Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: Summa Canonica
Posted By: Bernard Strauss <Hornblower58@gmail.com>	Date: 1/31/11 12:37 p.m.
I've only read the first two paragraphs so far. I do plan to give the guy some kind of chance, if only because I'm intrigued by how strange this is. He is obviously trying to sound smart by being excessively wordy. Sort of like how Ayn Rand overwhelms the reader in Atlas Shrugged with a FIVE HOUR philosophical speech. (Five hours on the audio book.) "...one is naturally compelled to investigate the higher philosophical and real-world implications that are hidden within and obfuscated by the story‟s copious and puzzling array of allegorical references and symbols; whether they are literary, biblical, classical, historic, or original in nature." One of the opinions I have begun to hold about works of fiction is that any story, whether good or terrible, can be made to sound intelligent by making random references to things that are considered intelligent. In other words, I could write a story with mediocre characterization and an average plot, and yet by using lots of symbolism, I could cover up my lack of writing skill. I don't think symbolism of this kind hurts a story, just that it doesn't necessarily make it better. In other words, if I write a story with amazing characters and and themes, throwing some random symbolism in does not actually make the story less deep, it just doesn't make it deeper. Thus, one could make the case that what he's saying here is just him over-analyzing the Halo story. I mean, I'm just a 17-year-old high-school student, but I've been exposed to enough things in my classes that I could pretend to be intelligent just by referencing things that I have a passing knowledge of. For example, I haven't read as much philosophy as I should. But I have heard of Immanuel Kant. I could write a story with characters named Kant and Hume, and Locke and sound intelligent even if the story was junk. I could go pick up my literature textbook and make my characters reference various obscure works of fiction written 500 years ago. Obviously, I must be an educated person because I know these things, right? Wrong. Anyone with a high-school education can make these references. Plenty of people have been through high-school. Plenty of people are also idiots. I'm ranting. Sorry, that's all for now. Again, I'm only two paragraphs in, so I should shut up.

Message Index