Readercon panel: "A Theory of Narrative Aesthetics Informed by Cognitive Science"

[kate_nepveu]

Description:

Eric M. Van (+M) with discussion from R. Scott Bakker, John Clute, John Crowley, Glenn Grant, John Langan, Charles Oberndorf

Talk/Discussion (60 min.). What brain mechanisms (and evolutionary rationales) underlie the fundamental narrative elements of plot, character, and style? Which narrative element seems to be more fundamental

Comments

[coffeeandink]

This is fascinating. Thank you for writing it up!

[kate_nepveu]

You're welcome! I'm not sure the writeups are actually any quicker this way, but they do feel faster, at least, which means I'm more likely to keep doing it in the future.

[agrumer]

He cited studies that gave the usual subjects (college sophomores) a story (Inuit, African?) that presupposed cultural knowledge that was unknown to the subjects

This reminds me of the classic of intro anthropology classes, “Shakespeare in the Bush”.

[kate_nepveu]

Ah, that. Thank you--I'd read it before, but hadn't for a while.

A couple of things:

1) I think this must be what I was thinking of when I had a vague memory about cross-cultural experiences of LotR. Darn.

2) I note that it's told in the form of a story itself (and a suspiciously smooth one, unless the author had a tape recorder).

[cliosfolly]

How neat! I'm glad you typed this--it ties in tangentially with some things I've been reading recently (on cognitive theory applied to literary analysis), so I enjoyed getting another approach on the matter.

[kate_nepveu]

Anything particularly interesting or relevant you can share in the limited space of an LJ comment?

[sartorias]

I'm going to have to reread that a dozen times so that my brain the size of a flea turd can take it all in. But I disagree with Crowley...I think plot is events in time sequence, and story is how they are all put together...a story can have flashbacks, but the plot doesn't.

a flea-turd sized observation on a vast and compelling subject. Thank you very much for typing it up.

[kate_nepveu]

Now I'm completely paranoid that I mis-typed those, or possibly that was what John Clute was objecting to (it was moving pretty fast).

But I'm beginning to think about asking, at the start of every panel, people to define their terms. Seriously--I care less about what plot or story is, than understanding what people mean by it when making another point. Here, I think you might be in agreement: what's interesting is the way events are put together. You're just calling it different things?

[kate_nepveu]

Also, you do not have a brain the size of a flea turd. No-one who co-wrote _Exordium_ could.

[sartorias]

*squeaka-squeaka*

[par_avion]

I studied neurology, a long time ago. I wish I had been at the panel. Thanks for the notes! I don't have a citation for the Inuit story, but I can think of two other things:

1- In a culture that doesn't "know" that windows and doors are square/rectangular, a particular optical illusion doesn't fool them.

2- If shown a location to remember on a rectangular surface, subjects will remember it correctly if is aethetically pleasing/balanced (according to the rule of thirds). If the location does not follow the rule of thirds, the subjects' will (mis)remember it in the nearest location that does conform to the rule of thirds.

[kate_nepveu]

1) Cool! Do you have a link to an image?

2) Hmm, and they're explicitly told to memorize it? I guess that would get at my objection somewhat.

Thanks!

[par_avion]

It's not a two-dimensional illusion. Basically, it's a trapezoid where the parallel sides are right and left, and the angled sides are top and bottom (as if you were looking at a door or window in perspective). I think it's actually a window, with the cross hatch in the middle. When you rotate the object, westerners will swear it's a rectangle, because they know that windows are rectangular. The isolated population will actually see the shape for what it is, a trapezoid. (It may not be rotating 360 degrees, it may be rotating 180 and then reversing as part of the illusion. The westerners may see it as rotating 360 when it is not. I don't remember anymore.)

On the other, I believe that they are told to memorize the location. And then 10 or so minutes later, they have to point to the spot they memorized.

[kate_nepveu]

Thanks. That's very interesting.