I actually have a version of that final Cnaiur scene that's more than twenty years old - it's been baked in since the very beginning. For me, it's always been a kind of bookend for the series, the becoming infernal/geological of the hate that initially preserved him, but leaves him hijacked

Is that what you meant when you'd previously said Cnaiurs arc was done?

I thought that was a dirty, dirty lie :p then I wondered if you meant done as a human.

There's no money in books Callan.  It's all in shirts and stickers.  You think it was the book sales or even her movie cut that made Rowling a billionaire?  Nope, it was the swag.

Is being a billionare the goal? You can own a yacht without being a billionare, let alone simply be a crazy social change mediator and running a family.

Much appreciated the time spent with answers, Scott! It was good that you tried, if you'll let yourself be told that Mourning your lost post all the same, o/c. It's probably better to use word for really big posts then copy them over - this is something I've told myself after losing a post. Then eventually I just fall back to using the betraying text box of a forum!

Interpretative indeterminacy, or what I call 'Crash Space' in my philosophical work, is what this series is ALL about, so if you were expecting a traditional discharging of narrative mysteries, you were bound to be disappointed: the idea is to cue our meaning-making instincts in the absence of any definitive interpretation.

What questions can we ask which wouldn't invalidate to various degrees this goal, Scott?

I mean, we could air our speculations as a fun dialog, but you'd have to act like a player as well and not a DM, otherwise it doesn't really work at a social level. In the face of the dude who knows, speculation dies as magic contacting chorae does.

And let's face it 'Sweet baby Kellhus!' is too funny to be dispelled so glibly!

Also I'll speculate Mim's baby will be two souled/twin hearted/a godthing perception avoider. What would you speculate if you were a player, man?

Edit: Also while I'm sure getting back into raw writing rather than redrafting must be exhilarating, might you continue at TPB in future?

Are you saying all the world's a stage? Only a crazy person would say that!

The issue is, back in Shakespears time actual paid actors were definitely the minority - generally if people showed signs of fitness, it's because they had some capacity to actually survive themselves.

Rather than surviving by appearing to be able to survive, as is more and more the case now.

I see it in the local art scenes - all the pretty things the local artists make, shiny things that make the world seem a big happy land - hoping to sell these tokens that say the world is good, so they don't get closer to starving. I'm reminded of one woman selling the happy fairy wings - while going through breast cancer treatment (though we have health care to cover that here, it'll slide her backwards in terms of selling goods)

And currently how fabulous is it to have grown vegetables or keep chickens and get your own eggs - it's just not as sexy as a music video, yet it's actual fitness.

Quote from: Callan S. on October 21, 2016, 06:33:15 am

Non sequitur question, Mike?

*throws dart at dartboard full of definitions* by that definition of read, yes, I've read about fitness indicators

What about fitness?

I thought it was on topic but fuck me, right?

Why 'fuck me'? Just asked if it was non sequitur and I answered, in a self depreciating way, that I'd read about fitness indicators. Just answered as best I could. What was a right answer to give, if not mine?

Just to note: I got it, in the end, on the 11th of October - and so turned more to reading than posting that I had it!

I kind of look at music videos as a way of comparing a lot of other peacock feather activity in culture - a lot of 'look at my fitness indicators, they be fit!' indicators. I say it in a mocking way but with some affection (it's best to keep a sense of humor about things you care for, I think)

Okay, if I were to plot this in tribal terms though - ie, to think where would the behavior be applicable if we were to go back ten thousand years - well, to me dancing around and displaying would be something you do when you have a very solid food supply. Indeed, in order to show you have a very solid food supply (as dancing requires calories, so it's a fairly strong proof demonstration - the starving don't dance).In this context I'd consider this a reasonably functional behavior, myself.

So we can take it in the tribal context that
1. The dancer has a good food supply that they control - enough that they can burn calories on dancing
2. They are dancing - indeed, dancing about their food supply control


So, back to music videos. Taking it to be fitness display behavior and that's why the music and dance is worth a damn to watch. But what about number 1?
1. ?
2. They are dancing and singing

Okay, so maybe you like the band who is in the music video. Okay, so how do they get their food - how do they control their food supply? What is fit about them?

Apart from appearing fit so you buy their CD's and they use that money to buy food and mansions/more display stuff. Which, you realise, has nothing to do with actually being fit - it just has to do with triggering your sense of fitness when that's not the situation at all.

So meaning floats, sheered away from it's anchor #1, that rested in owning a food supply.