inherit
2147
0
Apr 10, 2024 22:03:47 GMT
2,723
Gwydden
1,266
November 2016
gwydden
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Gwydden on Apr 4, 2019 14:05:52 GMT
I actually agree, but you did say, on the other hand: "I, as well, want less fantasy in my fantasy." Obviously you don't see a contradiction in that, so what did you want to say with that statement? I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Mainstream fantasy has suffered a lot from being de-fantasized in recent decades, first with the endless barrage of Tolkien and D&D clones that started in the 70s and then with everyone getting obsessed with grimdark and trying to copy ASoIaF's whole thing of pseudo-historical fiction masquerading as fantasy, except neither historical nor fantastical. Even urban fantasy seems to be all about taking the fantastical and making it as mundane as your neighborhood's McDonald's. Tolkien really broke the wheel there. The theoretical underpinnings of his writing are pretty terrible, but that hasn't stopped his obsession with realism to infect most every speculative fiction writer since then. I thank the Fates for the likes of Susanna Clarke, China Mieville, and Catherynne Valente. May there be many more of their ilk.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,492
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,492
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 4, 2019 14:10:40 GMT
Dragon Age is extremely straightforward, and covers extremely familiar territory for fantasy fans, so I don't understand where this criticism is coming from. I think your concern about the direction of the series is, at best, misplaced. Personally, I could have stood for Thedas to be a lot weirder from the beginning. I think it is only just starting to get interesting. I actively seek out fantasy with the most outlandish, fantastical worlds I can find. I do watch many cartoons aimed at children, and play games aimed at children too. And read their books. It's clear that you don't, however. Or think you don't, at least. Sure, but apparently unlike you, I am perfectly capable of empathizing with child characters. They are, after all, still written by adults. As I said, you obviously have all the entertainment you could need then. Why be so offended at other genres targeting other people's interests? And as I said, it was just a direction Inquisition went that I'd prefer the next one didn't. Some of us don't feel the need to phrase preferences as ultimatums and vice versa, you see. Most people are capable of empathizing with children up until a certain age. It's your lack of interest in empathizing with adults I'm pointing out here. I'm sure you understand that the vast majority of us had our fill of shows and entertainment aimed at people whose brains hadn't fully developed through the first two decades of our lives, and as adults have a bigger interest in things that address themes currently relevant to and reflective of us. You know, having finished our neurological development and living quite different kinds of lives from when we were kids, for the most part. That really shouldn't surprise or offend you. I don't care about the intended audience for a product, or the age of the protagonists at all. I consider the distinction between "adult" and "child" media to be completely arbitrary. Useful for marketing departments maybe, but not anyone else. As for whether or not anyone else enjoys a game, you're right, I don't care at all. I already know that my tastes differ strongly from many peoples', especially here on this forum, where there is a strong bias towards traditional design in almost every possible way. Except when it comes to the villain, apparently. Lol. A bald-faced lie or delusion, and I don't much care which. I've heard you explicitly demand that Bioware games become tools of political indoctrination or restrict their demographic to a single tiny subculture, and blaming the company for catering to all those "regressives" who make up the rest of the 99% of humanity by not doing either. And it wouldn't take me ten minutes to find quotes to back that up. And there are distinctions between adult and child entertainment because there are obvious and well-documented distinctions between what adults and children tend to enjoy, which is specifically why writers, developers and especially marketing departments find that knowledge very useful indeed. That you for whatever reason are partial to children's entertainment makes less than no difference to those tendencies. I'm detecting a running theme of you being arbitrarily offended at the rest of the world not conforming to your specific and self-admittedly narrow interests and what you personally find relevant to yourself. How very tolerant of you. People enjoy bog-standard settings with specific novel developments because it allows you to focus on those interesting developments with strong points of reference, making them more meaningful and giving the narrative more real weight. And they enjoy villains with humanity because, again, that makes the villains relevant to those of us who have to meet and work with people who aren't like us but have to be understood anyway. Which is pretty much all of us, excepting, again, a few tiny subgroups too sheltered to yet have any need for compromise or constructive cross-worldview accord in real life. And children. Mainstream fantasy has suffered a lot from being de-fantasized in recent decades, first with the endless barrage of Tolkien and D&D clones that started in the 70s and then with everyone getting obsessed with grimdark and trying to copy ASoIaF's whole thing of pseudo-historical fiction masquerading as fantasy, except neither historical nor fantastical. Even urban fantasy seems to be all about taking the fantastical and making it as mundane as your neighborhood's McDonald's. Tolkien really broke the wheel there. The theoretical underpinnings of his writing are pretty terrible, but that hasn't stopped his obsession with realism to infect most every speculative fiction writer since then. I thank the Fates for the likes of Susanna Clarke, China Mieville, and Catherynne Valente. May there be many more of their ilk. Yup. Mainstream fantasy is in dire straights. Totally not the most popular and varied and open to investment that it's ever been. And the fact that it, along with speculative fiction, didn't really exist as a genre before the 70s in no way undercuts your observation that them having developed with modern tastes since then is a terrible degeneration of concept.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,875 Likes: 49,330
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,330
Iakus
20,875
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 4, 2019 14:50:10 GMT
