ok, here is an update to my previous post

it is 2:50 in the morning and i just woke up with a pretty complete plot to the novel. the idea is based on the solution i talked about earlier, but more expanded, more fleshed out, and a lot of ancillary questions answered.

the idea seems to fit together quite beautifully and is incredibly satisfying to me. i am giddy enough about it that i cannot easily fall back asleep.

it is also 2:50 in the morning, a time when every idea seems beautiful and incredible.

i expect i’ll fall back asleep and when i wake i’ll read this and think about the idea i’ve jotted down and poke holes in it and realize it’s not really so great.

but even if that is so, i am feeling good about this idea right now. i feel like it could work. and i want to record that feeling, if only for posterity’s sake.

I just thought of a solution to one of the big, huge, fundamental problems I’ve been having with my novel—a problem that’s been there since its inception, pretty much.

However, the solution involves metafiction.

However, much of my favorite fiction employs metafiction! I mean, heck, Borges used metafiction all over the place!

BUT—Borges I ain’t.

So, fuck.

winkbooks:

Little Nemo in Slumberland – The full run of Winsor McCay’s beautiful, psychedelic comics of over 100 years ago

Little Nemo in Slumberland: So Many Splendid Sundays!
by Winsor McCay
Sunday Press Books
2005, 120 pages, 16.2 x 21.1 x 0.8 inches
$525 Buy a copy on Amazon

One hundred years ago Sunday newspaper comics were a big deal. They were published, as all newspapers were then, on huge tabloid sheets that opened up as large as a table. Printed in full color, they played the role that movies, TV, and the Internet combined would later play in entertainment. Their huge canvases carried the pop culture of the day. Among the many popular “strips” from that era, one stands out for its artistic brilliance: Little Nemo. Cast as the dreams of a sleeping boy, these large, swelling visions were psychedelic, surreal and hallucinogenic trips. And totally beautiful. This one-of-a-kind book reproduces the full run of this comic from 1905 onward at the same scale and quality of the original. Opening its pages today is still magical, and only hints at how amazing it would have been 100 years ago. This is truly a book that only works printed on paper. It is a remarkable work of art in itself. – Kevin Kelly

July 22, 2014

 

(Reblogged from winkbooks)

gregpoo:

This means something. This is important.

Holy shit, I just got to the Crocodile Rock/Chop Suey mashup and this is a sentence I could never have imagined typing, not even in my wildest dreams or most aberrant nightmares.

(Reblogged from gregpoo)

This means something. This is important.

(Reblogged from 99percentinvisible)

The mistake people make when they talk about not being able to trust Wikipedia is in the implicit assumption that we could trust encyclopedias as infallible sources before Wikipedia.

I like Wikipedia because I know it could be wrong. Regular encyclopedias can be wrong, too, but my guard was never up in the same way with them as it is with Wikipedia. I like Internet media specifically for the reason that Aaron Sorkin doesn’t like it: because it makes it that much more difficult for me to have any illusions about the fact that the burden of critical thought is on me.

I don’t automatically trust bloggers because a group of people I’ve never met decided to give them a badge that says “reporter” on it. I don’t turn off my critical thinking because they’ve gotten to be some sort of “professional”. I have to judge them on the merits of their writing and history of thoughtfulness or thoughtlessness alone. That is a feature, not a bug, because we should never trust any news media outlet implicitly.

On the Internet Everyone Knows You Could Be a Dog, or Why I Think Aaron Sorkin Is Wrong About the Value of Established Media Outlets (via researchtobedone)

This quote seems to be saying:

uncredentialed writers + thoughtful readers > credentialed writers + unthoughtful readers

Which, sure, OK. But what about:

credentialed writers + thoughtful readers > uncredentialed writers + thoughtful readers

I.e., why is it a feature for EVERYONE to have to be CONSTANTLY vigilant ALL OF THE TIME? Why shouldn’t I consider it a bug that I can’t trust anything I read?

It reminds me of libertarian-style arguments against regulations: buyers in a free market will always do their own research, and choose the best sellers, which will drive out all the bad sellers! Markets! Yeah!

In theory, sure? But practically, people only have so much bandwidth to second-guess things before they need to get on with their friggin’ lives.

(Reblogged from illhaveuknowthatiloveyou)
I don’t really think that it’s contentment or satisfaction or even plain old happiness that’s most important in life. I’d just like to have a sense that with life to live over, I’d do it again.

99percentinvisible:

Is this cool? Is this creepy? Well, it’s well-designed. 

This plays exactly like it’s a teaser video for an upcoming science fiction movie. For example, I could have seen something very much like this created as part of the marketing for Her or Robot and Frank.

(Reblogged from 99percentinvisible)