Did your interpretation come from the belief that it was Dali's? — Amity

Yes, because Dali's always loved to play with those metaphors and illusions. The same happens to watches melting in the branches or the trees hanging in the abyss. How he wanted to express the nature with dreams is what it made me interpret that the painting was his.

And so, you viewed the 'insect' as a worm, instead of a chrysalis? — Amity

Are you referring to the insect on the down right? I honestly thought it was a worm, but now I understand why it is more technical to say chrysalis because Kush might have been thought on a pupa.

What we expect from a name or brand...see 'Apple', what do you think. The use of a symbol to 'sell'. — Amity

I don't like the use of symbolism with the purpose of selling, or even worse, to recruit people. I think symbology should be at our collective thought and behaviour. I don't know how to explain this, but Jung was quite right about the archetypes. It comes to our mind an iPhone device when we see an apple, sadly. It should come to our minds something related to life, health care, fruits, etc.

The problem which I see with philosophy essays on a forum such as this as they are too formal. Having written essays for courses, there is so much of having to go to source material and provide academically acceptable referencing. Some of this is done by links currently, but this comes with risks of online viruses. I am wary of links and use them sparingly (but I won't groan about anxiety about the health of my phone).

There is also the question as to how much people wish to log in and read essays on the forum. There may be a tension between chit chat and formal essays. I am inclined for something in between. I do read essays and books anyway but that is aside from forum. There are many here who take philosophy seriously as a creative endeavour but I am not sure that essay presentation is central to forum interaction. Some might be useful but I see the forum as a general sounding board for ideas rather than the best platform for essays. They would take up so much space and if it all became too academic it might deter from the creative process of exchanging the ideas as the raw materials of philosophy.

Are you referring to the insect on the down right? I honestly thought it was a worm, but now I understand why it is more technical to say chrysalis because Kush might have been thought on a pupa. — javi2541997

Yes. See explanation: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/951076

I didn't think of it as a worm signifying 'death' because worms would be wriggling out of the apple.
The process of decomposition. The apple is juicy and thriving. It is why I thought of Eve in the Garden of Eden. Mother of creation, giving birth. A new life and spirit.

The use and abuse of symbols. Another thread of thought...

Did you read my thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15596/tpf-philosophy-competitionactivity-2025-/p1

The problem which I see with philosophy essays on a forum such as this as they are too formal. Having written essays for courses, there is so much of having to go to source material and provide academically acceptable referencing. — Jack Cummins

I agree that the word 'essay' is off-putting. However, the idea is not that they must be of the formal academic type. There are different types of philosophical writing. There is a wide definition of 'essay' - from its original French meaning: essayer - to try. I've written about that in the thread.

...source material and provide academically acceptable referencing. — Jack Cummins

Yes. This project will not be as rigid. The aim is to simplify. The quotes used in this 'essay' event will not necessarily follow academic standards - but brief details like author and text page/s.

If you don't mind, I will copy and paste your thoughts to the thread. I don't wish to duplicate here. Thanks.

I did read your other thread and it will be an interesting experiment. My only concern would be about its competitive nature and the war of egos. There has been so much of that in the creative writing competitions/activities.

My only concern would be about its competitive nature and the war of egos. There has been so much of that in the creative writing competitions/activities. — Jack Cummins

OK. I agree there are problems related to 'competition'. Been there, like you!
The question of 'competitive elements' is still to be addressed.
To have an 'in-essay' poll or an extra evaluative thread, like @Baden's proposed 'Favourites'
It is to be viewed more as a 'Challenge' than a Competition.

I'm going to move this exchange to the other thread. Thanks.

Care to say more? — Amity

Sure, but let me address the following first:

A bit harsh, no? We can all be prick-ish and think we're right. Difficult to let go of own ideas/beliefs when challenged. But wonderful to be surprised by an 'Aha!' moment when reading or listening. — Amity

A bit harsh? Yes and no. It's not that I thought that's how I came across to others. Sometimes maybe, but they can counter; that's fine with me. My problem was that the more I got embroiled in arguments, the more I found myself saying things that... I didn't really mean. I did mean them to some extent, but the matters-of-fact here are... difficult, and the moment you put something into words, you can think of a few ways that could be wrong, and so on and so forth. It became exhausting to argue a position more vehemently than you mean to, but at the same time feeling that if you let go the rebound of the opposing position would smash your right into a wall. In the end, I figured what I have to say isn't all that important, since my core point that underlies all the creative writing stuff is that people have to find their own way. I just retreated.

As for the "chaos" comment, that sort of follows from what I just said: people need to find their own way. Writing seminars can certainly be part of that, but I find that... a lot of the advice I've come to expect works against that. There are those well-meant slogans: "Show, don't tell", "Don't end a sentence with a preposition," "Avoid the passive voice, adverbs, etc.", "a protagonist needs a goal"...

