I always use the word affect as a noun, but as far as I know that might be obsolete. Affect as in affective. I live in the middle of nowhere and primarily read books that were published no later than the 50s and have that nice library smell. Or had. Most have been destroyed. I admit I rarely read any books that were printed after 1950-1970. So I might be severely ignorant.
I think sometimes it's best to quote myself from one of my self-published books no one's ever read. Saying: If I hadn't been wrong then, I wouldn't be right now.
(02-08-2016, 02:35 PM)rowens Wrote: I always use the word affect as a noun, but as far as I know that might be obsolete. Affect as in affective. I live in the middle of nowhere and primarily read books that were published no later than the 50s and have that nice library smell. Or had. Most have been destroyed. I admit I rarely read any books that were printed after 1950-1970. So I might be severely ignorant.
I think sometimes it's best to quote myself from one of my self-published books no one's ever read. Saying: If I hadn't been wrong then, I wouldn't be right now.
"If I read a poem in 2003 that had a magical affect on me..."
Just for the record, you're using "affect" incorrectly. The sentence above requires "effect".
More:
"Affect" is a perfectly good noun (its accent is on its first syllable), but it denotes a mental or emotional
state and is mostly used in psychology.
You could use:
"If I read a poem in 2003 that produced magical affect in me..."
or "If I read a poem in 2003 that made my affect magical..."
His poems have a magical effect on me.
His poems magically affect me.
His poems could effect a magical feeling in me.
His poems induce magical affect in me. (After reading his poems, my affect is magical.)
His poems effect an effect that affects my affect.
=================
Superfluous:
Hand me a tomato. / I raise tomatoes.
Hand me a squash. / I raise squash. I raise squashes.
Hand me some wheat. / I raise wheat.
I have a case of flu
I have a case of the flu.
I have a flu.
I have the flu.
I have flu
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions
That's been pointed out to me before. But I keep doing it, where the word effect isn't strong enough for what I mean. I want the correct definitions of both nouns to come together. The argument that someone just can't make up their own rules with language doesn't phase me. Plus I think I saw Carl Jung use the word affect in the way I did, but that could have been because nobody cared what he was talking about anyway.
Assumptious and using that instead of who are two other words I have been commonly questioned about. Maybe that's a style of speech that's not allowed.
(02-08-2016, 11:50 PM)rowens Wrote: That's been pointed out to me before. But I keep doing it, where the word effect isn't strong enough for what I mean. I want the correct definitions of both nouns to come together. The argument that someone just can't make up their own rules with language doesn't phase me. Plus I think I saw Carl Jung use the word affect in the way I did, but that could have been because nobody cared what he was talking about anyway.
Jung was probably using it in the psychological sense of the word.
Making up your own definitions for words is usually an excellent way to be misunderstood,
but in the case of "affect" you needn't worry. Since zillions, including yourself, already
misuse it, everybody understands the meaning and only a few etymology nazis
actually give a damn. The meanings of the two words are in the process of merging and
it won't be long until you are correct.
(02-08-2016, 11:50 PM)rowens Wrote: Assumptious and using that instead of who are two other words I have been commonly questioned about. Maybe that's a style of speech that's not allowed.
"Assumptious" is a real word. Someone who is assumptious makes more assumptions
than most people. "That" is a safe word as it can be used with both people and objects.
"Who" should only be used with people.
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions
I'd argue over your use of the word misuse. The conversations I have online remind me of why I flunked out of school and no one will publish my writings. The last time I was involved in a real life group activity there was a poll that asked what you thought was the best way to describe me in one word, and the overwhelming result was the word inane. But I believe in the sovereignty of the individual whether it be Jeffrey Dahmer, Ralph Nader, Donald Trump or me. And I will always have Jesus, Woody Allen and The Little Prince on my side if I was ever braindamaged and couldn't think for myself.
(02-09-2016, 01:58 AM)rowens Wrote: ... The last time I was involved in a real life group activity...
The last time... oh, yes, I was surrounded by crazy people compulsively talking about
their pathetic little lives. Mental illness isn't all serial killing, it's mostly dirty socks you can't
get around to washing.
(02-09-2016, 01:58 AM)rowens Wrote: ...there was a poll that asked what you thought was the best way to describe me in one word, and the overwhelming result was the word inane.
That's because the pollees were a bit abaft their sterns. Your metaphors are both
splendid and logically consistent; but, unfortunately, they require actual fucking thinking.
(Your "inane" beats my "harmless" any day.)
(02-09-2016, 01:58 AM)rowens Wrote: But I believe in the sovereignty of the individual...
Not me, then we'd have to make our own sushi. No, I prefer a tiny bit of capitulation.
Individualism requires too damn much work.
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions
The romantic notion of the individual is childish in a society where so many manuscripts go through so many hands before being finished they come out more like assembly-line products than works of creative literature. I think there are worse things than being childish. And I don't think you can choose a style to write in and be said to have a style.
Sorry but I consulted a dictionary as I usually do, but whats metastyle? I could only find a botanical definition for it...
