Petitio Principii; your argument is invalid.


  • 1


#13789 Rhetorical Devices Used in Literary Logic

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 03 March 2018 - 11:35 AM

Might as well add a bit about how arguments are constructed:

 

Building the foundations...
 
Rules of Logic
 
These can be tricky only because it takes a little time and effort to think about it. But, once you get it down and practice what to look for it becomes natural. Rules of logic are the foundation to build ideas and convince others of their worthiness. They are tried and true tools in building any argument. Think of it as plain and simple mathematics because it's built on a foundation of arithmetic.
 
Identity: A = A (a thing the same as itself) 
 
If/Then: If it's raining, then it is cloudy. If something is a fish, then it lives underwater.
 
Negation: -A = -A or NOT A = NOT A (this adds a negative or a NOT to support a negation of what was said before.) This is called an inversion
 
This is where it gets a bit tricky. Because if it's NOT raining, then the sky is NOT cloudy. Right?
 
Not necessarily so.
 
1.jpg
 
Try it with the fish statement: If it's NOT a fish, then it does NOT live underwater. Again, not necessarily true...
 
8709852-3x2-940x627.jpg
 
The Converse: Let the confusion begin - This is where the math gets weird. Because logical statements have a tendency to change directions. The order of the IF/THEN statement makes all the difference. 'If' A 'then' B is true, 'if' B 'then' A is NOT necessarily true. With that in mind try switching it around.
 
"IF the sky is cloudy, THEN it is raining" or 
"IF it lives in the water, THEN it is a fish"
 
Not true! 
 
A common fallacy in converse is Asserting the Consequent. Very hard to avoid because it works on the ignorant when a speaker or writer of a true converse statement assumes it IS automatically true.

Statement: IF it is a fish, THEN it lives under water.
Converse: IF it lives under water, THEN it is a fish

Not true!

Another related common fallacy is Denying the Antecedent. Instead of automatically assuming the converse is true, the inverse is true. *Reminder: inverse is a true statement that puts NOT on both sides of the IF/THEN statement.

Statement: IF it is a fish, THEN it lives under water.
Inverse: If it is NOT a fish, then it does NOT live underwater.

Not true!

How about this fallacy: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc or "the post hoc fallacy". This one assumes cause and effect: Because something comes after something else the first thing is the cause of the second. Using a coincidence as the effect for a cause is common among politicians: "since I've been in office the economy has take an upswing". Is this really true?

Not necessary so!
 
How about adding some more fuel to the fire and see if we can find the truth of the matter.
 
Contrapositive: Invert and convert - If you add NOT to both sides of the if/then statement AND switch the order (converse) we do get something that is true. 
 
IF the sky is NOT cloudy, THEN it is NOT raining.
IF it does NOT live underwater, THEN it is NOT a fish.
 
True!
 
Now, what happens when we chain a collection of IF/THEN statements together?
 
 
Syllogisms: This is the basic structure that all arguments are based on. It is a collection of multiple IF A, THEN B statements. A conclusion of one THEN statement is the IF of another and so on and so forth. It underlies all construction of argumentation. Whether good or bad. You start with one thing and chain other things together with it. This is called traditional or Aristotelian logic. Something that our modern logical society doesn't really think about anymore. Except for English professors, lawyers, politicians, and corporate marketing executives. 
 
Maybe I'm being a bit harsh by including English majors with the lawyers and politicians...
 
Or am I?
 
:chuckle:

  • 1


#13788 Rhetorical Devices Used in Literary Logic

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 01 March 2018 - 06:50 PM

 

Great thread idea OP. Looking up examples about this subject I noticed most of the videos about specific fallacies are made in India. Maybe that's just the cookie monster feeding me free samples...
 
:chuckle:
 
This one involves a little thinking. It gives a decent explanation of syllogisms.
 
Systematically solve any syllogism problem within a minute without using Venn diagram. This method is called Aristotle's method and it is highly effective, just like solving two mathematical equation.
 
