Artsy6 not only found Wilson's provocative piece, he cited what was for me the most interesting line in the article:
> "...We can gain insights into the origin and nature of aesthetic > judgment. > For example, neurobiological monitoring...[has] shown that the brain is > most aroused by patterns in which there is about a 20 percent redundancy > of > elements..." > > http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/05/on-the-origins-of-the-arts > > I, as a "creative writer", would have loved more elaboration on that point about the ostensible value of a certain amount of redundancy. Writers -- and their editors -- tend to want to eliminate redundancy, repetition, in a given work. And yet, when choosing "what comes next", the writer oftens feels perversely drawn to what may feel like repetition, albeit slightly varied. The cold editorial eye, working "by the book", may actually be hurting a work. "When in doubt, cut it out," feels mechanically right, and yet there is much counter-evidence. Consider the power of the King James bible, with its repetitions galore. Melville's chapter on the "whiteness of the whale" sneaks up on the reader, accumulating, through quasi-repetition, an immense impact. I've observed certain inspired comics who, as they tell one extended joke, repeat the same motif until you believe they've "lost it" (e.g. Jackie Mason describing a man ordering lunch at a hotel in the Catskills, and constantly saying, "and put it on a separate plate"). Then he does it one more time and suddenly you find yourself in a seizure of uncontrollable laughter. What lessons about "redundancy" can a creator learn?
