"The paper based on the study, recently published in Information Sciences, showed that certain works were more complex than others, specifically the books written in stream-of-consciousness. These could be compared to multi-fractals, according the scientists, who explained that Finnegans Wake by James Joyce had the most complex structure of all. Professor Professor Stanisław Drożdż said: “The results of our analysis of [Finnegans Wake] are virtually indistinguishable from ideal, purely mathematical multifractals.”"
What does this mean for the future of lit, /lit/? Does it mean anything? Does this prove that objectivity in literature exists?
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.”"
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...
You are an idiot.
>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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.