The Index of the Giant's Comments IV - A Rich Source of Quotassium

[Murk]

[...]I'm too familiar with the Index and the linked quotes (and in some cases their context) to really see what would improve it.

Familiar? You could recite the index word for word if you needed to.

[Emanick]

I don't think he's ever talked about "it's a story as explanation" in any depth before (I've seen it mentioned, but only beyond in passing that I can recall). And I'm rather confident this is the first he's said anything about statistical verisimilitude before....

I'm pretty sure this is the first time he's used the phrase, but he's definitely spoken on the topic of statistical verisimilitude at least once before. I can be fairly certain of this because reading the quote I'm thinking of genuinely changed how I look at representation in art.

Anyway, I'm on the fence as to whether or not to include. Is it redundant? I'm genuinely not sure. I don't have a strong feeling on the matter, so I'll leave the decision up to others and get back to writing my thesis.

[SaintRidley]

Further, the Index isn't meant to be a comprehensive list of everything the Giant's ever posted (much to SaintRidley's ongoing chagrin).

Hey. Rich's thoughts on Battlestar Galactica and Fern Gully - those don't need to be here. I've never said this needs to be a comprehensive list of all of Rich's posts (that's what his post history is for). I just want it to be a comprehensive index of all of his posts about the Order of the Stick and the craft of writing.

And I don't think redundancy should really enter into those, because either Rich has changed his mind (in which case it's worth looking at the older quote and the newer one to gain a better understanding of the trajectory of Rich's feelings about what the comic does and about the writing process) or he's offering us multiple explanations, some of which may not click with a person but one of which may. Having them all (under a central entry such as "To What Extent is Representation a Writer's Duty" or something - not dissimilar to what we already have) with a central couple quotes tackling specific aspects of the central entry with see alsos for other, "redundant" takes on that aspect, can only increase the usability of the index, I think.

And the space argument - we are on the internet. Another post at the beginning of the thread is doable. It's even been done. It is not some world-ending thing.

[Jasdoif]

Familiar? You could recite the index word for word if you needed to.

I think you're overestimating the clarity of my random recall, my memory's not quite as good as it used to be (perhaps a result of being polymorphed into a banana). Even if you weren't, that's still in the "too familiar" range, isn't it?

I've never said this needs to be a comprehensive list of all of Rich's posts (that's what his post history is for). I just want it to be a comprehensive index of all of his posts about the Order of the Stick and the craft of writing.

Ah. Guess I didn't remember all the details of your long-running trend to support never removing anything (see above).

And the space argument - we are on the internet. Another post at the beginning of the thread is doable. It's even been done. It is not some world-ending thing.

It's not storage that's the issue, it's the ease of use for users. It's the difference between the drive space on a web server and the connection speed of the web browsers accessing it.

[ahdok]

Fair enough on some of these comments, I am new to the thread, so was unaware that there was active selection of comments. (It's still the case that all active selection of data provides a bias... for example, you're attempting to instill a bias against redundancy.) I do still feel that newer references should supplant older ones, and that there is value in this statement beyond what's been said before.

I was thrown by the word "index" too, which is often in common parlance an exhaustive list of elements: Rather than a synopsis, or an appendix, or a "curated list" or "selection" - all of which I would take to mean partial lists. Perhaps if I could suggest the word "curated" be added to the title in future threads, it might infer to future readers that there is an active selection process involved?

[Keltest]

Fair enough on some of these comments, I am new to the thread, so was unaware that there was active selection of comments. (It's still the case that all active selection of data provides a bias... for example, you're attempting to instill a bias against redundancy.) I do still feel that newer references should supplant older ones, and that there is value in this statement beyond what's been said before.

I was thrown by the word "index" too, which is often in common parlance an exhaustive list of elements: Rather than a synopsis, or an appendix, or a "curated list" or "selection" - all of which I would take to mean partial lists. Perhaps if I could suggest the word "curated" be added to the title in future threads, it might infer to future readers that there is an active selection process involved?

I believe that's in one of the existing tags for the thread actually, assuming anyone actually looks at those. Regardless, the title can only tell people so much about the thread.

Beyond that though, if you feel the statement has value beyond whats already in the index, please do not hesitate to elaborate on that. We are not voting yet, and arguments for or against inclusion are allowed and encouraged to go as in-depth as the poster can fit in their post. Nobody every changed anyone's mind by not presenting a countering viewpoint.

[The Linker]

It's not storage that's the issue, it's the ease of use for users. It's the difference between the drive space on a web server and the connection speed of the web browsers accessing it.

Well, some people are arguing that we could run out of space.

