I am not writing a persuasive book, I am writing an expository book. My intention is only to explain my thoughts, it's entirely up to my readers whether they choose to agree with me or not.

Anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and linguistics most certainly are philsophical! Consider some of the classic philosophical questions: What is knowledge, what things are knowable, and how do we know them? Psychology is a collection of observations and theories which try to answer these questions. What is love, what is beauty, why do we commit acts of violence? Evolutionary biology tries to answer exactly these questions. Why do we consider some objects more valuable than others, why do we work, why does marriage exist? Sociology tackles these issues. And anthropology compares what various cultures in different times and places have believed about all these issues, and tries to figure out which are human universals and which are subjective.


I really don't understand why you keep arguing with me anyway. Either you think I have a good idea and want to advise me such that I will execute it a s well as possible, or you think I have a bad idea and don't want to read the actual book. Either way, I don't understand the motivation behind the constant stream of criticisms you have been making.

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow
I am not writing a persuasive book, I am writing an expository book. My intention is only to explain my thoughts, it's entirely up to my readers whether they choose to agree with me or not.

The underlying motivation is that you want your reader to believe and trust your theory, which certainly involves persuasion.

Quote: Anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and linguistics most certainly are philsophical! Consider some of the classic philosophical questions: What is knowledge, what things are knowable, and how do we know them? Psychology is a collection of observations and theories which try to answer these questions. What is love, what is beauty, why do we commit acts of violence? Evolutionary biology tries to answer exactly these questions. Why do we consider some objects more valuable than others, why do we work, why does marriage exist? Sociology tackles these issues. And anthropology compares what various cultures in different times and places have believed about all these issues, and tries to figure out which are human universals and which are subjective.

All of the fields you mentioned are rooted in concrete, scientific study.

Quote: I really don't understand why you keep arguing with me anyway. Either you think I have a good idea and want to advise me such that I will execute it a s well as possible, or you think I have a bad idea and don't want to read the actual book. Either way, I don't understand the motivation behind the constant stream of criticisms you have been making.

Didn't you post here asking for constructive criticism? If you no longer want my criticism, that's fine. Just say so.

I think it's immoral to try to persuade people to believe in a scientific theory - the theory should stand on its own merit (usefulness in understanding and/or creating fiction), without rhetorical appeals to pathos or reverence for authority. I want my readers to objectively evaluate my theory, but if it doesn't work for them they're welcome to disagree with it.

Constructive criticism is that criticism which has the purpose of helping a particular project turn out as well as possible. Is that the motivation for your comments? I haven't been able to tell.

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow
I think it's immoral to try to persuade people to believe in a scientific theory - the theory should stand on its own merit (usefulness in understanding and/or creating fiction), without rhetorical appeals to pathos or reverence for authority. I want my readers to objectively evaluate my theory, but if it doesn't work for them they're welcome to disagree with it.

You're contradicting yourself again. Is it a scientific theory or is it a philosophical theory?

Persuasion is a huge part of any scientific text. If the text is based on field research, much of it is spent describing the methodology (which proves to the reader that the methodology is not flawed, and is thus reliable). If the text is based on other scientific texts, facts are being gathered from various texts to present a new idea. Even in this situation methodology is a big deal, if the sources suck, the text automatically sucks. Again, part of the task is proving to the reader that you are in fact credible.

Quote: Constructive criticism is that criticism which has the purpose of helping a particular project turn out as well as possible. Is that the motivation for your comments? I haven't been able to tell.

Have I not shown you where I see problems and how to correct those problems? If I wanted you to fail, it wouldn't be worth my time to post.

There is no contradiction between science and philosophy. Philosophy is thought, science is attempting to test thought by observation. Science is motivated by philosophy and exists to refine philosophy. The two go hand-in-hand and cannot be seperated.

I disagree with the idea that if the sources suck the text automatically sucks. All sources are considered wrong by someone or other. The text is good if it is useful to some people.

While I have certainly seen you pointing out problems, I haven't noticed you suggesting solutions, or even explaining why you think the problems are problems, which would at least allow me to guess at what you think would solve them. I have no idea what your own background or credentials are, and I am mystified at some of your assumptions (for example, if I think religion is a subset of magic and you think magic is a subset of religion, is there any reason you can't just say "Okay, her perspective is different." Why do we have to agree?) In particular I have been quite frustrated with your attitude that only experts are allowed to write about a subject, because I'm _going_ to write about this subject, my expertise is whatever it is, if some people are disatisfied with it they are entitled to their opinion but it's useless to argue about it becuase I'm going to write the book anyway. Most of it's written already, I'm just organizing it and filling in holes. Similarly in the past few post you have been objecting to my replies to you, which are irrelevant to the book, and so criticizing them is a distraction rather than a useful response.

