# Pastebin 8SBNdo2r 11:20 AM <~barredowl> alright then. so, shall we start with our first impressions? 11:20 AM I love it. 11:20 AM almost completely. 11:21 AM <@Calibri_Bold> Which article is this? Sorry for being late. 11:21 AM <~barredowl> like most of the meta pieces, i'm still somewhat conflicted. i'm airing on the side of "i like this" 11:21 AM <~barredowl> Calibri_Bold: the vampyre 11:21 AM Calibri_Bold: http://www.scp-wiki.net/the-vampyre-of-time-and-memory 11:21 AM This is a good tale and provides a nice platform for the author to talk about, imo 11:21 AM <~barredowl> yeah, i think in that regard it's interesting 11:21 AM <~barredowl> hmm. 11:22 AM <+cybersqyd> it's interesting conceptually 11:22 AM <+cybersqyd> but i'm not really sure i like it as reading? 11:22 AM — Greyve shrug 11:22 AM <~barredowl> i will say, i was pretty much attentive the whole way through. it caught my attention, is what i'm saying here. 11:22 AM This tale relies almost entirely on pathos, with almost every section being about the struggles of writing and just being a teenager in the modern age. The problem I have with this is that I really struggle to find meaning in this beyond that. It's not subtle enough to enjoy the baseline story like in 3999 and it's not meaningful enough to have an effect on me logically like True Trans Soul Rebel. It's feels like just a 11:22 AM vent piece. 11:22 AM <~barredowl> and yeah, i do like it as a concept. it's pretty fun 11:22 AM I think this is one of those things where it's more of an art than entertainment. 11:23 AM red3: I disagree strongly that it's JUST a vent piece. 11:23 AM How so? 11:23 AM <~barredowl> red3: i can definitely see that in here i guess? 11:23 AM sure, to some extent it is a vent piece 11:23 AM but at the same time, I can feel the raw ambition of the author 11:23 AM Maybe it's a personal thing idk 11:24 AM But isn't a vent piece just the raw expression of the author about a topic? 11:24 AM But I believe this was written maybe to vent, but also to open a window and create an unrivaled artistic work. It's literally their best foot forward in trying to bring the best to the table, and in that regard, at least in my perspective, it is FLAWLESS. 11:25 AM Yeah, so... it's just a vent piece? I don't know what you're trying to say here. 11:26 AM <+cybersqyd> i feel like the 'just' here is pretty dismissive of vent pieces? like, 3999 is just a vent piece for example; and yet it's good? 11:26 AM <~barredowl> kinda with cyber here; idk. 11:26 AM It's writing about writing about writing, and I'm completely enthralled with the concept of interweaving layers, which this does so perfectly I feel like an absolute fialure with 5309 compared to this. 11:27 AM red3: I don't disagree that it's a vent piece to an extent. 11:27 AM <+cybersqyd> iunno, I feel like this could do more with the idea but it feels...deeply personal on a level where judging it for it's artistic merit feels...off? 11:27 AM Yes, 3999 would also fall into a vent piece by my definition. However, 3999 is better than this because it at least tries to mask that fact by putting an actual narrative behind it. It's not just the author talking about their own life and their own experiences, its 11:27 AM <~barredowl> i guess 3999 has a little bit more substance as a fictional work? 11:27 AM I disagree with the assertion that you can dismiss the entire article for just being a vent piece 11:28 AM <@Calibri_Bold> 3999 is a very controlled chaos, I think. 11:28 AM it's about the experiences of the character. And there is a section in 3999 where it does turn into that, but since that section is so far deep into the narrative, it works out a lot better as a kind of twist. All of the chaos suddenly flows into a single point where the author themselves has to step in to maintain order. There's never a moment like that in this article. It's entirely just the author trying to maintain 11:28 AM control, so I can't see anything past it. 11:28 AM cybersqyd: But that's the art here. The author continually talks about smashing the fourth wall; this is the artistic merit. This is the defiance of the norm. The personality IS the art, the defiance. 11:29 AM red3: is the author not meant to maintain control? 11:29 AM I think, and bear with me here 11:30 AM <+cybersqyd> I mean, I never said it wasn't art, merely that critiquing it feels a little like critiquing someones private journal 11:30 AM Greyve: I'm not dismissing it because it's a vent piece. I'm saying that there's a time and place for this kind of total control over the art, and this is not that time. The point of this specific writing technique is to say "Fuck off" to the reader and flip the story on its head. But if there is no story outside of that one moment, then it loses all of its power. 