Did I ever send you a copy of "There is no spoon", my monster email rant about Surrealism ("True Bohemean Revolutionary" == Surrealist), which I wrote upon walking forth from my first viewing of Waking Life
Writing computer programs to generate music based on the standard voice leading rules is an old game. You can console Claudia that, heretofore, nobody's successfully managed to generate very good music that way. Perhaps what imparts Quality to music is, in part, making choices which are breakings of the rules? (That in turn could be construed to imply a set of meta-rules about when to break rules, but nobody's codified that yet.)
While I was not so entranced by Satine, I agree that this 'Nicole Kidman' person is something of a letdown in comparison. I can't understand how people can so confuse actors and their roles; usually the actors are so much less interesting
I am immediately prejudiced against e-prime because it is as useful to metaphor as garrotte is to the throat of a poet. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Which is not to say I am not sympathetic to its aims. I am down with anything discipline which gets people to think more deeply about their use of language and how it is constructing their own thoughts and others' experiences. But I am down on taking too seriously any system which seeks to limit and reduce the available language with which we have to express ourselves.
I profoundly disagree with Dr. Bourland's value judgment that statements of identity and predication are pernicious. Statements of identity and statments of predication are powerful
. They are some of the most powerful incantations of language. I like my razors sharp and my hammers heavy, thankyouverymuch; I'll take my mother tongue with its To-Bes.
Further, on purely aesthetic grounds, I object to any linguisting discipline which results in abominations unto the ear such as "One might speculate on the usefulness of E-Prime in constructing encyclopaedias concerned with maintaining a neutral point of view."
While I do not adhere to the orthodoxy that the passive voice is the antichrist, I would still be willing to tie that sentence to a stake and burn it. (I know its not actually passive voice. It's just got all the relevant actors and actions in the predicate clauses. Close enough for the Inquisition.)