http://electricliterature.com/class ic-novels-by-james-joyce

>>7660429

No, it means that they were books written by high modernists

I doubt anything like this will hold on books from any other era

It means nothing

Anyone with some ability for thought knows this

And you can fit noise into expressions and it means nothing

>>7660429
That's like saying that because you can measure lines in a painting, there is objectivity in fine art

>>7660439
>>7660443
b-but they uncovered fractals in nature before scientists did!
that means nothing?

>>7660458
>before scientists did
quick question, are you dumb

>>7660437
2666 had it, Hopscotch had it, and a few others did too
Atlas Shrugged didn't have it

Can't those fucks research something actually worthwhile like curing cancer or calorie-free chocolate?

>>7660462
Just quoting the article, friend
"Professor Drożdż also noted that their findings could mean stream-of-consciousness writers uncovered fractals in nature before scientists, explaining: “Evidently, they had a kind of intuition, as it happens to great artists, that such a narrative mode best reflects ‘how nature works’ and they properly encoded this into their texts. Nature evolves through cascades and thus arranges fractally, and imprints of this we find in the sentence-length variability.”"

>>7660429
Actually an amazing study. More powerful than most /lit/erators will realize.

>>7660462
at least he wasn't dumb enough to not read the article before posting

>>7660429
But how does this relate to the cubic nature of time and space?

File: 8984401720_abbe457273_b.jpg (619KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1024x768px

>>7660429

It nothing to get too excited about, anon. When you go looking for something (a pattern, say), and hard enough, you tend to find it.

If you intentionally and consistently (say, by your own hand, or brain) order a complex design or a work of art in a more-or-less structured way, perhaps with some noise, a fractal probably isn't far behind. They're all over nature, and humans and human creative processes are part of nature. In that sense, while this is interesting (to me) to hear about, it's also not particularly shocking or unexpected.

A similar observation was made circa 15 years ago, about the abstract painter Jackson Pollock's 'drip' paintings: they were also described in a similar popsci article as having fractal properties: http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock . Again, this isn't so surprising when you look at pic related, as the black (dark-blue) poles and the red form pretty obvious patterns.

At this point, between the popsci and the meme book and a usually-loathed abstract artist, the detractors and "redditredditreddit" shitposts on this subject basically write themselves. So let's just get in front of those: this is interesting, but it's not a big deal. So don't read too much into it, OP, unless you really want to go looking for patterns.

A related study was done by rabbis and actually published in a scientific journal IIRC, looking at the distribution of (Hebrew) letters in the Hebrew Bible, particularly Genesis.

For the record, to try to get around the popsci article problem, I did make a slight effort to link the study (about OP's thing) itself, since I have faith that some /lit/ could make basic sense of a journal article. However, as usually happens, once I tried getting past the abstract I was met with the usual reprehensible kikery (bls gib $40 for 12 pages goi-sama). I seem to remember another study which established that half of journal articles are never read again apart from their authors and reviewers, maybe just maybe perhaps the above Jewry is a significant contributing factor that should be eliminated...

>>7660530
Is that why you keep posting this thread with the exact same questions?

Retard

>>7660429
Structure alone doesn't imply quality. You can build a upside down pyramid but if it's made of hobo clothes it'll still stink.

>>7660547
Believe or not more than one person enjoy this kind of thing
And this is the first time I've made this thread
Sorry it's not your typical /lit/ shit posting thread

>>7660557
It's the exact same thread, moron

>>7660536
It's definitely not shocking to me. I expected this kind of thing.
What is interesting to me is that certain works don't have these complex patterns in them

>>7660564
Listen dumbass. This is the first time I've came across this article.
Show me the other thread with apparently the "exact" same wording.

