“With novels we must supply the images ourselves.”
Wonderful essay. A comment on the above observation. Yes, one could use your observation to support laziness, but there is another aspect of humanity such that I’ve come to notice over a lifetime—one of imagination. How many times has one noticed that a “best selling” book, when rendered on film, under performs box office expectations? Often we find complaints that the leading actor or actress (yes I’m unapologetically sexist) is complained about by loyal readers of the novel in question. The complaint most often is that the actor is *not* a good fit for the lead as described in the novel—quite often in fact.
Why? Well, imagination. The image in your mind of a strong, handsome, hero is different than mine and so forth. A novel therefore has as many such images as readers—each one suited to the specific readers’ understanding. The film version however can only have one who is chosen to match the producers’ understanding. Hit or miss when compared to the myriad imaginings of a large audience. Seen this numerous times.
One recent example are the “Reacher” films, which attempted to portray Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. That lasted for two films. Lee Child had to withdraw film rights and apologize to his readers for such a “Hollywood” portrayal of their beloved ‘heroic’ character.
Yes I agree. Skilled authors often avoid describing their characters too, making it even more unique for each reader. Reacher is 6'5" in the books, so all the more bizarre to cast the rather shorter Cruise. A real misstep. Although the TV series has a taller actor.
It is a use it or lose it thing. Reading is still hands down one of the best ways to remain cognitively sharp. Even trashy books require you to bring most of it with you.
Skilled authors often know which details to avoid so the reader can project their own. In some cases superimpose themselves.
The novel Fifty Shades of Grey was much more popular than the film as the ladies could imagine themselves playing the main character while reading the book. But on screen the film itself provides all the details, breaking the spell.
The Matrix movies would have made more sense if the people had voluntarily entered the matrix and it was the weirdos who continued to live in the real world.
That photograph of the elevator with the fat-gates made me sit up. It is a perfect encapsulation of how far we in the West - or more essentially the Anglosphere maybe - have allowed societal norms of behaviour, self-respect and discipline to slide, as such a thing would cause immediate and explosive outrage from a huge section of the populace (that being the section which needs to confront and accept this degeneracy).
That is a great point also about the natural urge to "just sit around inactive" being ingrained in our psyche; but being as with calorie-rich food a very occasional treat, as our ancestors rarely had that luxury, being taken up for most hours of every day with simple survival tasks. Great essay.
Don't know if you ever read Marvel comics but they used to have a villain called Mojo, ruling a dimension called "the Mojoverse" where ratings decided who was head honcho. Since the main villain had monopolised broadcasting he was always the one with the highest ratings.
He, and his race, were depicted as fat jaudiced tawny American-obese torsos and bellys with long gangly spinldy arms and eyes kept perpetually open, Clockwork Orange-style, plus a huge gaping maw. All of them scuttled about on motorised robot-platforms with lots and lots of little legs.
The name of the race? "The Spineless Ones" - in their dimension/world, having a spine and standing on your own legs was the worst sin imaginable, and only their slaves walked.
Late 1980s/early 1990s, this was I think.
Belaboured point which I'm sure you and my fellow readers and commenters know very well already:
It's not a new problem-phenomenon.
I sometimes feel we have created an evolutionary wasp's waist*, and that the future race will be split in two parts: the Konsoomer-slaves who provides clicks and likes for the artificial economy, and the real humans who are either enforcers, administrators or ownerrulers, as decided not by aptitude-tests measuring any kind of actual ability, but loyalty (i.e. obedience) and expressions of believing the System is the best of all possible systems.
*Wasp's waist; geting-midja in Swedish. An idiom sometimes used to indivate any kind of narrow defile or inflection-point in something.
There are many variations on this theme. A slave class and some other owner class usually. It does seem that way at times. Although I suspect it will be far more messy than this. We will muddle along no doubt. Much of it won't change.
There are different paths to a good life. Mine was giving up smoking which ultimately helped me learn discipline. Another was committing to writing and releasing on Substack which taught me there are no shortcuts. You always have to take the stairs. But you can get to a point you look forward to the effort.