 
 

 

 

Chaining syllogisms together can lead an audience wherever the writer wants them to go. But, what about when the first premise of a syllogism is only implied or outright suppressed? Sort of like a quasi-trust: only two elements can speak a time? That is an Enthymeme. Suppressing the first premise in a syllogism doesn't necessarily weaken the claim. It only works if it's something everyone can agree on.

An enthymeme is hard hitting and in your face because it asks the question "Can we at least agree on this...". Knowing your audience helps to identify whether or not to use an enthymeme. If you can get your audience to agree right off the bat then a narrator can string along the audience to agree on just about anything. By using effective jargon, tricky alliteration and fancy witticisms; this sends the audience soaring with cadences of rhetorical sounds waving directly to the brain. If an 'actor' can start with an effective enthymeme, and use logic in a correct manner, the audience can be led to a conclusion through the force of logic alone. Even if the conclusion is ridiculous.

Finding effective enthymemes in smaller groups is much easier to do than larger ones. Simply because not all the larger movements of thought can agree on any premise whatsoever.

Remember Rodney King? "...can't we all just get along?"

Not everyone wants to 'get along'...

With any major political theme it's virtually impossible to find a common enthymeme to start a coalescence towards agreement. Suppressing premises are the name of the political, scientific, and even the religious games being foisted on the public. This has always been done since the days when rhetoric was first thought up. Using the basic syllogism and constructing our thinking process' to find answers is a foundational point that people should never forget.

The hardest part to finding an all inclusive enthymeme: Figuring out where the shared assumptions are, even from a hostile audience, is the key to opening doors to civil conversations that result in agreeable conclusions.

An enthymeme is only a starting point. All arguments start with them but watch the longer chain of logic that follows. Watching the argument as a whole will help you figure out where things don't fit. But, it's a two edged sword to say the least. Devious fuckery is always afoot:

"if it doesn't fit, you must acquit"

oj.jpg

:chuckle:

If you want to know more about how an effective speaker can get through to a hostile audience check out the speech MLK gave in Birmingham. He brought them all into his sway simply because there was "injustice in Birmingham".

 

What is the suppressed first premise...

 

???

 

:dovepeace:              

               :Egg-icon:



 


  • 2


#13573 Places You Are NOT Allowed To Visit…

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 06 February 2018 - 01:36 PM

I'm thinking number 9 on that list sort of makes everything else moot...

 

9. No one is supposed to contaminate space.

 

 

Everything we send up there contaminates it one way or another. Is it really possible to colonize the solar system without contaminating Earth with whatever may be out there?

 

Good thread idea Ghost!

 

:cool:


  • 3


#13430 Would You Like a Reading?

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 25 January 2018 - 12:05 PM

Shall we play with reality today? :chuckle:
 
Verisimilitude
 
What is realism and reality? Some people just want to be entertained and don't care about the realism of a novel, movie, or play. For others it can be a major problem: If it isn't real then it ain't worth reading or seeing. They prefer the non-fiction type of stuff. A good book or movie can be realistic in one sense and unrealistic in another. It just means we have to break apart what realism really is. 
 
What is real inside of a book or a television screen? Do the descriptions, settings and characters offer vivid realism to the eye? For some yes, others no. I suppose it depends on the perspective of the individual reader. Maybe it's not so much about providing an image of the outside world but maybe it's about mapping out a more private type of garden; an interior landscape for others to see into. 
 
Let's look at realism a bit more closely. There are different kinds of realism to consider. How do we label what's real or unreal? In C. S. Lewis' - An Experiment in Criticism, he mentions two types of realism to look for: 
 
Realism of presentation - How are things presented to the reader. Using descriptions that give feeling to our senses. Is the un-realistic aspect (such as something you would find in a SCI-FY or Fantasy novel) described with powerful descriptions that you practically believe their existence? Does the mood develop and establish a pace? It does matter how a story is presented because it shows how easy it is to play with reality. Is the tone and timber agreeable to the ear?
 
Realism of content - Content described through plotting. It deals with hypothetical probabilities. Sometimes those can get out of hand leaving the reader to put down the book as unrealistic. The setting can be one identifiable aspect. Isolating the theme can help identify the realism involved.
 
