Anyone Willing to Give Me Feedback on My Novel?

[m7600]

That and the implied social commentary.

Funny that you mention this, since I say the following in the Introduction:

 

[Alesia_BH]

(I’m at a movie theater now so I’m turning off my phone)

 

[O_Bruce]

My initial comment here was "a just in case" kind of comment: namely, just in case feedback here was nonexistent, I wanted OP to know their question was not ignored.

Since I am not really a well-read person (I am more into a visual storytelling), I don't feel like I can provide any good feedback, especially since it doesn't seem I am part of target group here. However, I admire that participants here are capable of coming out with their ideas for stories, rulesets and so on, and so on. I have some ideas (after all, thinking isn't an unique abillity), but I lack confidence to do something about them. I'd like to ask:

How do you get started in working on a story?

 

[m7600]

How do you get started in working on a story?

Just start writing it. Think of it as if you were making an illustration. Begin with a sketch, add stuff, erase stuff, fix stuff, repeat until you find the result more or less acceptable. You don't need to be Shakespeare to do this, just as you don't need to be Da Vinci to make a painting.

Trial and error, study, repeat.

 

[Antimatter]

My feedback re/The Constitution would be that Section 1 of it should be around the most important principles of the state, what it is, what it includes, not Language. Then you should continue with the most basic human rights (starting with life etc). Where to put the Language part? Much later in the document (probably around Sections 4-5) where you include more details about the state, one of them being the official language.

 

[m7600]

My feedback re/The Constitution would be that Section 1 of it should be around the most important principles of the state, what it is, what it includes, not Language. Then you should continue with the most basic human rights (starting with life etc). Where to put the Language part? Much later in the document (probably around Sections 4-5) where you include more details about the state, one of them being the official language.

Hmmm... but you're thinking this from the perspective of Constitutional Law as an academic discipline that one studies in Law school IRL. And all I'm saying, humbly, is that there are some conceptual, epistemological limits to how Constitutional Law is understood today, in the real world, in 2024. Now, I'm not a lawyer, that's true. But I believe that I can humbly say that the letter of the law doesn't always coincide with the spirit of the law. Right? Otherwise we wouldn't need lawyers to interpret the spirit of the law. If everyone followed the letter of the law, there would be no room for interpretation. Am I right or wrong about that, in your opinion?

 

[Alesia_BH]

How do you get started in working on a story?

Every writer has their own process.

I like Ingmar Bergman’s question game. You begin with an object or picture and then ask questions about it. Sometimes it goes nowhere, sometimes it goes far.

In the case of the novel I’m working on I started with a stuffed animal and ended up with an entire fantasy world.

 

[Alesia_BH]

. Am I right or wrong about that, in your opinion?

I’m not a lawyer either, but once upon a time I held a full scholarship at a top quartile law school. I left after the first year because the people were boring and there are easier ways to make money.

“If everyone followed the letter of the law there would be no room for interpretation”

I wouldn’t say this is wrong. Just over simplified to the point of being wrong-ish.

This assumes a degree of specificity in the law which not only doesn’t exist but can’t exist. The space of possible occurrences is far too large for the law to anticipate them all. Accordingly, there will always be a need for interpretation when applying the law to real world fact patterns, even if everyone endeavors to faithfully follow the letter of the law.

In theory commentary on the “spirit of the law” is helpful in restricting the set of defensible interpretations. In practice it doesn’t always work that way. Judges tend to pre-decide issues and then reverse engineer their opinions. The trick is to have a set of interpretive procedures at your disposal and then switch between them depending on the demands of the instant case. In the US there’s a long tradition of this, dating back to the Marshall court. Once you know a judge’s interpretive quiver, their biases, and the fact pattern of a particular case, you can usually predict the interpretative principle they’ll prioritize in a particular opinion. Even judges who structure their professional identity around a specific interpretative principle do this. Scalia, for example, would switch from an originalist to a textualist to a textualist who can’t understand the English language depending on the case.

 

[m7600]

Thanks @Alesia_BH , I knew I could count on your wits. Let me ask you just one question, regarding the following statement:

I wouldn’t say this is wrong. Just over simplified to the point of being wrong-ish.

Do you believe that there are two possible truth values (T and F) for every contingent statement, yes or no? If yes, then what I said can't be "wrongish", it must necessarily be wrong, as in, 100% wrong, because it's truth value would be F. If you instead say "no", then I would need to know if you are conceptualizing the notion of a truth value in a soritical way, as in, a series of cases that range from 100% wrong to 100% right. If that's the case, I would like to also know if you believe in sharp cut-offs in such a series (i.e., unknown cut-offs) or if, on the contrary, you accept borderline cases of truth (and borderline cases of falsehood). And if the latter is the case, I would like to know which semantic theory you endorse: supervaluationism, subvaluationism, contextualism, fuzzy logic, etc.

