| Welcome to Shejidan. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is the Compact In The Alliance/Union Universe? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 2 2015, 10:07 AM (2,313 Views) | |
| hrhspence | Feb 5 2015, 06:13 AM Post #31 |
|
Hani Assassin
![]()
|
Star, I agree and disagree with you. To show you what I mean I will use the stirrup handled pitchers of the Moche Indians of Peru. Posted Image We look at them and we see the beauty. We see the craftsmanship and the alien nature of the work. There is a mystery about them. They are far from us and yet we feel they are beautiful. It is that very beauty that we like. What the Moche Indians used them for is not really relevant to why we like them. They might have used them for memorializing their warriors or for indicators of what a store sold or the acts a bordello would perform. Visual indicators may have been used because not only were they illiterate, but they probably had conquered peoples among them that didn't speak the Moche language. I would like to know what they used them for, but that doesn't change my sense of beauty for their art. Their sense of utility does not define my sense of wonder and beauty for them. I like the works of art for what they mean to me, not what they meant to the Moche. But if they were alive and I could ask them and discuss the making of them that might might influence my appreciation. There are potters in my family and I seriously considered a career in clay. Seeing them made would mean something to me that one who has not made objects out of clay might not appreciate. In the same way, having an author there to answer questions influences my appreciation about her work. She may yet write another work answering my questions. But, once she is gone and her work complete, then I am left to critique her work based on the opinions of those I trust and in my own judgement, the same as with the Moche pottery. |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 5 2015, 06:48 AM Post #32 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
Nicely said, spence. And definitely enhanced by the visual aid! I must think upon it. After some sleep! :doze |
![]() |
|
| BlueCatShip | Feb 5 2015, 10:15 AM Post #33 |
|
Unlabelled Browncoat Scaper
![]()
|
Hmm, na Spence's opinion is very similar to my own, and I hope I got my opinion across in my replies. I like your explanation very much, Spence. Also, those pitchers are very handsome, beautiful, useful. Na StarExplorer, I think I understand your point of view, and like Spence, I agree and disagree with you on it. I would, however, disagree where you say that the author/artist's views of his or her own work aren't particularly relevant, once the work is given out to the public. I would also disagree on the idea that if an artist/author does not state or reveal some point or other (backstory, allegory, connotations, factual denotation) then you state that is a weakness or maybe even a failure to put it in plain terms in the artwork. I'd say that, at least when the author/artist is there to ask questions of and get answers, to discuss the matter of what the artist's intent was, what the piece means to him or her, any point one might ask about the work, then we, the audience, have the opportunity and the privilege to ask, to enter a dialogue, and to be informed by what the author/artist had in mind, whether in factual information or more esoteric points (allusions, emotional appeals, whatever it might be). Even after that artist is no longer with us, whatever may have been recorded (video, audio, text, drawings, music...) is still relevant to inform us, the audience, of what the author meant, both in the source and in the back-story, or if not a story, then whatever background informed the work. For example, we have many things of what else went into Tolkien's work, some (as usual) irascible and ascerbic commentary by Mark Twain, and so on. We unfortunately don't have much to go on with Shakespeare or Chaucer or Bach or Beethoven, as other examples, mostly because not much was recorded, or if so, it didn't survive. Once the original artist is gone, then yes, we can discuss/debate it until the cows come home. (Always supposing they do come home. If not, one suspects art critque becomes less of a priority until the cows are seen to.... ;) ) If an artist/author does not make every detail plain, or if many are open to multiple interpretations, I do not see that as necessarily a weakness, and certainly not as a failure of the work or the artist. For one thing, there's only so much room in a printed book to put in so many words. (Likewise with clay or with musical notation, etc.) and there's only so much time in the weeks, months, or years in which the artist created the work. At some point, the artist must declare it's finished. And much as anyone, artist or