This post will add two more forms of realism to consider:
 
Psychological realism - This ties in with how characters are developed or treated. It draws out the feelings from past experiences, sketching out the personality from childhood on to the present. It tells the characters internal feelings and how conflict is dealt with. 
 
Moral realism - Also ties in with character development. What is the character motivated by? Selfishness? If so, then fear is a major factor. Moral realism asks the reader to go beyond using snap judgments to form opinions. I guess Yoda really did know what the fuck he was talking about.
 
Considering how many angles a 'reality' can told in maybe realism is more like an ideal than a reality. The eye of the beholder I guess...only, in todays reality it seems the big eye is a bunch of little screens telling everyone the same stories over and over again with different presentations. And our little eyes seem to be reading a dazzled 'reality' being depicted from this 'beholder' we all stare at so much.
 
That eye reminds me of a giant insect 
 
horsefly_2111421i.jpg
 
Unreal? I'll let the reader decide...
 
:Idea1:
 
:Flying:

  • 2


#13415 Would You Like a Reading?

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 23 January 2018 - 04:32 PM

Literary Adaptions
 
How come so many movies are never as good as the book? 
How would you re-read a book to write an adaption for the screen?
Is it the casting of character, would you use a different setting, or change character differences to suit a particular angle? 
How would you change the dialog? If at all?
How about the Narrator? Is he important? 
 
All the above and more...
 
First, more questions:
 
:chuckle:
 
Can a film get inside a persons head like a book can?  
Which parts of a book make the best candidates to transfer onto film?
What about the dialog?
How about the Plot
Are the events portrayed in the same order?
Do the characters meet up to your preconceived image?
What scenes are more important than others?
What should be revised, distorted, or when should liberties be taken?
Are narration voice overs a good device for a movie to use?
Does this downgrade a movie into an un-adulterated novel?
 
Film relies on lighting, sound, camera placement, movement from characters and lots of visual action. Literature is a completely verbal medium. It relies on language alone.
 
The invention of the movies changed how literary styles were presented to the new 'modern' public. Movies got all the spectacle: explosions, car chases, and lots of visual excitement. No dialog was needed. Not in the beginning. This is important to consider. Whereas books got the psychology, consciousness, and the inner life reflections a complete story can give. Sometimes, an adaption from a book can be more effective than a faithful rendition.
 
Lastly, I'll close this post with a few more questions to ask yourself:
 
What are some of your favorite book to movie adaptations?
How often are you disappointed by those movies? 
Do you read the book first then see the movie? 
Do your own depictions of character, story, and plot change when you see the movie version?
 
10626563_845773678767478_706595752881064

  • 1


#13405 Would You Like a Reading?

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 23 January 2018 - 12:48 PM

 

:rofl:

 

e6c6966b7b9671038ef37c9cb212f3b8.jpg


  • 1


#13403 Would You Like a Reading?

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 23 January 2018 - 12:16 PM

 
Frank-Underwood-Saying-Welcom-Back-House
 
:chuckle:
 

Metafiction - What does it mean?

The prefix "meta" means something about something. In this case 'about' fiction. It does more though: it goes beyond the realm of fancies and fiction. In the classic days of Aristotle it was thought that meta should come after or later. I.E. First teaching physics and then moving on to metaphysics. Now that seems logical to me...

Metafiction is fiction about fiction. It calls attention to its own devices and makes no attempt to be realistic. It is a writing style used to reflect the self conscious use of language. It's storytelling that talks about itself in strange ways.

If an author or narrator of the work decides to jump around and dance in the story, that would be metafiction.

If a book acknowledges itself as a book, that too, is metafiction.

It reflects on the psychology of reading and talks about us and about self reflexivity.

Metafiction helps people to look at fiction and ask questions about our own interpretations of how we feel about an it.

Metafiction uses surreal and unrealistic devices to question the reader.

Metafiction 'talk's to the 'you' in all of us. Possibly even questioning things that we don't even know exist.