Taken all together these sort of rules converge on a style. More then once I saw authors put up their writing for criticism, get a few predictable remarks (e.g. there are too many adverbs), then edit the excerpt, post it again, and then get better responses. I once asked one of those writers which version they personally liked better; they said they liked the new one better, though they might just be in the high of the moment. The thing is this: I almost always liked the original version better. The edited version might be smoother, but usually they lost voice. What remained is that uni-voice style. Some authors naturally fit into that style (I think David Mitchell of Cloud Atlas is a good example), so it's not that the style can't produce a good voice. I'm not against that style. The thing is, though, that in direct comparison there's something to an authors original voice that gets lost when it's edited down to an industry standard.

Another anecdote: When defending adverbs, my favourite example comes from the final paragraph of James Joyce's short story "The Dead". It's just a beautiful use of adverbs, and it contains sentence structures that would not be possible without adverbs. One time, though, I quoted what I though was an ingenious example of use of adverbs in Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children. The reply I got was that this was unreadable. Fine. I'm not going to argue against someone's taste. I loved the section, someone else did not. I moved on. Years later, though, I read an interview with Rushdie where he basically said something along the lines of having used to many adverbs in his earlier fiction. I wasn't sure that included Midnight's Children, though it's likely. The book is full of adverbs. Thing is, I really liked the style, and here the author himself aligns himself with the... prevailing tend.

To be sure, it's not a loss. Rushdie's later books are still fun to read, and the older books won't go away. But it's sort of exasperating. It's like there's a set of industry standards slowly forming... taste. It's like these writing rules are slowly becoming true through... taste formation?

And now go back up to the introductory paragraph: I don't actually think any think any of this is true. Real life is more complex, and I think I'm being melodramatic. One other thing that changed, for example, is that with the rise of Amazon, it's become harder to find the books I'd like to read in bookshops, and I don't buy stuff online. So I'm sort of out of touch. For all those reasons, I don't really want to be believed.

But at the same time, these anecdotes really happened. I've seen rough but interesting texts polished into a smeblence of professionality, but losing that initial spark in the progress. More often than I ever wanted to, I've seen texts being polished until they're utterly dull. If I were a slush-pile reader, I probably wouldn't have accepted the original versions, but I'd have remembered them. The edited version I'd have passed over without a second thought. So now, when I read a potentially interesting book that's ultimately not very memorable I wonder if that happened here, too; if somewhere hidden in this version is an interesting original that's been edited out. See, it's entirely possible, likely even, that other people (including the author) really love the result. It's possible that that's just how they write, and that I just don't get it. That would be too bad for me, but all in all it would be all right. However, if there's really an original version out there which - for all its flaws - I'd have liked better - than that'd make me a little sad.

Thanks for relating your thoughts and experience about creative writing.
How writing rules can become a style. But people have to find their own way.
Isn't it strange to find people parroting advice wholesale, when advice changes from writer to writer in any given time or space. The 'show don't tell' - has a point but, of course, some telling is necessary.
How it is done, seamlessly, is where creativity enters the picture.

My problem was that the more I got embroiled in arguments, the more I found myself saying things that... I didn't really mean. I did mean them to some extent, but the matters-of-fact here are... difficult, and the moment you put something into words, you can think of a few ways that could be wrong, and so on and so forth — Dawnstorm

Yes. And that is the beauty of taking time to reflect and edit your thoughts as you write. Others can help by questioning what you mean by X,Y or Z. But many don't ask, they assume.
Thinking and then appreciating how the mind can change, that is what works, for me, in a forum.
Sometimes, we don't always like to admit a change of position. Some see it as a sign of weakness. It would mean being a 'loser' not a 'winner' and they dig deeper...into dogma.

Taken all together these sort of rules converge on a style. More then once I saw authors put up their writing for criticism, get a few predictable remarks (e.g. there are too many adverbs), then edit the excerpt, post it again, and then get better responses. I once asked one of those writers which version they personally liked better; they said they liked the new one better, though they might just be in the high of the moment. The thing is this: I almost always liked the original version better. The edited version might be smoother, but usually they lost voice. — Dawnstorm

[Edit: deleted quotes from a short story]

Yes. That can happen.

The short story event is fantastic. People give voice to their different interpretations.
I've learned a great deal by participating over the years. About careful listening...

It's like there's a set of industry standards slowly forming... taste. It's like these writing rules are slowly becoming true through... taste formation? — Dawnstorm

Hmmm. Not sure how true this is. It could work the other way round. Our tastes in fiction change and we demand more choice. New genres arise with experimental ways of writing.

Chacun à son goût, non?
The Literary Activity is a veritable banquet of juicy bites. Some might not hold instant appeal but each story should be listened to. IMO. Yummy times ahead... :party:

The 'show don't tell' - has a point but, of course, some telling is necessary. — Amity

"Show, don't tell," is one piece of advice that's... vague. The problem is, since you're in a medium that almost always works with text, the only way to really show something is to tell about something else, so the author might think they're showing, but the reader might be reading one abstraction-level down, and thus read it as telling. So what does that piece of advice mean, in the end?