Indeed we are, because:

1) There is a limit to the amount of text that fits into a post. Including unneeded quotes pushes us closer to the limit, and risks running out of space.

I agree that space is very much not an issue, ever. The index currently takes up five posts with two reserved; it could easily take up ten posts. Or fifteen. Or twenty. I'm not saying that would be an ideal size, but the fact remains that you can't rightly say we have a limit, much less one that we're getting close to.

At any rate, posts have at least a limit of 49,000 characters (the Geekademia article post is a little over that). Saying that the one hundred characters a 'see also' would add brings us closer to that limit is like saying pouring an eyedropper into a bath is bringing it closer to flooding. It's 0.2% of a single post's limit and 0.028% of the current allotted size for the index at large. Like, c'mon. That's not a relevant figure to worry about.

[Gwynfrid]

Beyond that though, if you feel the statement has value beyond whats already in the index, please do not hesitate to elaborate on that. We are not voting yet, and arguments for or against inclusion are allowed and encouraged to go as in-depth as the poster can fit in their post. Nobody every changed anyone's mind by not presenting a countering viewpoint.

Well, I, for one, believe it's worth including because it is an extensively argued viewpoint in a debate that frequently shows up on this forum and elsewhere, ie if a story needs any degree of resemblance to the real world to be credible; and in particular, if representation needs to be similar to statistics we see in the real world to be acceptable as default. None of the existing quotes, to my knowledge, address the representation issue under that angle.

Conversely, you're welcome to point to any one or several existing quotes to back up the claim that the proposed addition is redundant.

[Jasdoif]

At any rate, posts have at least a limit of 49,000 characters (the Geekademia article post is a little over that). Saying that the one hundred characters a 'see also' would add brings us closer to that limit is like saying pouring an eyedropper into a bath is bringing it closer to flooding. It's 0.2% of a single post's limit and 0.028% of the current allotted size for the index at large. Like, c'mon. That's not a relevant figure to worry about.

The limit is 50,000 characters per post (the forum is nice enough to tell you how many characters you've got and what is the limit is on a post that goes over, even on a preview). Currently the first two posts total 62,200 characters; so we've got a ways to go still before we need three posts

(The Geekademia interview itself is 49,912 characters...which is why the table of contents is in a separate post.)

[Emanick]

Well, I, for one, believe it's worth including because it is an extensively argued viewpoint in a debate that frequently shows up on this forum and elsewhere, ie if a story needs any degree of resemblance to the real world to be credible; and in particular, if representation needs to be similar to statistics we see in the real world to be acceptable as default. None of the existing quotes, to my knowledge, address the representation issue under that angle.

Conversely, you're welcome to point to any one or several existing quotes to back up the claim that the proposed addition is redundant.

I distinctly remember a statement that The Giant made on just that topic, and because it actually changed my mind somewhat, I'm pretty certain I'm not making it up. However, I can't seem to find it in The Index. Does anyone else remember a post like that?

[Jasdoif]

I distinctly remember a statement that The Giant made on just that topic, and because it actually changed my mind somewhat, I'm pretty certain I'm not making it up. However, I can't seem to find it in The Index. Does anyone else remember a post like that?

Nothing comes to mind...and I couldn't find anything that seemed to be exactly what you described; closest I found was this (which is in the Index), this (which I'd never seen before), and this (which appears to have been proposed during the first Index thread (the third link), but escaped notice).

[Vargtass]

Nothing comes to mind...and I couldn't find anything that seemed to be exactly what you described; closest I found was this (which is in the Index), this (which I'd never seen before), and this (which appears to have been proposed during the first Index thread (the third link), but escaped notice).

The last link contains three posts by the Giant in the thread - the last of these may be what Emanick is looking for.

[unbeliever536]

So, this quote that got proposed. I'm for it's inclusion; it is new information on the specifics of Rich's views on representation and, more significantly to my mind, on verisimilitude. I've seen no post by Rich* (I'd never seen that post from two years ago, it not being one of the well-cited posts about representation) that speaks so strongly against verisimilitude. In fact, given what he said in his New World posts about drawing information from real cultures, I believed he held the opposite view. Much of what he's previously said about representation has inclined me to that idea; he seemed to approve the "half of all people..." argument that he ridicules in the post under discussion. This may not represent a concrete change in his views, but it's a massive departure from his apparent views on the subject.


*I rewrote this clause like five times because I've never actually heard Rich say anything. Fricken internet.

[Emanick]

Nothing comes to mind...and I couldn't find anything that seemed to be exactly what you described; closest I found was this (which is in the Index), this (which I'd never seen before), and this (which appears to have been proposed during the first Index thread (the third link), but escaped notice).