patron/fan/audience might like, there's only so much ink and paper, clay, instrumentation and voices, to devote to a given piece. The artist is fortunate if he or she can get across the majority of what went into the work. It's a tailoring process (another art or craft) to get in as much as possible, but when there's so much in the story, and so much in the back-story, well, something's gotta give. In both fiction and non-fiction, at least up until the information age with ebooks and web pages, there were always physical limits on how many pages or how many lines might be devoted to an article, a short story, a novel. If it was too short, then either the writer must fill the space or some other writer gets that space and the first writer isn't paid as much (or perhaps at all). And, well, the artist is likely fond of eating and paying rent/mortgage. Heh. But if the piece is too long, then it must be edited down. This happens constantly with non-fiction, such as newspapers. This happens also with fiction and poetry, to the frustration of the author and fans, at least, and perhaps to the edtior and publisher, if they appreciate the integrity of the work. And yet, how many column-inches or how many pages go into a piece is a preordained limit. Likewise how many minutes can go into a video or audio production; again, at least before the information age and internet, right? That also varies by country a bit, but a nominal hour-long program (episode) actually must fit within a 41 to 47 minute time slot; the rest is given to commercials, station identification, and news. No, sorry, sir, your work must fit within so many column-inches on so many pages, in our (publication) house style, or else something's gotta go. That scene, for instance.... It's also a practical matter of, the author gets in as much as he or she can to suit the story. If something doesn't quite fit the flow or the plot/character arcs, then it isn't quite right there. Does it fit over here? No? Yes? Does this part of the scene not contribute enough to the story? Is it critical to leave it in? Or would it serve the story better to leave it out? This is part of designing the impact of the tale. Or, never mind that in imagining, planning out the story, there were whole other arcs on characters or plotlines that didn't get used. Or never mind that while imagining it, the author came up with a raft of other neat details that somehow didn't find their way into the finished piece. Those still inform the story. They're still in the back-story. As one example, from Star Trek, Dr. McCoy was, early on, given an ex-wife and I think later, a daughter. One or the other was named Joanna. There was some plan to include them in an episode at some point, as I recall, but it didn't happen. (Ow, I almost wrote, it didn't materialize. Ahem.) -- My source on that is probably either of the 1970's non-fiction books, The World of Star Trek or The Making of Star Trek, as well as the Star Trek Concordance. I don't recall precisely where I remember it from. -- But McCoy was supposed to have had an ex-wife and a daughter whom we never saw and who never got mentioned much, if at all. For another example, a scene that never made it into the finished movie, but was in the script or novelization, had Sulu getting an artificial leg, because of some injury on a mission. It was presumed that it didn't add to the overall story, so it was cut from the film. ... Never mind that the pacing of the finished film was, ah, rather slow. There are things like this in any book or other artwork that don't make it into the finished piece. My mother always took copious photos that she used as source material for various paintings. She also made sketches, planning out a painting. Not everything of those ever made it into a painting. Also, she tended to take one bit from one location, another from another, and a third from her own imagination and experience, so that a single painting had a lot that went into its makeup that a viewer might never guess. It could get very interesting at times. ... There's the infamous story wherein she spotted a couple of roadrunners as we drove along a back country Texas road. It was not apparent until the film was developed that she'd, ah, taken photos of them in flagrante delicto.... (She'd also taken photos when they were merely running along.) (This became a shared joke in the family. Perhaps fortunately, I was in high school or college by then.) Ah, well, the two roadrunners' intimacy was never depicted in oils on canvas.... ;) However, one or both roadrunners, courtesy of other photos in sequence, did make it somewhere into a painting! Heh. So, er, many things may go into a piece that don't appear in the piece itself, and yet they inform it. Yet I wouldn't say that's necessarily a weakness or a failure in the talent of the artist, to include everything he