There's an intuitive space that's almost always telling, and one that's almost always showing, but there's a lot of overlap in the middle. Often, there's no clear difference between showing telling. For example, a simple line like "He picked up the phone," omits a lot of details, and whether you get a showy or telly feeling from it depends on what's going on in the scene, and how important the event is. But that's not always in the text; it can be in the reader-side interpretation. (Of course, a single line occurs in a wider text, and it's that wider text that's showy or telly, and not the line alone. I'm just simplifying because it's easier to make a point.)

The basic question here is (a) when do people interpret details that are in the text vs. (b) when do people imagine details that are not in the text. And what do you, as the author, want? This, too, ties in with point of view in some narrative context: for example, a telly line like "this made him very angry," might be a misinterpretion of unrevealed details by an unreliable narrator.

The problem with standard rules is that they often guide attention in a rather limiting way. When you edit with a rule mindset, there's a danger that you lose the big picture. "Show, don't tell," in my message-board experience, discourages lines like "this made him very angry," and would render situations in which this would work as exceptions. And beginning writers "must know the rules before they can break them."

So at the moment you say "The 'show don't tell' - has a point but, of course, some telling is necessary." you're already caught up in a rhetoric that stigmatizes telling and sets showing as the default, when what you really need is an understanding of how many details to use and when. It's not clear whether "show, don't tell," is helpful or harmful. That depends on (a) how you learn to interpret the line, and (b) what sort of style your intuitive voice tends towards.

For example, when I was still writing, I noticed that my characters were "turning their heads" a lot when something caught their attention. All of them. When I wrote "turned his/her head", that was usually me putting in a short cut. It's a physical detail, a sort of behavior-icon for some recurring type of events. It's not only repetitive, it's also not taking into account the character's body language. So I have this private little rule that says "beware of swivel-head syndrome." So... should I peddle this rule? Should I just assume that many people share the same problem? Should I stigmatize head-turning?

Not really, no. It's a problem I have. I can't just put it out there. However, "swivel-head syndrome" is, as an unintended consequence, encouraged by "show, don't tell," as a rule. It doesn't have to be, but that's been my message-board impression. Don't tell me something caught their attention, show them turn their heads. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Again, it's not an inevitable consequence of the rule; it's just that people suddenly started put the same few stock movements in place of the same few stock emotions. Like a cultural short hand.

So noticing this trend, I could abstract from my "swivel-head syndrome" personal rule, and say something like "Know the body language of your characters!" But if that caught on (I doubt it would; it doesn't tell you what to do), it would likely be distributed as a slogan, and it's context would eventually be lost, and it would create its own set of problems.

(Aside: One of the reason "know the body-language of your characters!" is useful for me is because I have aphantasia. I have no inner eye. I can't see my characters at all, and often don't even know what they look like until some setting interaction fixes a trait. So making up random body-language in keeping with their personality helps me add some visual touches to stories. My swivel-head syndrome is a side-effect of getting lazy in that process. People with a vivid inner eye are almost certainly not going to profit from that rule, given that they probably just need to visually imagine their characters. It's very involved.)

"Show, don't tell," is one piece of advice that's... vague — Dawnstorm

Well, it can certainly be interpreted, misinterpreted and expounded on at great length.
As a rule, without qualification, it is absolute. 'Don't' is an imperative. This is what you should do if you want to be a good writer.

So at the moment you say "The 'show don't tell' - has a point but, of course, some telling is necessary." you're already caught up in a rhetoric that stigmatizes telling and sets showing as the default, when what you really need is an understanding of how many details to use and when. It's not clear whether "show, don't tell," is helpful or harmful. That depends on (a) how you learn to interpret the line, and (b) what sort of style your intuitive voice tends towards. — Dawnstorm

I don't know that I'm caught up in a stigmatisation of telling. Or that I agree with a default of showing.
I could have phrased it better and I could have expanded...
I was trying to say that both were needed.

A message-board experience in creative writing sounds like my idea of hell. I guess some forums are more helpful than others.

For example, when I was still writing, I noticed that my characters were "turning their heads" a lot when something caught their attention. All of them. When I wrote "turned his/her head", that was usually me putting in a short cut. It's a physical detail, a sort of behavior-icon for some recurring type of events. It's not only repetitive, it's also not taking into account the character's body language. So I have this private little rule that says "beware of swivel-head syndrome." So... should I peddle this rule? Should I just assume that many people share the same problem? Should I stigmatize head-turning — Dawnstorm

Why did you stop creative writing? Don't you miss it? Have you considered taking part in TPF's Literary Activity - either as a writer or reader, both?

Having an internal rule to remind you to avoid 'bad' writing is helpful, like a bright yellow sticky note on your laptop. I suppose then it becomes intuitive, part of who you are.

it's just that people suddenly started put the same few stock movements in place of the same few stock emotions. — Dawnstorm

Hmm. I'll have to take your word for that.

