Tachyon said:but form is very important; where is the function in a text? it's nowhere to be found, unless you treat certain aspects of the form as indicative of function
but that's also a simplification of course
i'm sorry, i'm kind of not sure how much sense i'm making or if i'm talking nonsense, so maybe i shouldn't have spoken, but i find this subject very unsettling at the moment
Function is absolutely something that exists within text. Function is when the various parts of a story come together to form a coherent whole. Things like clear character motivation and thematic consistency and correct framing. When I say "treating form as function" I mean the pervasive idea that aping an idea automatically means your thing will work the same way that other ting will, like how people will put something in a movie just because every other movie does it and because it looks cool.
but form is very important; where is the function in a text? it's nowhere to be found, unless you treat certain aspects of the form as indicative of function
but that's also a simplification of course
i'm sorry, i'm kind of not sure how much sense i'm making or if i'm talking nonsense, so maybe i shouldn't have spoken, but i find this subject very unsettling at the moment
Function is absolutely something that exists within text. Function is when the various parts of a story come together to form a coherent whole. Things like clear character motivation and thematic consistency and correct framing. When I say "treating form as function" I mean the pervasive idea that aping an idea automatically means your thing will work the same way that other ting will, like how people will put something in a movie just because every other movie does it and because it looks cool.
i don't think that's function, though. That's more like, meaning, and meaning is derived by the reader from arrangements of words on the page or images on the screen, which are ultimately formal qualities.
This is maybe stretching the use of the term 'formal' to breaking point, i realize. But i don't like treating a text teleologically, which is what you're doing when you call the meaning of a text its 'function', as anything can be reinterpreted or recontextualized.
i don't really disagree with the rest of your post.
At the moment i'm kind of panicking about how to write things to a brief that are good, and by good i mean having the quality that almost all guides to creative writing mention and which frequently came up in lectures, 'emotional truth', which is not literal truth or internal consistency but some kind of je ne sais quoi which some things have and others don't, and i don't know what this thing is or where to find it or how i'm supposed to master form without imitation and i'm really very anxious about this.
So any dubious theoretical assertions i make at the moment should be read with that in mind.
I didn't mean to imply the the meaning of a text is its function. The elements of a text and their ability to convey that meaning is its function.
i disagree, and strongly. You don't need a function to convey meaning. For instance, clear character motivation is not function, it's clear communication of ideas, which is achieved through mastery of the form.
Clear communication of ideas would i guess be what i mean when i say 'aspects of the form being indicative of function'
but function isn't then 'in' the text, it's the product of form + context
though the form is just the arrangement of signs which are given meaning by context so ultimately it's all just context, though i'd say that there are exceptions to this, formal qualities can be similar or dissimilar in ways which don't derive from their meaning but from isomorphisms between the forms themselves
While the concept of "emotional truth" is absolutely valid for critiquing a work, I find it very unhelpful for actually, y'know, writing it. Terminology is tricky that way. Writing advice should rely on clear definitions, right? Because it has to be helpful. It's the point of giving advice.
I worry that the term "function" implies that a work is rote and safe and trite, and as such people shy away from it based on the sound of the word itself, which is unfortunate. Really all it means is that your work has a stable foundation. Hell, even a stable foundation is negotiable. The thing about writing is that you have wiggle room with everything, so long as you're capable of making it work. There really is boundless freedom, but you have to be able to make it work.
That's not why i dislike 'function', it's because i don't believe function exists in the text, or possibly because i am allergic to teleology or something idk
i think it'd be assholish to critique a work based on something that a writer couldn't take on board and work with. That's called an unreasonable expectation.
Apparently something can be literally true but if the reader thinks it's not emotionally true, it has failed. Well, i think that's nonsense. That's the imperious reader demanding that art conform with their preconceptions about reality.
Because I honestly have no idea what you think I'm implying here. I don't know what working definitions of form and function you're operating with here because they're clearly different than the ones I'm using.
Tachyon I think you have a preconceived notion of what I'm saying and are arguing with that instead of what I'm saying and it's kind of upsetting me.
i'm sorry if that's the case but i feel the same way, since i never said it was the sound of the word that bothered me, it's that function does not exist in the text
When I say "function" I mean that if a work does effectively convey its meaning, it functions. I honestly have no idea how that definition could be contentious to anyone.
