= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on Generalizing From One Example - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (386)
Relating to the quotation: bearing in mind that the character and author are not the same, it might be more accurate to write (judging by my secret sources, and following the TV Tropes quoting convention):
Edit: It seems that one or two people agree - I'm PMing Yvain now.
I very strongly disagree.
Why? The current form suggests Stephen Brust as the referent of "I", which is misleading.
It is conventional to do quotes this way, so I reject the claim that it is misleading. We attribute to Andrew Marvell the lines "But at my back I always hear / Time's winged chariot hurrying near" without any confusion. It is a little misleading, since it makes Brust look like a stand-up comic, rather than a novelist, but that is a rather trivial matter.
Can you back up your claim that it is conventional to attribute quotes by characters solely to the author? It doesn't seem to me that this is correct and searching Google I can't find a definitive answer, though I turned up this blog post that argues it is unethical. One of the commenters claims:
I think the distinction is useful and can be very important information if the character is expressing views contrary to the author's own.
ETA: From About.com on Shakespeare quotes:
Convention is what people do. The first post you cite demonstrates that TV shows don't source quotes. It implies that modern playwrights have their lines attributed to them. And despite your second source, your first endorses attribution to Shakespeare.
From the books on my shelves, Barzun is the only author who ever identifies characters, and inconsistently (and occasionally without the author at all!). I don't think he ever distinguishes narrators from the author, even when the narrator uses the first person. Like many people, he usually cites the source, so you can look it up to see if it is fiction. Many people quote without sources, but it is definitely correlated with looking like nonfiction. Robert Cialdini and Marvin Minski have many unsourced quotes. Minski quotes Asimov and Pope who are famous both for fiction and nonfiction! (I think he only quotes their nonfiction, but he attributes to Joyce the words, including "I," of Stephen Dedalus.) I think all of Cialdini's quotes are in the author's own voice, except Virgil. People don't source Juvenal, either. (ETA: Mimi Sheraton uses unsourced quotes, probably from fiction.)
Sure the Rand example is unethical, but there is always context that can be manipulated.
This is all considerably silly. Indeed, there is a convention that allows a citation of a quote to just the author without referencing the character. But doing so is informal and can be slightly unprofessional or grossly unethical depending on the context. The quote here is merely stylistic and so the decision to include additional information in the citation should just be based on whether or Yvain thinks it looks/flows better with the full cite. If Yvain wants to be more professional about it but keep the short cite he can footnote the full citation.
There. Done.
I would disagree with you in the general case but must agree in the specific - this particular point is not of great importance.
You have a number of unsourced examples of people not distinguishing between characters and authors. I could give you a number of examples of attribution for characters. Justifying your claim that it is conventional to ignore characters when attributing quotes requires more than a random selection of anecdotes. When I think of famous literary quotes I do not simply think Shakespeare, I think Hamlet, or Macbeth, the distinction is important.
If you have to defend a claim to 'convention' it's not really convention.
"Conventional" is not a justification unless the convention has been justified. I have personally seen Internet denizens heap abuse upon an author (Oscar Wilde, if I recall correctly) for an outrageous quote which was said by a character in a book. I think it is valuable in terms of making proper moral judgments upon people to distinguish between what characters in their fiction say and what authors say outside their fictional works.
You could use the same argument to start speaking lojban.
la lojban spofu ma
(Sorry, I had to. Translation: 'What's wrong with Lojban?' or, literally, 'Lojban is not-useful (broken) for what?')
do
Well, yes, but I suspect that that's only because I'm not even close to fluent yet. And even so I find it surprisingly grokkable. :)
You're right - but "start speaking lojban" is refuted by "the people I want to talk to wouldn't understand it". A statement which is, in fact, the justification for the convention of speaking English. Why should we quote the words of an author's character as if they are the words of the author?
I should have noted that "Someone is wrong on the internet" back on your Wilde example.
I take the Burkean position that the innovator should justify the old system. Natural language and natural conventions work. They exist for reasons, if only because stability. Even if I grant your claim that your changes have improvements, have you looked for costs? In my experience, most artificial changes to language impede communication, and, indeed, look to me to be intended to. On another note, have you backed up and asked Why is Yvain quoting people at all?
Your remark has me entirely confused - Burkean? What? - but for a single question:
There is no clarity cost I can see in the proposed convention - the only cost I can see is to the writer, who will have to spend a minute or two sourcing their quotes. If this cannot be done in a minute or two with an Internet connection (Wikiquote is often of help), it is probably more accurate to cite the quotation as "attributed" anyway.