I actually agree, but you did say, on the other hand: "I, as well, want less fantasy in my fantasy." Obviously you don't see a contradiction in that, so what did you want to say with that statement? I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Mainstream fantasy has suffered a lot from being de-fantasized in recent decades, first with the endless barrage of Tolkien and D&D clones that started in the 70s and then with everyone getting obsessed with grimdark and trying to copy ASoIaF's whole thing of pseudo-historical fiction masquerading as fantasy, except neither historical nor fantastical. Even urban fantasy seems to be all about taking the fantastical and making it as mundane as your neighborhood's McDonald's. Tolkien really broke the wheel there. The theoretical underpinnings of his writing are pretty terrible, but that hasn't stopped his obsession with realism to infect most every speculative fiction writer since then. I thank the Fates for the likes of Susanna Clarke, China Mieville, and Catherynne Valente. May there be many more of their ilk. I'm a fan of Sanderson's Three Laws of Magic: coppermind.net/wiki/Sanderson%27s_Laws_of_Magic
|
|
inherit
2147
0
Apr 10, 2024 22:03:47 GMT
2,723
Gwydden
1,266
November 2016
gwydden
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Gwydden on Apr 4, 2019 14:50:28 GMT
Yup. Mainstream fantasy is in dire straights. Totally not the most popular and varied and open to investment that it's ever been. And the fact that it, along with speculative fiction, didn't really exist as a genre before the 70s in no way undercuts your observation that them having developed with modern tastes since then is a terrible degeneration of concept. I find popularity and commercial success to be irrelevant in discussions of quality. And fantasy, like science fiction, horror, romance, detective stories, and most other modern literary genres, dates back to at least the nineteenth century.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Apr 4, 2019 14:56:28 GMT
Personally, I could have stood for Thedas to be a lot weirder from the beginning. I think it is only just starting to get interesting. I actively seek out fantasy with the most outlandish, fantastical worlds I can find. I actually agree, but you did say, on the other hand: "I, as well, want less fantasy in my fantasy." Obviously you don't see a contradiction in that, so what did you want to say with that statement? Sometimes I like to take a position I disagree with, and phrase it in a way that makes it sound/look ridiculous. In this case; the desire for "grounding" or "realism" or what-have-you in a work of fantasy fiction. The notion that a "good" fantasy needs to be set in a world that even remotely resembles Earth is, frankly, ridiculous on its face, and when people praise "grounded" fantasies like... well ASOIAF is probably the example du jour... it almost always turns out that what they appreciate is not, in fact, the fantastical world (which is, again, fairly standard), but the political intrigue and interpersonal drama; elements which do not require a fantasy backdrop in order to be successful/compelling. I would almost argue that the fantasy elements are so minor, that people who consider it to be the "best" example would most likely prefer straight historical/political fiction over the work of other well-known fantasy authors. In fact, broadly speaking, this forum has such a rigid, narrow view of what fantasy looks like that I suspect LOTR and ASOIAF is all that any of them have ever read, with perhaps a smattering of D&D campaigns inbetween. It's the only reason I can think of for why BioWare has developed a reputation for "high quality, original storytelling". That may be true compared to other video games, but I don't compare BioWare video games to other video games, I compare BioWare stories to other stories.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Apr 4, 2019 14:58:15 GMT
I actually agree, but you did say, on the other hand: "I, as well, want less fantasy in my fantasy." Obviously you don't see a contradiction in that, so what did you want to say with that statement? I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Mainstream fantasy has suffered a lot from being de-fantasized in recent decades, first with the endless barrage of Tolkien and D&D clones that started in the 70s and then with everyone getting obsessed with grimdark and trying to copy ASoIaF's whole thing of pseudo-historical fiction masquerading as fantasy, except neither historical nor fantastical. Even urban fantasy seems to be all about taking the fantastical and making it as mundane as your neighborhood's McDonald's. Tolkien really broke the wheel there. The theoretical underpinnings of his writing are pretty terrible, but that hasn't stopped his obsession with realism to infect most every speculative fiction writer since then. I thank the Fates for the likes of Susanna Clarke, China Mieville, and Catherynne Valente. May there be many more of their ilk. I don't subscribe to the idea that only the incomprehensible can be fantastic, and I find it interesting to build self-consistent but ultimately comprehensible fantastic worlds, so I have to disagree with your general statement here. However, I do appreciate the "weirder" (for lack of a better term) stories and wish DA borrowed more of them rather than making the fantastic more mundane. As they did with spirits - which were always comprehensible. What they weren't before was suitable objects of human empathy, and Bioware appears to put a rather strong emphasis on that, as opposed to understanding.
|
|
inherit
2147
0
Apr 10, 2024 22:03:47 GMT
2,723
Gwydden
1,266
November 2016
gwydden
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Gwydden on Apr 4, 2019 15:00:29 GMT
I'm familiar, and I confess to strong disagreement. In fact, I dislike the notion of "magic systems" even more than I do worldbuilding. Both strike me as antithetical to the concept of fantasy, where strangeness, wonder, and therefore mystery should win the day. Standard disclaimer directed at no one in particular: I recognize everyone has their own sensibilities, and would like to remind everyone that sharing them is what forums are all about.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,875 Likes: 49,330
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,330
Iakus
20,875
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 4, 2019 15:09:47 GMT
I'm familiar, and I confess to strong disagreement. In fact, I dislike the notion of "magic systems" even more than I do worldbuilding. Both strike me as antithetical to the concept of fantasy, where strangeness, wonder, and therefore mystery should win the day. Standard disclaimer directed at no one in particular: I recognize everyone has their own sensibilities, and would like to remind everyone that sharing them is what forums are all about. To me a world needs "rules" even if I don't know what thy are immediately. A world with a consistent structure is relatable and therefore allows me to invest in it. Take magic in Thedas. Why doesn't Tevinter utterly destroy the Qunari with all their magic? Saarabas are comparatively few compared to Tevinter essentially breeding mages for centuries and studying magic for thousands of years. It should be a trivial matter to put these heathen oxmen in their place. Except...magic can't to EVERYTHING in Thedas. It has limits, both in application and in strength. It carries its own risks, creates its own problems, and it is feared by many, and not entirely without reason.