Because I honestly have no idea what you think I'm implying here. I don't know what working definitions of form and function you're operating with here because they're clearly different than the ones I'm using.
Form = the arrangement of words on the page, the images that appear on screen, the sounds in a recording, the signs in a text in the most general sense, and the patterns created by these things in relation to one another
Function = the purpose of something, the one true way in which a text can be read, the aim or goal which it achieves or fails to achieve
That definition is massively contentious to me in the context of this discussion, not because i think it's a wrong definition, but because i think it's something that patently does not exist in a text.
and none of that's to say i think 'function' cannot be discussed in a critical context, but it's something that can only be suggested by the text, not something that's 'in' it
There are a lot of things that hold no immediate aesthetic appeal to me, or that actively repulse me, but which i can appreciate as clever or interesting on a technical level.
Incidentally that includes some stuff that people here like, and sometimes people get very cross or upset if you dismiss offhand things that they admire because you don't think they're pretty.
Function: The ability of a work to convey meaning. Various elements can allow a work to function or prevent it, such as clear and consistent character motivation, but virtually all of them are negotiable.
Form: The outward appearance of a work.
For example: Han Solo takes the form of an aggressive loner badass, but he functions because he forms an ideological counterpoint to the main cast, his motivations are dramatized properly, and he has a compelling arc. So when movies ape the character by making some badass with a gun and a vest, the issue is that they only saw the form, without an understanding that Han Solo wasn't just compelling because he was a badass with a gun and a vest, he was compelling because he effectively served a specific purpose within the narrative.
That definition is massively contentious to me in the context of this discussion, not because i think it's a wrong definition, but because i think it's something that patently does not exist in a text.
So what you're saying is there's no such thing as an effective or ineffective text?
i think you can make text with a purpose for the reader or a purpose for yourself. When a reader engages with your text they withdraw a meaning, and hopefully it's the one you intended if you intended for there to be one for them to find, but it could be something else if you bungled your communication or the reader is coming at it from an unexpected angle.
Of course it could very well be that the reader likes the unintended aim of your work, and you may or may not be comfortable with how they see it, but thems the breaks.
Further wrt things that are pretty, i find that, for me at least, sometimes things which have no immediate, overt charm but which have other interesting qualities can become appealing in an emotional sense through prolonged exposure and/or sustained analysis.
Close. i'm saying that there's no such thing as an effective or ineffective text in the absence of other qualifiers.
Was I implying that there is such a thing as an intrinsically effective or ineffective text? How would such a thing even, like, happen?
The actual purpose of the work is a function, but is a question of authorial intention, which is in no sense present in the work.
You can't have an intent with a work and not have it come through in some shape, form, or fashion. Authorial intent matters. Also, again with different working definitions. That wasn't what I meant when I said function.
i don't disagree with your specific point about Han Solo, i disagree with your reasoning behind it, if that makes sense.
What about my reasoning did you find problematic, though? Because you've said that you disagree but you haven't really presented an alternative.
Close. i'm saying that there's no such thing as an effective or ineffective text in the absence of other qualifiers.
Was I implying that there is such a thing as an intrinsically effective or ineffective text? How would such a thing even, like, happen?
You appeared to be, and well, it wouldn't happen, hence my fierce disagreement on that point.
i feel that often a work is judged to have succeeded or failed based on a function assumed by the critic, but maybe that's not what you were doing, i dunno, and if not, sorry about that.
The actual purpose of the work is a function, but is a question of authorial intention, which is in no sense present in the work.
You can't have an intent with a work and not have it come through in some shape, form, or fashion.
Sure you can. To give the most extreme example, what is the intent behind the Voynich manuscript?
No reader has access to the exact same set of experiences and reference pools as the author because no two people are the same. Even the author will not be exactly the same as they were when they wrote it, upon rereading.
Authorial intent matters. Also, again with different working definitions. That wasn't what I meant when I said function.
Authorial intent matters to the author, and perceived authorial intent matters to some (most?) readers, but in the absence of mind-reading powers what the reader receives can only be a lesser or greater approximation of what the author intended.
i don't disagree with your specific point about Han Solo, i disagree with your reasoning behind it, if that makes sense.
What about my reasoning did you find problematic, though? Because you've said that you disagree but you haven't really presented an alternative.
Because i assumed (incorrectly?) that you were presenting Han's compellingness as an intrinsic aspect of the work rather than just an effect he had upon some, not all, viewers, as a consequence of other formal aspects such as the form of his character in relation to other aspects of the form, such as the forms of rest of the cast and their character arcs.
