Even if he meant it (and it’s unclear what that would mean in context), the minimum standard for attributing a quotation to someone should be that they said it themselves.
I disagree, I attribute a number of qutoes in my quotesfile to Eliezer, even though they were actually “said” by Harry, in HPMOR. I feel like it’s a far more honest attribution, provided you are able to ascertain which characters are actually the voice of the author, which for the vast majority of literature, is quite obvious.
provided you are able to ascertain which characters are actually the voice of the author, which for the vast majority of literature, is quite obvious.
This sounds like illusion of transparency to me. I’ve never written a character whose arbitrary lines I’d like quoted as though I’d said them sans fictional mouthpiece.
That’s an interesting example when EY has complained himself about people attributing views to him based on the story, and even put disclaimers on chapters 1 and 22 to try to stop it.
All science mentioned is real science. But please keep in mind that, beyond the realm of science, the views of the characters may not be those of the author. Not everything the protagonist does is a lesson in wisdom, and advice offered by darker characters may be untrustworthy or dangerously double-edged.
I don’t see how it’s more honest. Are people going to infer that Scott doesn’t hold any position that isn’t attributed to him?
I’ve noticed the disclaimers, but I feel fairly confident (p > 0.95) that none of the quotes (They’re all said by Harry) he would mind being attributed to him. If the consensus is that I shouldn’t attribute these quotes to him, or if he himself actually says so, I will certainly change them:
• “When you put on the robes of a scientist you must forget all your politics and arguments and factions and sides, silence the desperate clingings of your mind, and wish only to hear the answer of Nature.” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “There is no justice in the laws of nature, … no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don’t care, or the Sun, or the sky. But they don’t have to. We care. There is light in the world, and it is us.”—Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “So I won’t ask you to say that [it] was wrong … just say that it was… sad. We won’t talk about whether or not it was necessary, whether it was justified. I’ll just ask you to say that it was sad that it happened. … If we start out by saying that every life is precious, that it’s sad when anyone dies, then I know we’ll meet someday.” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “I see little hope for democracy as an effective form of government, but I admire the poetry of how it makes its victims complicit in their own destruction.” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “Tell me something. What does a government have to do, what do the voters have to do with their democracy, what do the people of a country have to do, before I ought to decide that I’m not on their side any more?” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
And I see it as more honest because the “character” doesn’t exist. He isn’t saying it, because he doesn’t actually exist. If the author is speaking through the character (and you shouldn’t quote the character, otherwise) then he or she is ultimately the speaker.
Ironically, I do have some quotes in my file attributed to characters, usually because they are from movies or TV shows with multiple writers, that you can’t have a reasonable attribution to a single writer to.
Why not use “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, by Eliezer Yudkowsky”, rather than “Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality”? My intuition is that putting the title of the work of fiction first makes it more clear that you’re citing the author’s words rather than necessarily the author’s own opinions.
Question: If one isn’t keeping track even which characters have said which quotes (and in this case a quote that jumps out as very much not a Harry thing to say), what makes you confident that you can judge which quotes are intended to be things the author agrees with? This should surely reduce your confidence by a fair bit.
It does, on the fourth quote. But to be fair, I had thought that all of the quotes were by Harry and then went to look them up—I did not look them up and then think they were all by Harry. I might have noticed it, had I done the latter. But once I had looked them up I did not reconsider my previous statement—it was made completely from memory (And I have a collection of upwards of 100 quotes).
I feel very confident about the first three. Less so about the last two, but I still feel like he generally would agree with them. If that’s not the general consensus though, (Judging by the downvotes, it isn’t) I’ll change the attributions.
This raises an interesting question though: when is it appropriate to attribute it to the author? The most obvious example I can think of would be John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged—surely it’s reasonable to attribute that to Rand: it’s practically a nonfiction essay slapped in the middle of a book. Less ambiguous though: what about the words of a narrator? (I have a quote by Virginia Woolfe that was said by the narrator) Should that be attributed to the author? What if the narrator is a character in the story (Camus, The Plague, another one of my quotes)?
This raises an interesting question though: when is it appropriate to attribute it to the author?
This seems like an obvious case where you should have a policy of always doing X, even if not-X was right most of the time, because not-X will occasionally be wrong and cause harm while there’s no harm in doing X.
In other words, you should always have a (character, work, author) attribution, or (work, author) if it’s said by the narrator. There’s no reason to not do it, and an obvious reason why you should do it (because you will be wrong from time to time).
Why do you say (work, author) for a narrator? And what if the narrator is a character in the book, but technically not “speaking” at the time?
And I think there is an obvious reason—namely that more attributions is more cumbersome and distracting, although I’m not sure that is a overly compelling reason.
