Innovation: Difference between revisions

1,270 bytes removed ,  18 October 2022
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 3: Line 3:
}}{{quote|“''Major innovation comes, most of all, from the unexplored no-man’s land between the disciplines.''” — {{author|Norbert Wiener}}, quoted by {{author|James Burke}}}}
}}{{quote|“''Major innovation comes, most of all, from the unexplored no-man’s land between the disciplines.''” — {{author|Norbert Wiener}}, quoted by {{author|James Burke}}}}
If you want to wreak innovation at ''your'' shop, consider yourself Clarice Starling. Face up to your Lecter.
If you want to wreak innovation at ''your'' shop, consider yourself Clarice Starling. Face up to your Lecter.
{{Innovation and the legal eagle}}
{{Quote|
{{Quote|
'''Lecter''': First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read {{author|Marcus Aurelius}}. “Of each particular thing ask: ''what is it in itself? What is its nature?''” What does she ''need'', this [[legal eagle]] of yours? <br>
}}
'''Clarice''': To [[Innovation paradox|innovate]]!<br>
'''Lecter''': '''No'''! That is incidental. What is the ''first'' and ''principal'' thing a [[legal eagle]] does? What ''needs'' does she serve by “innovating”? <br>
'''Clarice''': Er ... [[chatbot]]s? ... [[document assembly]]? ... legal reference data? ... [[MIS]]... Sir —<br>
'''Lecter''': NO! She ''covers''! ''That'' is her nature.<br>
'''Clarice''': ''Covers''? Covers what?<br>
'''Lecter''': Arse, Clarice. ''Arse''! <br>
'''Clarice''': Oh, right.<br>
'''Lecter''': And ''how'' do we cover arse, Clarice? Do we ''seek out'' arse to cover? Make an effort to answer now.<br>
'''Clarice''': No. We just...<br>
'''Lecter''': ''We begin by covering the arse we see every day.'' Our ''own'' arse, Clarice. Don’t you see people dissembling daily, to explain why whatever just happened wasn’t their fault? And don’t ''you'' make excuses to avoid responsibility for the things ''you'' didn’t pay attention to?<br>
'''Clarice''': Just tell me how — <br>
'''Lecter''': No. It is your turn to tell me, Clarice.}}


Every story can be boiled down this: once there was a problem and, for better or worse, it got resolved. It may be triumphant or tragic, but there must be an outcome. Storytellers who don’t get to grips with this fundament — who allow something other than ''resolution of the problem'' to drive their narrative — write unsatisfying books.<ref>This is why some people find the ''Lord of the Rings'' saga so [[tedious]]: all that delving into the history, mythology and language of elves is very clever — and yes, it may document the resolution of a whole raft of ''other'' problems, but it still has almost nothing to do do with the immediate problem of the Hobbits’ quest, beyond providing deep historical context. And as for the Hobbit folk songs, just shoot me. Hold your letters. </ref> To not resolve the problem — ''eventually'': we all love a bit of will-they-won’t-they suspense as we go — is literally what it means to not satisfy.
Every story can be boiled down this: once there was a problem and, for better or worse, it got resolved. It may be triumphant or tragic, but there must be an outcome. Storytellers who don’t get to grips with this fundament — who allow something other than ''resolution of the problem'' to drive their narrative — write unsatisfying books.<ref>This is why some people find the ''Lord of the Rings'' saga so [[tedious]]: all that delving into the history, mythology and language of elves is very clever — and yes, it may document the resolution of a whole raft of ''other'' problems, but it still has almost nothing to do do with the immediate problem of the Hobbits’ quest, beyond providing deep historical context. And as for the Hobbit folk songs, just shoot me. Hold your letters. </ref> To not resolve the problem — ''eventually'': we all love a bit of will-they-won’t-they suspense as we go — is literally what it means to not satisfy.