bartl
08-24-2005, 06:10 PM
OK, this is really two topics; a short comment on Disney, and a longer one on "breaking the rules." First of all, on Disney:
When exactly did it become Walt Disney's WIND IN THE WILLOWS? Or ALICE IN WONDERLAND? Or PINOCCHIO or ZORRO or CINDERELLA or JUNGLE BOOK?
To Grant: I assume that this is rhetorical, as I am reasonably certain that you know better than I do what the reasons for this are (my wife, by the way, loves Winnie the Pooh, but will not TOUCH merchandise with the Disney version, only the "real thing.")
Now, for the meat of this thing:
"You forgot to mention that once you know and can implement the rules, feel free to break them for artistic or utilitarian purposes, as opposed to most up-and-comers who fail to ever learn the rules in the first place, citing 'artistic vision.'"
I don't know if I'd say most, but certainly main. I'd intended to imply that in my response, but it's always good to have it flat out stated. Thanks.
There is something which I call the "three principles of systems analysis". Note that systems analysis is of ANY system, not just computer systems:
1) Never create and/or implement a solution until you have clearly defined the problem.
2) Never confuse the problem with the solution.
3) If rules exist, always follow them, unless #1 and/or #2 would be violated by doing so.
Of course, this is in agreement with what you say. #3 is really implied by #1 and #2; breaking the rules is implementing a solution. If you do so without understanding the rules, then you are implementing a solution without clearly defining the problem. And, if you break the rules for the sake of breaking the rules, then you are confusing the problem with the solution.
#1 is pretty self-explanatory. #2 often requires a bit of explanation. I've probably given this example before, but that's because it's the textbook example of rule #2:
During WWII, U.S. Merchant Marine ships were being sunk by bombs dropped by Japanese planes. A solution was proposed and implemented: Put a manned anti-aircraft gun on every ship, to shoot down the Japanese planes. But, after 3 months, it was noticed that not a single Japanese plane had been shot down. Many were ready to call the program a failure, until rule #2 was applied, the original problem was brought into consideration, and it was discovered that not a single Merchant Marine ship had been sunk during that period.
Going back to comic writing (and in agreement with what you wrote), there is nothing wrong with breaking rules, as long as there is a clearly defined problem that can be solved by doing so, and the problem is not, "the rule is there."
When exactly did it become Walt Disney's WIND IN THE WILLOWS? Or ALICE IN WONDERLAND? Or PINOCCHIO or ZORRO or CINDERELLA or JUNGLE BOOK?
To Grant: I assume that this is rhetorical, as I am reasonably certain that you know better than I do what the reasons for this are (my wife, by the way, loves Winnie the Pooh, but will not TOUCH merchandise with the Disney version, only the "real thing.")
Now, for the meat of this thing:
"You forgot to mention that once you know and can implement the rules, feel free to break them for artistic or utilitarian purposes, as opposed to most up-and-comers who fail to ever learn the rules in the first place, citing 'artistic vision.'"
I don't know if I'd say most, but certainly main. I'd intended to imply that in my response, but it's always good to have it flat out stated. Thanks.
There is something which I call the "three principles of systems analysis". Note that systems analysis is of ANY system, not just computer systems:
1) Never create and/or implement a solution until you have clearly defined the problem.
2) Never confuse the problem with the solution.
3) If rules exist, always follow them, unless #1 and/or #2 would be violated by doing so.
Of course, this is in agreement with what you say. #3 is really implied by #1 and #2; breaking the rules is implementing a solution. If you do so without understanding the rules, then you are implementing a solution without clearly defining the problem. And, if you break the rules for the sake of breaking the rules, then you are confusing the problem with the solution.
#1 is pretty self-explanatory. #2 often requires a bit of explanation. I've probably given this example before, but that's because it's the textbook example of rule #2:
During WWII, U.S. Merchant Marine ships were being sunk by bombs dropped by Japanese planes. A solution was proposed and implemented: Put a manned anti-aircraft gun on every ship, to shoot down the Japanese planes. But, after 3 months, it was noticed that not a single Japanese plane had been shot down. Many were ready to call the program a failure, until rule #2 was applied, the original problem was brought into consideration, and it was discovered that not a single Merchant Marine ship had been sunk during that period.
Going back to comic writing (and in agreement with what you wrote), there is nothing wrong with breaking rules, as long as there is a clearly defined problem that can be solved by doing so, and the problem is not, "the rule is there."