Theory

[icycalm]

The most moving passage in all of Nietzsche is in fact about this subject.

By circuitous paths. — Whither does this whole philosophy, with all its circuitous paths, want to go? Does it do more than translate as it were into reason a strong and constant drive, a drive for gentle sunlight, bright and buoyant air, southerly vegetation, the breath of the sea, fleeting meals of flesh, fruit and eggs, hot water to drink, daylong silent wanderings, little talking, infrequent and cautious reading, dwelling alone, clean, simple and almost soldierly habits, in short for all those things which taste best and are most endurable precisely to me? A philosophy which is at bottom the instinct for a personal diet? An instinct which seeks my own air, my own heights, my own kind of health and weather, by the circuitous path of my head? There are many other, and certainly much loftier, sublimities of philosophy, and not only those which are gloomier and make more claims for themselves than mine — perhaps they too are one and all nothing other than the intellectual circuitous paths of similar personal drives? — In the meantime I have come to look with new eyes on the secret and solitary fluttering of a butterfly high on the rocky seacoast where many fine plants are growing: it flies about unconcerned that it has but one more day to live and that the night will be too cold for its winged fragility. For it too a philosophy could no doubt be found: though it would no doubt not be mine. —

[icycalm]

That 4chan dude, among many other stupidities, also questioned whether I am indeed clever or whether I simply wish to appear clever. Here's a passage from my Manufactured Realities in which I explain just that:

This reversal of perspective changes everything, wreaking incalculable havoc in every area of life, from the lowest sphere to the highest — and especially in the highest sphere: the intellectual one. La Rochefoucauld, in one of his aphorisms, gives us the formula for this inversion:

“The desire to appear clever often prevents men from being so.”

A striking observation, and one which is manifestly true; but let’s try to understand why it is so. Genuine cleverness can only be judged as such — can only be seen in full and be fully evaluated — by those who are more clever than you, by those who stand above you; and if you are standing even slightly above the mean these will always be in the minority. Moreover, the cleverer you are the fewer there will be who are qualified to judge you, whilst if you are the cleverest there'll be none. — And that is how being clever works: very simply, very straightforwardly. The question of appearing clever, however, is a bit more complicated. The answer to this question depends on whom you desire to appear clever to. If you only desire to appear clever to those who are above you, i.e. to those who are cleverer than you and who are therefore the only ones who can correctly judge your cleverness, then you don't really have to do anything more than present yourself to them the way you are. These people, however, as we’ve seen, are very few, especially if you are at all clever. Your general, your overall appearance of cleverness therefore, what people mean by "appearance", does not rely on them but on everyone else, on the vast majority, all of whom lie beneath you and are hence utterly incapable of correctly evaluating your cleverness. To appear clever therefore means to seem clever, to be judged clever, by the vast majority, all of whom, compared to you, are stupid. Hence, to "appear clever" means to make the stupid judge you as clever. But the standards of judgement of the stupid are necessarily stupid — this, after all, is what being stupid means. What the stupid regard as "intelligent" a really intelligent person would regard as "stupid". In order to adhere to their standards of cleverness therefore you must act in a stupid manner. Moreover, the more of them you want to convince of your cleverness the more stupid you must act, since as the number of these people increases their average intelligence decreases, and you are judged by increasingly lower, more vulgar, more stupid standards; ultimately, if you wish to convince all of them, you have to act like a clown. Which explains why the most revered men in a slave society are all at bottom clowns (actors, rock stars, politicians, etc.)

Nietzche: "In declining cultures, wherever the decision comes to rest with the masses, genuineness becomes superfluous, disadvantageous, an encumbrance. Only the actor still arouses great enthusiasm."

The Tao also says:

Great straightness seems twisted.
Great intelligence seems stupid.
Great eloquence seems awkward.

Perhaps a few people can now begin to understand why.

[Worm]

Found a typo when quoting you. Part I of the Genealogy, paragraph 5:

the highly coveted, and rightly coveted, appelation of "art".

[icycalm]

Fixed, thanks.

Note also that I recently went through the entire thing and made some minor, mostly stylistic, changes, tightening up some sentences here and there, etc. Especially the latter two parts were quite badly-written in places, because I ended up pulling all-nighters for both of them... But, like I said, the changes were mostly stylistic. The only notable changes of substance I made are the following two, both of them additions/expansions on what was already there:

Expressed in a formula one might say that democracy substitutes prestige for power, rarity for pleasure, and fashion for war. For it is the end of war, war for dominance between castes, clans and persons, that finally sets the fashion game in full swing, with the primeval antagonism of physical domination (which has now once and for all been banned from the physical plane—), having simply moved to another level.