The last link contains three posts by the Giant in the thread - the last of these may be what Emanick is looking for.

Thanks for the help, y'all. None of those links (or other pages on the threads they belong to) contain the post I was thinking of, so I'm going to scrap any rejection on the basis of redundancy. A comment in The Index that duplicates information in a lost post nobody can find is not "redundant" in any meaningful sense of the word.

[hamishspence]

More on verisimilitude.

I like seeing these details on the writing process.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think that the new post could be included, perhaps as a see also to the other proposed quote?

[Gwynfrid]

I think that the new post could be included, perhaps as a see also to the other proposed quote?

Both posts should be included, they are really one entry. This makes for a great window into the author's thoughts on writing methods. Inititally I thought this was about the somewhat tired subject of inclusion, but it turns out it is a lot more interesting in what it says about writing in general: It belongs in "Writing Process and Story Development" rather than "Real World Intent".

[Yendor]

Not eligible for the index, but it's probably no coincidence Rich just made this tweet.

[Murk]

I think this new one does a way better job of focusing on new information. I would certainly include this one. If it were up to me, probably only this one out of the two.

[Zherog]

Both posts should be included, they are really one entry. This makes for a great window into the author's thoughts on writing methods. Inititally I thought this was about the somewhat tired subject of inclusion, but it turns out it is a lot more interesting in what it says about writing in general: It belongs in "Writing Process and Story Development" rather than "Real World Intent".

This - though I'm also OK if we decide to keep them purely because of the "somewhat tired subject of inclusion" as well. Both of the new quotes, in my opinion, are worth indexing - for their view at Rich's writing theory; for their view on inclusion; for their look at how Rich's thought process has changed; and, frankly, for their overall social commentary (even if that's not something that's an "index worthy" quality).

Both of these quotes should go in. The second, I think, is better. Make it the main. Make the first a "see also."

[D.One]

This - though I'm also OK if we decide to keep them purely because of the "somewhat tired subject of inclusion" as well. Both of the new quotes, in my opinion, are worth indexing - for their view at Rich's writing theory; for their view on inclusion; for their look at how Rich's thought process has changed; and, frankly, for their overall social commentary (even if that's not something that's an "index worthy" quality).

Both of these quotes should go in. The second, I think, is better. Make it the main. Make the first a "see also."

Agreed. It's about the writing process, after all.

[Jasdoif]

Hmm. Well, it looks like there's a lot of support for the first one (17 for, 5 against) and no one's been against this second one, so I guess we're up to four quotes now!

On Elven and Goblin Deities The Elves worship Western gods in addition to their own. The goblins worshipped no one prior to the ascension of the Dark One.	#978	03/19/2015	Tentative, appears will be included without vote.
On the Forum and the Comic "I don't mind the analysis (or overanalysis) of the comic anymore...." See also here, on the topic of forum speculation.	#978	03/24/2015	Tentative, appears will be included without vote. Replaces an existing entry.
Verisimulitude as a Tool It's for story elements that shouldn't attract reader attention. More here.	#979	03/30/2015	Tentative, appears will be included without vote.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Hmm. Well, it looks like there's a lot of support for the first one (17 for, 5 against) and no one's been against this second one, so I guess we're up to four quotes now!

For what is worth, I oppose both. My reasons are the same for first and second, I just did not see a reason to repeat myself a second time within two pages.

GW

[Keltest]

For what is worth, I oppose both. My reasons are the same for first and second, I just did not see a reason to repeat myself a second time within two pages.

GW

Same here as well.

[Jasdoif]

For what is worth, I oppose both. My reasons are the same for first and second, I just did not see a reason to repeat myself a second time within two pages.

Same here as well.

Since we operate on the post level and there's two different posts, and it would be inappropriate for me to make assumptions for anyone else (such as whether the posts should be considered two parts of the same quote, much less if disagreement with one constitutes disagreement with both), it kind of makes a difference...In this case with the two of you, the difference between 100% support for inclusion and 75% support for inclusion, and half way to putting it in range to be PMed on given its support at this time.

Anyone else want to weigh in on the second post?

[ti'esar]

I'm in favor of including both.

[SaintRidley]

Obviously pro-both here.

[Lycunadari]

I'm also for including both.

[Throknor]

Both. The subject seems to be a recurring one.

[Peelee]

For what is worth, I oppose both. My reasons are the same for first and second, I just did not see a reason to repeat myself a second time within two pages.

GW

I'm with the canis lupus.