There is a lovely little essay by Jorge Luis Borges (written in 1951) that I think is a perfect companion piece to this. Its title is “Pascal’s Sphere.” Highly recommended.
Even in trampled snow though, there is no chance of taking the same path that another took, inevitably the path I take will be my own. I think personally, that phenotype is sufficient for me, even without a grounding that makes it more broadly valuable, i.e. a path that an independent observer would also find value in by default. It's fun to think about this though and I definitely enjoyed the path you took through it!
Also, slightly disagree that Annihilation was simply a retelling of Stalker. While the atmosphere of Annihilation was expertly crafted and had tight correspondence to the atmosphere of Stalker - that sense of not-knowing, of complete new-ness; Annihilation still had a coherent explanation for what was happening in the Alien land, mostly, while Stalker (and Roadside Picnic) never even bothered with an explanation.
I totally agree about Annihilation, actually. It makes changes to the book but does so well. What's funny is that Alex Garland is definitely my favorite working director, but I meant it more as a bemoaning of the very state of our media, which is often recycled - I think you're right Annihilation is more coherent (although I would say I think Stalker is more meditative and philosophical than Annihilation, and I like its ambiguity)
Like maybe a GOAT artist doesn’t originate a style so much as discover it or ‘tap into’ a generational aesthetic that was waiting to be inhabited just that way. And maybe imitators largely aren’t unimaginative hacks but other astutes a little too slow or out-of-position.
In its best version, seems like the yearning to invent something new is a need to do something useful. So maybe, seeing as it's near impossible to think anything that hasn’t already been thought, it’s not about who gets there first but who gets there most usefully.
I think it was basically just a "re-discovery" of the measure. I honestly forget what I did, I rarely recommend rejection, I think I would remember if I did. Since then the same thing has happened numerous times. I talk a bit about the history of reinvention of this particular measure here (pg. 2) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.13368.pdf
There is a lovely little essay by Jorge Luis Borges (written in 1951) that I think is a perfect companion piece to this. Its title is “Pascal’s Sphere.” Highly recommended.
Thanks! Hadn't remembered that one - worth a re-read on my end.
Even in trampled snow though, there is no chance of taking the same path that another took, inevitably the path I take will be my own. I think personally, that phenotype is sufficient for me, even without a grounding that makes it more broadly valuable, i.e. a path that an independent observer would also find value in by default. It's fun to think about this though and I definitely enjoyed the path you took through it!
Also, slightly disagree that Annihilation was simply a retelling of Stalker. While the atmosphere of Annihilation was expertly crafted and had tight correspondence to the atmosphere of Stalker - that sense of not-knowing, of complete new-ness; Annihilation still had a coherent explanation for what was happening in the Alien land, mostly, while Stalker (and Roadside Picnic) never even bothered with an explanation.
I totally agree about Annihilation, actually. It makes changes to the book but does so well. What's funny is that Alex Garland is definitely my favorite working director, but I meant it more as a bemoaning of the very state of our media, which is often recycled - I think you're right Annihilation is more coherent (although I would say I think Stalker is more meditative and philosophical than Annihilation, and I like its ambiguity)
Fun to think about this in terms of style.
Like maybe a GOAT artist doesn’t originate a style so much as discover it or ‘tap into’ a generational aesthetic that was waiting to be inhabited just that way. And maybe imitators largely aren’t unimaginative hacks but other astutes a little too slow or out-of-position.
In its best version, seems like the yearning to invent something new is a need to do something useful. So maybe, seeing as it's near impossible to think anything that hasn’t already been thought, it’s not about who gets there first but who gets there most usefully.
Question about that paper that came up for review. Did it apply the method you proposed to a new context? And did you reject it?
I think it was basically just a "re-discovery" of the measure. I honestly forget what I did, I rarely recommend rejection, I think I would remember if I did. Since then the same thing has happened numerous times. I talk a bit about the history of reinvention of this particular measure here (pg. 2) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.13368.pdf