If you want to be helpful, how about telling me whether you like the second draft better than the first?

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow
There is no contradiction between science and philosophy. Philosophy is thought, science is attempting to test thought by observation. Science is motivated by philosophy and exists to refine philosophy. The two go hand-in-hand and cannot be seperated.

You keep changing your stance here, one second you're just writing about philosophy, another second you're writing about science, another second philosophy and science work together, so I'm not sure what else to say on this front.

Quote: I disagree with the idea that if the sources suck the text automatically sucks. All sources are considered wrong by someone or other. The text is good if it is useful to some people.

A critical reader won't trust your interpretation of the sources if he doesn't trust the sources to begin with. What do you care, you're not using sources anyways?

Quote: While I have certainly seen you pointing out problems, I haven't noticed you suggesting solutions, or even explaining why you think the problems are problems, which would at least allow me to guess at what you think would solve them. I have no idea what your own background or credentials are

I'm an English major who is being mentored by an editor for MIT Press and I have done nothing but suggest solutions, I'm just not going to do them for you.

Quote: (for example, if I think religion is a subset of magic and you think magic is a subset of religion, is there any reason you can't just say "Okay, her perspective is different." Why do we have to agree?)

Anthopology: The Exploration of Human Diversity, 10th edition by Conrad Phillip Kottak discusses magic as a part of some religions. You don't have to believe me, but you should believe someone who has one multiple awards from the American Anthropological Association.

Quote: In particular I have been quite frustrated with your attitude that only experts are allowed to write about a subject, because I'm _going_ to write about this subject, my expertise is whatever it is, if some people are disatisfied with it they are entitled to their opinion but it's useless to argue about it becuase I'm going to write the book anyway.

If you're writing the book without citing sources (which most experts still do, cite sources that is) then you better have a damn good reason for a reader to trust you, which generally comes down to your published success. Without that, you should document where you got your facts and how you used them to arrive at your theory of structuralist fiction.

Quote: Most of it's written already, I'm just organizing it and filling in holes. Similarly in the past few post you have been objecting to my replies to you, which are irrelevant to the book, and so criticizing them is a distraction rather than a useful response.

As far as I can recall, we were discussing style issues and style seems very relevant to book writing, to me anyways.

Quote: If you want to be helpful, how about telling me whether you like the second draft better than the first?

You started your second draft with a rhetorical question after I already suggested you find a way better way of taking control of your reader's attention. Honestly, if I opened a how-to book on book writing and the author started with such a weak rhetorical device, I'd put it down and walk away.

Quote: Original post by Zenphobia

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow
There is no contradiction between science and philosophy. Philosophy is thought, science is attempting to test thought by observation. Science is motivated by philosophy and exists to refine philosophy. The two go hand-in-hand and cannot be seperated.

You keep changing your stance here, one second you're just writing about philosophy, another second you're writing about science, another second philosophy and science work together, so I'm not sure what else to say on this front.

It's not obvious that if I condider philosophy and science to be inextricably intertwined, I was talking about the same thing in all previous instances when I was talking about science or philosophy? And also in the case where you thought I should use the word 'hypothesis' instead of 'theory'? Let me say it real bluntly then: I see no significant difference between philosophy (secular, religious, magical, or whatever) and science. The are the same in that both can be defined as "the activity of making and refining theories about the world and human nature".

So, why don't you explain why you think philosophy is so different from science?

Quote:

Quote: I disagree with the idea that if the sources suck the text automatically sucks. All sources are considered wrong by someone or other. The text is good if it is useful to some people.

A critical reader won't trust your interpretation of the sources if he doesn't trust the sources to begin with. What do you care, you're not using sources anyways?

I said, "The research and quotations in the book serve a secondary, supportive function to the original theory." So I am clearly going to be using sources, just in a secondary rather than a primary way.

Quote:

Quote: While I have certainly seen you pointing out problems, I haven't noticed you suggesting solutions, or even explaining why you think the problems are problems, which would at least allow me to guess at what you think would solve them. I have no idea what your own background or credentials are

I'm an English major who is being mentored by an editor for MIT Press and I have done nothing but suggest solutions, I'm just not going to do them for you.

