Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 02:06:22 +0000 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2025 21:06:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: naughty Python Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers References: <10i8usb$2oo2c$3@dont-email.me> <10icd30$2ck7$1@gal.iecc.com> <10idu04$7inn$1@dont-email.me> <10if4lo$jr1h$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US From: c186282 Organization: wokiesux In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <6decndo7ib2Df8z0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 90 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-qYcGjFNj3uUF8QsVSlVUnIIB7f3BqzblcH04ztd9DI4mP70GWdmnJzKu2AhmXSWL2rTGzF+e0sAlpV5!PuO2g587/pp9xY80SptH4LsjBonJJ7LqgwlwZdgItPCHsdo9Re/rqRTgz++UA0iIMfROo//cr629 X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:79985 alt.folklore.computers:232841 On 12/28/25 16:22, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-12-24 11:33, c186282 wrote: >> On 12/23/25 18:55, rbowman wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 14:21:44 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >>> >>>>     Maybe they find the visual arts better for self-expression. The >>> Beats >>>>     were WW II veterans but I don't know much about the >>>> "Angry Young Men". >>> >>> John Osborne was one of the better known. His play, 'Look Back in >>> Anger', >>> became a movie with Richard Burton. It was post-WWII Britain with young >>> people realizing the empire was gone and the future wasn't too rosy. >>> Burgess isn't grouped with them but 'Clockwork Orange' captures the >>> feeling. Much later there was the Sex Pistols 'God Save the Queen'. No >>> future for you. >>> >>> Even the hippie generation or whatever you want to call what followed >>> the >>> Beats wasn't very literary. >> >>    Hmm ... how long since 'writers' actually WROTE - ink >>    on paper ? Quill pens ? >> >>    Since the 1930s they 'wrote' mostly on typewriters. >>    The 'feel' isn't the same, dealing with the machine >>    surely affected what they composed, added its own >>    bit of 'businesslike feel' to the process. > > Depends... some hired a person to type their manuscripts. No idea of the > percent that did this. I just recently read a crime novel in which this > happened, so probably the author employed them, too (The Secret House Of > Death By Ruth Rendell). But did Ruth write the original with pen-on-paper, or with a machine ? >>    Then word-processors ... easy to add, delete, copy, >>    paste and fix typos in an instant. No more tappety-tap >>    sort of machine "feel", something different. >> >>    From now on, everything Gen-A2+ "writes" will be >>    what they tell an "AI" to compose FOR them. Most >>    won't even know how to spell half the words, may >>    not even KNOW half the words. It's more "Old >>    storyteller, tell us a story about werewolves" >>    and they can get back to being depressed and >>    shooting Fentanyl while the "AI" does it. >> >>    Writing traditional Chinese or Japanese script with >>    brush on paper ... it fuses 'art' into the actual >>    written meaning for the author, more and different >>    brain pathways than seen using a Corona or Word. >> >>    A few years ago I saw a 'travel show' that involved >>    some westerners visiting China. There was a sort of >>    street vendor who made banners and such in traditional >>    characters. He challenged the tourist to paint just >>    one character ... and judged they got it all WRONG >>    even though to the western eye the results were >>    almost identical to the natives. Thing is, they >>    did not perform the correct 'swish' and 'swash' and >>    'blob' and such - and it showed, changed the fine >>    meaning of the character, the attached emotional >>    content at the very least. >> >>    It has long been thought that language unto itself >>    can affect, channel, limit, what the speaker CAN >>    frame as 'reality'. Might be more or less true. >>    But 'writing' - the nuances - may also affect >>    the kind of output in many subtle ways. >> > > Mmm. I'd rec a Harvard Study - except I don't trust Harvard to offer good advice on how to take a shit these days ... I do note that 'artful prose' largely ceased to exist once pen on paper was abandoned. Larger cultural shift maybe, or maybe it was the preferred writing method, one that took some of the 'art' out of writing ? Would the Declaration Of Independence have been as good if typed-up in Courier-12 ?