|
|
inherit
2147
0
Apr 10, 2024 22:03:47 GMT
2,723
Gwydden
1,266
November 2016
gwydden
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Gwydden on Apr 4, 2019 15:12:04 GMT
The notion that a "good" fantasy needs to be set in a world that even remotely resembles Earth is, frankly, ridiculous on its face, and when people praise "grounded" fantasies like... well ASOIAF is probably the example du jour... it almost always turns out that what they appreciate is not, in fact, the fantastical world (which is, again, fairly standard), but the political intrigue and interpersonal drama; elements which do not require a fantasy backdrop in order to be successful/compelling. I would almost argue that the fantasy elements are so minor, that people who consider it to be the "best" example would most likely prefer straight historical/political fiction over the work of other well-known fantasy authors. Originally, ASoIaF was not meant to have any supernatural elements, and Martin has pointed to historical fiction as his main source of inspiration. I recall coming across this idea that, by repackaging it in a fantasy wrapping, he managed to sell a book in the style of twentieth century historical epics to a generation that thinks of history as inherently boring. I don't subscribe to the idea that only the incomprehensible can be fantastic, and I find it interesting to build self-consistent but ultimately comprehensible fantastic worlds, so I have to disagree with your general statement here. However, I do appreciate the "weirder" (for lack of a better term) stories and wish DA borrowed more of them rather than making the fantastic more mundane. As they did with spirits - which were always comprehensible. What they weren't before was suitable objects of human empathy, and Bioware appears to put a rather strong emphasis on that, as opposed to understanding. Fictional locations are a common staple of many types of fiction, and by itself the average dragon is a much more plausible invention than FTL. I define fantasy stylistically, first and foremost (my position here is very much in line with Le Guin's essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie," which is a great read for those who enjoy that kind of thing); it is a mode of storytelling much like Romanticism, Realism, or Surrealism. I don't require fantasy worlds to be "incomprehensible," but I do require them to be fantastical.
|
|
inherit
2147
0
Apr 10, 2024 22:03:47 GMT
2,723
Gwydden
1,266
November 2016
gwydden
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Gwydden on Apr 4, 2019 15:20:16 GMT
To me a world needs "rules" even if I don't know what thy are immediately. A world with a consistent structure is relatable and therefore allows me to invest in it. Take magic in Thedas. Why doesn't Tevinter utterly destroy the Qunari with all their magic? Saarabas are comparatively few compared to Tevinter essentially breeding mages for centuries and studying magic for thousands of years. It should be a trivial matter to put these heathen oxmen in their place. Except...magic can't to EVERYTHING in Thedas. It has limits, both in application and in strength. It carries its own risks, creates its own problems, and it is feared by many, and not entirely without reason. This is rather the opposite of how I look at stories. To tie it back to my earlier comment, I don't see them as a secondary world that imitates the workings of the primary one. I see them as artificial constructs that result from the writer's words' interaction with the audience's interpretation. A good story makes sense because its thematic underpinnings are well-executed in its plot, characters, and setting as presented through prose, not because it has won at some arbitrary game that the text itself created. So to answer your question, why doesn't Tevinter destroy the Qunari? Because having that happen offscreen would be a terrible waste of all the setup the Qunari have received throughout the games, and therefore dramatically unsatisfying. The same is true of the opposite outcome.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Apr 4, 2019 15:20:20 GMT
I'm familiar, and I confess to strong disagreement. In fact, I dislike the notion of "magic systems" even more than I do worldbuilding. Both strike me as antithetical to the concept of fantasy, where strangeness, wonder, and therefore mystery should win the day. Standard disclaimer directed at no one in particular: I recognize everyone has their own sensibilities, and would like to remind everyone that sharing them is what forums are all about. A mystery makes things interesting, but an unsolvable mystery makes things frustrating. Also, understanding something does not preclude it from evoking a sense of wonder.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,161
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,818
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Apr 4, 2019 15:29:57 GMT
To me a world needs "rules" even if I don't know what thy are immediately. A world with a consistent structure is relatable and therefore allows me to invest in it. Take magic in Thedas. Why doesn't Tevinter utterly destroy the Qunari with all their magic? Saarabas are comparatively few compared to Tevinter essentially breeding mages for centuries and studying magic for thousands of years. It should be a trivial matter to put these heathen oxmen in their place. Except...magic can't to EVERYTHING in Thedas. It has limits, both in application and in strength. It carries its own risks, creates its own problems, and it is feared by many, and not entirely without reason. This is rather the opposite of how I look at stories. To tie it back to my earlier comment, I don't see them as a secondary world that imitates the workings of the primary one. I see them as artificial constructs that result from the writer's words' interaction with the audience's interpretation. A good story makes sense because its thematic underpinnings are well-executed in its plot, characters, and setting as presented through prose, not because it has won at some arbitrary game that the text itself created. So to answer your question, why doesn't Tevinter destroy the Qunari? Because having that happen offscreen would be a terrible waste of all the setup the Qunari have received throughout the games, and therefore dramatically unsatisfying. The same is true of the opposite outcome. But don't these work the same way in practice? Having the Vints beat the Qunari would make the setting work badly, therefore magic is limited so that they can't do it.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Apr 4, 2019 15:31:29 GMT
I don't subscribe to the idea that only the incomprehensible can be fantastic, and I find it interesting to build self-consistent but ultimately comprehensible fantastic worlds, so I have to disagree with your general statement here. However, I do appreciate the "weirder" (for lack of a better term) stories and wish DA borrowed more of them rather than making the fantastic more mundane. As they did with spirits - which were always comprehensible. What they weren't before was suitable objects of human empathy, and Bioware appears to put a rather strong emphasis on that, as opposed to understanding. Fictional locations are a common staple of many types of fiction, and by itself the average dragon is a much more plausible invention than FTL. I define fantasy stylistically, first and foremost (my position here is very much in line with Le Guin's essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie," which is a great read for those who enjoy that kind of thing); it is a mode of storytelling much like Romanticism, Realism, or Surrealism. I don't require fantasy worlds to be "incomprehensible," but I do require them to be fantastical. And what is the "fantastic" for you? I would agree that fantastic elements are sparse in a work like A Song of Ice and Fire, but much more present in DA, in spite of its very conventional setting. And mentioning Sanderson, his Cosmere novels have very fantastic underpinnings down to their roots.