Like a cultural short hand. — Dawnstorm

What do you mean by that? It seemed to have a negative connotation. I checked it out:
https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/language-popular-culture/cultural-shorthand

Cultural shorthand refers to the use of brief, recognizable phrases or symbols that evoke specific ideas, emotions, or shared experiences within a culture. This concept allows people to communicate complex meanings quickly and effectively, relying on common cultural references.

So, a quick way to connect and evoke. A short-hand without the need for detailed explanations.
Handy, especially when words are limited as in a micro/mini story.

The repetitive use of 'Turned his/her head' isn't the same kind of short-cut. It's just unimaginative.

So noticing this trend, I could abstract from my "swivel-head syndrome" personal rule, and say something like "Know the body language of your characters!" But if that caught on (I doubt it would; it doesn't tell you what to do), it would likely be distributed as a slogan, and it's context would eventually be lost, and it would create its own set of problems. — Dawnstorm

Well, it's not about something 'catching on' to be repeated parrot-like without engaging brain.
Advice isn't all about catch-phrases to keep in mind. However, some have been re-formed in more helpful ways. This excellent article, along with comments and responses, is in sympathy with your view:
https://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/showing-and-telling-the-basics.html

Another one, gives a balanced view with examples:

What does “Show, don’t tell” mean? At its root, it means that rather than asserting something for the reader to accept, your writing transmits something for the reader to experience. The writer accomplishes this through a mix of vivid imagery, descriptive verbs, and immersive details.

https://writers.com/show-dont-tell-writing

***

One of the reason "know the body-language of your characters!" is useful for me is because I have aphantasia. I have no inner eye. — Dawnstorm

Goodness. That is quite an obstacle for anyone, never mind a creative writer. I can't imagine how difficult that must be. Having no inner eye means not being able to visualise. This is key to imagination and perhaps links to empathy?

It's very involved — Dawnstorm

Understatement?!
Thank you for your sensitive insight into all the difficulties. Taking the time to explore. :sparkle: :flower:

Maybe "show don't tell" is more like "tell the effects, not the fact." For example, instead of saying it was a dark and stormy night you describe indistinct shadowy movements, the trees swaying, rain pounding on the conservatory roof, and a door being blown open.

EDIT: So it comes down to attention to detail, important in realism. "It was a dark and stormy night" is a shorthand and therefore a cliché; it doesn't tell us exactly what is happening.

So it's all just telling. I suppose the reason they say show, don't tell, is when it's for plays and films, where instead of exposition---particularly awkward in this case because it has to take the form of dialogue or voice-over---you can show emotions, motivations and the setting with the acting, action, cinematography and set design, etc.

So it's all just telling. I suppose the reason they say show, don't tell, is when it's for plays and films, where instead of exposition---particularly awkward in this case because it has to take the form of dialogue or voice-over---you can show emotions, motivations and the setting with the acting, action, cinematography and set design, etc. — Jamal

Yes. There is always a story to tell. It's in the way that we tell it...see it or hear it...all senses on full alert.

I read that Chekhov is the culprit who inspired the concept of 'Show, don't tell'.
"Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass."

In a letter to his brother, Chekhov actually said, "In descriptions of Nature one must seize on small details, grouping them so that when the reader closes his eyes he gets a picture. For instance, you’ll have a moonlit night if you write that on the mill dam a piece of glass from a broken bottle glittered like a bright little star, and that the black shadow of a dog or a wolf rolled past like a ball." — Wiki - Show, don't tell

So it comes down to attention to detail, important in realism. "It was a dark and stormy night" is a shorthand and therefore a cliché; it doesn't tell us exactly what is happening. — Jamal

Yes. But even so, there's something about getting right into it...a sense of familiarity. It doesn't have to be boring. The author can surprise by not following it up with expected horror but delight in candlelight. Or being wonderstruck by thunder and lightning...awesome nature. They stood at the window...

Writer's Digest described this sentence as "the literary posterchild for bad story starters".[5] On the other hand, the American Book Review ranked it as No. 22 on its "Best first lines from novels" list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_was_a_dark_and_stormy_night

***



It was a dark and a stormy night
Everyone was at the wing-ding
They weren't the wing-ding type
So they went up on the train bridge
Where the weather was howling
And oh, oh, my my
When that train comes rolling by
No paper thin walls, no folks above
No one else can hear
The crazy cries of love

Looking forward to reading your story, and others, in the dazzling show of creativity that is the Literary Activity: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15585/literary-activity-dec-2024/p1

:cool: :fire: - shorthand for mega cool and hot stuff, baby! :wink:

Yes. But even so, there's something about getting right into it...a sense of familiarity. It doesn't have to be boring. The author can surprise by not following it up with expected horror but delight in candlelight. Or being wonderstruck by thunder and lightning...awesome nature. They stood at the window... — Amity

That's an excellent point.

mega cool and hot stuff, baby! :wink: — Amity

:cool:

That's an excellent point. — Jamal

Thank you. Sometimes I amaze myself :cool: There must be something in the air. The smoky whiff of TPF in December. Short Stories. Stimulating, sensuous, spectacular. :fire: :heart: :sparkle:

To hell with this story :rage:
And the rotten, worm-infested fruit it still brings forth...
The idea that Woman=Sin. The opposite of 'Good'. The religious importance of birthing a child.
How dare women even think of abortion...they are still seen as being 'owned' by males. — Amity

Oh, yeah. Christian, Jewish or Muslim, that's clearly stated in The Book.