or she came up with, while creating a given piece. It's more a lack of sufficient time and space, or of the lack of a chance to mind-meld to know everything about it that the author knows, for example. By the same token, it also frustrates an artist not to be able to include more, to make everything clear to the audience, and it will definitely frustrate the artist to know where every one of the little weak spots are where he or she didn't get the work absolutely perfect and the way he or she wanted. Hmm, and Bach himself would not have rendered the same piece twice in the same way, and in any case, couldn't have played every instrument in the symphony orchestra to do so. So even within his lifetime, it would always be an interpretation of how he heard it in his own head, how he intended it to sound, to be performed. Any representation of an artwork is by necessity an approximation, an interpretation. Ah...and I realize that Ms. Cherryh herself most probably has her own opinions on the subject, which may well differ from my opinions. She herself seems to leave more room to the audience to interpret what she's presented in her writings. I can just about guarantee my mother would have had a different opinion in some way on the points than I do, and she likely would've had a good time defending hers. ;) Or in other words, though I might really wish to convert you to my own opinions on any of it, you probably will still hold your own differing opinions all the same, and that ought to be OK. Even if I'd like to be able to convince you otherwise. :shoot: :rofl: On the third hand, (huh? what?) the debate's lively and maybe there's more fun in it than I was thinking earlier. (I had not considered the bordello at all, for instance. LOL! Ahem. Yes, attempted to recover a sense of decorum, there. :laugh: And yes, some of those Pre-Columbian and Post-Columbian artifacts can be, well, eye-opening. Heh. Moving along, back on-topic....) -- Star-ji, I may want to convince you, but I'll also agree to disagree, and to defend your right to disagree. Even if I think I'm right.... :angel: -- Of Note: I like that sentiment by Voltaire, but find it difficult to practice, when myself would rather that others share my opinions. Heh. Never mind my hubris. ;) I still like that point of Voltaire's and think it's more important than my silly ego. Besides, yes, the exploration can be entertaining too. (Nope, still won't convince him, I bet. :D :devil: :angel: ) |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 5 2015, 04:50 PM Post #34 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
BCS, as it was a small aside almost, I didn't expand upon that comment. But please note, I said "What was intended to be expressed but was not expressed may even be a measure of failure". I didn't say it was a failure. Of course there are things not expressed for many reasons. You are preaching to the choir on most of that. What I was indicating is that there are times when the question to an artist "What does it mean" does indicate the artist was not successful in conveying his/her point. And have you ever seen a creator shrug at a question and offer that "An artist shouldnt have to explain his work"? For example, Don McLean has steadfastly refused to explain references in "American Pie" for that very reason. It's "may represent failure", not "does". Enough said. This happens. It's a side point to the overall discussion. Boiled down to its essence, my point is simple: The author is not the authority on his own work or its meaning once it's released into the world. I'm not saying the author has nothing interesting to say, that we can't learn anything from the author, that we shouldn't be interested in the author's creative process, etc. I am personally fascinated by the creativity and creative process of art and artists. Even if I'm the only one who sees things this way, I hope that makes it clearer what I am and am not saying. |
![]() |
|
| hrhspence | Feb 5 2015, 05:36 PM Post #35 |
|
Hani Assassin
![]()
|
I fully understand your point of view, Star. Many if not all of my French Lit professors held to this view. Once a work is out, it is subject to the interpretation of those who view or read it. IF the creator wishes to create another work, that's another issue. |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 5 2015, 06:20 PM Post #36 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
Yes, thank you spence. That's my tendency, for better or worse. I still plan to respond to your Moche post. |
![]() |
|
| BlueCatShip | Feb 5 2015, 06:41 PM Post #37 |
|
Unlabelled Browncoat Scaper
![]()
|