Or does the fantastic, in your opinion, necessarily include an attitude of passivity in the face of mystery, rather than active engagement with the goal of understanding?
Edit: I couldn't find a free copy of LeGuin's article and I'm not willing to pay for it. Do you have a full-text link?
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,875 Likes: 49,330
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,330
Iakus
20,875
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 4, 2019 15:33:46 GMT
To me a world needs "rules" even if I don't know what thy are immediately. A world with a consistent structure is relatable and therefore allows me to invest in it. Take magic in Thedas. Why doesn't Tevinter utterly destroy the Qunari with all their magic? Saarabas are comparatively few compared to Tevinter essentially breeding mages for centuries and studying magic for thousands of years. It should be a trivial matter to put these heathen oxmen in their place. Except...magic can't to EVERYTHING in Thedas. It has limits, both in application and in strength. It carries its own risks, creates its own problems, and it is feared by many, and not entirely without reason. This is rather the opposite of how I look at stories. To tie it back to my earlier comment, I don't see them as a secondary world that imitates the workings of the primary one. I see them as artificial constructs that result from the writer's words' interaction with the audience's interpretation. A good story makes sense because its thematic underpinnings are well-executed in its plot, characters, and setting as presented through prose, not because it has won at some arbitrary game that the text itself created. So to answer your question, why doesn't Tevinter destroy the Qunari? Because having that happen offscreen would be a terrible waste of all the setup the Qunari have received throughout the games, and therefore dramatically unsatisfying. The same is true of the opposite outcome. The secondary world doesn't HAVE to imitate the primary one. It IS fantasy, after all But without rules, even if the rules are different from the "real world" rules, gives me an understanding of how the world works, why the characters are the way they are. And while your answer concerning the Qunari is true, to a certain extent, it isn't a very satisfying one to me. It doesn't personalize the factions, or give their rivalry much weight. It doesn't take history, or culture, or indeed magic itself into account. The two groups are just sort of THERE waiting for a particularly dramatic moment to live or die. It's not a conflict, it's just the bones of a conflict.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,875 Likes: 49,330
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,330
Iakus
20,875
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 4, 2019 15:36:44 GMT
I'm familiar, and I confess to strong disagreement. In fact, I dislike the notion of "magic systems" even more than I do worldbuilding. Both strike me as antithetical to the concept of fantasy, where strangeness, wonder, and therefore mystery should win the day. Standard disclaimer directed at no one in particular: I recognize everyone has their own sensibilities, and would like to remind everyone that sharing them is what forums are all about. A mystery makes things interesting, but an unsolvable mystery makes things frustrating. Also, understanding something does not preclude it from evoking a sense of wonder.
Generally true. But I WILL qualify it in that there are some stories where a mystery isn't meant to be solved. Either as a plot point of the story itself (much of the Cthulhu mythos, though even then it is an established rule that Bad Things tend to happen to people who delve too deeply into those mysteries), or because it is supposed to be left open to interpretation by the audience (the end of Inception)
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Apr 4, 2019 15:37:41 GMT
As I said, you obviously have all the entertainment you could need then. Why be so offended at other genres targeting other people's interests? And as I said, it was just a direction Inquisition went that I'd prefer the next one didn't. Some of us don't feel the need to phrase preferences as ultimatums and vice versa, you see. We all have all the entertainment we "need". Which adults am I failing to empathize with, exactly? And why does the kind of life I've lived have anything to do with it? All fictional characters live very different lives from me. By your logic, I shouldn't be able to empathize with anyone. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in the position of a person whose life is different from yours. You may have "heard" it, but that's not something I ever said. I explained, over and over again, that I was describing what I perceive as the inevitable outcome of BioWare, or any developer, trying to court two diametrically, ideologically opposed audiences simultaneously. The fact that you see my demographic as a "single tiny subculture", and interpret my comments as an attack on "99% of humanity" is very revealing. White, straight cis-men do not make up the majority of the population, you just get a majority of the products. There's billions and billions of dollars to be made by welcoming in everyone who doesn't sit in your particular intersection of society. And nobody, not even me, has argued that white, straight cis-men should be kicked out of da vidja gaemz. All I ever said was that BioWare shouldn't cater to bigots. Why does that bother you? What are you trying to refute here? I haven't spoken to anything except my own personal taste. Yeah, I can see you've learned a LOT about understanding people who aren't like you. Whereas I was, what, born and raised on Gay Island? I'm so glad I have you, my surrogate smug conservative father, to help me adapt to the world of the heteros, which I have only been living in for my entire goddamn life. Ah yes, those sheltered subgroups. All they have to worry about is being murdered for no reason. Lucky bastards.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Apr 4, 2019 15:43:30 GMT
A mystery makes things interesting, but an unsolvable mystery makes things frustrating. Also, understanding something does not preclude it from evoking a sense of wonder.
