Scatterbrains 09 Jan

-*- Iran.
Last night, I had Tehrans, and the Shiites made my butthole hurt.

-*- Differences
What is the difference between a novel and a short story? Length, obviously; but I'm more concerned with what makes one story idea better as a novel, and what makes another better as a novel? Given people of extraordinary talent, ability, skill, etc, I'm not sure that there is much of a difference, besides length. Information density- the amount of detail conveyed by words, sentences, paragraphs, pages, etc- would seem, to me, to be higher in short stories. There's less room to expound on topics, so more information should (ideally) be crammed into fewer and fewer words. Novels, in the same vein, would allow for more lesiurely explanations; hence, allowing phrases, etc, to not do extra duty.

Yet, that doesn't sit quite right. Frank Herbert's The Jesus Incident was very informationally dense. Hemmingway's The Sun Also Rises could easily be shortened- same for anything Dickens wrote (his serializations caused him to require certain lengths, which meant inventing extras to make the pamphlets long enough. Yet, Hemingway and Dickens would easily lose a lot of what makes them so great if it was condensed.

Man- journalist, ex-pat- has friends. Some he likes- meet woman, independent, fancy free, yet married- and some he doesn't. They go to Spain, from Paris. They fish, they all meet up, they watch a bullfight, the one he doesn't like makes a complete shit of himself, there's a fight, everyone leaves pissed off and uncomfortable. The man meets the woman, she loves him, he loves her, they cannot be together. Or can they?

One paragraph, but no where near as extraordinary as the book. (That's The Sun Also Rises for anyone who hasn't read it; and despite knowing what happens, if you read it you'll see how little the plot alone actually conveys. The book is a work of art, painted with words; and rightfully considered a classic.) Obviously, plot alone doesn't a story make; but I included setting (Spain and Paris). What, then, is the difference?

I think, and I'm loathe to accept this so expect more at some future date, it's completely up to the writer. If the writer feels s/he can adequately describe a full event in sixteen paragraphs, they should write 16 paragraphs. If a subject needs 16 chapters to be fully conveyed, then there you go... That seems to be the way it is, though, it's completely unfullfilling to let it be at that.

Yet, again, no one critisizes a painter for doing a beautiful oil on an 8"x11" canvas rather than the same- or an expanded scene- on a 8'x11' one. And, regardless of whatever else anyone may attest, prose is just as much art as any painting. Sure, not everyone can combine colored gels, waters, oils, clays, rocks, what-have-you to make a meaningful and/or emotional production- such as a painting or a sculpture. Sure, everyone- at least, everyone who will ever read this- can put words together on paper and convey a subject. However, the difference is Pollack and a Toddler. Both may splatter paint across a canvas; but only one will sell for millions. In other words, most people may use words; but not everyone can tell a story. (To quote a sibling: Aduh!)

But back to the main point: What's the actual difference? Given a topic (Religion will work as an example), why should it be addressed as a short story or a novel? Either format can be used to convey the same information. Obviously, a novel could be used to convey more information; but, then again, a short story could contain more information that a novel [think of a politician speaking but never actually saying anything]. How do you tell a computer "This is when you should write a novel. This is when you should write something shorter" ?

-*- Gaza
It's wrong to support Israel when they're obviously lying about civilian casualties (They say only 1 in 4 killed in Gaza are civilians, which is an obvious lie- if for no other reason than- because there is no concrete way to prove it). Yet, Israel- as a sovereign Nation- should have the right to go to war with an attacker. Imagine if Canada or Mexico launched Rockets into the US. What do you think our response would be? And to be clear- imagine the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT used the MEXICAN ARMY to launch rockets into the US for the specific reason of killing random civilians. What would the US do? I'm betting sending in tanks, and generally declaring war. (Obviously, this would be complicated by whether or not Congress would declare war, so if you don't think Korea and Vietnam, the first Gulf War, etc were actually WARS because Congress didn't declare them such... Well, that's semantics under the guise of legalism; but anyone claiming that distinction as actually important, I'd ask to suck it up and follow along, anyway). We'd roll in that bish [that's "bitch" for you who are gamer-speak impaired] and start regulating. And we probably wouldn't stop until we ousted the government that condoned launching rockets at us. Yet...Palestine isn't a state, add to the list of how this is different as you see fit; but there's no meaningful differences. Except, maybe, that Israel doesn't give half a shit about killing 15 civilians if it means 1 high profile target dies, too. According to Israel, it would seem, that's the cost of war.

Does anyone need it pointed out that Israel's way of doing business isn't any better than Hamas's? No? Good, didn't think so. (And FAR be it from me to belabor a point....... shut-up)..