Theory of Mind – Show the telling? No! that’s too transparent.

2012/02/27 § Leave a comment

Most of my experimental writing investigates and utilises perspectives and their (imagined) intentionality covered by the phrase Theory of Mind.

I.E. on the back and forth between the writer and reader, in particular, lately, trying, as writer to second guess the reader’s reactions and to re-work them.

Earlier, 20 years ago, when i was young, I was trying to take over the reader’s mind with a sedgehammer of intense revelatory prosepoetry, a bit like running a suite of hacker programmes trying to find backdoors and gain access as root to the reader’s mind, and gain totally control. PWNAGE. Literally a literary attempt to transpose my consciousness to the reader’s wetware via the text i had written. At least for the duration of the time it takes you to read the work.

While the Theory of Mind is at the heart of all writing techniques, generally writers wish to seduce their readers, or indulge them, though I would argue it still comes from a certain still and quiet megalomania.

Generally the Theory of Mind is taken for granted, you win no points for pointing it out to the reader. Literature might encompass the sharing and exposure of experience but generally it is not interested in plumbing the depths of that writerly technology which transfers experience and fantasy from the writer’s wetware to the readers’.

All those rules about “show don’t tell” or critiques based on “ego transparency” of the writer come from lessons learned in that more dishonest, self-deceiving war. English literature as edifying propaganda for the people who keep themselves nice. General pulp fiction as simply the gift telling good stories as entertainment.

It’s a war because it’s a drama, and drama involves conflict.

My experiment failed, except perhaps on myself, which is an own goal in any case. It is only on noticing my failure that I am able to describe it as a megalomania. Before then it was art, and therefore, necessarily, it’s own virtue.


Berserker Bacteria: all formats to all conditions

2012/02/16 § Leave a comment

Now then, I wrote a story a couple of years ago as part of The Human Genre Project called Speciation: The Day REDE OS Forked.

It’s a piece of Lab lit, which is a genre of fiction that centres on realistic portrayals of scientists, and science as a profession. The science idea behind it was Richard Dawkins‘ suggestion in The Extended Phenotype that how genes are read from the DNA might be more important at times than the idea of DNA as lawgiver/formgiver, and I put it in the context of software and operating systems development.

The study of this area is called Epigenetics.

The big news in Nature is that bacteria do this to blazes.

Some bacteria, when stressed, deiberately go into a sort of Kernel panic. They actively ‘misread’ the DNA code, especially from regions otherwise ignored (called Junk DNA) in order to produce proteins, any proteins that might be able to help. In order that some or one can survive the stressful conditions.

Its like producing Word salad in order to mount your defence in the court to a charge of crimes against humanity instead of hiring a legal team to do it for you.

Totally, codingly, instructably berserk.

Bacteria rule.

Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for February, 2012 at FORMeika.