Generally true. But I WILL qualify it in that there are some stories where a mystery isn't meant to be solved. Either as a plot point of the story itself (much of the Cthulhu mythos, though even then it is an established rule that Bad Things tend to happen to people who delve too deeply into those mysteries), or because it is supposed to be left open to interpretation by the audience (the end of Inception) I agree with that qualification. Within the Cthulhu mythos, I would still try to understand but I already know - as the player, if not the protagonist - this will probably have adverse effects. My interest as explorer of that world would be to see how things play out.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,492
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,492
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 4, 2019 15:46:51 GMT
Yup. Mainstream fantasy is in dire straights. Totally not the most popular and varied and open to investment that it's ever been. And the fact that it, along with speculative fiction, didn't really exist as a genre before the 70s in no way undercuts your observation that them having developed with modern tastes since then is a terrible degeneration of concept. I find popularity and commercial success to be irrelevant in discussions of quality. And fantasy, like science fiction, horror, romance, detective stories, and most other modern literary genres, dates back to at least the nineteenth century. If you don't care about the general perspective then don't make broad statements about the state of literature and fantasy in general, when you're just talking about your own personal experience of it. What sells is what people want, and "grimdark" fantasy is selling like antidepressants these days. Because an absolutely staggering amount of people enjoy it compared to alternative approaches. Which makes it, by any conceivably relevant and objective definition, good fantasy. Even if you don't personally enjoy it. What you appear to be talking about is folk tales and mythology, which overlap with and ultimately inspired but is not the same as fantasy. And I totally agree that modern fantasy has lost touch with those roots, and could benefit from making an effort to reclaim them. I'd argue that whimsical and lighthearted fantasy has lost touch with them more than "grimdark" fantasy has, though, because those sorts of stories are and were pretty grim by nature. The usage of that word isn't a coincidence, you know. I'm all for more fantasy with mysterious and mythological aspects to it. Elves and dwarves and other otherworldly beings that barely think like people. Magic that doesn't function consistently for anyone but very experienced users and generally can't be relied upon. Events with titanic magical and fatalistic impacts caused by the emotions involved and the arrangement of the stars rather than actual physical repercussions. More of that, please. But none of it is antithetical to dark and realistic fantasy. The Witcher, Tolkien, the Dresden Files and A Song of Ice and Fire all feature those themes far more loyally than Dragon Age ever did. And all also feature a lot more pain and misery and commonplace human behavior. And nobody is knocking your taste in entertainment. You're the ones proscribing narrow images of the genre and trying to feel superior to and browbeat the rest of us for enjoying gritty realism in our fantasy.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Apr 4, 2019 15:47:33 GMT
To me a world needs "rules" even if I don't know what thy are immediately. A world with a consistent structure is relatable and therefore allows me to invest in it. Take magic in Thedas. Why doesn't Tevinter utterly destroy the Qunari with all their magic? Saarabas are comparatively few compared to Tevinter essentially breeding mages for centuries and studying magic for thousands of years. It should be a trivial matter to put these heathen oxmen in their place. Except...magic can't to EVERYTHING in Thedas. It has limits, both in application and in strength. It carries its own risks, creates its own problems, and it is feared by many, and not entirely without reason. This is rather the opposite of how I look at stories. To tie it back to my earlier comment, I don't see them as a secondary world that imitates the workings of the primary one. I see them as artificial constructs that result from the writer's words' interaction with the audience's interpretation. A good story makes sense because its thematic underpinnings are well-executed in its plot, characters, and setting as presented through prose, not because it has won at some arbitrary game that the text itself created. So to answer your question, why doesn't Tevinter destroy the Qunari? Because having that happen offscreen would be a terrible waste of all the setup the Qunari have received throughout the games, and therefore dramatically unsatisfying. The same is true of the opposite outcome. If that's your answer, you don't engage with the setting at all. You just engage with the text, rather than that which it creates. I would find that unsatisfying. As I see it, if I engage with the text only, my only goal can be analysis. Which is of course worthwhile, but only if I get deeper into what it creates can I experience the story as a story, which is also worthwhile and usually how we read stories if we're not in a literary critic mindset.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Apr 4, 2019 15:53:05 GMT
I find popularity and commercial success to be irrelevant in discussions of quality. And fantasy, like science fiction, horror, romance, detective stories, and most other modern literary genres, dates back to at least the nineteenth century. If you don't care about the general perspective then don't make broad statements about the state of literature and fantasy in general, when you're just talking about your own personal experience of it. What sells is what people want, and "grimdark" fantasy is selling like antidepressants these days. Because an absolutely staggering amount of people enjoy it compared to alternative approaches. Which makes it, by any conceivably relevant and objective definition, good fantasy. Even if you don't personally enjoy it. What you appear to be talking about is folk tales and mythology, which overlaps with and ultimately inspired but is not the same as fantasy. And I totally agree that modern fantasy has lost touch with those roots, and could benefit from making an effort to reclaim them. I'd argue that whimsical and lighthearted fantasy has lost touch with them more than "grimdark" fantasy has, though, because those sorts of stories are and were pretty grim by nature. The usage of that word isn't a coincidence, you know. I'm all for more fantasy with mysterious and mythological aspects to it. Elves and dwarves and other otherworldly beings that barely think like people. Magic that doesn't function consistently for anyone but very experienced users and generally can't be relied upon. Events with titanic magical and fatalistic impacts caused by the emotions involved and the arrangement of the stars rather than actual physical repercussions. More of that, please. But none of it is antithetical to dark and realistic fantasy. The Witcher, Tolkien, the Dresden Files and A Song of Ice and Fire all feature those themes far more loyally than Dragon Age ever did. And all also feature a lot more pain and misery and commonplace human behavior. And nobody is knocking your taste in entertainment. You're the ones proscribing narrow images of the genre and trying to feel superior to and browbeat the rest of us for enjoying gritty realism in our fantasy. What I primarily object to is meaningless terms like "grimdark" which you're just going to apply to everything you happen to like, and leave off of everything you happen to not like, because that is the only way that such utterly vague and pointless descriptors ever get used by anybody.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,492