This assumes a degree of specificity in the law which not only doesn’t exist but can’t exist. The space of possible occurrences is far too large for the law to anticipate them all. Accordingly, there will always be a need for interpretation when applying the law to real world fact patterns, even if everyone endeavors to faithfully follow the letter of the law.

Is there any scientific evidence that supports your claims here, or not?

In theory commentary on the “spirit of the law” is helpful in restricting the set of defensible interpretations. In practice it doesn’t always work that way. Judges tend to pre-decide issues and then reverse engineer their opinions. The trick is to have a set of interpretive procedures at your disposal and then switch between them depending on the demands of the instant case. In the US there’s a long tradition of this, dating back to the Marshall court. Once you know a judge’s interpretive quiver, their biases, and the fact pattern of a particular case, you can usually predict the interpretative principle they’ll prioritize in a particular opinion. Even judges who structure their professional identity around a specific interpretative principle do this. Scalia, for example, would switch from an originalist to a textualist to a textualist who can’t understand the English language depending on the case.

Too pragmatic, I don't like it. This is one of the conceptual, epistemological limits of Law as an academic discipline, in my ignorant and humble opinion.

 

[Alesia_BH]

Just adding a humorous aside on my time in law school. This is a true story.

I mentioned that I left law school because the people were boring. During those same years I dated someone who left the criminal life for the same reason.

He had stolen a golf cart while on crystal meth and crashed it into the security gate of his trailer park. It was all in good fun, up to and including his sentencing.

When he got to prison, though, he found the people dim and tedious. That wasn’t cool at all, so he decided to become a molecular biologist instead.

He ended up getting a Ph.D from Berkeley.

 

[m7600]

He had stolen a golf cart while on crystal meth and crashed it into the security gate of his trailer park

What would you've ruled in this case, if you had been the judge?

 

[Alesia_BH]

What would you've ruled in this case, if you had been the judge?

I would have given him a lengthy sentence, which is basically what he got- especially when you factor in the post doc years

 

[m7600]

Thanks for your answer, @Alesia_BH . I'll take that as a fallible opinion. Nothing personal.

 

[Alesia_BH]

Thanks for your answer, @Alesia_BH . I'll take that as a fallible opinion. Nothing personal.

It’s a joke, lol

 

[m7600]

It’s a joke, lol

In that case, then I'll jokingly say that he was lucky that he wasn't executed on the spot for treason. Pragmatic interpretation of the spirit of the law, and all that.

 

[O_Bruce]

I feel like I miscomunicated my question there, nonetheless thank you for answering, @Alesia_BH and @m7600

Let's say I want to combine drawing and writing by creating a comic, webcomic or something along those lines. The more I think about what is required for drawing single page, the more overhelming it seems. And that's just art size. The amount of research, knowledge and skill needed to actually write the story is also overwhelming. Add those things up and it feels nearly impossible to start. Not only that, people might not care about the result you produce. How one is supposed to deal with such unfavorable odds?

 

[m7600]

How one is supposed to deal with such unfavorable odds?

Speaking for myself, I'll always prefer something that was written by an actual human being than something written by an artificial intelligence. I don't care if what the A.I. wrote is objectively better. What you wrote is subjectively better. And I'm a human being, so I'll naturally side with other human beings. It's the same debate that you're already familiar with that's taking place in the visual arts. Fuck ChatGPT, and fuck A.I. in general.

 

[JustKneller]

Fuck ChatGPT, and fuck A.I. in general.

I agree with that. I recently asked ChatGPT to write me a poem about liberty in the style of Whitman, and it just gave me rubbish.

 

[m7600]

I agree with that. I recently asked ChatGPT to write me a poem about liberty in the style of Whitman, and it just gave me rubbish.

What did you expect? Walt Whitman is one of the greatest poets that humanity has ever produced. Did you really think that an A.I. could compete with him?

 

[OrlonKronsteen]

Congrats to everyone who is working on a creative project. I wish you joy and success! I am too busy, sadly, to be able to offer feedback, though this is something I would be happy to do, ideally.

How one is supposed to deal with such unfavorable odds?

Every creative project is a leap of faith. Will the result be good? Will it be successful? Will you even still care about it after six months of hard work? There are no guarantees. IMHO, the key lies in its enjoyment. Is it fun to do. That is everything. If it's fun, then it's all worth it. Play. If it turns into something more, all the better.