>>7660571
Search for it yourself, you lazy faggot

>>7660536
You are an idiot.
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0020025515007513/1-s2.0-S0020025515007513-main.pdf?_tid=81283d3e-cb73-11e5-b3ca-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1454613445_86777d85045cd4242516ba331fae676f

>>7660574
The only thread that's popping up is this one
Nice try you lying piece of shit

>>7660586

>Calmly explain in as many words that I visited the actual study's website, and proceeded to test whether the study itself could be read apart from its abstract (which I clearly visited based on the wording of my last paragraph) >>7660536
>since only the abstract is freely available, and not the study itself, I don't bother with a link, though again it's clear from my above language that I poked around the site finding the common paywalls
>some boob comes along, clearly didnt read or think about my last paragraph, gets it in his head that I didn't even find the abstract despite the above, posts the abstract link like it's the study, or can freely lead to the study

Next you'll be calling me butthurt. Actually if you were to truly BTFO of me in a later post (see, you haven't done this yet, but you don't seem to realize that), what you would have to do is subscribe or hack up a link to the study itself. Which would be fine because I would actually like to skim through the thing.

>>7660530

The only non meme opinion ITT. /lit/ has really fallen far it seems.

>>7660641
If you happen to scroll down, it unveils the literature. There also happens to be a very convenient "Download PDF" on the upper left corner, if you are one to judge online journal articles by the size of the scroll bar.

>>7660693
Because /lit/ is full of a bunch of pseuds who think they know everything about the world because they read a few philosophers' works
It's really impossible to discuss anything on this board without people getting pissed at you over something they don't understand

>>7660715
It is inevitable, don't you think? In other news, /his/ is doing much decently.

>>7660715
Not that guy but you have to purchase the pdf

Meant
>>7660722
to reply to >>7660712

>>7660727
Really? Weird, I have access to it. I can upload it if someone wants it.

>>7660719
They're new though. Once /his/ establishes their meme structure, people will be able to shitpost freely without having any knowledge of history.
Same thing happens with every board. You can go on this board without having any knowledge of literature and have a long discussion about dfw memes and john green or whatever and people will never know that you've never read a book in your life.

>>7660731
That would be very nice anon

>>7660464
Nor did A la recherche du temps perdu, what's your point?

>>7660429
A lot of stupid people are going to be very excited about this. *le sigh*

>>7660777
A lot of stupid aren't going to be interested by this

>>7660783
don't reply to trips if you're gon to get trip'd up like that...

>>7660429
Fairly insignificant and obvious result given that they measured by sentence length, and most writers, most people even, tend to naturally write sentences of approximately proportional length. Those writers who actually incorporate anomalously long sentences into their style, like Proust, didn't reveal a fractal structure, and I'll bet DFW won't either. "Information theorists" ought to find better uses of their time, but it doesn't at all surprise me that someone who voluntarily chooses a career as narrow as "information theorist" wouldn't be able to appreciate literature on aesthetic ground, and instead would need some bullshit, purported "beautiful" mathematic behind it.

>>7660742
Well, there is no download option in the original browser, but sci-hub will still upload the file.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.io/science/article/pii/S0020025515007513

>>7660551
does that principle apply to analogies as well?

>>7660801
This desu
Fractals have become a meaningless popsci buzzword. They show up in any field where you look hard enough for them. This atudy provides nothing new or insightful at all.

>>7660831
They obviously don't because they didn't show up in a lot of books

>>7660829
Obviously analogies alone don't guarantee quality. Yet one does increase it as a good structure too does. One element alone doesn't suffice, they all need to come into play. The most important for me is the themes.

I thought the scholars were just being pretentious windbags when they said the whole of finnegans wake could be extrapolated from just part of it. But it turns out finnegans wake is universal.

>>7660467
>calorie free chocolate
Good priorities

>>7660470
fractals were known in other types of art even before that

Weren't these patterns also present in the Bible when they analyzed it?

>>7660809

Yes, I'm the guy from earlier. You BTFO out of me but it's all good because now I can see the article. It's still true that I couldn't open the thing in my browser, but never mind.

For whatever reason, whatever you were doing with Russian-searching(?) bypassed whatever feeble security they had set up.