Re: An experiment in automatic writing

Lee Hollingworth (lee@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au)
Mon, 8 May 95 8:51:48 EST

> Given the right objects, I think it is sufficiently coherent to
> enable the writer to create a very "interesting VR experience."
>
> Interesting, yes. But can anyone see a story in it? _Any_ story:
> yours, mine, someone else's, as long as there appears to be a story
> and not merely a collection of random objects. Generating a coherent
> whole from the random components is really what I'm after.

Well I can certainly see a story, or at least the opening scenes of
a story.
At least I can see represented as much as is given in a painting,
which is a window into an adventure.

> There are some points within your writing that may be quite
> difficult to represent, for example it is easy, (I use the term
> loosely) to portray a bloated mother, but how do you imply that
> the cause is grandeur?
>
> The phrase in question is:
>
> The mother of ten projects wants her busy head to spin
> partially off, and her body to bloat with grandeur.
>
> Spinning the head and bloating the body are easy, as you say.
>
> "with grandeur" would require some kind of symbolic representation, as
> it can't be rendered directly. She could wear a very fancy hoop
> skirt. Or else be accompanied by the fanfare of trumpets.

That these symbols represent grandeur is possibly only obvious to you,
as you are the author. It it still difficult to portray an abstract,
or implied 'cause' to others without some kind of _explicit_ sensory
stimuli.

> "of ten projects" is also problematic. How do you render a _project_?
> One's personal projects could be just about anything. "Project" is a
> generic class of object that could be represented by any number of
> specific instances. How is a viewer going to even vaguely recognize a
> collection of 10 objects as being related by the fact that they are
> all "projects" of the author? It seems difficult to take an abstract
> noun such as "project," and produce anything other than wholesale
> confusion.

If you were to draw it, how would you (the author) do so? It seems
to me that whatever tools and prop devices we provide, it is still
the author of the world that will be the only one to fully understand
what it all means. Magritte once noted that no one can ever understand
his work, which reinforces the point that any work is really just a
personal expression, others may not be able to comprehend or
understand the symbolism represented therein.

Having said that, it is imperative that whatever we come up with,
we supply sufficient tools and prop devices to enable the user to
'create' whatever _they_ feel, best represents their perception of
non-reality.

Lee.