This got me thinking...
During the nineteenth century the elemental rules of color were theorized by both painters and scientists. The artists were seeing hundreds of years of practical color rules becoming relevant in industrial production (M. Chevreul). Scientists were trying to establish rules of color that could reconsile the perceptual (observable--a scientific principal of investigation) effects of color. Basically, scientists were doing experiments and publishing (O. Rood). As these books became more available, artists were picking them up and really getting turned on to new explorations of color. Artists like Signac and Delacroix educated the public to a new vision through their work. A few scientists focused entirely on color resolved the rules as understood in both science and art today. Most the conflicts in color rules surrounded observations that neither artists nor scientist could reconcile. One such effect is the color afterimage:

“Complementary colors appear as well in the familiar experience of afterimages, an instance also much discussed by Goethe: ‘Let a small piece of bright-coloured paper or silk stuff be held before a moderately lighted white surface; let the observer look steadfastly at the small coloured object, and let it be taken away after a time while his eyes remain unmoved; the spectrum of another colour will then be visible on the white plane.’ Chevreul designated this phenomena ‘mixed contrast’ when an afterimage is seen on top of another color instead of aon a neutral surface. Although the optical mixture produced by Maxwell disks could predict many of these interactions, the complements of the Young-Helmholtz trichromatic theory could not adequately explain them.” (Brahm, William W. Modern Color/Modern Architecture. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. 2002).

This got me thinking of other spectral effects––effects in writing.

Observe.
I recently watched a Star Wars fan film on iFilm called “For Love of the Film” (2002) directed by Barry Curtis. The film is about a screening of Star Wars (1977) in a half-full theater. In this short the movie only just started before the film splits and the sound drawls out to silence. An usher calms the audience. As they become unruly he motions to a co-worker, and together they complete the scene. Usher number one palys Alex Guiness. Usher number two plays Mark Hammel. Its spontaneous and any real ‘fan’ of the movie will recognise this effect as they have their own favorite scene. I’m hypothesizing this is not a simple case of memorizing lines from a movie. Fans who can recite lines spontaneously feel a connection. They are accessing an emotional part of their psyche with strong implications for how we (humans) make memories.

Some constructed and orchestrated entertainment’s take advantage of these effects. In the case of the Simpsons there is a constructed use of our collective memory (classic television, films) exposed through digestible/consumable writing (pop, commercial, comic gag) tempered with visual gags. Its a lethal combination for hooking the imagination. You find yourself laughing before you know what is funny about the scene. Its a simple gut reaction connecting with your memories of an experience. The Simpsons shamelessly regurgitate a mix of pop-references as a hook to entertain. As a result they too contribute a sample effect in culture. Long time viewers experience triggered memory whenever they connect a Simpsons gag with a personality lampooned on the show.

Define.
Maybe I’m just feeling a bit 19th century, but the spirit of those early scientific observers is telling me to ask questions. Are there words that describe this feeling? How could I communicate these feelings to a stranger? Tossing around and an idea becomes clear. Some books, long after you're finished reading, have startling effects on imagination. In most cases this is easily attributed to the "voice of the author". Writers like Hunter S. Thompson have a writing style so distinct with qualities of language usage so unmistakeable you recognise his voice immediately. In the rare cases like this,, where a book has made such an impression and I can recognise the voice of the author, I will catch myself spontaneously using some pattern from the book in an email or on the phone (for some reason I don’t fall into these patterns face to face). An imprint of the "voice of the author" is made in my mind. Taking a clue from color theorists, after-voice would suffice as a singular catch all term. Then an aftervoice is the voice of the author that stays with you after you have finished reading.

Of course we already have expressions for communicating our feelings about a narative event. If you ask someone about a movie they may share their feelings saying, "I felt connected to the characters". About a book, "It was memorable". However, given the examples I've cited and in particular other forms of narative that use our memories to trigger gut-emotional responses, I question if this is sufficiently unique. When you've read a book, later you can reacall the story with praise or scorn. When the author’s voice is intentionally rewritten into another author’s work for the purpose of causing a memory trigger, there is no clear answer if the intention is praise or ridicule. But be certain, there is a manipulation. Something so elemental needs to be described more directly. (What would a phych-101 prof. say about this?)

The infectious nature of media references in the Simpsons evidence both the pervasiveness of the effect, and cultural currency of memory. The fact that we can remember these snippets or “samples” and have strong emotional reactions is an indication that there is an essential character in the human condition that requires us to use our memory and recollection triggers a satisfaction that we crave.

What this good for?
Unless you're a writer, very little. As a consumer it is helpful to understand how media uses your memory to manipulate your feelings. Look for clues in the authors choices (or director's) that incite your imagination. (Look for other examples of authors making a play for your memories.) Some authors, like Tompson, entertain you with the flow of their language--wordsmithing. Others use bits and bites from pop-culture like candy corn. On a less Orwellian view, as a writer, speaker, or creative person, the aftervoice is another obtuse consideration.

Most interestingly, creativly we all are expereincing similar leaps and bounds of deduction and observation like the scientists and educators of the mid-ninteenth century. It is curious to read something about color theory, inspire your thoughts and blog it. Ghost in the Shell is a Japanese anime about robots and computer spirits. The character "the Major" is recapping the past few months of storyline with the "Smiling Man". He's lamenting his boring life and the Major comforts him suggestring we all have the same boring life--The only thing we can do is be curious.