Admittedly, in such a case attributing it to the author is more justified. But the author-as-the-narrator saying something still isn’t necessarily the same thing as the author saying something: there is the technique of an unreliable narrator, for instance.
The narrator can also have a personality that’s distinct from the author’s, even a personality that the author would personally find repulsive. I wouldn’t like it if people attributed what I wrote in Musings of a Vampire to me without clarifying that these aren’t actually my views.
And what if the narrator is a character in the book, but technically not “speaking” at the time?
In those cases, (work, author) and (character, work, author) would both be fine. The main thing is making clear that these aren’t necessarily the views of the author.
Never. It’s fiction, so you should never attribute a quote from there to a real person. Never, never, never.
That confuses me, as I tend to think of attribution as a way of giving credit where credit is due, and the author is the one who strung together those particular words, regardless of any endorsement.
That confuses me, as I tend to think of attribution as a way of giving credit where credit is due, and the author is the one who strung together those particular words, regardless of any endorsement
“Strung together those particular words, regardless of any endorsement” might work in a universe where words are strung together only for the pretty sound they make, not for their meaning.
If you attribute artistry correctly and end up misattributing the meaning, you’re effectively lying about the author, no matter what your actual intentions are.
What is so hard about attributing the words to a work, and attributing the work to the author? Do we really need to debate the virtues of being clear and not misleading people?
What is so hard about attributing the words to a work, and attributing the work to the author?
Aha, I thought you were saying that a quote from a work of fiction should not be attributed to its author at all, which is what I took issue with. Clearly it makes sense to do so by way of the work, possibly taking pains to point out that it was from a work of fiction.
The third quote might be something Eliezer would agree about in the context of Malfoy in particular. The quote in a more general context is much more problematic. How many violent extremist groups would agree that the deaths they cause are sad? I’m not sure Eliezer expects to come to terms with them except in some very abstract far setting after some AGI has implemented some form of CEV or something like that.
All the questions you raise can be easily handled by simply quoting all the potentially relevant information. When in doubt, supply more, not less information.
Less effective, less harmful, and most importantly with the least painful transitions of power—this is modern Western democracy. It’s not half bad! Four out of five stars and one thumb up.
Even if he meant it (and it’s unclear what that would mean in context), the minimum standard for attributing a quotation to someone should be that they said it themselves.
I disagree, I attribute a number of qutoes in my quotesfile to Eliezer, even though they were actually “said” by Harry, in HPMOR. I feel like it’s a far more honest attribution, provided you are able to ascertain which characters are actually the voice of the author, which for the vast majority of literature, is quite obvious.
This sounds like illusion of transparency to me. I’ve never written a character whose arbitrary lines I’d like quoted as though I’d said them sans fictional mouthpiece.
See my other comment.
That’s an interesting example when EY has complained himself about people attributing views to him based on the story, and even put disclaimers on chapters 1 and 22 to try to stop it.
I don’t see how it’s more honest. Are people going to infer that Scott doesn’t hold any position that isn’t attributed to him?
I’ve noticed the disclaimers, but I feel fairly confident (p > 0.95) that none of the quotes (They’re all said by Harry) he would mind being attributed to him. If the consensus is that I shouldn’t attribute these quotes to him, or if he himself actually says so, I will certainly change them:
• “When you put on the robes of a scientist you must forget all your politics and arguments and factions and sides, silence the desperate clingings of your mind, and wish only to hear the answer of Nature.” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “There is no justice in the laws of nature, … no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don’t care, or the Sun, or the sky. But they don’t have to. We care. There is light in the world, and it is us.”—Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “So I won’t ask you to say that [it] was wrong … just say that it was… sad. We won’t talk about whether or not it was necessary, whether it was justified. I’ll just ask you to say that it was sad that it happened. … If we start out by saying that every life is precious, that it’s sad when anyone dies, then I know we’ll meet someday.” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “I see little hope for democracy as an effective form of government, but I admire the poetry of how it makes its victims complicit in their own destruction.” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
• “Tell me something. What does a government have to do, what do the voters have to do with their democracy, what do the people of a country have to do, before I ought to decide that I’m not on their side any more?” – Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality
And I see it as more honest because the “character” doesn’t exist. He isn’t saying it, because he doesn’t actually exist. If the author is speaking through the character (and you shouldn’t quote the character, otherwise) then he or she is ultimately the speaker.
Ironically, I do have some quotes in my file attributed to characters, usually because they are from movies or TV shows with multiple writers, that you can’t have a reasonable attribution to a single writer to.