OK, StarExplorer, I see where you're coming from on that. Please excuse me if I went into, "Hail, prince of the obvious," territory and preached to the choir. :blush: I didn't intend to get quite so expansive in that reply, but got going and, well, kept going. I hope it didn't seem like I was taking you to task, as that wasn't my intent. (I've had other occasions where I said one thing, and thought I was being clear, but the recipient took it quite differently than anything I'd meant to say, or imply.) Yes, I've certainly seen/heard artists say they didn't feel they had to explain a work or some point about it. I think in those cases, either they felt the person needed to consider it further, or there were personal bits to it, or it would just take too long to explain to someone who hadn't caught it. Then again, sometimes a table is just a table, as you noted, even if the observer sees also angels. ;) That is, the artist may not have had any particular deeper meaning or connotations to some point, even if we, as the audience, perceive connections in there. Many artists (and many programmers) will say one of the frustrations about their work is that it often feels like they're never finished, that they could keep going indefinitely, to refine something. Yet at some point, they have to say it's done, as a practical matter, and live with any "imperfections"...even when the other "imperfections" lend character and charm and artistry to the work. I think we're not so far apart in our opinions on the matter, and I wouldn't want to belabor it. Besides, there's plenty more (probably) to discuss. ----- Aside: Heh, this whole morning has been one of those days one could wish one had stayed in bed, with all sorts of little things going oddball or wrong. Nothing too important or major, just annoyances and strangenesses. ... And Smokey (Mr. Assertive) is feeling clingy and wants to sleep on my hand, and therefore on the keyboard. Kitty, you're great, I love ya, but...gee, please not on the keyboard, huh? Heh, oh, well. ... And now he's decided something outside the window is far more interesting than I am! LOL! ...Ah, and after a few minutes, he's back again, glued to me. Well, it's nice to be appreciated, at least. :D |
![]() |
|
| BlueCatShip | Feb 5 2015, 06:53 PM Post #38 |
|
Unlabelled Browncoat Scaper
![]()
|
Aside: I had a very eccentric French prof. The lady was good, I learned from her and enjoyed her classes, but...well, there was one lecture spent on a couple of lines in an excerpt from a piece, and she conducted classes with the classroom lights off, because they bothered her eyes. Heh. It could be tedious, but also uniquely interesting. -- There were also a few lectures where the weather was nice, so we analyzed French poetry and literature and essays while outside, as a class. That *never* happened in any of my English-speaking classes. -- It's very possible I should have let her convince me to switch to French (or languages generally) as my major. But I thought I knew what I was doing at the time, and stayed with English while trying to move to computer science. Ah, if only I'd known. Live and learn. (She is most probably retired now, rather than still teaching, as she had to have been in her 50's or 60's at the time, "une femme d'une certaine age.") ... I wish one computer science prof of mine had not needed to retire (for health reasons) when he did; quite a neat guy, and very knowledgeable besides. |
![]() |
|
| pence | Feb 6 2015, 11:04 PM Post #39 |
![]()
|
In the Kif Strike back Tully mentions that there are 3 different groups of Humans and he identifies as 'from Earth'. And that the other two have cut 'Earth' off from trade -and that they were looking in a different 'direction' which was how they stumbled across the Compact. the amazon e-book listing also lists the Chanur books as in the A/U universe for what that is worth! |
![]() |
|
| Xheralt | Feb 7 2015, 04:21 PM Post #40 |
![]()
|
That must have been what I was thinking of! Conflating it with the evens of Homecoming, when they're meeting up with the Earth-humans, is the result of no recent re-reads. |
![]() |
|
| BlueCatShip | Feb 7 2015, 09:53 PM Post #41 |
|
Unlabelled Browncoat Scaper
![]()
|
That is probably what's sticking in my mind as well. I'm in Chapter 9 of Pride, and nothing new yet about the human side of things. The kif ploy with Tully's shipmate's/-s' ring(s) has not yet happened. The plot's taking a detour to Anuurn, not there yet, and Jik has entered the picture. This is such a strong, vivid series. Oh, how I wish she'd do more in the Compact. I'd love to see more hani. I'd be curious how she'd handle a mahen POV. So many things could happen! I'll be reading more today. I've really earned my keep this week, and after yesterday and today, it's time for a little rest before getting busy again. (Since my last reread, I had forgotten just how Goldtooth and Jik were introduced, how they played into things. Now, I think I have that fixed in the ol' noggin. I'd also forgotten that Pyanfar, speaking for Chanur and Faha, rewarded the Hasatso freighter captain with a guarantee of hani status (no levy tax) to trade at Anuurn, a potential real boon to the mahen captain, who's otherwise a minor player.) |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 8 2015, 07:42 AM Post #42 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
