For a simpler explanation of this, read my parable in the reply to the first Relativist objection in the Apology to Part II "A Definition" in "Pars Secunda".Etc.
First and foremost, I need to talk about these suspicions fraudulent/satiric intent. [...] I didn't take this from somewhere else and replace words, I didn't use and autogenerated crap or whatnot, and none of this was written by anybody else but me, with the exception of a few quotations. (I believe there are two of them in the Summa) That being said, I am serious, and I do not intend to satire canonical Purists and fervidly anti-343 xenophobes, even though that'd be a little bit tempting.posted by Rhaomi at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2011
[...]
Here is my big problem that I need to get out of the way: the accusations regarding the style and length of my "mega-rant" (I'll call it that to be lighthearted about it). Like some of the other unfair accusations in this thread, it is hard and redundant to reply to someone who hasn't read the entire thing. This I regret: I foolishly excluded some sort of disclaimer at the beginning that said "If you don't read the entire thing, please don't complain to me." I understand the length; it actually took me about an hour to read when I sat down I went back through it to fix spelling/grammar errors. So, I will entertain these accusations and provide a general defense.
I anticipated these specific accusations, and therefore wrote what I did in the second addendum at the end. It's really short; please read. It builds off of what I say in "Idealism and Implicitness" and "Question of Identity", but at that point you should just read the entire thing. Please do that - that's a request. But when you accuse me, it is sort of an accusation. Again, I'm cool about it; I'm not offended, and I'm just going to ignore statements like "guy who wrote this Summa Canonica needs professional attention".
I wrote how I wrote to A. communicate the info I needed to in B. the most concise way possible, WITHOUT sacrificing detail, specificity, and important subtle meaning. I chose my words very carefully; there's a big difference between "talk" and "speak" in popular usage the way I see it. Granted, I had a little fun. I had a little fun with the name and structure on the first page, making it seem like it was something much more important than it really was (although I do think it is importance) by using fancy Latin mottos and throws to St. Aquinas, etc. The fun ended there. (Even though it did have the effect of establishing the style and effect I was going for).
Let's actually examine the meat, the body text, and not some affected legalese ostentation that I obviously had fun with on page 1. It ended at "Overture... to be oversimplified" and continued in seriousness until the end of the "mega-rant". If in the actual content, I included language or a word that was unnecessarily verbose and could have been condensed without shrinking the meaning... I made an error and do apologize. I am not perfect. The ironic thing is, to all you people who criticized me for this but didn't read the Summa in entirety, I discuss the utter uselessness of choosing a language other than the common vernacular for the communication of ideas. That was part of one of my biggest arguments!
[...]
Back to the topic of my apparent bad style, I must admit I am somewhat embarrassed. For me, whenever I see a paper or something that was obviously written by some kid but tries to sound all smart by thesaurusing every single word... it just looks like the most stupid and juvenile thing in the world. Its awkward. And it is wicked obvious that this kid was just using a thesaurus to find longer words to make him look smart... which makes him look dumber, but most of all, makes him look young and immature. So, that this perception is taken in regards to my work is a source of embarrassment to me, however I know that this is inaccurate. I did not slave over this; I have a life. I started this thing over 1.5 years ago. I would work on it when I'm being driven somewhere in the car, when I got some free time, or when I could spend a day or two off from everything else. I chose my words carefully. I did not sit there and try to make them sound "fancy" because I know how stupid that sounds. But then I read Erasmus for example, and I'm just struck by how ingenious the use of language is. Not just words, but constructions. I profess: I will likely never be that good a writing, nor do I think I am the best writer as I stand. But I just spent more time perfecting sentences that a better writer would have needed to. So you can attack SC on that account, but until you've read the entire thing and can find an instance where I used an unnecessarily verbose word (btw I'm sure you could, a few times), then I'm not very interested in entertaining that discussion. But your complaint is heard and I have a completely open mind.
[...]
As for Frankie [Ed.: Frank O'Connell, head of 343 Industries], I fear you might have got the wrong message if you read the document. While I'm at it, I will beg that you do read the document. Heck, I was actually going to print off a copy and mail it to you guys, but now I estimate that this will be unnecessary. I have faith in you. I know you're a cool guy. I don't think you're evil, no matter how I portrayed 343. (Which was, by design, a bit exaggerated) I don't think you're there to milk it and get rich; I know you really care. For that reason, please don't dismiss me or my argument. I respond very well to logic and reason; I have put together my thoughts in such a way, and to be met with "the hand" does not go over very well with me - not that that is what you have done or intend to do. Just read it, and most importantly, don't be offended. I had to exercise this to a degree no greater than what I am asking of you when I read through this thread. Hey, maybe 343 ain't so bad after all. I'm all open to that! I can promise everybody here an open mind. Sure, Legends really ticked me off, but you know, Cryptum and Evolutions were excellent. I am most pleased. If that is the direction you guys will go in... I'm all for it. I wish you luck, if that is the case. But you won't be successful in retaining what Bungie has made unless you understand some things, which is why I'd love for you to read and fully comprehend my "mega-rant" because it backs up what many of us think. But at least around here, it looks like I'm speaking mostly for myself.
One last thing. I haven't really even talked about why I wrote this thing in the first place. Here the biggest reason: I became endlessly annoyed by frustrating professions of abandonment and despair. "343 has gone downhill and now Bungie... I'm jumping off the Halo bandwagon before it is too late" "Look at all this crap from 343... and now Bungie has lowered their quality too? I'm outta here" I've observed this many times, and those statements anger me a bit. Those who speak them need to learn that no matter what 343 or Bungie or ANYONE produces, it cannot negatively affect the True Halo Canon - whatever it is. Yeah, I know what you're all going to say to that statement. I've heard 'em all, and I've addressed them all in SC so people hopefully won't say things like that anymore. So, to address the arguments here would be redundant and unnecessarily lengthening a post that I now realize is far too long, over 10% of SC itself. Just please read Summa Canonica, and accuse me then. Of course I'd prefer if you do it in a civil manner, but in the end, I'd rather be right and corrected than wrong and confident. Thanks.
« Older Milton Babbitt, the quintessential american academ... | The Sopranos: Definitive Expla... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
(sadly, I'm in broke geek heaven and have not played the last 2 Halo games.)
posted by yeloson at 4:47 PM on January 31, 2011