CityBabe9 (6:27:56 PM): you unfucked me again!
"He achieved what no other known man has achieved. To watch his work is like being witness to the beginning of melody, or the first conscious use of the lever or the wheel; the emergence, coordination and first eloquence of language; the birth of an art: and to realize that this is all the work of one man." -James Agee, about D. W. Griffith
i can't even imagine. he essentially created movies. not as a medium, but as an artform. half the reason i write such strange stories generally is that i feel like, if i write a 'normal' story with a normal structure and normal characters doing normal things, i have created nothign new. it's all been done to death, and probably much better than i will ever be able. so i try to do something unusual instead, but of course even bizarre writing by now has been done to death. i cannot think of any artform i enjoy that has not vastly overextended itself. which is not to say that nothing good is done anymore, or nothing significant, or nothing beautiful. but it seems like the only ways left to create anything that seems unique or original is to stray further and further away from what anyone can get any pleasure from. and what is the point of that?
and speaking of 'the emergence, coordination and first eloquence of language' i just today started a linguistics book shelly recommended to me (nerd alert!), she siad it would better explain to me the need for abstraction in linguistic theories, which i had argued against, with her. the book is on the two ways this guy asserts that we learn and process language-- a large database of simple concrete information (vocabulary, irregular verbs, etc) vs a smaller database of complex abstract rules (sentence structure, regular verbs, etc). i'm only on chapter 2 so far, but it's interesting