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,492
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 4, 2019 16:45:29 GMT
1) Which adults am I failing to empathize with, exactly? And why does the kind of life I've lived have anything to do with it? All fictional characters live very different lives from me. By your logic, I shouldn't be able to empathize with anyone. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in the position of a person whose life is different from yours. 2) You may have "heard" it, but that's not something I ever said. I explained, over and over again, that I was describing what I perceive as the inevitable outcome of BioWare, or any developer, trying to court two diametrically, ideologically opposed audiences simultaneously. 3) The fact that you see my demographic as a "single tiny subculture", and interpret my comments as an attack on "99% of humanity" is very revealing. White, straight cis-men do not make up the majority of the population, you just get a majority of the products. There's billions and billions of dollars to be made by welcoming in everyone who doesn't sit in your particular intersection of society. And nobody, not even me, has argued that white, straight cis-men should be kicked out of da vidja gaemz. All I ever said was that BioWare shouldn't cater to bigots. Why does that bother you? 4) What are you trying to refute here? I haven't spoken to anything except my own personal taste. 5) Yeah, I can see you've learned a LOT about understanding people who aren't like you. Whereas I was, what, born and raised on Gay Island? I'm so glad I have you, my surrogate smug conservative father, to help me adapt to the world of the heteros, which I have only been living in for my entire goddamn life. 6) Ah yes, those sheltered subgroups. All they have to worry about is being murdered for no reason. Lucky bastards. 1) As I said, what I was pointing out was your lack of interest in empathizing with adult characters. Empathy is the ability to recognize the commonalities between yourself and someone else under different circumstances and using them as a baseline for understanding, meaning that those commonalities need to be there in order for you to have an empathetic connection with the person or character. You can have that with real people and realistic characters, but you can't have it with idealized caricatures. 2 and 3) Yes, it is, and yes you have, and you know it. And there's never been "two diametrically, 'idealogically' opposed audiences", there's just you and one or two other guys and everyone you disagree with, which is almost everyone. A tiny subculture and an overwhelming mainstream majority disagreeing on something isn't an ideological battle, it's just a tiny subculture that wishes things suited it better. Which is fine and dandy, until it starts pretending that everyone else owes it that world and everything should revolve around that. 4) Yes, you have, and you know it. 5) Uh-huh. Which of the two of us have extended more branches to the other, do you think? Which of us is more respectful to the other in general? In speech and manners? In giving the other person's views fair consideration? That you come off as raised on an island is perfectly apt so far as I can see. And surprise. You're going to be living in the world of the heteros the entire rest of your life as well. And it's going to be damn exhausting and unproductive if all you do is whine about it. 6) I'm sure you live in fear for your life every day. You certainly talk like someone who has had their priorities straightened out by real danger and having to work hard to keep yourself and the people you love safe. And I said subcultures, not subgroups. For the last time, nobody gives a damn about you being gay. You're not that special. What I primarily object to is meaningless terms like "grimdark" which you're just going to apply to everything you happen to like, and leave off of everything you happen to not like, because that is the only way that such utterly vague and pointless descriptors ever get used by anybody. That's funny. I'd say the exact same thing about your use of the term, except the other way around. And you're the ones who keep bringing it to the table. Personally I like "gritty" best. It implies something with texture, something that feels sharp and rough and unprocessed and quintessentially real. Just "grim" is good too, because it obviously refers to unsanitized classical fairy tales if you're the least bit familiar with those. Again, I can't speak for Americans on that count. Having grown up with more H.C. Andersen and Brothers Grimm than Disney in a time when people did still read some books, I might be making assumptions. And no. Unlike certain others, I don't go around inaccurately boasting of always calling things accurately. But I do prefer not to unironically propagate stupid words made up and used by people who clearly don't know what they're talking about. As such I'd be perfectly happy to bury and forget everything about the term. In fact that would have been my original preference as well, if people didn't keep bringing it up. I'm sure that must make you very relieved, since it's what you "primarily object to".
|
|
inherit
2147
0
Apr 10, 2024 22:03:47 GMT
2,723
Gwydden
1,266
November 2016
gwydden
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Gwydden on Apr 4, 2019 17:17:49 GMT
And what is the "fantastic" for you? I would agree that fantastic elements are sparse in a work like A Song of Ice and Fire, but much more present in DA, in spite of its very conventional setting. And mentioning Sanderson, his Cosmere novels have very fantastic underpinnings down to their roots.
Or does the fantastic, in your opinion, necessarily include an attitude of passivity in the face of mystery, rather than active engagement with the goal of understanding?
