But for now, I'm enjoying it, I guess.
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Green Coffee |
|||
|
I think one thing everyone should be able to agree on is that whether or not theme goes to its own topic the end result should be minimal back-n-forth between
factions during the actual season. No one doing Edgic wants to wade through debates about whether or not theme belongs after the season starts.
But for now, I'm enjoying it, I guess. |
|||
tropical rain |
|||
Apollo Italiano wrote:I really like this Apollo Italiano. :) I tried to read Green Coffee's post and just got confused, sorry. Final exams do that to me. |
|||
wallduck |
|||
I'd like to see a separate forum for Edgic. I understand it won't really happen, been asked ad nauseum. But if the admins really would want Edgic to not engulf spec so much, that's one way to do it.Well, I'll make a different point: why is the Edgic thread stickied? Its permanent location at the doorway of spec seems to encourage drive-bys and dilettantes. Many of us remember when people would actually have to bump Edgic to make it visible. |
|||
panurge46 |
|||
|
Very nice post Phoenix.
That's really all I'm saying: Themes can help define the characters and thus help Edgic. I don't need to post here but it was fun. And you're right, I stopped going to Mess Hall after the Cooks because the spoilers were shaping most of their story arcs instead of the edits. And Casey, sorry to disappoint you but I had Todd as winner by episode #3 when many edgicers were insisting he was too visible. You could have checked before posting. |
|||
Casey333 |
|||
|
S16 Amanda, not S15.
|
|||
panurge46 |
|||
|
Casey, you missed again! I had Parvati all the way last season. She was always shown improving from what we had seen in the Cooks. Towards the end, I played
devil's advocate saying that an Amanda win wasn't completely out of the question even if her chances were weak and Parvati fit much better. I encourage
you to read the whole posts.
BTW: Isn't that what GC proposed? Looking at B-types would have been Amanda S16. |
|||
scepticA |
|||
|
I'm still interested in trying to figure out the guidelines for themes based on the writings of the two biggest proponents of them, and I'm
beginning to see something emerge:
|
|||
getting real |
|||
GR, perhaps your desire for fewer prescriptive guidelines in edit analysis explains your reticence to codify themHow do you codify the process of identifying the actual stories being told? You can't do it prescriptively. It's what Phoenix calls right hemisphere analysis. It's what CL calls solving a whodunnit. I asked a while ago what is it that CL does differently when she looks for story threads that find their resolution at the FTC. I was told that CL is scrupulously objective and that she's been here for a number of years. No disagreement there, but what does she advocate (and I apologize in advance if I've misinterpreted her) that's different to what I've been suggesting all along: Look for editing manipulation and try to interpret what it means. Probst's editorializing, as Panurge suggests, is one such manipulation. There are countless other forms. You all know what they are, that's why you're in this forum. That's all there is to it really. Oh, and to have fun. I don't mind admitting I derived a lot of enjoyment this season: From the winner, from the editing, from the stories being told, from the characters, from the location. I hope others had fun, also, but it's not what I'm sensing. What I'm sensing is a tendency to blame the editing for the way the outcome was presented. I think that's counter-productive. Let's face it: they got us! I apologize if I intruded on sensibilities but I don't really understand all the defensiveness. All I said was that following a narrow Edgic formulaic prescription failed me, if the objective is to identify the winner. Why all the hoopla? Didn't it fail everyone else who used it for that objective also? Using Edgic fundamentals, I was able to eliminate Dan, Susie and Sugar. That was good. However, those fundamentals also caused me to elevate Marcus' chances and to eliminate Bob; that wasn't so good. Using story lines and themes, I was able to cast doubt on Marcus' chances from the first episode; determine that someone with a positive tone would win; eliminate everyone other than Dan, Matty or Bob; determine that the winner would be someone fron Kota or Matty; and predict that Sugar would use her idol to save Matty, face the jury but not win. These things were posted by me not in hindsight but early, consistently and non-contradictingly. You are welcome to go back through my posts to confirm them. Sure, the interpretations were subjective and, as TLS would say, occurred in my mind. Well, yes. It was I who wrote them. Had these interpretations been created in the mind of an imaginary friend, I would have credited him/her for them. I don't purport to know what's in the mind of others. Perhaps TLS really can get into KQ's head retrospectively and pronounce KQ's caution about only adhering to mathematical formulae as something KQ didn't really mean. I won't go down that path. I put my ideas out there, hoping for discussion. That's what a good forum is about. To derive enjoyment from a rigorous exchange of ideas of people interested in the same thing. We're all interested in editing manipulation. I will continue to discuss other people's ideas and put forward my own. In this forum called Editing Logic. Some of those ideas will be based on prescriptive formulae; others will be based on the stories being told and threads being developed. I'm sure many of you will disregard my posts; I look forward to discussion with others. If no-one wants to discuss them, so be it. I'll still be reading and enjoying everyone else's contributions.
