Snowflakes

A beautiful snowflake.

I love you because no two snowflakes are alike, and it is possible, if you stand tippy-toe, to walk between the raindrops.
— Nikki Giovanni

“… no two snowflakes are alike …” How is this in any way either profound or worth repeating? Of course snowflakes are unique – the chance of two snowflakes having exactly the same number of atoms, in the same configuration, at the same time, is nil. There can be no possible to think otherwise – the uniqueness of snowflakes is obvious. Hailstones are unique, too – no two will have the exact same shape, minute details can be found – but somehow that is not a profound statement. Pieces of hair are unique, bacteria are unique… but it is only the snowflakes that get credit for it. Might this be judging solely on aesthetics?

The actual interesting facts about snowflakes are their similarity and complexity, not their differences. Almost every snowflake has six-fold symmetry! That is unexpected. That is what should be seen in poems and quotes. It is not the differences between these ice crystals, but rather their common intricacies, that make them so universally intriguing. #

kjk

Advertisements

3 responses to “Snowflakes

  1. I imagine you’ve already seen http://iwl.me/. Your knowledge of the internet is, shall I say, ludicrously more extensive than mine. I found it this afternoon, and I’ve been amusing myself plugging samples from this blog into their analyzer. It seems pretty certain your writing style is a cross between H.P. Lovecraft and Kurt Vonnegut, but almost all of adh’s posts came back different. Answers like Chuck Palahnuik. Dan Brown. Stephen King.

  2. I had not, and I’m finding it extremely entertaining. A concatenation of all my posts returns Lovecraft, whom I must confess I haven’t read. However, a quick and in no way detailed glance at his politics and philosophy unearths many tenets with which I disagree. This means, then, that if ‘I Write Like’ analyzes non-randomly at all, it does not consider the impart of the writing itself in its analysis.

  3. I think ostensibly it’s judging by sentence structure, clauses, punctuation, etc. Clearly not hard science, though – I read elsewhere that Margaret Atwood (who Is part of their database) put in a block of her own writing and got Stephen King…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s