The Last Adventurer

48 is a money post. Not that other posts here haven't been money, but let me explain why 48 is money in particular. One of the key, and I mean, key items in being an artist of any sort, is to take a normal part of everyday life - whether it is haystacks, or people on a corner, and be able to translate it into acessible and amazing art. The artist wants the public to look at that piece of art, understand it, yet yearn to know the differences, and yet also make it look like something everyone could do - almost common. But it's not. Great art involves something that everyone can't do. And why 48 is money is because it does these things. It takes common situation that could happen everywhere in America - and it makes it look easy to write. But it's not. I doubt most people would be able to write something that most, if not all people could relate to in this vein. Therefore, it's money.

ok, I liked the post too - but to go to the extreme of saying not everyone could do it? i'm not sure I'd venture that far out, but yeah, entertaining for sure.

Yes, I think I've seen other blogs about college. But the underlying point is perhaps succient and like this "nobody does it better", with better being the key here. Because reading that, I instantly thought about my dorm, where it was the same - sometimes periods of total quietness, but yet you knew - you knew! that in some other room, it was total anarchy. For that, I agree in part.

Who uses the term money anyways? And that often? Come on!

Obviously, people with a time warping distortion field that makes them think that it is a "hip/cultural" word to use. :)

I think this is a dangerous comment - not all people will agree that art's place is to capture the mundane. I think there is an equally countervailing argument that art's purpose is exactly the opposite. Moreover, under the original theory posted here, if art is to be common, then everyone can create art, and the story itself is not-unique as it too is common. To take this one step further, there is no art, as all is equal.

So...I'm not sure I agree with the premise necessarily. But I do agree that the author has a good grasp of capturing a commonality, a moment in the "typical" american experience.

I'd have to agree more with the below post in this thread about the direction of art. Also, any generalization about what "art" is I think is dangerous, and inaccurate. I think anytime you try to pigeonhole an abstract quantity - such as "art" - or even this "blog"(or is it a "blovel" - or is it a "novel" - or is it "pure" writing"?) you end up marginalizing and distorting the true intent - and power of the work.

But that is an aside. I think that the author did do a very good job at capturing a distinct moment, and for that, I commend him.

Disagree. Definitions are there for a reason. They help people conceptualize where things fit into a larger framework. That's why we have a language.

As for the piece, I think it is good for the very reason that it fits a prototypical college moment. At 750 words (I checked it in Word), it is approximately 250 more words than the last two posts about squirrels. However, in order to get the "intent" and "concept" of the story, I find not a word was wasted. I'd call that as close to literary perfection as one could get. Every word affects and influences the story. That, my friends, is good writing.

I think what we're talking about is "economy of scale" here. I'm not sure the words are exactly at everyone's limit - some people might want to edit things, for example. But I think as a general point, it is well taken. Everything seems to fit well and has a place - thus, good economy of scale, and therefore, in my mind, good writing.

I like that analogy, "economy of scale". I'm not sure it fits all writers, or even all writing, but I think when the LA is on, he's really on, and he's using the above term really well. I think this is why people like 48, and others, and maybe not so much others. But as writers, I think we'll all admit, it goes back to editing.

I don't think art should be common, or reductionist. I think art should be set apart. But I think the very process of creation sets things apart from what is common. That is why it is art. While the story may represent a good depiction, it is still apart, and therefore art. I liked it in any case.

It's relatable. Does that make it art? Maybe. It's creative - does that make it art? It's unique - does that make it art? It is one of a kind - does that make it art? Yes. Yes to all. Larger definitions - who cares. Enjoy the writing.

Definitions are there for a reason? I'm not going to buy into that one. I think one of the problems about art, and other things, is excessive labeling - see e.g. - (indie) movies or (indie) games. A game is a game. A movie is a movie. Any more label than that...useless.

I don't know if one can point a blanket finger at definitions for things - its a necssary evil in my mind. After all, how are people supposed to decide the differences between items without them?

I think there's a difference between definitions that actually "define" an item and definitions that constrain an item. Take for example the "indie" stuff referanced above. I think labeling a product as "indie" is a limiting factor. I think that while you may gain a certain market that likes that film, you also hurt your market by constraining yourself. I know many people, when describing a film as indie, may not be interested in seeing it, because that kind of is a "foo-foo" picture, when they might like it as a "movie". Definitions therefore have the power to limit and constrain things. But as labeling tools, they work well.

Im not sure I agree with the whole arguement that people WON'T see a movie because its labeled "indie". But I do agree with that underlying premise that definitions can be limiting and constraining.

I think what we're getting at here is that there are two types of things:

1) Labeling
2) and Defining.

Defining is easy - see e.g., describing or stating what a word means.

Labeling has more marketing connotations - see "indie" films, to go along with what we're talking about here. It is a type or subset of defining, but in the general sense, really doesn't add anything to the general descriptor definition.

I like that. I think the important thing to also remember is that any "labeling" - or in my mind to go back up to where we were before "excessive labeling" has the potential to hurt a product, just like it does to help it. I do think the example about "indie" films is well taken, because a certain segment of the population WILL be turned off by the extra adjective descriptor, wheras "movie" is broad based.

Look. In today's marketing, everything is segmented. Of course the extra descriptor hurts the marketing. But the trick is to find the descriptors that provide you with a larger bonus than not. Ideally, you want things that appeal to more people than turn off more people. Simple advertising, baby! Kinda like this blog...

That's a good point. But also note that most succesful marketing has a broad base that appeals to different segments, if possible. That's the ideal. In some ways this "blog" is a good point. The author I think has been successful in NOT limiting his posts, and NOT overly relying on one term to describe his writing and work. However, by mere dint of description and titling, he is limited - the very title may turn people off, and the very format may turn people off. But, I think why we're all here is that overall, its successful, because most blogs - if you read or look at blogs, don't have this type of discussion or whatever. Most blogs don't even get readers, so...overall, successful marketing here...if you can call non-marketing marketing.