The added parenthesis brings out the main point of this entire passage, this being that it is impossible to put an end to war, because that would mean putting an end to the flux, i.e. to the universe. When you constrict the flux in one place: e.g. the physical domain, it simply moves to another level: in this case the level of signs, of fashion. So all you can do is change the expression of war; you cannot abolish the thing itself.

Thousands of excuses are produced in this way, each one of them more absurd than the last: "WE WERE NOT TRYING TO MAKE ANYTHING BEAUTIFUL BUT": "to create an impression" (as if all art did not create an impression), "to express something" (as if all art did not express something), "to experiment" (as if any given masterpiece did not contain more experimentation, and at an immeasurably higher level, than all artfag abortions ever put together), "to convey a message" (as if everything in existence did not convey messages, and in fact an infinity of them; also, as if the most effective way to convey a message was not to actually write it down), "to make art for art's sake" (as if this phrase actually meant anything), and so on and so forth.

The reason for the addition here should be obvious. The whole "experimenting" excuse of the indie bums and the artfagots is simply absurd. There is more experimentation in a Civilization sequel (or even in a Madden update for christsake) than in all indie abortions ever put together. Cave takes something like six months to simply BALANCE each shooter they make (never mind the fighting game makers): the indie bums do not even spend that much in the BASIC MECHANICS, let alone in balancing anything.

[icycalm]

http://insomnia.ac/essays/circles/

I posted this essay on the frontpage for many reasons which I will not go into now, but one of them is relevant to the subject of this thread and to my Genealogy, and it concerns the following point that Emerson makes -- without, moreover even deigning to give any explanation since he considers it self-evident:

New arts destroy the old.

So I am certainly not the first person to recognize this, but I am the first to analyze exactly how and why it happens. In any case, the DESTRUCTION of old artforms is a fact that can no longer be avoided -- and of course an art that destroys another one is a more powerful, and hence HIGHER one. Consequently the notion that all the arts are somehow "equal" should from now on be laughed at by any person who wants to consider himself educated.

Emerson, for the record, is the closest the Americans have so far got to a philosopher, and he is certainly worth reading. Nietzsche absolutely loved him, and he was one of the few intellectuals that Nietzsche loved from start to finish. Here are some notes on the relationship:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-188966678.html

Stack uses this excellent background to argue his indisputable point that Nietzsche adopted nearly all of his major ideas, not from such previously accepted sources as F.A. Lange and Schopenhauer, but far earlier, directly from Emerson. From his exposure through Emerson's work to such ideas as the need for self-reliance, the illusory nature of reality, and the potential for goodness to arise from evil, Nietzsche absorbed the prototypically American emphasis on the ambiguous yet necessary nature of moral choice, and from Nietzsche they became the hallmarks of European existentialism. Thus, Stack not only indicates that the origins of Nietzsche's thought are far different than previously recognized, but establishes the quintessentially American Emerson as the forerunner of European existentialism. Given such surprisingly new, but incontrovertibly well-supported theses, the importance of Stack's work becomes obvious.

Stack excels at uncovering over one hundred of Nietzsche's open borrowings from and buried allusions to Emerson's writings. He more than proves his point that "what is at issue in the relation between Emerson and Nietzsche" is "a question of a deep, highly specific transmission of ideas from one to the other, ideas that lie at the center of Nietzsche's constructive thought and are considered his original creations" (178). Tracing Nietzsche's reading of Emerson over a twenty-six-year period, Stack notes that Nietzsche rarely travelled without his heavily underlined copy of Emerson's Essays and that Emerson's works, including the first and second series of Essays and The Conduct of Life, were among the most frequently read books in his library. Further, Nietzsche's copious marginalia in these works are unanimously positive--for example, "Gut!" (4). Even Nietzsche's most personal work, his autobiography, Ecce Homo, is highly influenced by Emerson. Nietzsche had marked many passages in Emerson's essays with "Ecce Homo" as a notation that they were to be used in his own life story, and "many of the values that Nietzsche attributes to himself in Ecce Homo and elsewhere are, in point of fact, stated fulfillments of Emerson's practical wisdom" (285).

