Comments on: A thought

By: Jonathan Prejean

Jonathan Prejean — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:16:46 +0000

A philosopher of my acquaintance once said, “If you are going to eff the ineffable, then eff it and eff it well.” I think that’s the same idea as the original post.

skzb, since it’s my first post here, I will take the opportunity to gush about my love for your work. When I put down your books, I don’t feel like I read about someone else’s experience; I feel like I *had* an experience. Many authors are good observers of reality, but precious few capture can capture in words what it is to be in reality at a moment. Yours is fiction that tells the truth, to paraphrase Picasso’s line.

No pressure or anything, but being a lawyer myself, my expectations are sky-high for Iorich. And the thing is, I have absolutely no doubt that you will hit it out of the park, because you always do. Thank you for indulging my shameless fanboy moment, and please carry on as you were.

By: Lewis Himelhoch

Lewis Himelhoch — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:32:50 +0000

Of course you can explain something without understanding it:

http://www.gamebanshee.com/fallout/perks/smoothtalker.php

By: skzb

skzb — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:43:59 +0000

Miramon::8:: I like that!

By: Ker_Thwap

Ker_Thwap — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:36:45 +0000

In fantasy I often prefer to fill in the gaps with my own imagination.

By: Miramon

Miramon — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:36:15 +0000

A sudden attack of epigrammatic-compulsive symmetry disease (help cure ECSD in our lifetimes; give generously) compels me to extend the original:

It isn’t our job as writers to understand the inexplicable, only to explain it.

–>

It isn’t our job as writers to understand the inexplicable, only to explain the unfathomable.

By: rone

rone — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:58:18 +0000

I thought your job was merely to make the inexplicable read well.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:08:22 +0000

Hee hee hee, (flashing back to earlier threads) it isn’t our job as writers to understand the undefinable, only to use it correctly in a sentence.

By: Bookmobiler

Bookmobiler — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:48:21 +0000

If that were true why is so much that is written inexplicable?

By: Mutt

Mutt — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:48:21 +0000

In fiction? I agree. In that I-the-writer can explain a stinky bit of politics or worldbuilding in a character’s voice, without necessarily understanding the details he gives, let alone any more detail.

Especially so in fantasy. You don’t necessarily need to understand, eg, the biology of your system of magic down to a sub-cellular level in order either to write an irritatingly handsome mage sculpting water or to spout some jargon about it in his voice.

I mean, I wouldn’t make a habit of yapping about things I don’t understand at least a little, out of fear of looking stupid, but if I have someone stand up and pontificate about Lenser’s Reticule Invective for laughs I don’t feel I have to have written up Lenser’s bibliography and backstory or even decided on Lenser’s sex.

(I *have* fuzzily defined my magic system down to a sub-cellular level, but I suspect I’m both abnormal and a SF writer in disguise…)

By: bd

bd — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:07:10 +0000

I would suggest that understanding is dependent on perspective; one can only understand so much of anything. An expert, a witness, a participant can only perceive and understand a variable, finite portion of any event in the Universe. Therefore, any explanation derived from that understanding is necessarily incomplete and flawed.

If we add to that notion the fact that communication between humans is necessarily imperfect, the explanation is further degraded before the audience has a chance to perceive and process the information.

The boundaries of our trust, therefore, are arbitrary. Any systematic definition of those boundaries … well, here we start the cycle again.