Edit: I couldn't find a free copy of LeGuin's article and I'm not willing to pay for it. Do you have a full-text link? You know, after panning Tolkien, I feel like saying something nice about him. I do like his work on the whole; it's his imitators I don't care for. So as to your "what is the fantastic" question, I happen to agree with at least one of Tolkien's stated purposes for fairy stories e.g. recovery, the ability to present a jaded audience with the world in a whole new light. It is a Romantic impulse, and goes to explain why fantasy tends to look towards the past, towards a time when there was a troll under every bridge and lightning was the work of Zeus atop Mt. Olympus. But passivity? Not at all, because the stories don't stop there. They are about how St. Brendan sailed the endless western ocean to find the Isle of the Blessed, about how a pair of lovers crossed the Milky way upon a bridge of birds to reunite at last, about Odysseus' journey to the land of the dead. Mystery is an inescapable fact of the human condition, and of the search for knowledge. Answering a question creates a dozen more. Atoms were the smallest particles until they weren't. Our solar system was the whole universe until it wasn't. Newton's theories explained everything until Einstein came along, and even that was brought into question when quantum physics became a thing. You can always know more, but you can't ever know everything. Fantasy and science fiction have been afflicted by a habit of explaining too much. The third sibling, horror, is typically more restrained in that regard. The trick is neither to not explain anything nor to explain everything. You want to reveal enough about the monster to intrigue, but not so much as to render it toothless. Incomplete information is what drives active engagement with the goal of understanding, and can often make things even weirder, like how so much about quantum physics makes no intuitive sense whatsoever. Remember the authors I mentioned? Clarke's magicians know more about magic at the end of the book that when they started, but even then they are still grappling with an alien force they don't fully comprehend. Same goes for Mieville's scientists. As for the essay, here you go. I find popularity and commercial success to be irrelevant in discussions of quality. And fantasy, like science fiction, horror, romance, detective stories, and most other modern literary genres, dates back to at least the nineteenth century. If you don't care about the general perspective then don't make broad statements about the state of literature and fantasy in general, when you're just talking about your own personal experience of it. What sells is what people want, and "grimdark" fantasy is selling like antidepressants these days. Because an absolutely staggering amount of people enjoy it compared to alternative approaches. Which makes it, by any conceivably relevant and objective definition, good fantasy. Even if you don't personally enjoy it. What you appear to be talking about is folk tales and mythology, which overlaps with and ultimately inspired but is not the same as fantasy. And I totally agree that modern fantasy has lost touch with those roots, and could benefit from making an effort to reclaim them. I'd argue that whimsical and lighthearted fantasy has lost touch with them more than "grimdark" fantasy has, though, because those sorts of stories are and were pretty grim by nature. The usage of that word isn't a coincidence, you know. I'm all for more fantasy with mysterious and mythological aspects to it. Elves and dwarves and other otherworldly beings that barely think like people. Magic that doesn't function consistently for anyone but very experienced users and generally can't be relied upon. Events with titanic magical and fatalistic impacts caused by the emotions involved and the arrangement of the stars rather than actual physical repercussions. More of that, please. But none of it is antithetical to dark and realistic fantasy. The Witcher, Tolkien, the Dresden Files and A Song of Ice and Fire all feature those themes far more loyally than Dragon Age ever did. And all also feature a lot more pain and misery and commonplace human behavior. And nobody is knocking your taste in entertainment. You're the ones proscribing narrow images of the genre and trying to feel superior to and browbeat the rest of us for enjoying gritty realism in our fantasy. A few points: 1. There's no such thing as objectively good art. Therefore, any form of art criticism, no matter how high or how lowly, is "just" an opinion. Yes, that includes everything I've said in this thread. 2. In this marketing age, I'm doubtful of any definitive statements that try to correlate sales with people's wants and preferences. 3. No, pretty sure I'm talking about fantasy. Just like Frankenstein is often cited as the first sci fi novel even though the genre wouldn't be called by that name until the twentieth century, you get authors like William Morris, George McDonald, Rudyard Kipling, Lewis Carroll, E. Nesbit, and many, many fairy tale writers in the nineteenth century, before "fantasy" became the official name for the genre they were writing in. 4. You seem to be implying that I favor "whimsical and lighthearted fantasy," which I never said. I also don't consider grimdark to be realistic. In fact, as far as I know, the term was coined by Warhammer 40k's tagline in the 80s. Warhammer 40k is melodramatic and over the top by design, and said tagline ("In the grim darkness of the future, there is only war.") is a dead giveaway that its creator were taking themselves either too seriously or not seriously at all. Bet's on the latter. 5. I'm not sure what you mean by your comparison of Dragon Age to those other works. 6. So far I have merely stated what I consider good and bad fantasy. If you recall point number one, this is all "just" my opinion. At no point have I attacked people for what they enjoy; my criticism has been squarely directed at authors and their work. 7. This is fun! Please let's not get personal. If that's your answer, you don't engage with the setting at all. You just engage with the text, rather than that which it creates. I would find that unsatisfying. As I see it, if I engage with the text only, my only goal can be analysis. Which is of course worthwhile, but only if I get deeper into what it creates can I experience the story as a story, which is also worthwhile and usually how we read stories if we're not in a literary critic mindset. I engage with the story, not the setting. The former includes the latter but it is not circumscribed by it. To quote a different Le Guin article, fiction and fantasy aren't factual, but they are true. True in that they speak to and arouse genuine feeling, provoke genuine though, and have genuine resonance. I don't think that, say, George Martin's exhaustive list of Targaryen kings does any of that. Real history is messy and has no definitive truths. You sift through primary sources, trying to catch a semblance of meaning among all the subjective voices, and still there's no truth but an ongoing argument over what it all means. The word realism gets thrown around a lot, and that's how real history works. The real world has no author. The history of Westeros, however, is whatever Martin says. Detached from a narrative, it signifies nothing. I should say something nice about Martin now, so here's the best thing he's ever written. That I've read, anyway. It has no relation to the rest of his work, however.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,875 Likes: 49,330
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,330
Iakus
20,875
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 4, 2019 17:21:20 GMT
. The Witcher, Tolkien, the Dresden Files and A Song of Ice and Fire all feature those themes far more loyally than Dragon Age ever did. And all also feature a lot more pain and misery and commonplace human behavior. “I used the knife. I saved a child. I won a war. God forgive me.”
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Apr 4, 2019 17:55:35 GMT
And what is the "fantastic" for you? I would agree that fantastic elements are sparse in a work like A Song of Ice and Fire, but much more present in DA, in spite of its very conventional setting. And mentioning Sanderson, his Cosmere novels have very fantastic underpinnings down to their roots.
Or does the fantastic, in your opinion, necessarily include an attitude of passivity in the face of mystery, rather than active engagement with the goal of understanding?