Last Edited By: getting real
12/18/08 3:21 AM.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
craig |
|||
How do you codify the process of identifying the actual stories being told? You can't do it prescriptively. It's what Phoenix calls right hemisphere analysis. It's what CL calls solving a whodunnit. I asked a while ago what is it that CL does differently when she looks for story threads that find their resolution at the FTC. I was told that CL is scrupulously objective and that she's been here for a number of years. No disagreement there, but what does she advocate (and I apologize in advance if I've misinterpreted her) that's different to what I've been suggesting all along: Look for editing manipulation and try to interpret what it means.Much of the interesting edgic discussion in past seasons has concerned themes or story lines or editing manipulation. Edgic has happily used them when they reiforce the conclusions of edgic. It's just this year there was a conflict in conclusions between quantitiative by the book edgic vs themes, and the quantitative appoach lost. I don't recall any interesting thematic arguments for Marcus, or quotes at the beginning (like Parvati changing her game and Alexis knowing the fanes game) that we could follow. CL had some interesting arguments for Kenny that were thematic, by my counter-arguments turned out to be better. Getting Real, telling us how you went wrong with your idea that "the Fans win" and "the Couples alliance is too negative to win" early last year. I always disagreed, but it was interesting debating with you. BTW Spec outside Edgic is pretty dead, that's why everything ends up in this thread. So many edgic people are afraid of spoilers and avoid venturing outside, so everybody prefers to post here. The Story Arcs thread in Mess died because it became mostly a justification for spoilers and editing types stayed away. |
|||
getting real |
|||
|
Here's an exercise for those who are hankering after prescriptive guidelines:
See if you can come up to help us deal with the Kenny boat scene. What formula can you come up with that doesn't depend on your subjective perspective? That scene would mean different things in different contexts and in different seasons. That's where your right hemishere, as Phoenix might say, is best indulged. Editing patterns, Edgic numbers (yes, those too), context, subtext, they all get pressed into service and only you can decided what weight to give to them. I bring up this particular scene because a lot has been made about separating 'Edgic' and story-line or theme analysis. Despite the call for purity, however, I don't even think the Edgic purists themslves maintain that division. I can recall several instances of the concepts becoming blurred, even for those who are even now calling for strict demarcation. In most instances, it's a mattter of degree. I've always had respect for the powerful tool 'formulaic' Edgic offers to editing analysis. And will continue to use it - in conjunction with trying to figure out what the hell the editors are trying to tell us every time they pull out a manipulation sleight of hand from their arsenal of smoke and mirrors. |
|||
TheLurkerSpeaks |
|||
craig wrote: All the more reason for Panurge and GR to set up a new spoiler free thread for people to contribute to. That way, they can argue back and forth about what the "theme" truly is without impinging on the actual application of Edgic. Most importantly, they won't be using preconceived notions of how the game plays out in order to rate players, throwing such ratings completely off kilter. |
|||
getting real |
|||
|
Craig said:
Getting Real, telling us how you went wrong with your idea that "the Fans win" and "the Couples alliance is too negative to win" early last year. I always disagreed, but it was interesting debating with you. I'm glad you brought that up, Craig. As I was explaining in a PM to someone just recently, that was a nightmare for me and it's entirely my own fault for being too dogmatic. I originally thought the rat imagery that accompanied Ozzy and Amanda's frolics, combined with the disapproval voiced by Jonathan, the season's most P character and by Cirie, the voice of reason, would disqualify anyone in the couple's alliance. I then became convinced that Paravati's neglect over long periods mid-game confirmed my earlier assessment. I actually thought she was INV in the episode where she got the fat lip. Where I went wrong was thinking that the rat imagery applied to Parvati as well when it perhaps only applied to Ozzmanda. I came up with a quite a lot of crap last season and I hope it taught me not to be too stubborn although some might disagree. Anyway, that was my only failure to pick the winner in 7 seasons before this one, so I don't begrudge you your finest hour! |
|||
Mypoody2 |
|||
TheLurkerSpeaks wrote:
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. New Hampshire:
Massachusetts:
Rhode Island:
Connecticut:
New York:
New Jersey:
Pennsylvania:
Delaware:
Maryland:
Virginia:
North Carolina:
South Carolina:
Georgia:
|
|||
getting real |
|||
|
|
|||
scepticA |
|||
|
I don't think you understand what I'm getting at with my "hankering" for guidelines.