11:32 AM <~barredowl> hmm. that's sorta the problem with meta articles at some point, ig; it's a blurry distinction between nonfiction and fiction 11:33 AM <~barredowl> but eh -\_(._. )_/- 11:33 AM <~barredowl> not really sure 11:33 AM But I believe art is best viewed through the lens of the creator because although expression may be flawed, the concept is flawless. The author clearly means to achieve something, they're clearly doing something. And maybe it is just craving attention, or venting, but to judge the author's choices to defy the norm and create something new is flawed in itself. You can't tell someone what is or what isn't art, or how 11:33 AM to enjoy art, but you CAN interpret it how you want. To be fair, my perspective is going to be a lot more personal to me, but I believe every choice made by the author is completely legitimate. This article is meant to delve into the mind of the author to tell the story from the AUTHOR's viewpoint, and if you refuse to look at it like that, in a way, you're making a meta mistake because you're not looking at the 11:33 AM author's viewpoint through the author's viewpoint. 11:33 AM oof 11:34 AM ｍ（．＿．）ｍ 11:35 AM Greyve: I don't think you can really judge a concept since it's only as good as its execution, so no concept can really be "flawless". And for the rest of your point, I completely disagree with the idea that the reader has to just "look at it through the author's viewpoint". Unless you've invented telepathy, I'm never going to be able to do that. The purpose of writing is for the author to communicate that experience to 11:35 AM the reader, so stating that the reader should just know that experience is completely disregarding the point of writing at all. 11:35 AM <~barredowl> see, i'm not sure on this piece. i quite enjoyed reading it a fair bit, but i can jive with some of the opinions brought up by red here 11:37 AM barredowl: I also feel that way. Most meta articles only tend to be meta because the author wants to be defiant in art and try to expand the boundaries of what art really is. However, there's only so many times I can read a "Hah, I just smashed the fourth wall. You mad, reader?" until I subconsciously start wanting to smash my face into a bed of nails. It seems like it's becoming the norm for meta articles, rather than 11:37 AM an explosive writing technique. 11:38 AM <~barredowl> hmm. i really don't feel like i have anything to say about this, unfortunately. 11:39 AM <~barredowl> does anybody else have anything new to say about this 11:39 AM <~barredowl> ? 11:40 AM Like I said, I can't tell you how to appreciate art. I totally get what you're saying, but maybe it's just my skewed interpretation, I don't know. I will, however, fervently defend the art of concept beyond execution. Execution can be taught, copied, duplicated, whatever. But the concept, the fundamental personal view, can NEVER, due to the imperfection of execution. And when you say a concept can't be flawless, to 11:40 AM truly argue that point, you have to get inside someone's head to say that the idea was flawed to begin with. Writing is meant to communicate a concept, but if the point is to communicate the communication of concepts, then it cannot be "bad". It is automatically good because it is an inversion of the author's perspective; how THEY feel about it, as much as we feel about it. It hands the torch to us and says, "my 11:40 AM perspective is only as legitimate as your interpretation", and that is what I appreciate most about this article. 11:40 AM Not really, tbh it is quite hard to talk about this kind of thing in terms of meta articles and vent pieces (such as what yall have been discussing) 11:40 AM OOOOF part 2 11:41 AM The battle of the paragraphs. 11:41 AM ._ . 11:42 AM <~barredowl> i think i'm done here, though i don't want to call it just yet until other people don't have anything to say. 11:43 AM Do we want to cut the conversation between Greyve and I here? I'm welcome to keep going, but we're arguing about the fundamentals of interpreting art itself, so it could go on for a while. 11:43 AM yeah... 11:43 AM Like I said, I enjoyed this piece and I'd give it a big updoot (although like I said it is quite hard to contribute to the discussion of Vent pieces as I have never really done them or experienced this kind of drive to write one out)