I fear many will succumb to distraction as Huxley warned us.
Yah. What Plato got wrong was in thinking that having a philosopher class, a guardian class and a plebeian class would mean meritocratic competition within each and thus refinement of each.
But in reality this would mean some plebs and guards would rise, and some boffins would sink.
And so, in our era, the whaterverismwe'recallingit-ists have come to the logical conclusion - un-/sub-concsciously at that, as is the case with evolution - that it is far easier to stay on top by making every devolve, including their own group.
Because as long as you're on top and everyone is sinking, what's the harm when the point is being on top.
My belief, based upon observation. Perhaps I should have qualified it more. The most ardent atheists seem oblivious to a God-shaped hole in their minds. Or at least a need for a belief system.
"The most ardent atheists seem oblivious to a God-shaped hole in their minds. Or at least a need for a belief system."
The fact that one does not have a spiritual belief system doesn't mean they don't have a belief system. One can believe in a physical world of tangible things.
I quite agree. But the aggressive rejection of religion seems to be accompanied by unconscious belief systems instead. Those trashing Christianity and Christians seem to have their own strong beliefs they don't see as beliefs at all.
I tend to divide atheists into two camps. Indeed, I get along with those folk whom I term “atheists” just fine and have no desire to convert them to any particular view of my own. The atheists I have problems with, I term “anti-theists”. Those who seem as you describe to be driven with a fervor not much different from that of Christian “evangelists”. Live an let live I say.
Yes, perhaps I am being sloppy here. I think the Dawkins and Sam Harris types imagine themselves above faith or belief, and see themselves as ultra-rational actors unlike the dopes who go to church. I think it is that brand of non-believer I really mean.
“With novels we must supply the images ourselves.”
Wonderful essay. A comment on the above observation. Yes, one could use your observation to support laziness, but there is another aspect of humanity such that I’ve come to notice over a lifetime—one of imagination. How many times has one noticed that a “best selling” book, when rendered on film, under performs box office expectations? Often we find complaints that the leading actor or actress (yes I’m unapologetically sexist) is complained about by loyal readers of the novel in question. The complaint most often is that the actor is *not* a good fit for the lead as described in the novel—quite often in fact.
Why? Well, imagination. The image in your mind of a strong, handsome, hero is different than mine and so forth. A novel therefore has as many such images as readers—each one suited to the specific readers’ understanding. The film version however can only have one who is chosen to match the producers’ understanding. Hit or miss when compared to the myriad imaginings of a large audience. Seen this numerous times.
One recent example are the “Reacher” films, which attempted to portray Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. That lasted for two films. Lee Child had to withdraw film rights and apologize to his readers for such a “Hollywood” portrayal of their beloved ‘heroic’ character.
Yes I agree. Skilled authors often avoid describing their characters too, making it even more unique for each reader. Reacher is 6'5" in the books, so all the more bizarre to cast the rather shorter Cruise. A real misstep. Although the TV series has a taller actor.
It is a use it or lose it thing. Reading is still hands down one of the best ways to remain cognitively sharp. Even trashy books require you to bring most of it with you.
Excellent points. Imagination makes a book appealing to a broad audience
Skilled authors often know which details to avoid so the reader can project their own. In some cases superimpose themselves.
The novel Fifty Shades of Grey was much more popular than the film as the ladies could imagine themselves playing the main character while reading the book. But on screen the film itself provides all the details, breaking the spell.
Superb. A very real issue which is also an apt parable.
It is real, I agree. The antidote is discipline.
The Matrix movies would have made more sense if the people had voluntarily entered the matrix and it was the weirdos who continued to live in the real world.
That photograph of the elevator with the fat-gates made me sit up. It is a perfect encapsulation of how far we in the West - or more essentially the Anglosphere maybe - have allowed societal norms of behaviour, self-respect and discipline to slide, as such a thing would cause immediate and explosive outrage from a huge section of the populace (that being the section which needs to confront and accept this degeneracy).