How dare people want to know more? Knowledge is Power. Ignorance is bliss?

Ignorance, coupled with the threat of punishment, is obedience. That was the point. Also, Adam got off lightly, because he said: "The woman tricked me." He rules by Righteousness; she, in league with the Serpent, corrupts him with Guile.
(And you may have given me an essay topic.)

No, no. The Dali's apple is not Biblical, and I think he never painted something religious. The point was to be surrealist or even dreamy. — javi2541997

Those exquisite crucifixions are worth checking out. Also several madonnas, a ghostly last supper and a lot of Christian symbolism. Catholic themes, as far as I recall, not the Old Testament.
There are green apples without butterflies in a couple of the large pictures, though he seems to have preferred pears.
(Dali is my all-time favourite Painter.)
Kush is no slouch, either. Amazing stuff! He likes butterflies and apples. There is one explicitly about the biblical apple.
Thanks, Amity; I'd never heard of him.

Also, Adam got off lightly, because he said: "The woman tricked me." He rules by Righteousness; she, in league with the Serpent, corrupts him with Guile.
(And you may have given me an essay topic.) — Vera Mont

For the Philosophy Writing Challenge - June 2025? Yay!
I've an idea for that too. But, ssshh, it's a secret...

Wonderful links to the works of Dali, thanks.

There are green apples without butterflies in a couple of the large pictures, though he seems to have preferred pears. (Dali is my all-time favourite Painter.) — Vera Mont

I really had no idea. My appetite is now well and truly gewhetted. The brilliance of taking the mundane and growing it into something else.
Now that's Creative Genius.

Found a lithograph of Dali's APPLE-EVE’S APPLE.

Part of the Flors Dali (The Fruits) series, Apple-Eve's Apple dep#icts a figure made up of foliage and fruit, placed above a rough sketch of a dragon.
https://www.dtrmodern.com/others/apple-eves-apple

And the full collection of his 14 fruit watercolours.

Fourteen original Salvador Dali watercolour fruit studies, unseen by collectors until now, are being sold at Bonhams, London, on Tuesday. They were commissioned in 1969 and 1970 but have since only been in private hands. The series is expected to make close to £1m.

NB that was written on 18th June 2013.

Complete with warning:
Some of these images are explicit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22948997

Better images, follow the arrows to view more. Love the Hasty Plum!
https://www.bonhams.com/magazine/14463/

***
Good as they are, the religious ones...well, wow! The ghostly last supper.
With a feminised Jesus centre-stage ?

Excellent description and information re history and geometric technique:

'During the late 1940s, Dalí’s return to Christian imagery and traditional values was influenced by three factors:  the devastating effects of the Spanish Civil War and World War II, his reawakened interest in classical art, and his reappraisal of Freud’s psychological principles after meeting the aging psychoanalyst in 1938.  One classic derivation cited by Dalí in connection with his painting was Zurbarán, a seventeenth-century Spanish old master.  The tousled hair of the praying figures, the kneeling postures, and the brilliant whites of their cloaks evoke Zurbarán’s precise, enamel-like handling of paint....

As in the harmonious presentation of Renaissance schemes, Dalí’s composition is clearly divided:  foreground action and background scenery.  The placement of men around the table is symmetrical, the same figure repeated in perfect mirror image on both sides of Christ.  Moreover, the entire nine-foot-long picture is constructed according to complex mathematical ratios devised by Renaissance scientists and such ancient Greek philosophers as Pythagoras.'

From: https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.46590.html

I know Dali painted some crucifixion or Christian symbolism. But all of them are like—let's say—'out of place.' They are not the average paintings of Murillo or the ones that hung in the Vatican. They lack Christian fanatic realism and intimidating characters.
My point was that Dali was not trying to paint a biblical scene but playing with Abrahamic symbolism. Making them dreamlike or surreal. I hardly believe that Dali was inspired by religious painters of European enlightenment.

For example -- the amazing crucifixion that you shared in your post. No blood, no image of Jesus Christ, the floor is mysterious, the cross looks like cement blocks, the crown of thorns is missing, and the famous nails are substituted for perfect cubes. An amazing painting by Dali, and very clever how he used Abrahamic symbolism.

Kush is no slouch, either. Amazing stuff! He likes butterflies and apples. There is one explicitly about the biblical apple.
Thanks, Amity; I'd never heard of him. — Vera Mont

Well, we can thank @javi2541997 for that!
He, unwittingly, introduced him as 'Dali' in his profile pic :wink:

Well, we can thank javi2541997 for that!
He, unwittingly, introduced him as 'Dali' in his profile pic — Amity

:smile:

We never know where the gems are hidden. You look for copper and 'pop!' An emerald appears. :up:

Well, I was looking for Dali's apple and Kush appeared.
So, both brilliant gems of creativity. One inspiring the other. Some creatives reach higher levels of polish and sparkle...public acclamation and wealth.