Your example is quite an interesting one, spence. It introduces a number of new elements into this conversation. I apologize for the deviation into areas rather far afield from the works of CJC and the SF world from which they spring. And also for the fact that I am unable to respond as succinctly as I might wish, but this is almost as much due to the nature of the questions spence’s example poses as to my own communicative limitations. :salad: You present a set of beautiful artifacts from a vastly different culture, one about which we can stipulate that we know almost nothing. Then, essentially, you raise the question of whether we can apply the same attitude that I use to think about the art and literature of (let us call it for now) Western culture to remote and distant ones. In other words, is it still true that the artist does not have privileged authority when it comes to explicating the art, and to articulating its meanings? Is the Cultural Interpretation Machine (which is what I am terming the process I’ve described repeatedly in previous posts) still operative and relevant? :croc So we are then into, I think, different territory. Instead of talking about how we understand art, we are now in a conversation about how to think about anthropology. How can we understand people from another culture? To try to understand another culture must perforce involve an understanding of that culture's meanings, and meanings are found in the psyches of people. How do we investigate the psyches of people to begin with?; how do we understand the psyches of people with a different set of cultural and linguistic references and cognitive bases?; and finally how do we deal with the subjectivity that we bring to that venture, the subjectivity the other brings, and the inherently dialogical nature of such an enterprise? :otw Which is to say straight up that I agree that if we want to understand the Moche Indians, we will fail utterly if we lack anthropologic knowledge about these people. But you were not speaking of understanding the Moche Indians per se, you were speaking of understanding their stirrup-handled pitchers. And again, artworks and artifacts possess meanings that are founded in their sociocultural contexts. Without these, we are limited to our own ideas and interpretations. This is a salient difference between the works of the Moche Indians and the works of CJ Cherryh or Bob Dylan.* :cherryh: *(In the words of Archibald MacLeish, “A poem should not mean but be.” Ironically, the Moche stirrup-handled pitchers make this dictum easier to follow. We have no choice but to extract them from their original contexts and consider them for their aesthetic merit, and for what they evoke in us. In a strange way, there is a more difficult task in considering the art of our own culture. We easily locate the ideas and references that jump out at us. It is then harder to consider what we are missing, what else might lie in the pile, disguised among the familiar shards of meaning.) :read Back to the question at hand. I imagine myself visiting a museum exhibition devoted to the stirrup-handled pitchers of the Moche Indians. I take the guided tour conducted by an expert. The presentation is largely descriptive of what we see visually, the techniques that were apparently used, and the relationship to artifacts from other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures. But the speaker attempts to offer a summary of the ideas we have - as they are currently understood - about the meanings and purposes of the pitchers. It occurs to me that in that we can see that the intention of the maker is no longer relevant, let alone available. Perhaps the maker had his own subjective ideas about his work, perhaps he intended certain unique ways in which his piece differed from others, or perhaps not. What remains, to the extent that any of the extant ideas have merit, is the outcome of the mechanics of the same Cultural Interpretation Machine that operates on any cultural product. And this is not just a matter of not having access to the deceased artisan. It is that the meanings of these pitchers are not just the meanings of the maker, but of many individuals, of a culture, of the observers who came after, etc. :cauldron Anthropology has its own fascinating hermeneutic and methodological challenges. But the Machine is the Machine of human beings. The Machine IS culture. It operates on the cave paintings of southwest France, the pitchers of the Moche, and the battles of the Company Wars. :baji |
![]() |
|
| Kokipy | Feb 8 2015, 12:38 PM Post #43 |
![]()
|
