Can’t help but note irony here of you oozifying oozification into an extended analytical lens 😆
I think with narrative there are some human form factor constraints as in the keyboard example I used. It’s fundamentally human-mind fit. Your point about all being character-based for example. It’s hard too oozify into sub-character level narratives, though shows like Doctor Who or Quantum Leap sort of do it. It can’t oozify to narrative gray goo. But what *can* happen is we stop telling new stories and increase the oozified derivative activity like using reaction gifs from movies in communication. Often with no idea of source.
> Can’t help but note irony here of you oozifying oozification into an extended analytical lens 😆
It's just oozification turtles all the way down. 😂
> But what *can* happen is we stop telling new stories and increase the oozified derivative activity like using reaction gifs from movies in communication.
I hadn't thought of this. One of my questions was why this might be happening moreso than in the past? I think because media is generally more social, many people watch media to also catch the reference socially. They might have used the reaction gif without the source, but then eventually watch the show and then enjoy catching the reference. There's a lot of Leo DiCaprios in Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, sitting on the couch and whistling at they thing recognize. It also makes for good reaction youtube takes.
Things like flanderization shrink existing building blocks into lower-dimensional things. I think strong oozification tends to create fragments/shards. Reaction gifs are stylized non-verbal emotion shorthand tokens. There are fewer of those, and they have fewer rules, than the number of possible full characters and rules at “characterization” levels. Kinda like how chemistry at molecular level is more ontologically messy than atomic physics. Social media is like a narrative particle accelerator, smashing atoms and molecules into particles.
I’m glad you got to comic books. This has been happening in comics since the 60s!
I used to say that the Marvel and DC universes are the two largest, unified artistic collaborations of all time
Both of those worlds also have ways of adding in wildly different aesthetics and yet the fans can still handle seeing it all as a whole
I don’t think movie and tv writers trust viewers in the same way any more
Which is weird
Because some of the most beloved series in the 80s -- such as Indiana Jones -- barely make sense moment to moment
And yet folks loved them
I digress tho
My point is oozy fiction existed a long time in one way and it’s finally spreading
Wouldn’t mind this lens turned on what came before also - looking at you Timothy Zahn novels.
Can’t help but note irony here of you oozifying oozification into an extended analytical lens 😆
I think with narrative there are some human form factor constraints as in the keyboard example I used. It’s fundamentally human-mind fit. Your point about all being character-based for example. It’s hard too oozify into sub-character level narratives, though shows like Doctor Who or Quantum Leap sort of do it. It can’t oozify to narrative gray goo. But what *can* happen is we stop telling new stories and increase the oozified derivative activity like using reaction gifs from movies in communication. Often with no idea of source.
> Can’t help but note irony here of you oozifying oozification into an extended analytical lens 😆
It's just oozification turtles all the way down. 😂
> But what *can* happen is we stop telling new stories and increase the oozified derivative activity like using reaction gifs from movies in communication.
I hadn't thought of this. One of my questions was why this might be happening moreso than in the past? I think because media is generally more social, many people watch media to also catch the reference socially. They might have used the reaction gif without the source, but then eventually watch the show and then enjoy catching the reference. There's a lot of Leo DiCaprios in Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, sitting on the couch and whistling at they thing recognize. It also makes for good reaction youtube takes.
Things like flanderization shrink existing building blocks into lower-dimensional things. I think strong oozification tends to create fragments/shards. Reaction gifs are stylized non-verbal emotion shorthand tokens. There are fewer of those, and they have fewer rules, than the number of possible full characters and rules at “characterization” levels. Kinda like how chemistry at molecular level is more ontologically messy than atomic physics. Social media is like a narrative particle accelerator, smashing atoms and molecules into particles.