I know some of you are familiar with the phrase "meta", it is almost metaphysical in it's awareness of itself. It can be as simple as a character addressing their dillema or the idea of a writer writing about a writer. If you want to get super-meta, go to a poetry reading and read a poem about a poet trying to write a poem for a poetry reading.
Where does the line between ironic and meta blur?
This was popularized by:
Douglas Hofstadter, in his 1979 book Gödel, Escher, Bach (and in the sequel, Metamagical Themas), popularized this meaning of the term. This book, which deals extensively with self-reference and touches on Quine and his work, was influential in many computer-related subcultures, and is probably largely responsible for the popularity of the prefix, for its use as a solo term, and for the many recent coinages which use it.[citation needed] Hofstadter uses meta as a stand-alone word, both as an adjective and as a directional preposition ("going meta", a term he coins for the old rhetorical trick of taking a debate or analysis to another level of abstraction, as when somebody says "This debate isn't going anywhere").
Yes, that was wikipedia bitch. Notice the last name, Hofstadter, the same last name of the character from Big Bang theory, coincidence? I think not.
Meta technically is:
Meta- (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "adjacent", "self"), is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
So the "this debate isn't going anywhere" simplicity by saying so during the debate is making oneself self-aware of the situation at hand is also meta.
So is meta a good plot device though?
Should a character be self-aware of his dillema or is it better when they merely flow with the reason of their particular surroundings?
Should a writer address the reader, is this taboo in fiction?
Should writers write about writers or is this just too incestuous?
...bazinga?
I see this thread was too meta for its own good. It will collapse in upon itself now.
Meta works.
You're just doing it wrong.
Lost In The Funhouse - "Westward The Course Of Empire Takes Its Way" - "Notes On The Writing Of Horror: A Story". Barth, Wallace, Ligotti.
Cryptic.
Wikipedia it, bitch.
(yeah, it works sometimes)
Danny, you're making me paranoid.
Good, because this thread is about you being paranoid inside a thread being paranoid infinity. THERE IS A GLITCH IN THE MATRIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The TV show Community is pretty damn good at meta.
In "Choke", the narrartor addresses the reader directly in the opening line -- "If you're going to read this, don't bother."
To pull it off, I think you need a very self-aware character. Someone who can look at themselves and their surroundings from an objective perspective.
G.E.B. is a cool book. Barth's Chimera is pretty meta but I didn't care for it. Slaughterhouse-Five is meta and awesome. Evan S. Connell's Muhlbach stories have a great deal of self-awareness but it remains in the confines of the setting, semi-stream-of-consciousness.
When it comes to writing, I'm of the opinion that just about anything can work -- the reader will either follow you or not; you can try to lead and hint and wink at this or that but readers have their own sense of what's intriguing and clever and what's trite and obnoxious.
Hmmm...
When it comes to writing, I'm of the opinion that just about anything can work -- the reader will either follow you or not; you can try to lead and hint and wink at this or that but readers have their own sense of what's intriguing and clever and what's trite and obnoxious.
(what I wished I wrote...)
The first thing I thought when I saw a thread, about writing a thread was(below). Just collapse the wave form already.
(what I wished I wrote...)
Great smokers think alight.