(I am enjoying all of this. I tend to share Star's views). My own recollection of the fact in issue is that, based on what Pence has provided and something I do not recall clearly from Cyteen but probably what Surtac contributed that we did know Chanur was in the same universe as A/U. I have never had any private conversations with :cherryh: about it but I nevertheless have the firm conviction that the books themselves have told us this fact. |
![]() |
|
| starexplorer | Feb 8 2015, 05:22 PM Post #44 |
|
First Contact Assassin
![]()
|
Yes -- The Chanur references are suggestive but indirect. But Surtac's Cyteen reference is explicit and leaves no room for doubt. For me, that question is now resolved. |
![]() |
|
| BlueCatShip | Feb 9 2015, 12:01 AM Post #45 |
|
Unlabelled Browncoat Scaper
![]()
|
Star, I really liked and mostly agree with your reply on the Moche Indians. While that covers a great deal of ground in itself, I have the niggling feeling that it's an answer on another portion of what Spence was trying to show in his Moche reply. I want to think over this further and see what's nudging at me about this, and if I come up with something cogent and halfway articulate...articulatable (?! lol) then I'll reply on it. But yes, any interpretation on our part, from outside of, a lack of familiarity with, the Moche culture that produced them, is going to come up with a quite different, and probably incomplete, understanding than would someone who knew the Moche cultural associations within the artwork. I particularly liked your last statement. I note that what you're saying is that, on one level, we create a specific fram of reference for a given cultural context (modern science fiction, Moche Indian pottery, cave paintings from Ice Age Europe); while on another level, we apply the same process to all human cultures based on our human perspective. I hesitate to call that a Machine for Culural Interpretation, though I understand you mean the apparatus, the process. To me, even though that fits a particular use of the word Machine, it seems too much like hardware, a non-biological construct. I'd say it's more of a biologial software or wetware construct, rather than hardware; though, hmm, influencd by our biological hardware, I suppose, too. But hah, it's not worth quibbling too much over whether to call the process a Machine. It's only that it seems too artificial for what is a very human and nebulous, human software sort of thing, the Cultural Interpretation Process, say. (Oh dear, no, not a wetware App, if you please! Hahaha.) It's a very curious point indeed that we can see what's essentially the same ~level~ of art, of creative/imaginative thinking and symbolic/interpretive thinking, going on in those prehistoric cave paintings, and in artifacts from that same period. Side Point: As I understand it, we're fairly sure those were from Cro-Magnon humans, essentially modern-type humans, rather than from Neanderthals, but that there have been a few examples of artifacts and art or symbolic use of form and substance, with Neanderthals, and even with Homo erectus (use of red ochre in burials), but that with Homo erectus, only that has been found, while with Neanderthals, more has been found, but less than with Cro-Magnons. (Ooh, that feels like a horribly roundabout, disorganized way to say that.) -- In other words, that there is a qualitative jump, as well as quantitative, in Cro-Magnon art, versus what we could say is art from Neanderthals, and very little from Homo erectus. My point, though, in that side point, is that it's very curious that even among those early Cro-Magnon humans, we'd have similar capacity for thought (and art) as with ourselves, because they are basically the same type of humans as ourselves, while we'd share some artistic space with Neanderthals, but likely a partial overlap of two regions (theirs and ours), and then some quite different arrangement of overlapping regions with those Homo erectus. Er, pardon, Homi erecti, and I probably have the Latin plural wrong there. Heh. But then that brings up what you might have been getting to (or maybe you weren't trying to go there) in, what would we have in common, how would we interpret, a truly alien sapient lifeform's culture, language, etc.? For that, we'd have our own human construct, our own human overlap, with what we understand of them, but like with the cave paintings, it would be necessarily an incomplete understanding. However, if the aliens are alive and not extinct, then we might have a better basis for forming a more complete understanding of them. Hmm...or not, depending on just how alien they are. ....Which is even further afield (or is it?) than the original topic. Ah, well, interesting discussion anyway.... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Cherryh Grove · Next Topic » |













2:33 PM Jul 11