And here's a site where you can start reading:

http://www.rwe.org/

[icycalm]

And as for my opinion on Emerson, personally I would place him on the level of Montaigne: i.e. the foremost intellectuals of their respective ages, but not quite philosophers per se. This according to Nietzsche's definition of a philosopher:

Actual philosophers... are commanders and law-givers: they say thus it shall be!, it is they who determine the Wherefore and Whither of mankind, and they possess for this task the preliminary work of all the philosophical laborers, of all those who have subdued the past — they reach for the future with creative hand, and everything that is or has been becomes for them a means, an instrument, a hammer. Their knowing is creating, their creating is a law giving, their will to truth is — will to power.

In more pedestrian terms, Montaigne and Emerson lacked a COMPLETE view of things: a theory that explained (or at least one that seemed to explain) EVERYTHING -- such as for example Plato or Schopenhauer had, or indeed Nietzsche himself (and Baudrillard sort of, kind of after him).

Here is an archive of Montaigne's Essays:

http://www.davemckay.co.uk/philosophy/montaigne/

Of all egotists, Montaigne, if not the greatest, was the most fascinating, because, perhaps, he was the least affected and most truthful. What he did, and what he had professed to do, was to dissect his mind, and show us, as best he could, how it was made, and what relation it bore to external objects. He investigated his mental structure as a schoolboy pulls his watch to pieces, to examine the mechanism of the works; and the result, accompanied by illustrations abounding with originality and force, he delivered to his fellow-men in a book.

[icycalm]

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_ge ... s/#partvii

I feel kind of giddy posting this, considering how fucking insanely advanced this stuff is, whilst the vast majority of people who have encountered this website cannot even get past the "gameplay" article, lol.

And it's only going to get worse.

[icycalm]

The various "parts", by the way, only signify the smaller pieces in which I cut the whole thing up in order to make it more manageable to write and to upload to the site. They bear no relation to the actual structure of the... let's just go ahead and call it a book. The actual structure then is as follows:

On the Genealogy of "Art Games": A Polemic

Foreword
First Essay: The Absurd Circularity of the Pseudo-Art Game
Second Essay: The Evolving Artforms and their Parasites
Third Essay: The Message of the Medium

We are now almost done with the second essay; one or two more parts and it's done. After that I think I'll be writing the last essay (and the Foreword) in a single go, and publishing the whole thing in book form, probably within the next month or so.

And in fact I am considering not posting any more theory essays on the site at all. Whoever is serious about this stuff will simply have to buy these books, along with all the other ones I am recommending, and take them to his home and spend a few months poring carefully over them. The rest can go back to discussing "complex simplicities", "artistic messages", "dependent main-streams" and whatever other asinine fagotries their subhuman brains end up manufacturing. The point is that I won, the higher echelons of humanity will sooner or later end up realizing it, and everyone else can go hang themselves for all I care.

[Qpo]

Found a typo:

only the lowest preserve an appparent indestructibility

[raphael]

Man, I loved how passionate this one felt and how the pieces of the puzzle start falling "magically" in place.

Leigh Alexander versus Heraclitus: LOL

[Bread]

I have a question related to an earlier part of the work, about craftsmanship and immersion.

Is craftsmanship a proper consideration when it comes to game (and therefore art?) criticism? Or does the issue of immersion exhaustively cover what needs to be said?

It seems to me that only immersion need be considered in reviewing a particular game. And craftsmanship would be worthwhile to consider when evaluating a developer.

But when thinking about other artforms, it just seems more natural to bring craftsmanship into the discussion.

[Masahiro9891]

Craftsmanship and immersion are intimately related, what I mean by this is that you cannot talk about one without implicitly referring to the other, or you can just explicitly do it. The reason for this is because as the immersion increases, i.e. the possibility-space increases since the greater the possibility-space the more there is to do which allows the game to better simulate reality, the more you are immersed into whatever it is you are playing (the highest level of this being that once the possibility-space increases to accurately simulate reality the player will no longer be able to tell the difference between the simulation and reality because there will no longer be a difference). But in order to increase the immersion of the game a high level of craftsmanship is required. So whenever the reviewer refers to the level of immersion in a game they are implicitly stating the high level of craftsmanship that was required in order to create this immerse feeling in the player. This is also why the artfags will never be able to immerse a player into their little games for at best a couple of hours, much less if the player is not a retard with any knowledge of gaming whatsoever. Since their level of craftsmanship is so shitty they are utterly incapable of creating a truly immersive game such as: Crysis, Deus Ex, Assassin’s Creed, Ninja Gaiden, etc., etc.

