Godawful Idea for an Intermittens Theme that Requires YUOR Participation!

[Cainad (dec.)]

So I was browsing through the recent archives of "Or Kill Me," and happened upon the following idea.

Many of the people here who submit their own original rants or essays have probably taken heat at one point or another, specifically because their piece was interpreted in a way they did not intend. What would it look like to create an entire Intermittens issue comprised of such works? I honestly have no idea what would come of this. Let's find out!

That's where you come in: Dig through your old rants, essays, etc. and post links to the ones that, for whatever reason, pissed people off and you spent the rest of the thread desperately trying to prove, "No, I didn't mean THAT, what I meant was <your original point>."

[Requia ☣]

So do we just repost the rant so it can get misinterpreted again, or write a new one in the hopes it works this time?

[Cainad (dec.)]

So do we just repost the rant so it can get misinterpreted again, or write a new one in the hopes it works this time?

I thought about that after starting this thread. I'm kinda in favor of posting the originals and creating a collection of glorious faggotry, but if people want to rewrite their stuff I guess that's okay too. Just make it clear whether it's original or edited.

[Cramulus]

I like "misinterpretation" or "miscommunication" as a theme.


as for printing misinterpreted rants - by printing them out of context, wouldn't we be divorcing them from the fun part (the actual misinterpretation)?

[Payne]

I like "misinterpretation" or "miscommunication" as a theme.


as for printing misinterpreted rants - by printing them out of context, wouldn't we be divorcing them from the fun part (the actual misinterpretation)?

Which is often largely contextual anyway.

A rant which at one time cause a great deal of heated debate can at other times be received very quietly or generally positively.

But yes, an interesting idea. We'd need to figure out a different way to fulfil that theme though.

I'm thinking a dialogue of some kind.

[AFK]

Ooh, I know I had one or two of those.  I'll see if I can find em. 

[Cainad (dec.)]

I'll start: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=15349.0

This one is a bit odd, because it's only misinterpreted part of the time, but it's nearly always interpreted in one of two ways. I've tried to find a way of fixing it, but I have yet to think of a solution. It's definitely an awkward piece no matter how you slice it.

[Manta Obscura]

But yes, an interesting idea. We'd need to figure out a different way to fulfil that theme though.

I'm thinking a dialogue of some kind.

If we were to publish some of the misinterpreted rants, we could try to include some of the responses in the form of "graffiti". By this I mean:

1) Publish the original rant as it appears.

2) Find comments by other posters that directly address part of the rant.

3) Scrawl the comments in the margin of the page, as if the respondant had scrawled the critique in the margins of the page themself. The end result could look like an essay that had been returned with "error marks" by a teacher.

For example:



This method would allow us to post the controversial rant while simultaneously allowing readers to see the criticisms that some others had about it.

[Payne]

It depends entirely on how successful we can be in getting the actual message across through such a confusing writing form.

The "controversial" rantiness needs to be similar to what "we" propose, assuming a unified message or theme in the publication, but it needs to be slightly off message too. A parallel message to what we're saying.

For example, some of the discussions I've read between LMNO and Ratatosk regarding the B.I.P. If we put one of Ratatosks interpretations of the B.I.P. into a work themed around the general consensus of the B.I.P, we would have something slightly off kilter.

The "Dialogue" or "Graffiti" or whatever device we would use to counter it would have to be very delicately written. We do not want to create a new dogma by suppressing alternate and individual interpretation, but neither do we want the central message of the B.I.P. to be lost in a bizarre, "arty" project.

The message is the thing. Delivering it has to be done in clever ways sometimes, so it's good to discuss them, but thinking up something truly original and thought provoking without losing the purpose of the work in the first place is hard work and tricky.

[Manta Obscura]

Good points, Payne.

Ditching the idea of graffiti for a moment, could you elaborate on the "dialogue of some kind" that you mentioned earlier?

[Payne]

One essay describing the message, the point of whatever theme we're running.

A second which offers an alternative, slightly flawed (in view of a unified theme) interpretation of that message.

Another essay rebutting the second with reasoned argument...

And so forth, until we reach a point where it is artistically prudent to stop, or we run out of space.

Resolution shouldn't be reached unless it is artistically convenient to do so, an unresolved debate will run on in the readers head if done correctly.

We could do something similar with the graffiti idea too, except both "sides" of the argument would be "grading" the paper. It would follow a similar pattern as above, but the rebuttal stages would take place on the same page as the essay being rebutted.

To do either though, without losing core messages....

That is what's tricky.

[Cramulus]

tangental idea:

Argumentative interviews. Pick two people with conflicting view points and have one interview the other. The intent is to showcase how some modern Discordians deal with the "obvious approach".

Suggested topics:
Ayn Rand
Anarchy
Atheism
Pagans / Occult

[Manta Obscura]

Argumentative interviews. Pick two people with conflicting view points and have one interview the other. The intent is to showcase how some modern Discordians deal with the "obvious approach".

I must be having a brain-dead day . . .

Could you explain what you mean by "deal with the 'obvious approach'"?

[Cramulus]

I didn't explain that too well. 



basically here's the line of thought for many Discordians

Eris is a Goddess of Chaos
therefore her followers should be Chaotic
Anarchy is about rejecting Order and embracing Chaos
therefore I am an Anarchist



Having taken that trip myself,
I think that's a rather idiotic way to approach to Our Lady.


Same with Atheism -
a lot of atheists are making the same dogmatic mistakes as the religious fanatics they are trying to fight.

Discordia pokes fun at that.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Here's a variant. What about we post a bunch of originals of things that people have totally misinterpreted, with one thing in there somewhere that was not meant to be meaningful in the least, and the theme of the issue is to figure out which one wasn't supposed to have a meaning? It's like the law of fives, but as a postmodern literary criticism game!

I'm an awful communicator it seems, so I'll be willing to contribute a bunch of things that nobody was able to figure out at all.