But, yes. It amazes me how one post leads to another and then another jewel is added to the collection. You and Vera both love Dali. I'm getting there :sparkle:

They are not the average paintings of Murillo or the ones that hung in the Vatican. — javi2541997

Nothing about Dali was average. He turned things inside-out and merged them with other things.

For example -- the amazing crucifixion that you shared in your post. No blood, no image of Jesus Christ, the floor is mysterious, the cross looks like cement blocks, the crown of thorns is missing, and the famous nails are substituted for perfect cubes. — javi2541997

It's also floating in space. Here's a slightly more traditional one.
Still not Murillo, but a little closer to Vermeer, one of his early influences.

Here's a slightly more traditional one. — Vera Mont

I can't access Facebook. Do you have its title and I can search elsewhere?

Still not Murillo, but a little closer to Vermeer, one of his early influences. — Vera Mont

Just call me impressed by your wealth of knowledge. Do you have a few Dalis hanging in your kitchen?

Do you have its title and I can search elsewhere? — Amity

All over the place. It's Called Christ of Saint John of the Cross.

He was quite mad, you know. Aside from the boundless imagination, he had a reported IQ if 175. That's enough to drive anyone 'round the twist, even without Catholicism and being named after a dead brother.

Oh. That took my breath away. I was not expecting that.
I need to go see that up close and personal. I hope it's still in the collection.

Christ of Saint John of the Cross is a painting by Salvador Dalí made in 1951 which is in the collection of the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow.

It depicts Jesus Christ on the cross in a darkened sky floating over a body of water complete with a boat and fishermen.

Although it is a depiction of the crucifixion, it is devoid of nails, blood, and a crown of thorns, because, according to Dalí, he was convinced by a dream that these features would mar his depiction of Christ. Also in a dream, the importance of depicting Christ in the extreme angle evident in the painting was revealed to him. — Wiki - Christ of Saint John of the Cross

Thank you, Vera. :sparkle:
Imagine floating in Dali's dreams...

Do you have a few Dalis hanging in your kitchen? — Amity

I have a couple of books, since about 1970. Anecdote; the second year I was working, I saw a pair of minor Dali prints in a Toronto gallery. #175 of the run, they were little things, about 10"x7" and came as a set for $200. That was two thirds of my monthly pay after deductions. I could have swung it, with some economies in my not-so-lavish lifestyle. But I lived in a small rented room with hardly any wall space and zero security. But I loved them! But... Common sense won. The damn things would be worth about $4000 today.

Imagine floating in Dali's dreams... — Amity

Shudder!
By synchronicity! The daily jigsaw puzzle - which is where I wend from here a minute ago - is a Kandinski. He was also one of Dali's influence, along with Miro, both of whose work I like.

I don't know that I'm caught up in a stigmatisation of telling. Or that I agree with a default of showing. — Amity

This I find difficult to talk about. First, I did quote what you literally said, but the "you" in the line was supposed to be the generalised you (like "one says"). It's so difficult, because the phrase means different things to different people, and it's not even always clear how the rhetoric relates to the praxis of writing.

There's the rhetoric with its personal impact and its social impact, and then there's the personal meaning of the phrase, which is part of the personal impact but not all of it; there's what the writer actually does, which again relates to both the personal meaning and the personal impact of the phrase, but the show-don't-tell part of writing isn't a thing on its own. Whether you're "showing" or "telling" in a particular section of text depends on how you interpret those terms (part of the personal meaning of the phrase). This then means that the personal meaning of the phrase goes into the praxis potentially twice, once as a generative rule and once as a corrective rule. And it's not clear that the generative rule and corrective rule are the same, even though the phrase of origin is definitely the same.

Then, beyond that, none of these rules are meant to be absolute. Nobody says that. They're meant to be rules of thumb. So figuring out whether an author who favours "show don't tell," in his discourse about writing also favours it while writing isn't easy - you first have to figure out what the line means to the writer, and then you have to figure out how many exceptions are too many.

None of that would matter much. What really matters in the end is the text. But then there's the social level: no matter what the rule means to any specific writer, the phrasings are socially "out there". "Show, don't tell," is a phrase you can google. And the discussions around the phrase cover various predictable meanings. And the time spent on figuring out what this vague line means could be spent writing and developing an intution for what to do (though some people find that hard to do without guidance and thus seek out rules...)

Now once the phrase is out in the open, people who don't yet have an understanding of the line will encounter and hear it, and what they hear is a sentence of "do this, don't do that". So when they approach the problem of what to do when writing they do so with that particular topic framed as one thing to do, and one thing not to do. They'll eventually figure out that something you do have to tell (i.e. the thing you should not do according to the phrasing), but by that time, showing is already the default. You're usually showing, but somtimes you have to tell. However, that's a judgement that doesn't fit all styles equally. To top it off, some people are natural showers (their "native style" tend towards that), but they might still worry they tell too much.