This, by the way, can be shown for any works of art. For instance a Botticelli or a Rembrandt painting has a much greater degree of immersion than a van Gogh, and a hundred times more immersive than a Jackson Pollock, shit just look at them lol.

[infernovia]

This essay keeps getting better and better. Nothing else comes close.

[hieronon]

So I landed here a few days ago after spending weeks mired in game academics and assorted fagotry. This site is incredible, and while I can see that this is the definitive essay on matters of video games and art, I'm starting at the beginning and a lot of it is still beyond me. Hopefully you can help me with a couple of questions.

As well as I understand it, your answer to "can video games be art?" is that the question is a fallacy. After decades of making self-conscious "art about art" and other sponsored wankery, the word no longer has any meaning. Everything is art and nothing is art. It's our own fault. Art games are simply bad or mediocre games, some with redeeming qualities, but none deserving real attention. In fact, video games as a whole are a new phenomenon that lies outside the boundaries of art itself (lol).

This, I think, is as much an answer as the question deserves. In a few paragraphs, Icycalm, you've put an end to this nonsense, and should congratulate yourself for it. Now, while the rest of the internet tries to work this one out, there are more meaningful things to discuss.

When you go on to place video games in the context of all art forms, I start to get a bit lost. I have a few words on the cycles you've outlined, but as you've hedged this idea pretty strongly, I'll save them for a moment.

What comes to mind when you mention the pinnacle of art is Neuromancer and Snow Crash, the possibility of creating a virtual space into which we can completely immerse ourselves. It's a dated idea, but the implications are relevant here: such technology would provide unlimited use-value and true role-playing. Anything, including video games, could be experienced from within it. Having not only replicated but altered nature, then the cycle of art would be complete.

But when I look at Rocket Knight Adventures (or say, Crysis, to be fair), I can't help but think that we have a lot farther to go before proclaiming video games as "the highest art". Or would the Metaverse be a video game in your eyes?

Besides, video games aren't used in the same was as the preceding art forms you mention. They are more like toys (the most complex, demanding toys ever devised) than stories (a decent approximation of films, photographs, novels, paintings, etc., I think). They are not designed to primarily act as storytelling devices; the ones that are do so in the form of Modernist art, i.e. do no do so. So, do you mean to say that video games have already made all art pointless? (!?!!?)

Your conclusions about art history also perplex me. Perhaps as you've anticipated, I have a hard time finding a case where your 4-step model holds true on any large scale. Basically my issue is this: true artists and art appreciators will do what they do regardless of the extent that the masses are butchering their craft. Photography, film and video games especially were invented after democracy and are inseparable from it. They have become finely honed crafts despite of that fact. Also, after they become obsolete, art forms are not simple "killed off" as much as rendered irrelevant (and even this is disputable -- are they irrelevant simply because they are structurally less immersive? You didn't address this directly, or perhaps I missed something you wrote elsewhere.)

I've been told that modern poetry (the good stuff, no Pulitzer Prize or 'prose' bullshit) has progressed to such a high level that it is virtually incomprehensible to anyone but connoisseurs and other skilled poets. So while the art form has seen itself mutilated with "experimentation", there are still poets writing such sophisticated and deeply referential pieces that they could only be properly enjoyed by "men of taste". And most critics and artfags choose to ignore it. Isn't this how it should be? Or is it the fact that weak-willed and stupid people are now getting a chance to play with the same tools as the elite that's bothering you?

With regards to the fine arts, all that has really changed is that ordinary people (intellectually) can now make more noise than before, and they feel empowered to express and congratulate themselves constantly. Modernism is an ill effect of democracy, but this doesn't mean that all art form sare fated to become wretched.

Paintings such as these were being made in the late 19th century by painters whose only interest was to make great paintings. Whether or not Impressionism was fucking shit up simultaneously is inconsequent.

[BrianDawkins]

I think you are confused about a few things.

Everything is art and nothing is art...In fact, video games as a whole are a new phenomenon that lies outside the boundaries of art itself (lol).

