Good mystery novels rarely do the true butler-did-it stunt of making the least likely person the murderer. If by least likely you think most irrelevant. Generally the murderer is important to the plot but the nature of the actual importance and apparent importance are different.
-
-
Why? Because they represent 50% narrative energy with other factors being roughly equal in a given chapter of history (material prosperity, environment). So a story that doesn’t account for women not being in the story works better with a “power” subplot keeping them contained.
Show this thread -
One reason I think something like psychohistory might be possible, despite chaos butterflies, is the presence of such energy dynamics symmetries. History is lower dimensional than it seems. We can “solve” it like a mystery better than we realize.
Show this thread -
So far historical revisionism has usually been an exercise in applied political philosophy. Ought guiding the rewriting of is. But I strongly suspect we can start to do pre-ideological revisionist thinking on purely technical grounds, relatively mechanically. Not sure how though.
Show this thread -
It will be like a different kind of mystery, the procedural. Historigraphy is moving from cozy era where a genius tells the important story in a more surprising way, to one where a set of techniques, applied with discipline, grind through and get the murderer. Machine solves.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.