Note: I edited this comment to add more about the other passages.
Let’s just talk about the first example. It is not a deep metaphor. 2,000 years ago writers were already using this metaphor:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
This is one of the most famous verses in the New Testament. There is no doubt the human author was unaware of this. “Permanence = rock” has been the go-to symbol for millions of years, since proto-humans began telling stories. There is no deep idea or connection the author made here, this is the most memetically obvious idea in all of literary history.
What makes the passage good is all the little things that it does. The forceful short sentences, “war endures … war was always here” forces you to stop for a second, to wait for war. Then the next sentence, “war waited for [man]” inverts that. At the same time, we get same inversion applied twice: “said the judge → as well ask men → before man.” Then the author’s use of ‘ultimate’ from ultimare ‘to come to an end’ to describe the neverending phenomenon. And yes, the rock metaphor is doing something, but it’s the simplest piece of the passage.
What makes the human passage good is all the intentional ideas the author had and implemented. The AI passage also does some good things. You say, “Opus’ writing does not attempt a similar analogy.” That’s true, it has a much deeper analogy. The old church represents the crumbling institutions around us. A church, not another building, because churches have deep cultural and historical significance, but also shocking corruption and a more recent trend of decline. Why does no one fix it? They can, but
They would rather step around to get to their destination, instead of fixing things for the people that come later.
Use the bits and pieces to build something new.
It is the natural course of events; weather and time erode the old, leaving the space empty for something new.
No one really cares about the ancient symbols anyway.
Opus is only doing one thing, attempting to explain institutional decay with the church analogy. It does it well, but the human author does several things in several different ways. That is why I preferred the human author’s passage. This is not the case for the other passages. Some of them, the human decides being ‘edgy’ (subverting the English language) makes them clever or artistic. Like the second passage:
You must not change one thing, one pebble, one grain of sand, until you know what good and evil will follow on that act. The world is in balance, in Equilibrium. A wizard’s power of Changing and of Summoning can shake the balance of the world. It is dangerous, that power. It must follow knowledge, and serve need. To light a candle is to cast a shadow.
“One thing, one pebble, one grain of sand.” So what? What does this add? How does it tie into other ideas the author had or what the author is trying to do here? It doesn’t. What about the improper proper nouns? Do those do anything? Turn words into wizard spells? Why would you want to do that except to show you can? Then the complete lack of logical structure! They pretend they’re going to tell us why you should not change things, but all they do is spout one non sequitur after another. And the very last line, “to light a candle is to cast a shadow?” Give us more tautologies stolen from the Bible /s. No one wants this cheap faux-literary porn.
I selected Opus’ passage simply because it does not write poorly in a pretension of writing well. It’s simple writing, but each word/idea actually does something for the passage. Also, you again missed the point of Opus’ writing. There is this idea in D&D-esque fantasy settings (that the improper proper nouns in the author’s passage establish, that Opus clearly picked up on) that the gods are real, and literary connection (or correlation) is enough to establish causal connection. So, if the scientists in real life say, “energy cannot be created only moved,” that becomes, “disease cannot be healed, only moved.”
Okay, onto passages 3 and 4. I selected the AI passage just because the human passages are scientifically incorrect. The scientific inaccuracies in the 2nd AI passage did bother me, but I still selected it because I knew that was an intentional choice and the human passage was so terribly written. I understood that the ‘spiritual gambit’ in the 3rd human passage was intentional, but I really hate those kinds of memes being spread around. I couldn’t say I prefer it, even if the writing is technically better. For the 4th passage, it’s just the case that you’re usually worse off remaining mysterious, or not developing a reputation. The passage is essentially Satanic worship (read with all the connotations of a priest casting out the Devil). The author is trying to say, “acting evil is actually good,” and has such a twisted internal epistemology that they end up writing such a passage with a straight face (and pat themselves on the back for the clever insight, much like I am doing now). The AI passage actually points out something true, in a far cleverer way.
Note: I edited this comment to add more about the other passages.
Let’s just talk about the first example. It is not a deep metaphor. 2,000 years ago writers were already using this metaphor:
This is one of the most famous verses in the New Testament. There is no doubt the human author was unaware of this. “Permanence = rock” has been the go-to symbol for millions of years, since proto-humans began telling stories. There is no deep idea or connection the author made here, this is the most memetically obvious idea in all of literary history.
What makes the passage good is all the little things that it does. The forceful short sentences, “war endures … war was always here” forces you to stop for a second, to wait for war. Then the next sentence, “war waited for [man]” inverts that. At the same time, we get same inversion applied twice: “said the judge → as well ask men → before man.” Then the author’s use of ‘ultimate’ from ultimare ‘to come to an end’ to describe the neverending phenomenon. And yes, the rock metaphor is doing something, but it’s the simplest piece of the passage.
What makes the human passage good is all the intentional ideas the author had and implemented. The AI passage also does some good things. You say, “Opus’ writing does not attempt a similar analogy.” That’s true, it has a much deeper analogy. The old church represents the crumbling institutions around us. A church, not another building, because churches have deep cultural and historical significance, but also shocking corruption and a more recent trend of decline. Why does no one fix it? They can, but
They would rather step around to get to their destination, instead of fixing things for the people that come later.
Use the bits and pieces to build something new.
It is the natural course of events; weather and time erode the old, leaving the space empty for something new.
No one really cares about the ancient symbols anyway.
Opus is only doing one thing, attempting to explain institutional decay with the church analogy. It does it well, but the human author does several things in several different ways. That is why I preferred the human author’s passage. This is not the case for the other passages. Some of them, the human decides being ‘edgy’ (subverting the English language) makes them clever or artistic. Like the second passage:
“One thing, one pebble, one grain of sand.” So what? What does this add? How does it tie into other ideas the author had or what the author is trying to do here? It doesn’t. What about the improper proper nouns? Do those do anything? Turn words into wizard spells? Why would you want to do that except to show you can? Then the complete lack of logical structure! They pretend they’re going to tell us why you should not change things, but all they do is spout one non sequitur after another. And the very last line, “to light a candle is to cast a shadow?” Give us more tautologies stolen from the Bible /s. No one wants this cheap faux-literary porn.
I selected Opus’ passage simply because it does not write poorly in a pretension of writing well. It’s simple writing, but each word/idea actually does something for the passage. Also, you again missed the point of Opus’ writing. There is this idea in D&D-esque fantasy settings (that the improper proper nouns in the author’s passage establish, that Opus clearly picked up on) that the gods are real, and literary connection (or correlation) is enough to establish causal connection. So, if the scientists in real life say, “energy cannot be created only moved,” that becomes, “disease cannot be healed, only moved.”
Okay, onto passages 3 and 4. I selected the AI passage just because the human passages are scientifically incorrect. The scientific inaccuracies in the 2nd AI passage did bother me, but I still selected it because I knew that was an intentional choice and the human passage was so terribly written. I understood that the ‘spiritual gambit’ in the 3rd human passage was intentional, but I really hate those kinds of memes being spread around. I couldn’t say I prefer it, even if the writing is technically better. For the 4th passage, it’s just the case that you’re usually worse off remaining mysterious, or not developing a reputation. The passage is essentially Satanic worship (read with all the connotations of a priest casting out the Devil). The author is trying to say, “acting evil is actually good,” and has such a twisted internal epistemology that they end up writing such a passage with a straight face (and pat themselves on the back for the clever insight, much like I am doing now). The AI passage actually points out something true, in a far cleverer way.