If everything is art, then video games certainly cannot lie outside of art. If nothing is art, then everything lies outside of art. So this last statement is either wrong or very boring.

It's more useful to use the word "art" to honor the very best. For example, "Videogame Art" is an index of the very best games of each genre.

But when I look at Rocket Knight Adventures (or say, Crysis, to be fair), I can't help but think that we have a lot farther to go before proclaiming video games as "the highest art."

Why?

Besides, video games aren't used in the same was as the preceding art forms you mention. They are more like toys (the most complex, demanding toys ever devised) than stories (a decent approximation of films, photographs, novels, paintings, etc., I think). They are not designed to primarily act as storytelling devices; the ones that are do so in the form of Modernist, i.e. do no do so. So, do you mean to say that video games have already made all art pointless? (!?!!?)

Video games are simulations. The artforms you mention are examples of representation, a basic form of simulation. A picture of a man with his dog is a crappy simulation compared to a movie of a man with his dog, which is a crappy simulation compared to a videogame about a man with his dog. So it's not that videogames are used differently, but that they do their job much better.
The last two sentences are extremely unclear, but I think the answer to your question is that videogames have superseded other forms of art.

Photography, film and video games especially were invented after democracy and are inseparable from it. They have become finely honed crafts despite of that fact.

They were invented after democracy, but were not invented democratically. Hitchcock developed his movies from his own ideas (and those of his talented colleagues), not from polls of moviegoers.

And what do you mean that photography is inseparable from democracy?

Also, after they become obsolete, art forms are not simple "killed off" as much as rendered irrelevant (and even this is disputable -- are they irrelevant simply because they are structurally less immersive? You didn't address this directly, perhaps I missed something you wrote elsewhere.)

Ask yourself: to whom do they become irrelevant? The best artists will tend to move to the best art form, making it the most relevant to those with good taste.

I've been told that modern poetry (the good stuff, no Pulitzer Prize or 'prose' bullshit) has progressed to such a high level that it is virtually incomprehensible to anyone but connoisseurs and other skilled poets. So while the art form has seen itself mutilated with "experimentation", there are still poets writing such sophisticated and deeply referential pieces that they could only be properly enjoyed by "men of taste".

That's fine if it's true. (What poets are you talking about? Who told you that?) But that doesn't mean that the crappy hipster poets won't drag down/brainwash a lot of potentially good poets.

Whether or not Impressionism was fucking shit up simultaneously is inconsequent.

It is consequential if you want to engage in criticism and to understand why so many critics heap praise on Impressionism (or Gravitation or whatever).


You say that you're starting at the beginning. Have you read the other articles on this site? Or some of the books on the reading list?

[icycalm]

As well as I understand it, your answer to "can video games be art?" is that the question is a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. It is a perfectly valid question, BUT ONLY ONCE YOU HAVE DEFINED THE TERMS "ART" and "GAME". My first article on the subject ("Can Games be Art?", and other Childish Nonsense) was focused on pointing this out. My SECOND "article" (which is turning out to be book-length...) DEFINES these terms (or WILL define them, or uses definitions from PREVIOUS articles of mine), and proceeds to draw the appropriate conclusions. Note that the article/book has not been entirely published yet.

After decades of making self-conscious "art about art" and other sponsored wankery, the word no longer has any meaning.

Exactly, which is why I am stepping in and GIVING it a meaning.

In fact, video games as a whole are a new phenomenon that lies outside the boundaries of art itself (lol).

This is just you either being stupid or not paying enough attention.

What comes to mind when you mention the pinnacle of art is Neuromancer and Snow Crash, the possibility of creating a virtual space into which we can completely immerse ourselves. It's a dated idea

lol, by the standards of a moron who deems as "dated" whatever is not on the "latest arrivals" section of the sci-fi category of Amazon.com.

THERE ARE NO "DATED" IDEAS, MORON: THERE ARE ONLY CORRECT AND INCORRECT ONES. IDEAS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FAGOTISTICAL "FASHION CYCLE" FOR FUCK'S SAKES.

but the implications are relevant here: such technology would provide unlimited use-value and true role-playing. Anything, including video games, could be experienced from within it. Having not only replicated but altered nature, then the cycle of art would be complete.

First off, you are using the term "use-value" wrongly. Do not use terms you don't understand, just because you saw me use them. If you do this again you will be banned.