Why not use “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, by Eliezer Yudkowsky”, rather than “Eliezer Yudkowsky, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality”? My intuition is that putting the title of the work of fiction first makes it more clear that you’re citing the author’s words rather than necessarily the author’s own opinions.
That’s an excellent idea, I’ll change my attributions when I get a chance.
Nope.
Which isn’t? Am I misremembering?
The fourth is said by Quirrell, now that I think about it, isn’t it.
Question: If one isn’t keeping track even which characters have said which quotes (and in this case a quote that jumps out as very much not a Harry thing to say), what makes you confident that you can judge which quotes are intended to be things the author agrees with? This should surely reduce your confidence by a fair bit.
It does, on the fourth quote. But to be fair, I had thought that all of the quotes were by Harry and then went to look them up—I did not look them up and then think they were all by Harry. I might have noticed it, had I done the latter. But once I had looked them up I did not reconsider my previous statement—it was made completely from memory (And I have a collection of upwards of 100 quotes).
The first two quotes seem like things that Eliezer would actually agree with. But I’m substantially less convinced about the others.
I feel very confident about the first three. Less so about the last two, but I still feel like he generally would agree with them. If that’s not the general consensus though, (Judging by the downvotes, it isn’t) I’ll change the attributions.
This raises an interesting question though: when is it appropriate to attribute it to the author? The most obvious example I can think of would be John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged—surely it’s reasonable to attribute that to Rand: it’s practically a nonfiction essay slapped in the middle of a book. Less ambiguous though: what about the words of a narrator? (I have a quote by Virginia Woolfe that was said by the narrator) Should that be attributed to the author? What if the narrator is a character in the story (Camus, The Plague, another one of my quotes)?
This seems like an obvious case where you should have a policy of always doing X, even if not-X was right most of the time, because not-X will occasionally be wrong and cause harm while there’s no harm in doing X.
In other words, you should always have a (character, work, author) attribution, or (work, author) if it’s said by the narrator. There’s no reason to not do it, and an obvious reason why you should do it (because you will be wrong from time to time).
Why do you say (work, author) for a narrator? And what if the narrator is a character in the book, but technically not “speaking” at the time?
And I think there is an obvious reason—namely that more attributions is more cumbersome and distracting, although I’m not sure that is a overly compelling reason.
Admittedly, in such a case attributing it to the author is more justified. But the author-as-the-narrator saying something still isn’t necessarily the same thing as the author saying something: there is the technique of an unreliable narrator, for instance.
The narrator can also have a personality that’s distinct from the author’s, even a personality that the author would personally find repulsive. I wouldn’t like it if people attributed what I wrote in Musings of a Vampire to me without clarifying that these aren’t actually my views.
I’m not sure what you mean. Example?
In The Plague, by Camus, the narrator is the protagonist of the story, which isn’t revealed until the end.
In To the Lighthouse, by Virginia Woolfe, the narrator is continually shifting between all of the main characters.
In those cases, (work, author) and (character, work, author) would both be fine. The main thing is making clear that these aren’t necessarily the views of the author.
Never. It’s fiction, so you should never attribute a quote from there to a real person. Never, never, never.
You should never attribute mention in a way that implies use—but you should still attribute it as mention.
That confuses me, as I tend to think of attribution as a way of giving credit where credit is due, and the author is the one who strung together those particular words, regardless of any endorsement.
“Blah blah bluh”- Fictional Character in Work of Fiction by Author’s Name
(Not that you didn’t already know that)
Yes, that’s the sort of attribution I was thinking of.
“Strung together those particular words, regardless of any endorsement” might work in a universe where words are strung together only for the pretty sound they make, not for their meaning.
If you attribute artistry correctly and end up misattributing the meaning, you’re effectively lying about the author, no matter what your actual intentions are.
What is so hard about attributing the words to a work, and attributing the work to the author? Do we really need to debate the virtues of being clear and not misleading people?
Aha, I thought you were saying that a quote from a work of fiction should not be attributed to its author at all, which is what I took issue with. Clearly it makes sense to do so by way of the work, possibly taking pains to point out that it was from a work of fiction.
The third quote might be something Eliezer would agree about in the context of Malfoy in particular. The quote in a more general context is much more problematic. How many violent extremist groups would agree that the deaths they cause are sad? I’m not sure Eliezer expects to come to terms with them except in some very abstract far setting after some AGI has implemented some form of CEV or something like that.
All the questions you raise can be easily handled by simply quoting all the potentially relevant information. When in doubt, supply more, not less information.
Less effective, less harmful, and most importantly with the least painful transitions of power—this is modern Western democracy. It’s not half bad! Four out of five stars and one thumb up.
What that quote always reminded me of was OBL, but you have a good point, it could easily be used as a rationalization by other groups.