So:

I could have phrased it better and I could have expanded...
I was trying to say that both were needed. — Amity

Yes, but there's a way to talk about this we all participate in. Me, too. I sort-of vaguely half reject the rule, but that's also participating in the lingo. When I reject the rule, it's no clearer what about I reject than what it is that others like about. One thing you should know about me is that I have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to these righting rules. That doesn't mean I disagree with everything proponents of the rule say, or that I think you can't write well while keeping that rule in mind, or... or... or... If I go online to talk about writing, I'll always go into rule-blaster mode - and it'll never quite come across how I want to (if I even know how I want to come across). I've built up a lot of frustration that way, and that's why I've been bowing out of writing forums.

A message-board experience in creative writing sounds like my idea of hell. I guess some forums are more helpful than others. — Amity

Oh, it was lots of fun. I'm more of a short story writer, but I did finish a very rough draft of novel, which I doubt I'd have finished on my own. I had some excellent feedback.

Hmm. I'll have to take your word for that. — Amity

Nah, don't take my word for it. That's precisely the kind of nonsense I catch myself saying when I go into rant mode. Here's again what I wrote: "it's just that people suddenly started put the same few stock movements in place of the same few stock emotions." This is mostly based on a subjective impression by a biased mind, and it's now all around a decade ago, so on top of that it's a memory. First, I'd edit out the "suddenly". I'm fairly certain nothing about it was sudden. Second the body-movement/stock-emotions part is more of an excerpt example (to be sure, I could probably find examples, but that doesn't say anything). See, when talking about why I don't like those rules, I find myself doing the same sort of thing I don't like about the rhetoric that surrounds them. I'm vague, I'm inaccurate, I make mistakes (I don't think I made one in this post, so no example for the time being), and so on. I demonstrably do know a lot about writing, but I'm hardly the only one, and on a message board I tend not to be as careful as I should be. I end up saying stuff that I find embarrassing (like that line, for example). So, no, don't take my word for it. Never take my word for it.

So, a quick way to connect and evoke. A short-hand without the need for detailed explanations.
Handy, especially when words are limited as in a micro/mini story.

The repetitive use of 'Turned his/her head' isn't the same kind of short-cut. It's just unimaginative. — Amity

To be sure, I called "putting the same few body movements in place of the same few stock emotions" a cultural-shorthand. This what we're comparing to "turned his/her head". The head-turning I'd call just a bad habit. It's between me and my writing. But if you see many people make the same type of edits for a variety of texts, when different texts would need different approaches, that's a different problem. Do they edit their own texts the same way? Is this sort of behaviour triggered by the message board environment? I don't know any of that, so I can't classify it on a personal level. I don't know if it's even a habit, and if so, if it's a writing habit, an editing habit, a critiquing habit, all of it? Whatever it is on the personal level, it's a cultural shorthand on the social level.

So the differences: Mine: personal level, about writing. "Theirs": social level, about critiquing (and sometimes editing). And in terms of judgement: Mine: flag for a re-write. "Theirs": Do it like this to improve your text.

In the process of laying out this difference, I've noticed another aspect about my line above that's nonsense: "same body movements for the same stock emotions" is not only judgemental, it unintentionally judging the writing I meant to defend (the "stock emotions" are what occur in the original writing, as opposed to the "body movements" which occur in the edit). Really, it's good not to trust me too much.

Goodness. That is quite an obstacle for anyone, never mind a creative writer. I can't imagine how difficult that must be. Having no inner eye means not being able to visualise. This is key to imagination and perhaps links to empathy? — Amity

It's not that bad. In fact, for most of my life, I never noticed that I didn't have an inner eye. I thought when people talked about that it was more of a metaphor than it actually seems to be. I can visualise to a minimal degree: if I close my eyes and concentrate very hard I can create a micro-second flash of an image. Research about aphantasia indicates that the "inner eye" can be trained. It's not particularly difficult to engage in creative writing with aphantasia. In descriptions, I tend to focus on a few key properties when writing; extended descriptions in fiction I read tend to bore me if they exceed my capacity for detail-retention. I sort of space out, then. If I want to see stunning scenery, for example, narrative is never going to cut it for me; I prefer the visual arts - where I actually have something to look at. I used to just put it down to taste - which it still might be, who knows?

Why did you stop creative writing? Don't you miss it? Have you considered taking part in TPF's Literary Activity - either as a writer or reader, both? — Amity

I stopped creative writing when I got a job I didn't particularly like. I just felt too drained to actually write. I don't particularly miss it. I figure I'll pick it up again when I retire. I've still occasionally generated story ideas, for example. I just don't feel like actually writing. Even when I was writing, I usually didn't share what I was writing (and what I shared on writing forums was usually written specifically for community activities). I've considered taking part in the Literary Activity here, but I think participation would overwhelm me - too much time and energy (I mean, just look at the size of this post, and it's not even about a particular piece of writing). Also, one thing I've noticed is that I don't like reading fiction on a computer screen. No problem with academic articles, blog posts, forum posts etc. No problem with poetry. But fiction? For some reason it doesn't quite work for me, on a screen. Weird.