You must have a different definition of "solutions" than I do then, because looking back over your posts I can't pick out any. A solution has to involve some kind of vision of what an ideal version of the completed introduction or whole book might look like. Trapper Zoid's suggestion to add additional explanation of the rules of magic was a solution. Templewulf's suggestion that discussion of animal psychology was unnecessary and could simply be removed was a solution (I do see that you agreed with that). But picking at word choice and parentheses doesn't solve anything. If you want to make sure you are offering constructive criticism, you could try testing your comments to see whether they follow the formula, "This writing is X (where X has something to do with what examples or order of information are being used to present the ideas) but it would be better if it were Y because X has this effect whereas Y would have that effect instead."

Quote: Anthopology: The Exploration of Human Diversity, 10th edition by Conrad Phillip Kottak discusses magic as a part of some religions. You don't have to believe me, but you should believe someone who has one multiple awards from the American Anthropological Association.

I said, "I personally do not judge anything based on who said or wrote it." So obviously I would never believe someone because they won some awards.

Quote: In particular I have been quite frustrated with your attitude that only experts are allowed to write about a subject, because I'm _going_ to write about this subject, my expertise is whatever it is, if some people are disatisfied with it they are entitled to their opinion but it's useless to argue about it becuase I'm going to write the book anyway.

If you're writing the book without citing sources (which most experts still do, cite sources that is) then you better have a damn good reason for a reader to trust you, which generally comes down to your published success. Without that, you should document where you got your facts and how you used them to arrive at your theory of structuralist fiction.

Quote: As far as I can recall, we were discussing style issues and style seems very relevant to book writing, to me anyways.

Quote: If you want to be helpful, how about telling me whether you like the second draft better than the first?

You started your second draft with a rhetorical question after I already suggested you find a way better way of taking control of your reader's attention. Honestly, if I opened a how-to book on book writing and the author started with such a weak rhetorical device, I'd put it down and walk away.

I said "I wanted feedback on this as the contents of my introduction, which I am getting, and am grateful to get, but since I may rewrite the whole thing particular grammatical issues are fairly irrelevant." In other words, style issues are irrelevant and I am not interested in discussing them. (And I'm beginning to wonder how much we are actually having a conversation here since you seem to be failing at building a model of my goals and opinions from what I am saying, and I also from yours.)

I have my English degree, I took a course in rhetoric, I'm perfectly capable of choosing my own vocabulary, grammar, and rhetorical devices. I happen to like rhetorical questions, and have in the past found them to be a very effective way of opening a speculative discussion on a particular topic. (I'll emphasize again that it is NOT my goal to 'take control of' or persuade the reader.) My opinion is that rhetorical questions are fun because they encourage creative speculation in the reader and help the book see more interactive and less didactic. And actually the ideas that magic may exist or prayer may work are completely relevant to the rest of the book because the reader is presumably a writer of fiction, and writes fiction because they feel doing so accomplishes something. I want them to consider whether writing fiction is for them the same mental activity that praying is for a religious person and casting a spell is for a witch.

[Edited by - sunandshadow on May 1, 2006 4:08:05 PM]

Kallisti said it was confusing not to be able to see the second draft all in one piece, so I'm going to paste it here. Then if there are no further suggestions for how it should be altered I'll move on to my revised outline and chapter one.


Abstract

It seems that many artists/writers instinctively dislike formalization, or perhaps have been trained to be prejudiced against it. This creates a negative environment for those writers, like me, who have an analytical turn of mind, and like systems and orderliness and rules of thumb and theories. Me, I think it's a more fun challenge trying to discover the rules, work within them, bend them, etc. that it is to be in a freeform environment with no rules at all. Probably the same reason I like playing games. It's a matter of personality - some people just hate rules, while other people just like them. This book for the kind of writer who wants to design their writing.

Currently, how-to-write theory and literary theory are two totally disparate fields, and neither field has much internal consensus. I think it's a waste to have all this scholarly work sitting around never applied to practical problems, and likewise a waste to have writers flailing around in the dark without a solid definition of what fiction is or how fiction works. So my goal in writing this book is to start with structuralist literary theory, develop it into a “unified theory of fiction” somewhat like the sought-after unified field theory of physics, and explain this theory in an easy-to-read style with emphasis on practical applications in creating fiction.