That is a great point also about the natural urge to "just sit around inactive" being ingrained in our psyche; but being as with calorie-rich food a very occasional treat, as our ancestors rarely had that luxury, being taken up for most hours of every day with simple survival tasks. Great essay.
Comfort is killing us. Physical, mental and even spiritual. We need hardship, even if it is only joining a gym.
And you are right, we pander too much to a vocal minority. We must expect outrage and embrace it. You are triggered for a reason etc.
The media are really our enemy in a lot of this. They amplify the messages of the ruling class. They have a lot to answer for.
Don't know if you ever read Marvel comics but they used to have a villain called Mojo, ruling a dimension called "the Mojoverse" where ratings decided who was head honcho. Since the main villain had monopolised broadcasting he was always the one with the highest ratings.
He, and his race, were depicted as fat jaudiced tawny American-obese torsos and bellys with long gangly spinldy arms and eyes kept perpetually open, Clockwork Orange-style, plus a huge gaping maw. All of them scuttled about on motorised robot-platforms with lots and lots of little legs.
The name of the race? "The Spineless Ones" - in their dimension/world, having a spine and standing on your own legs was the worst sin imaginable, and only their slaves walked.
Late 1980s/early 1990s, this was I think.
Belaboured point which I'm sure you and my fellow readers and commenters know very well already:
It's not a new problem-phenomenon.
I sometimes feel we have created an evolutionary wasp's waist*, and that the future race will be split in two parts: the Konsoomer-slaves who provides clicks and likes for the artificial economy, and the real humans who are either enforcers, administrators or ownerrulers, as decided not by aptitude-tests measuring any kind of actual ability, but loyalty (i.e. obedience) and expressions of believing the System is the best of all possible systems.
*Wasp's waist; geting-midja in Swedish. An idiom sometimes used to indivate any kind of narrow defile or inflection-point in something.
There are many variations on this theme. A slave class and some other owner class usually. It does seem that way at times. Although I suspect it will be far more messy than this. We will muddle along no doubt. Much of it won't change.
There are different paths to a good life. Mine was giving up smoking which ultimately helped me learn discipline. Another was committing to writing and releasing on Substack which taught me there are no shortcuts. You always have to take the stairs. But you can get to a point you look forward to the effort.
I fear many will succumb to distraction as Huxley warned us.
Yah. What Plato got wrong was in thinking that having a philosopher class, a guardian class and a plebeian class would mean meritocratic competition within each and thus refinement of each.
But in reality this would mean some plebs and guards would rise, and some boffins would sink.
And so, in our era, the whaterverismwe'recallingit-ists have come to the logical conclusion - un-/sub-concsciously at that, as is the case with evolution - that it is far easier to stay on top by making every devolve, including their own group.
Because as long as you're on top and everyone is sinking, what's the harm when the point is being on top.
Yes and that is their only goal. To be on top. Hence immigration and insane energy policies, to name only two.
"Every atheist has a god-shaped hole he can’t quite fill."
A rather bold statement. What is the basis of your claim?
My belief, based upon observation. Perhaps I should have qualified it more. The most ardent atheists seem oblivious to a God-shaped hole in their minds. Or at least a need for a belief system.
"The most ardent atheists seem oblivious to a God-shaped hole in their minds. Or at least a need for a belief system."
The fact that one does not have a spiritual belief system doesn't mean they don't have a belief system. One can believe in a physical world of tangible things.
I quite agree. But the aggressive rejection of religion seems to be accompanied by unconscious belief systems instead. Those trashing Christianity and Christians seem to have their own strong beliefs they don't see as beliefs at all.
I tend to divide atheists into two camps. Indeed, I get along with those folk whom I term “atheists” just fine and have no desire to convert them to any particular view of my own. The atheists I have problems with, I term “anti-theists”. Those who seem as you describe to be driven with a fervor not much different from that of Christian “evangelists”. Live an let live I say.
Yes, perhaps I am being sloppy here. I think the Dawkins and Sam Harris types imagine themselves above faith or belief, and see themselves as ultra-rational actors unlike the dopes who go to church. I think it is that brand of non-believer I really mean.