Do you think there are terms such as metamusic or metapainting? Or is this only a concept possible in writing only? 

 

 For more on Metafiction and it's social implications click this link

 
b8k9Tpl.jpg

  • 1


#13387 The Sound of Music - MERGED

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 20 January 2018 - 04:05 PM

1a051f4499037e0b58b265fc660c58e3.jpg


  • 1


#13386 Would You Like a Reading?

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 20 January 2018 - 04:00 PM

Modulations in language
 
Behind, between, and beneath the dialog. Scenes are built with it. It's about bringing the depth of the dialog to the surface using subtext. Exposing the tensions and interplay between the characters. Would you rather see a character completely transparent from the start? Characters are built using subtexts and summaries in conjunction with one another. Noticing these things can be appreciated more on second and third readings of any work. Consider these questions:
 
How does the scene get it's legs going, and how does the characters development build throughout its course? 
How can we tell if any underlying stakes are involved, and what can be learned about the relationship between the characters over the course of scenery already seen? What do characters have in common? Does a character know what he/she wants to achieve? 
 
Subtexts in scense
 
All characters enter into scenes for a reason. Not every character knows what he wants. Hidden goals are revealed through the sub-text. There might be a good chance for misunderstandings and communication breakdowns to occur. This is where twilight language gets involved. It's all in the sub-text.
 
Look for diction changes, tone modulations, and rhetorical devices in scene dialog. What underlying sub-texts in the language can be seen? Pay attention to words. What kind of words is the character using? What kind of differences in timber (or mode modulations) does a character use to get what he/she wants? Use a poker scene as an example. All the interactions in dialog along with some summarizations in body language can make subtle sub-texts stand out.
 
Narrators count on the reader to find the subtexts.
 
tumblr_nijccsWUIG1rhdyfso1_540.gif
 
:Grin_Jump3:
 
:Flying:
 
 

  • 1


#13385 Would You Like a Reading?

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 20 January 2018 - 01:19 PM

 

I like how you imply that reading a good book is like listening to a great symphony. All the parts and pieces coming together to form a coherent listening experience. Rhythms and structures are what constantly drives us forward. Let's hope the stories told in the future will have a patient rhythm to tell the story of our present. Our media tells them so fast the beats per minute make it difficult to keep up.
 
Just a question but I was wondering why people can listen to a song over and over again but find it difficult to re-read short stories and books the same way?

 

 

I think it might be the electric ear worms. They travel really, really fast...

 

:chuckle:

 

Reading books has its own sense of syncopated beats all layered inside. I guess a reader has to slow down the BPM a bit to really listen to the symphony within.

 

My last post looked at chapters and how they provide structure and pace throughout an entire book. We've already caught a glimpse of chapters as clusters filled with scenes and summaries from that post. Today we'll bring the microscope in and look inside a chapter and see what makes it tick and pulse.
 
Scenes are influenced by the dialog. A reader can feel like they're watching the characters without any filters from the author or narrator.
 
Summaries are comments by the storyteller that set the scene, analyze a character, and the tell general surroundings.. Summary activates the readers senses as it conveys a lot of information by using a few short sentences and paragraphs. Summary describes what the characters are doing and not saying in the dialog. Try replacing summaries with scenes of dialog and see what happens. Can a description be conveyed by using dialog along? Dialog gives us the characters direct reason for action. Especially during long discourses between characters. Tension builds and summary is used to release it. Summary breaks the dialog into beats, or stages and allows the reader to stop and think about the characters actions.
 
Ever notice how dialog and summary have their own kind of beat going on inside a chapter? Each chapter is like a song in a concept album...
 
:Flying:

  • 1


#13362 Would You Like a Reading?

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 18 January 2018 - 03:26 PM

Chapters, parts, and patterns...
 
All fiction and non-fiction today is divided up into parts and chapters. It gives long works structure for the narrator to describe the scenes chained together within chapters. Chapters give breaks to the reader and a chance to go back and re-read a section of interest. Maybe even begin asking the myriad of questions described in previous posts and coming up with a few of your own.
 