My goal in writing this is to create a logical how-to-write book describing how to design a work of fiction. This requires, first of all, defining what fiction is and describing its structure and function. The core idea of my 'unified theory of fiction' is the vector theory of plot, wherein each character represents a thematic vector, the story represents the argument or struggle between opposing thematic vectors, and the climax represents one character/theme 'winning' the argument. Building on this foundation I will describe the universal underlying structure of all fiction (including myths, plays, novels, and interactive fiction). I will further describe both the general and detailed levels of plot structure, incorporating existing how-to-write theory such as Freytag's pyramid, the story-as-circle, and the concept of motivation-reaction units.

Investigating the function of fiction will involve exploring several topics in psychology such as the human language instinct, pretend play, mimesis, and the categorization of memory by scripts and schemas. I will also examine why humans have the urge to create and consume fiction, what we seek to find in fiction, and how to design these things into a story to make that story popular and satisfying to an audience. Exploring the practical question of how to create fiction which is particularly satisfying to readers, I will illustrate with concrete examples what kinds of thematic arguments there are, how casts of characters can be created to illustrate a thematic argument, and how specific plots and unique original characters and worldbuilding can then be created to tell a story which will be meaningful because of its solid thematic foundation.

This book will also contain an explanation of how all of its theory can be applied to the problem of interactive stories and computer generation of fiction. Since the goal of this book is to completely describe the structure and function of fiction, and anything completely understood can be emulated by a computer, this book will, as a side effect, function as a description of how an interactive fiction generation engine might be programmed.

In conclusion, I hope this book will be useful to anyone of an analytic bent who has wished for a logical and unified of what fiction is, what fiction does, why some fiction is more satisfying to audiences than others, and techniques for creating tightly-plotted, dramatically satisfying, meaningful stories.



Introduction – Fiction as Magic

So, what is fiction anyway? Well, at its root, fiction is a form of magic. “What?!” you may be asking, “I thought this book was supposed to be a logical orderly analysis, not some mystical mumbo jumbo!” Yes, it is a logical orderly analysis. Anthropological analysis of human beings in all cultures and all times reveals that we seem to have this odd instinctive belief that magic ought to exist (regardless of any evidence that it actually does or not). We even seem to instinctively agree on the principles by which magic ought to operate: symbolism and sympathy.

Humans in all times and places have come up with the idea of sympathetic magic – the idea that a drawing of a prey animal, a doll made to resemble an enemy, or a lock of someone's hair, can be attacked to injure the animal or person represented by the symbol. The sun can be encouraged with torches and candles, human copulation can encourage the fertility of the fields, making two men bleed and mixing the blood together can make them brothers. Logically you may know that none of this magic actually 'works'. Yet, when we dream and our conscious minds aren't getting in the way, it becomes obvious that the instinctive language of the human mind is symbolism. Everyone 'just knows' that an egg can represent a baby, being naked can represent feeling emotionally vulnerable, spreading your arms like airplane wings can make you fly despite all laws of physics. Symbolism is thus one of the fundamental bases of human cognition, including such forms of thought as language and stories.

Language and stories are both ways of organizing symbols in a grammatical structure to communicate a meaning. This grammatical structure is also instinctive – specifically it is referred to as the human language instinct in the case of sentences, and the narrative instinct in the case of stories. Linguistic studies have demonstrated that all human languages can be represented with a fairly simple set of grammatical equations; this book will describe the principles of story structure and generation in a similar fashion.

Sympathy, the idea that two objects may be causally connected even if they are far apart, is also fundamental to human cognition, particularly tool use. Humans can recognize that a rock and an arrowhead are similar in all properties except shape, and thus deduce the potential that one could be transformed into the other. We can understand that if I create a message here, it can be sent (whether by carrier pigeon, telegraph, or internet) there. We can understand that if we plant seeds in spring, we can get food in summer. We can even anticipate that if someone has a tool (whether it's our neighbor holding a shovel or a hero given a magic ring) they are probably going to use that tool in the near future.

Ah yes, magic again. Why are we spending so much time talking about magic if it doesn't actually 'work'? A major function of the human brain is observe the world and extract theories about causality from these observations. A sound theory would be realizing that if it's summer and you are hungry, try looking at the apple tree to see if you can eat some apples. On the other hand, a magical belief such as the idea that making a cave painting of an antelope stuck with a spear will improve one's luck at hunting, or praying to a god* will cause that god to make events turn out in your favor, is a faulty theory of causality.