Edit: I couldn't find a free copy of LeGuin's article and I'm not willing to pay for it. Do you have a full-text link? You know, after panning Tolkien, I feel like saying something nice about him. I do like his work on the whole; it's his imitators I don't care for. So as to your "what is the fantastic" question, I happen to agree with at least one of Tolkien's stated purposes for fairy stories e.g. recovery, the ability to present a jaded audience with the world in a whole new light. It is a Romantic impulse, and goes to explain why fantasy tends to look towards the past, towards a time when there was a troll under every bridge and lightning was the work of Zeus atop Mt. Olympus. But passivity? Not at all, because the stories don't stop there. They are about how St. Brendan sailed the endless western ocean to find the Isle of the Blessed, about how a pair of lovers crossed the Milky way upon a bridge of birds to reunite at last, about Odysseus' journey to the land of the dead. Mystery is an inescapable fact of the human condition, and of the search for knowledge. Answering a question creates a dozen more. Atoms were the smallest particles until they weren't. Our solar system was the whole universe until it wasn't. Newton's theories explained everything until Einstein came along, and even that was brought into question when quantum physics became a thing. You can always know more, but you can't ever know everything. Fantasy and science fiction have been afflicted by a habit of explaining too much. The third sibling, horror, is typically more restrained in that regard. The trick is neither to not explain anything nor to explain everything. You want to reveal enough about the monster to intrigue, but not so much as to render it toothless. Incomplete information is what drives active engagement with the goal of understanding, and can often make things even weirder, like how so much about quantum physics makes no intuitive sense whatsoever. Remember the authors I mentioned? Clarke's magicians know more about magic at the end of the book that when they started, but even then they are still grappling with an alien force they don't fully comprehend. Same goes for Mieville's scientists. As for the essay, here you go. If that's your answer, you don't engage with the setting at all. You just engage with the text, rather than that which it creates. I would find that unsatisfying. As I see it, if I engage with the text only, my only goal can be analysis. Which is of course worthwhile, but only if I get deeper into what it creates can I experience the story as a story, which is also worthwhile and usually how we read stories if we're not in a literary critic mindset. I engage with the story, not the setting. The former includes the latter but it is not circumscribed by it. To quote a different Le Guin article, fiction and fantasy aren't factual, but they are true. True in that they speak to and arouse genuine feeling, provoke genuine though, and have genuine resonance. I don't think that, say, George Martin's exhaustive list of Targaryen kings does any of that. Real history is messy and has no definitive truths. You sift through primary sources, trying to catch a semblance of meaning among all the subjective voices, and still there's no truth but an ongoing argument over what it all means. The word realism gets thrown around a lot, and that's how real history works. The real world has no author. The history of Westeros, however, is whatever Martin says. Detached from a narrative, it signifies nothing. I should say something nice about Martin now, so here's the best thing he's ever written. That I've read, anyway. It has no relation to the rest of his work, however. This triggers a veritable avalanche of thoughts, so bear with me....I'll reply when I have time and sorted them all, probably some time tomorrow. So much for now: this is a fascinating debate.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,492
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,492
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 4, 2019 18:29:50 GMT
A few points: 1. There's no such thing as objectively good art. Therefore, any form of art criticism, no matter how high or how lowly, is "just" an opinion. Yes, that includes everything I've said in this thread. 2. In this marketing age, I'm doubtful of any definitive statements that try to correlate sales with people's wants and preferences. 3. No, pretty sure I'm talking about fantasy. Just like Frankenstein is often cited as the first sci fi novel even though the genre wouldn't be called by that name until the twentieth century, you get authors like William Morris, George McDonald, Rudyard Kipling, Lewis Carroll, E. Nesbit, and many, many fairy tale writers in the nineteenth century, before "fantasy" became the official name for the genre they were writing in. 4. You seem to be implying that I favor "whimsical and lighthearted fantasy," which I never said. I also don't consider grimdark to be realistic. In fact, as far as I know, the term was coined by Warhammer 40k's tagline in the 80s. Warhammer 40k is melodramatic and over the top by design, and said tagline ("In the grim darkness of the future, there is only war.") is a dead giveaway that its creator were taking themselves either too seriously or not seriously at all. Bet's on the latter. 5. I'm not sure what you mean by your comparison of Dragon Age to those other works. 6. So far I have merely stated what I consider good and bad fantasy. If you recall point number one, this is all "just" my opinion. At no point have I attacked people for what they enjoy; my criticism has been squarely directed at authors and their work. 7. This is fun! Please let's not get personal. 1: I see. It sounds like when you speak of good and bad art and talk about the alleged degeneration of a widely beloved genre you're expressing your own taste as a matter of course, while when others use them or point out the opposite then they're imposing objectivity on the indefinite and trying to impose their taste on you. I'm not nearly as prepared to accuse you of hypocrisy as I am Panda, but some wires have crossed in one or both ends of this discussion. It's possible I've read you as more categorical than you intended and vice versa. 2: In this age of people having unsurpassed spare time and purchasing power for indulging their interests, and commercially available entertainment being the primary way everyone does so, I don't see that you have much of a choice if you want perspective with any root in reality at all. 3: By that definition "fantasy" has probably been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and the nineteenth-century writers you refer to are nowhere near classical or original examples of it, making the significance of the preservation of their styles in particular over modern ones as a matter of principle rather arbitrary. It's fine if you like them better than Game of Thrones, but that doesn't make the rest of us modern deviants mindlessly pissing on their legacies, which is pretty much what you've seemed to be saying. 4: In that case I'd advise you to retire the "grimdark" expression entirely, because using it to describe every kind of fantasy or sci-fi that has noticeably dark themes gives exactly that impression. Throwing A Song of Ice and Fire and Warhammer 40K in even remotely the same box, for example, really does imply that you don't distinguish between shades of gritty storytelling at all, at least when that's specifically what we're discussing. I've read a few of the 40K novels, though never played either video or tabletop games, and you're exactly right that it doesn't take itself too seriously. The ones that make the best use of the setting in my estimation read more like action-adventure comedies than anything. 5: The various epic and much-loved mainstream fantasy series that you and Panda apparently have a hard time with for being too dark and mundane are funnily enough the ones that follow the fairy tale and mystery and mythological themes you say you miss in Dragon Age most diligently. And I entirely agree. Dragon Age, like a lot of the incarnations of Dungeons and Dragons that inspired it, is an amalgamation of cherry-picked fantasy elements shoved into fairly lighthearted and optimistic postmodern narratives. And moreso the third game than the first or second. Which can be fun and cool and interesting for a while, but lacks either the emotional weight of history or transcendent power of mythology. And turning up for the wonky magic and zany plotline dials isn't going to fix that. 6: Likewise, if that's the case. 7: This is okay interesting, is as far as I'm willing to go this late in the evening.
|
|