I respectfully disagree with you though Rowens; I think individualism is stronger today than it ever has been-- its just hard to see because the only things that appear on the surface are the plastic, industry influenced ideas. Also, theres so many people on Earth now. We are a race that grows exponentially, theres 7 billion people but they say if we keep growing at this rate there will be 30 billion by 2030(roughly, dont quote me on that). Sure you have a lot of people following, but I also think you have many more leaders creating movements and trends, going against the grain and all that than we've ever had before. I think individualism is stronger today, but mainly because theres just alot more people. And sure, you have Hollywood and its schemes to stay in control and make as much money off people as possible(same with the media). But we also have the internet, a humanly infinite resource of ideas, a censor-less environment where an individual can share whatever he/she chooses and people can take whatever they wish. I don't think there's anything more individualistic than someone whose influences came from various resources across the world. Or even someone like me, just a guy who has been blessed with the ability to learn that which interests him from other individuals he otherwise never would have been able to connect with.
Also, I think my question on this has been mis-interpreted, which is largely my fault. I said style when I probably should have used another word. But honestly... I dont think you can choose a style at all. I think style chooses you, I dont think any great trend-setter was aware that what he/she was doing was going to be as impactful as whatever it became. Since I've been getting into beat lately though, this is what I'll say; Labels, like stereotypes, hold a painful truth in them. The truth is nobody knows everything, nobody holds the same influences no matter how vast their influences may be, so to see similar influences in works and group them together for better reference and understanding, well that only makes sense to me. Yes, this is not style, but genre. And again its not like a writer should be like, "Oh I wanna write beat," or "oh thats definitely beat," but a reader should be able to look at a poem like this one and understand the writers bedrock for that particular piece. And if a writer writes something that's beat, its not(its as dale said, post-beat). To me, all beat is is the name given to a group of individuals who grouped together at the same time to work towards a common goal(kinda like a gang ) The same is shown in classical music, labeling simply helps us to distinguish time-lines and progression. Francisco Tarrega has the exact same licks as Enrique Granados and vice-versa in some pieces, yet its possible I never would known nor been exposed to Granados if no-one ever labeled Tarrega and Granados under the same branch in that particular tree of music. Or I never would've known that Leyenda was in fact a rendition of pianists Isaac Albeniz's original work. Like the saying goes, birds of a feather... I'm just trying to learn as many breeds as possible, as I feel we all should.
mike
In the early 20th century, artists, and later the media, created groups and movements inspired by the political groups of the time which took complex philosophical and economic ideas and made big social clusterfucks. Media and communication technologies were also emerging, with all the charges, bills, payments, regulations, terms of use that came with those and other things. A lot of time and energy and lives wasted on these groups, along with all the emerging distractions, has taken a toll on literature. People still write good stuff despite, even because of all the distractions. None equal or surpass the giants of the past, not because everything's already been done but because what has been done is given too much ready-made authority.
Rowens,
Im a tad confused. Is individualism synonymous with literature to you, or are you speaking specifically about individualism in lit? If its the latter I agree with you, I think that's largely due to public demand and the media. I mean we are in a day where movie stars, a pro UFC fighter, and musicians can write books that become bestsellers. Why? Because people know them, practically idolize them, and because they have a means to market and promote their literature. But this goes exactly back to what I was saying; maybe there's original stuff out there that just hasnt been promoted successfully, I mean take yourself for example. You have unpublished works, unpublished works that im sure might carry a bit more meaning than a life memoir; now imagine how many people out there that are just like you in that they have unpublished works as well. Due to overall population size that number has got to be greater than it ever has been, and its got to do nothing but increase as time goes on, it only makes sense, no? Thats also exactly why it also feels like the originality is dwindling, cuz there's all this cliche shtuff trending overshadowing all the original.
mike
I mean in general and with literature: whatever you choose to focus on. With writing, it's harder to have the time, energy, patience and concentration to make great literature, especially for young people who were born into around the clock messages, status updates and mixed levels of information so easy to access, hard to escape and more than the human brain can process at the rate society perpetually necessitates. You have to master the art of a self-induced autism to focus on anything that takes more than a few hours of solitude a day to accomplish. And even if you are away from the distractions, they still exist, and you're still in a world of maddening perceptions of racing time and endless cataclysms in the palms of your neighbors' hands. Styles and objects being juxtaposed in ever innovative ways seems the appropriate expression of this kind of culture, this culture that is all cultures. But if you want to write the great novels and plays and poetry in this expansive universe, life will pass you by real quick.
) The same is shown in classical music, labeling simply helps us to distinguish time-lines and progression. Francisco Tarrega has the exact same licks as Enrique Granados and vice-versa in some pieces, yet its possible I never would known nor been exposed to Granados if no-one ever labeled Tarrega and Granados under the same branch in that particular tree of music. Or I never would've known that Leyenda was in fact a rendition of pianists Isaac Albeniz's original work. Like the saying goes, birds of a feather... I'm just trying to learn as many breeds as possible, as I feel we all should.