Ever ask questions like why are some chapters small and others large? Are there any rules or a general consensus as to how chapters should be formed? 
 
Yes: It's best that an opening chapter(s) in a book should be short to introduce the main character and describe setting and scene then end with a disrupting event. This gives a reader a clue into what to expect.
 
Coordinating and arranging chapters and parts is a thoughtful arrangement and skill by any author. Style always plays a heavy part in this process. Sometimes chapters are even and sometimes clustered about. 
 
Let's take a look at where the idea of chapter and verse division comes from. Of course, it's the Bible. Originally it wasn't divided in any way at all. It's thought it was preceded by the use of epigraphs. Only later commentators put them into verse and chapter when they copied them. 

Stephen Langton (c. 1150 – 9 July 1228) was an English Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and Archbishop of Canterbury between 1207 and his death in 1228. The dispute between King John of England and Pope Innocent III over his election was a major factor to the crisis which produced Magna Carta in 1215. Cardinal Langton is also credited with having divided the Bible into the standard modern arrangement of chapters used today.
 

 

 

They did this to keep an order of reference for themselves and those around them. Later, other writers began mimicing this style and by the 19th century our current form of reading and writing styles are currenty established in our own modern society.  
 
In those days books weren't usually printed whole like they are today. Publishers had better ways to market a tale. They were published in installments and chapters. Later releasing them in larger parts. Charles Dickens was one of most popular authors who used chapters to tell a story to the public. They were released in installments with a couple of chapters each week. 
 
How would an author keep his readers interested in a long work when it's presented like that? That's where chapter formation and main characters come in with major events to change the scene to another part. Major twists, revelations, or other character shifting events are what gives the story a beat. Look for major event chapters. These lead to another part in the story. Sometimes the beat is strange and unorthodox. Modern writers like to play around with these structures giving us a myriad of formation and pattern twists. I hope this post gives you some reference into what to look for in refining your own artist sense in reading. 
 
:Flying:
 

  • 1


#13357 Would You Like a Reading?

Posted by Rufus Tullius on 17 January 2018 - 11:34 AM

All the above questions and elements in story telling give us the tools to add to our fun when reading a short story. They also provide us a basis to explore longer novels. Today's focus will be on pre-reading to help readers choose books to purchase or read from the library. 
 
Walk into any book store and what do you find? People perusing the isles pre-reading blurbs, looking at covers, trying to decide on what book to buy.
 
An artful reader knows what to look for when it comes to authors and characters, but what about the structure of the novel? I think I've mentioned a few good questions to ask yourself on some of the previous posts.
 
Short stories are good for a single sitting read through as they never take much time to read. They focus more on one or two characters with action inside a limited space of time. They hardly ever include sub-plots. A short story is like a good song.
 
Novels take a while to read. Sometimes days and even weeks. They have multiple characters and they allow an author to flesh out the roundness of the main players in greater detail. Narration can be devious and filled with devices to put a little meat on a flat character or two. Novels can have an almost unlimited time span. Main characters can be seen from birth to death and beyond. Novels offer multiple plots and sub-plots and sound like a full fledged album of music.
 
Pre-reading at the library or bookstore helps to pick out which book you might be interested in. Pictures on the cover and blurbs on the back are never enough for a pre-read. Notice how advertisers use genre and the names of authors to draw in a reader. Look inside and see how many parts is it divided into. Do any the chapters names catch your eye? When you begin reading a novel spend at least half an hour on it and ask a few questions: 
 
Can you find a master plot? 
Are the characters and settings drawing you in? 
Is the narration first person or third?
Does the first sentence give away the genre?
 
Those are just a few questions to ask yourself. You'll find many more when you explore the art of reading. Here's a few more questions to ask yourself when choosing a new book (or an old one):
 
Would you read a badly reviewed novel from a popular author or a perfect short story?
Would you rather read a classic novel or a modern one?
Would a recommendation from a teacher, librarian, or a friend make difference in your choice of book?
 
:Flying:

  • 1




IPB Skin By Virteq