The distinction has, i realize, very little bearing on the point wrt Han Solo, but every relevance where the more general question of the hero's journey and the importance of form is concerned.
The intent isn't always clear, but it is always present. You can't always interpret it, but there's no way to exorcise yourself of purpose when writing something. Whether or not the reader's interpretation is lesser or greater is irrelevant; it's about the intent's effect on the work. Autorial intent is always an underlying cause of why things happen in stories. It's not like stories just spring up, people write them, and people write for reasons.
Comments
but that's also a simplification of course
i'm sorry, i'm kind of not sure how much sense i'm making or if i'm talking nonsense, so maybe i shouldn't have spoken, but i find this subject very unsettling at the moment
Function is absolutely something that exists within text. Function is when the various parts of a story come together to form a coherent whole. Things like clear character motivation and thematic consistency and correct framing. When I say "treating form as function" I mean the pervasive idea that aping an idea automatically means your thing will work the same way that other ting will, like how people will put something in a movie just because every other movie does it and because it looks cool.
This is maybe stretching the use of the term 'formal' to breaking point, i realize. But i don't like treating a text teleologically, which is what you're doing when you call the meaning of a text its 'function', as anything can be reinterpreted or recontextualized.
i don't really disagree with the rest of your post.
Alluding to an old TV Tropes avatar that AU used.
So any dubious theoretical assertions i make at the moment should be read with that in mind.
Disclaimer because i'm making weird remarks about AU's preferred name which could be kind of personal.
but function isn't then 'in' the text, it's the product of form + context
though the form is just the arrangement of signs which are given meaning by context so ultimately it's all just context, though i'd say that there are exceptions to this, formal qualities can be similar or dissimilar in ways which don't derive from their meaning but from isomorphisms between the forms themselves
i think it'd be assholish to critique a work based on something that a writer couldn't take on board and work with. That's called an unreasonable expectation.
Apparently something can be literally true but if the reader thinks it's not emotionally true, it has failed. Well, i think that's nonsense. That's the imperious reader demanding that art conform with their preconceptions about reality.
edit the rest of this post was stupid
Function = the purpose of something, the one true way in which a text can be read, the aim or goal which it achieves or fails to achieve
edit Oh wait, you already posted it, sorry.
That definition is massively contentious to me in the context of this discussion, not because i think it's a wrong definition, but because i think it's something that patently does not exist in a text.
it should make you think things too
NO
...it doesn't have to be a snowman
Genuinely I have no idea what you're saying here and this is all I can come up with.
The actual purpose of the work is a function, but is a question of authorial intention, which is in no sense present in the work.
i don't disagree with your specific point about Han Solo, i disagree with your reasoning behind it, if that makes sense.
So possibly this has been a sustained argument over a very slight difference in opinion, hm.
Of course it could very well be that the reader likes the unintended aim of your work, and you may or may not be comfortable with how they see it, but thems the breaks.
but those things are few and far between, and i'd be missing out on a lot if i restricted myself that way
You can't have an intent with a work and not have it come through in some shape, form, or fashion. Authorial intent matters. Also, again with different working definitions. That wasn't what I meant when I said function. What about my reasoning did you find problematic, though? Because you've said that you disagree but you haven't really presented an alternative.
You appeared to be, and well, it wouldn't happen, hence my fierce disagreement on that point.
i feel that often a work is judged to have succeeded or failed based on a function assumed by the critic, but maybe that's not what you were doing, i dunno, and if not, sorry about that.
Sure you can. To give the most extreme example, what is the intent behind the Voynich manuscript?
No reader has access to the exact same set of experiences and reference pools as the author because no two people are the same. Even the author will not be exactly the same as they were when they wrote it, upon rereading.
Authorial intent matters to the author, and perceived authorial intent matters to some (most?) readers, but in the absence of mind-reading powers what the reader receives can only be a lesser or greater approximation of what the author intended.
Because i assumed (incorrectly?) that you were presenting Han's compellingness as an intrinsic aspect of the work rather than just an effect he had upon some, not all, viewers, as a consequence of other formal aspects such as the form of his character in relation to other aspects of the form, such as the forms of rest of the cast and their character arcs.
it is the difference between compelling and not compelling, or true and untrue, or good and bad