[Footnote: The religious people in the audience may complain here. Religious belief is not a subject of this book except that, anthropologically, it is considered a subset of magical belief, and philosophically it is a transcendental belief, and transcendentalism is fundamentally incompatible with structuralism, because structuralism assumes that the world has meaning because the human mind imposes that meaning on it, and thus the world consists of only what the human mind can sense to give meaning to. That doesn't mean you can't use this theory if you happen to be religious, it just means this theory doesn't and can't contain any transcendental ideas. I have nothing to say about any mystical value or function of fiction, only its psychological, sociological, and anthropological values and functions.]

Human thought is a complex system, and according to mathematical theory complex systems can be complete or consistent but not both. The human brain naturally generates both good and bad theories because it is a complete system rather than a consistent system – it can theorize about any possible causality, but sometimes comes to incorrect conclusions. (If human thought was instead consistent but incomplete we would be more like Vulcans, perfectly logical but unable to make intuitive leaps if we had 'insufficient data'. Which would be disastrous because primitive humans had 'insufficient data' about most of the world, and even modern humans still don't completely understand the laws of physics or our own psychology and biology.)

Okay, fine, magic is a mistaken theory of causality; a common error resulting from otherwise very useful fundamental human thought processes. Which has what to do with fiction, exactly? Well, we call this magical causality 'teleology'. Teleology is the belief that objects exist or events occur to fulfill a purpose, and this purpose can either be some sort of destiny or the desire (will) of a human or supernatural being. Destiny in turn can also be defined as the desire (will) of a god or the universe. So to simplify, teleology is the belief that things happen because someone wants them to happen. Now, from a strictly scientific point of view this is total nonsense – things do not happen because someone wants them to, they happen because of the laws of physics.

But! Humans don't live in just the physical, mechanical universe, we also live in a social universe composed of other humans and animals. And other humans and animals can have desires and be motivated by those desires to cause things to happen. So in the social realm teleology makes sense – a fire is started, a mountain is climbed, a person is killed, because someone wanted that result to happen. Teleology is a flawed concept, yet it is still extremely useful. Scientific observation can tell us that Joe the Bully often hits people, but only teleology can predict that we can cause Joe to hit Frank if we tell Joe that Frank called him a yellow-bellied sapsucker. And only teleology can predict that this particular insult will only work if Joe is not an ornithologist.

Teleology is one of the essential organizing principles of fiction. Perhaps you've heard Chekhov's rule of thumb, “If a gun is going to be fired in Act 3, it should be hanging on the wall in Act 1.” Aristotle's principle of unity in fiction is the idea that a work of fiction should use as few locations and characters, and as little time, to tell the story as possible. No flab, no extraneous junk allowed; everything in the story must contribute to the teleological purpose of getting to the climax and thereby conveying the moral of the story. (Regular causality is also an essential organizing principle of fiction; one of the most basic definitions of a story is “a series of events happening one after the other in a logical order”.)

Stories are also clearly made out of symbols: settings, characters, every action or speech made by a character is a symbol. Combining these symbols according to the grammar of plot creates a teleological act of communication – in other words, a spell. Every work of fiction is an act of magic. Creating a nursery rhyme to stealthily attack a politician is no different from making a doll of that politician and hanging it in effigy. Neither of these acts actually harms the real politician, but both will to harm the politician, both feel to the craftsman and audience as if they are harming the politician, and most importantly both do harm the politician's reputation in the minds of the audience. Fiction fulfills for its writers and readers the same psychological functions as magic ritual.

In addition to the story's real world power to change people's opinions by means of dramatic persuasion, inside the story world, the writer is a true magician. The writer can right injustices and solve problems that are infuriatingly or depressingly intractable in the real world. The writer (and the reader who follows along) can both temporarily have their wishes fulfilled, be reassured that they are strong and wise and good and the heroes of their lives, explore philosophical dilemmas, experiment safely with different identities and relationships, and rehearse for difficulties which may occur in the future. Writing a romance will not make love come into one's life any more than painting a slain bison make good hunting come into one's life, yet both acts have value in people's minds such as making them mentally prepared to seize a romantic or hunting opportunity if one should crop up. Fiction is designed to manipulate people's minds. (If this seems an over-bold statement, consider the fact that any work of fiction which did not affect a reader's emotions and convey ideas to them would be a total failure as entertainment or communication.) So fiction is thus a powerful tool for adjusting one's own psychology, another person's psychology, or even a whole society's psychology; just like a magic ritual.