Edgic already has guidelines. They're on page 1. Edgic is based on them. They never tried to explain every single image or scene, real or imagined, that appears on the show. And once again: If we are going to include themes in edgic they should conform at least in some modest respect to the guidelines already in place. So I've asked those who want themes included here to try, in some small way, to have that idea conform to the guidelines on which edgic is based. And you are now pretty much admitting you can't. Themes are too right-brained, too subjective, too fuzzy, too personal, too blurry to have guidelines. That is exactly my point! Edgic never tried to analyze an isolated scene like the boat scene. Yeah, people discussed it (I never did, with the exception that I thought it was funny.) But for the themesters among us it seemed the scene had huge import, huge significance. You seem unable to come up with some guidelines to explain that scene, though. And that's fine - such analysis as "what does this scene mean to my themes" is your issue, not edgic's - no more than trying to figure out how edgic deals with stars of david. Ah, but themes are probably in the edit and edgic is about the edit, so they belong here... No, they don't, no more than family final four or stars of david do or any of the other spec threads that have come and gone. Edgic, for some weird reason, is now the dominant analysis in speculation. But that doesn't mean it's a grab-bag for every hypothesis about the show. I've tried - quite politely, I believe - to invite the proponents of themes to try and merge them into the edgic guidelines. It's pretty clear that you are acknowledging they can't be. You write: "I bring up this particular scene because a lot has been made about separating 'Edgic' and story-line or theme analysis." No. You are blurring the issue here. We are simply pointing out that theme analysis isn't part of edgic. You can't separate things that aren't combined in the first place - that is, they're not combined within edgic principles. to say we're trying to separate them out is like someone complaining we're separating out Family Final Four or MESS or Goat/Bear/whatever. They were never combined with edgic in the first place. The issue is your effort to combine them, not other people who rather obviously state that themes aren't in edgic. So regarding your "exercise" for us hankerers: You are now inviting me and the other "sceptics" here to do the heavy lifting of merging themes into edgic by developing thematic guidelines to explain your theories. I admit it - it can't be done! Themes don't belong here! You've now convinced me. Themes should get their own thread. |
|||
Green Coffee |
|||
|
Perhaps TLS really can get into KQ's head retrospectively and pronounce KQ's caution about only adhering to
mathematical formulae as something KQ didn't really mean. I won't go down that path.
I think it should be mentioned that even traditional Edgic is not purely a math game. There's lots of interpretation and analysis to be done along that path as well. Edgic is (at most) inferential statistics. This is just about the least objective type of math you can have. You could hand two experts the same data and get two different interpretations of it. So casting Edgic as some set of fomulae that produces an answer is not entirely correct (if indeed that is what people are suggesting). I put my ideas out there, hoping for discussion. That's what a good forum is about. To derive enjoyment from a rigorous exchange of ideas of people interested in the same thing The issue most people are taking is that they don't believe it's the same thing. It can generate all of the great discussion in the world but if people think it is off-topic, they will be grumpy about it. What formula can you come up with that doesn't depend on your subjective perspective? That scene would mean different things in different contexts and in different seasons. That's where your right hemishere, as Phoenix might say, is best indulged. Editing patterns, Edgic numbers (yes, those too), context, subtext, they all get pressed into service and only you can decided what weight to give to them. I think the subjectivity of the approach is what most people are actually suggesting is the divide with Edgic - not just the mathematics of it. With traditional Edgic, you still need a bit of right brain interpretation. You take the scientific side (the data) and mesh it with the personal, subjective interpretation of the data. Future interpretations should be guided by theories (guidelines) based on previous patterns. With Edgic, it is possible to make multiple interpretations of the data. Some people think Matty fits the theory best based on the data. Some people think Ken does. The trick is that anyone who thinks Susie fits best can be said to not be following the theories and thus probably incorrect. There's SOME subjectivity but not so much that every single person is viable based on previous data and theory. It is both left and right brain activity. With a purely theme-driven analysis, the personal and subjective interpretation of the show is all you have. There is no theory to guide interpretations. There can't be, as you say, because every season is different. Therefore, we can't learn much from previous seasons. We can't identify patterns other than "the theme points to the winner." Also unlike Edgic, no one can ever be objectively eliminated by theme based theory. Susie is just as viable this season as Kenny as Bob as Crystal, etc. Susie may not fit theme analysis person A's themes, but she fits theme analysis person B's themes. Who's got it right? We have no idea. The only way to know is to let the season progress. You could have a theory supporting all remaining players and each one would be on equal ground until they were eliminated by the game itself. This is entirely a right brain activity. ----------- Does it belong in Edgic, even being different in many major qualitative ways? Because it is similar in some ways, should the differences be enough to exempt them from the thread? Here's what I think: I honestly don't think a purely theme driven analysis is Edgic. It's simply not the same thing in that it isn't at all scientific and it's somewhat of a winner free-for-all. The art and interpretation part of Edgic is necessary but I don't think throwing out the science side is generative at all because there's no long term progress (sorry that's just my bias). Should pure theme users be sent out into their own thread? I'm ambivalent. On one hand, Edgic is a HUGE thread anyway so what's a few more posts each week? On the other, if people start debating which style is better, that's detrimental. If the combination of the two prevents progress in either one, then a divide is needed. That just makes for a noxious and unproductive environment. But how's it going to be? We don't know. Just some comments to consider. |
|||
Francois40 |
|||
ZOMG! It's a thematic spoiler! The fact that a waterfall is shown clearly tells us that the first person to fall during a water challenge is the winner! ZOMG ZOMG!!!
Last Edited By: Francois40
12/18/08 1:01 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
CSCin3D |
|||
|
This is why Bob was UTR (and therefore not "edgically viable") this season: the editing of the show now is very heavily focused on strategy. Bob didn't strategize, and therefore wasn't shown that much. The past few winners have been very involved in the strategical story of their seasons and they all had decent airtime. Bob did not. Done. |
|||
dennydoylelives |
|||
Francois40 wrote:RAFE WINS!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|||
cindidindi76 |
|||
PPS--what's with the margin fucks in the past 3 pages? I'm not getting any... |
|||