I read that Chekhov is the culprit who inspired the concept of 'Show, don't tell'.
"Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass." — Amity

I've heard that. It's such a beautiful way to put it. It's so very much like Chekhov that the reflecting glass is broken. I bought a book of his short stories which I really enjoyed. A lot of those rules go back to something authors said. I find those examples really interesting in that sort of context.

Maybe "show don't tell" is more like "tell the effects, not the fact." For example, instead of saying it was a dark and stormy night you describe indistinct shadowy movements, the trees swaying, rain pounding on the conservatory roof, and a door being blown open. — Jamal

Yes, and all that description takes time, which means you'll get into the meat of the story later. Or maybe the style's more exposition heavy (e.g. Marquez)? Can you lead in with that sentence, if you still give all those description afterwards? On message boards, blogs, etc. these "rules" tend to mean sort-of-but-not-quite the same thing. Nearly everything you can dislike has a name:

Exposition? Falls under "Show, don't tell," for sure, but more specifically "info-dump". Conveying information through unnatural dialogue? Google "As you know, Bob" (the Bob is optional, but if a name's there that's usually the one). And so on... Actually, the admonition against As-you-know-Bob dialogue is one of the few I've heard I find very hard to dismiss: it's very specific, and exceptions would have to be very deliberately crafted (I'm sure they exist).

This I find difficult to talk about. — Dawnstorm

Thank you for trying. Your detailed explanation clarifies but I will focus only on bits.

None of that would matter much. What really matters in the end is the text — Dawnstorm

What matters is the story. And how the writer moves it along - its flow affecting the reader.
The sometimes difficult authorial decision to create a story, as intriguing as it is beautiful in the eyes of the beholder. How to end it. Knowing how best to write and read to benefit all...

If I go online to talk about writing, I'll always go into rule-blaster mode - and it'll never quite come across how I want to (if I even know how I want to come across). I've built up a lot of frustration that way, and that's why I've been bowing out of writing forums. — Dawnstorm

Your frustration is well expressed. I understand why you give writing forums a break.
But as long as you can write when you feel like it. And not just for critical appraisal. To have finished the first draft of a novel is an achievement. A short story should be a walk in the park :wink:

Really, it's good not to trust me too much. — Dawnstorm

I trust you to tell it like it is for you. As well as anyone is able to. Showing insight, knowledge and experience.

I sort of space out, then. If I want to see stunning scenery, for example, narrative is never going to cut it for me; I prefer the visual arts - where I actually have something to look at. — Dawnstorm

Yes, narrative has its limitations. It is what it is. Just like a photograph can never encapsulate the feel of being in nature or even half its beauty.
Interesting that you mention the visual arts. I've been thinking of how @javi2541997 inspired me to look again at his profile pic to interpret its meaning. We not only read text but paintings.
My reading was different from his, due to personal history and background - with no awareness of Dali. Javi knew Dali and yet did not agree with my 'religious' interpretation.
[and, of course, it turned out not to be Dali but Kush]

No, no. The Dali's apple is not Biblical, and I think he never painted something religious. The point was to be surrealist or even dreamy. — javi2541997

I thank @Vera Mont for carefully drawing attention to Dali's works.

Those exquisite crucifixions are worth checking out. Also several madonnas, a ghostly last supper and a lot of Christian symbolism. Catholic themes, as far as I recall, not the Old Testament. — Vera Mont

There was a time when the very word 'religion' would have me turn away. My Christian faith had vanished and I despised anything to do with it. I would not have been attracted to Dali's religious paintings. Fortunately, things change.

I used to just put it down to taste - which it still might be, who knows? — Dawnstorm

Yes. It is all down to aesthetics. "As you know, Bob!" :sparkle:

There was a time when the very word 'religion' would have me turn away. My Christian faith had vanished and I despised anything to do with it. I would not have been attracted to Dali's religious paintings. Fortunately, things change. — Amity

Once you put a little distance between your present self and the experience that turned you against a particular religion, you can begin to think about why it was there in the first place, and why so many people still subscribe to it. (No, not because they needed to explain where lightning comes from!) I find Christian literature and art fascinating. Much of it is also beautiful, and I value beauty for its own sake. We look at a cathedral, my SO says, "What a colossal waste of stone and manpower!" Yes, I agree, but admire it anyway.

Notre Dame Cathedral. Malta's Cathedrals. Who pays for the gold?
I know why religion is there and why people pray.
And then they bomb.

Dali's painting is extraordinary. I want to know his story.

I want to know his story. — Amity

Easily done; his life was very public. Lots of acting out before an audience. Here's one source There should be a few quality picture books in the library, as well.