[Edited by - sunandshadow on May 3, 2006 12:12:21 PM]

Quote: Original post by sunandshadow
So, why don't you explain why you think philosophy is so different from science?

Oxford English Dictionary on Science:

Quote: science

• noun 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject.

Oxford English Dictionary on Philosophy

Quote: philosophy

• noun (pl. philosophies) 1 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. 2 the theories of a particular philosopher. 3 a theory or attitude that guides one’s behaviour. 4 the study of the theoretical basis of a branch of knowledge or experience.

Philosophy is the study of the justification of beliefs and putting those beliefs into a working system of reality, where as science is based on empirical knowledge derived through observation and expirementation built upon the idea of disproving hypothesis. Philosophy deals specifically with ideas, science deals with data.

Quote:
You must have a different definition of "solutions" than I do then, because looking back over your posts I can't pick out any. A solution has to involve some kind of vision of what an ideal version of the completed introduction or whole book might look like. Trapper Zoid's suggestion to add additional explanation of the rules of magic was a solution. Templewulf's suggestion that discussion of animal psychology was unnecessary and could simply be removed was a solution (I do see that you agreed with that). But picking at word choice and parentheses doesn't solve anything. If you want to make sure you are offering constructive criticism, you could try testing your comments to see whether they follow the formula, "This writing is X (where X has something to do with what examples or order of information are being used to present the ideas) but it would be better if it were Y because X has this effect whereas Y would have that effect instead."

I was under the impression that you were a professional that could see the solution to your problems once the problems were pointed out. If you want me to actually do the work and correct your mistakes for you, well, that costs money.

Quote:

Quote: Anthopology: The Exploration of Human Diversity, 10th edition by Conrad Phillip Kottak discusses magic as a part of some religions. You don't have to believe me, but you should believe someone who has one multiple awards from the American Anthropological Association.

I said, "I personally do not judge anything based on who said or wrote it." So obviously I would never believe someone because they won some awards.

The point was, an acclaimed Anthropologist disagrees with your organization of magic and religion (and you weren't even sure where you got your definition).

Quote: I have my English degree, I took a course in rhetoric, I'm perfectly capable of choosing my own vocabulary, grammar, and rhetorical devices. I happen to like rhetorical questions, and have in the past found them to be a very effective way of opening a speculative discussion on a particular topic. (I'll emphasize again that it is NOT my goal to 'take control of' or persuade the reader.)

A book is not a discussion, a discussion involves the exchange of ideas between at least 2 parties. Obviously, you're reader can't talk back. It's funny you bring up a Degree as a justification, according to you, it doesn't matter what awards a person has won.

Quote: My opinion is that rhetorical questions are fun because they encourage creative speculation in the reader and help the book see more interactive and less didactic.

You don't think the reader will ask his own questions and analyze your work without you force feeding him questions? You're insulting your reader as well as yourself by assuming that your writing won't spark any questions (the sparked questions you have naturally prepared for, and cover in a logical order).

Quote: And actually the ideas that magic may exist or prayer may work are completely relevant to the rest of the book because the reader is presumably a writer of fiction, and writes fiction because they feel doing so accomplishes something. I want them to consider whether writing fiction is for them the same mental activity that praying is for a religious person and casting a spell is for a witch.

The spell metaphor may be nifty, but I think you've made the idea way too literal to be useful.

Well, I haven't been around much these days but I noticed this topic so I felt I had leave a comment on it.


I personally found the introduction a little hard to read, espcially the magic aspect it was rather confusing and I didn't understand what your where trying to say at first. But after thinking about it I think I finally understood the point you where trying to get across about magic. What your talking about in terms of magic is not so much casual relations as it is the the abstract connection to tangable result or the lack there of.

You could throw in a little paragraph to that effect in order to better connect the Teleology paragraph to the one before it.

Something simple like

Science is about concrete connections to tangable results.
"A rock can be carved into an arrow head."
While, Magic is about abstract connections to tangable results.
"Painting the arrow head red will make it go faster."
And like magic, writing allows us to turn abstract ideas into a finished work.

Other then that the only other suggestions I have are to:
1) Consider making some the paragraphs less verbose. You have tendancy to overstate an idea with to many similar analogies and supporting points.

2) You should change the paragraph starting with conclusion in the abstract. It does make sense to say in conclusion just before starting the crux of your argument.

3) Lastly, don't be afraid to break out of the paragraph box. To many of these style of books are left overly restricted by their rigid adherence to formal writing structure.