Secondly, you cannot "alter nature", moron; nature is THE UNIVERSE, to alter the universe you would have to be situated OUTSIDE OF IT. But the universe is defined as that WHICH HAS NO "OUTSIDE" -- hence the absurdity of your statement.

But when I look at Rocket Knight Adventures (or say, Crysis, to be fair), I can't help but think that we have a lot farther to go before proclaiming video games as "the highest art".

This is your bad taste in art speaking. Crysis is more fun than all the paintings in the world ever put together -- ergo videogames is a higher art than painting. And so on and so forth for every other artform.

Or would the Metaverse be a video game in your eyes?

You really are stupid, aren't you? What's next, that WoW isn't a videogame?

Besides, video games aren't used in the same was as the preceding art forms you mention.

They are used in EXACTLY the same way: as hallucination-inducing devices.

They are not designed to primarily act as storytelling devices

So Mozart's symphonies act "primarily as storytelling devices"?

I can see you are an internet bum whose knowledge of previous artforms has been entirely gleamed from internet forum discussions.

Your conclusions about art history also perplex me. Perhaps as you've anticipated, I have a hard time finding a case where your 4-step model holds true on any large scale.

It's not a 4-"STEP" model, fuckface -- it's not a fucking guide to quitting smoking -- it is a 4-"STAGE" model for fuck's sake. Can't you fucking read?

You know what, enough. I've got four books ahead of me, I don't have time for this shit. Banned.

[icycalm]

And Brian, fix your quote attributions asap. Everyone else too. Whoever doesn't do this from on will be instabanned.

[icycalm]

Also, lol:

(the highest level of this being that once the possibility-space increases to accurately simulate reality the player will no longer be able to tell the difference between the simulation and reality because there will no longer be a difference)

So there's no difference between me walking around in the street and me enclosed in a vat of life-preserving fluid with my brain hooked up to a supercomputer?

Don't answer. Just think more before you post.

[icycalm]

Also, all the stuff he said about poetry was hogwash. Just sayin'.

[icycalm]

This thread didn't quite go as the OP had planned.

http://forum.youngcomposers.com/t28922/ ... -horrible/

I know I'm gonna get some heat for this, but I actually agree with most of this. Now would I word it this way? Absolutely not. I don't agree with it to the letter, but I do think that as a whole music has progressively gotten simpler and simpler, and not in a good way. The "master musician" of today is required to know very little musical, and pieces of little to no variety is popular now. As far as classical goes, I've never been for the whole "modern movement". IMO it's all just ridiculous, random sound; an attempt to SEEM creative, but really just doing random random garbage and asking ridiculous questions is just that-ridiculous.

As far as the article goes, it's kinda true.

[icycalm]

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_ge ... /#partviii

I am aware of two forums in which this essay is currently being discussed. Suffice it to say, everyone has utterly given up trying to refute me. I think they are now posting image macros or something.

[El Chaos]

Found some typos:

There is therefore nothing surpising in the fact that unmusical or spiritually stunted men do not see the point of complex music

And again: not only is it incomparably easier to achieve something good in haiku form than to create someting on the level of the Iliad or the Odyssey

— but not in the way artfags interpet the word "meaningful"

So they've heard, for example, that there are such things as "rules" and "exceptions", but they've somehow managed to get it in their heads THAT THE EXCEPTION DISPROVES THE RULE; or even worse, that the exception IS the rule — both propositions of which are simply nonsense and run counter to the entire scientific enteprise.

(nor do they see Civilization's countless predecessors, which are today as forgotten as they shiny SRPG will one day be).

Also, it seems like the idiom is actually "different strokes for different folks".

[SquarePeg]

Two typos plus the idiom ChaosAngelZero mentioned:

once someone brings it up there's nothing more to say than "different folks for different strokes" or some such other imbecilic fagotry and call it a fucking day (witness every message board disussion on the subject of art ever).

otherwise there's absolutely no reason whatsover to add any more rules.

[icycalm]

Fixed, thanks guys.

The inverted idiom is not a mistake. I just wanted to make it sound even dumber than it normally does.

[icycalm]

I also went over this last part again and tidied up some of my phrasings -- I need to stop posting articles at 6 am. Fixed also a major howler. This:

every rule has exceptions (including the rule that every rule has exceptions)

became this:

every rule has exceptions (except the rule that every rule has exceptions)