Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 10:35:17 GMT -6
Someplace around here Rob was talking about "wanting something new". (Unfortunately, you can never find these things when you want them. ) That got me thinking (always dangerous ). Some years back, an Irish scholar named Seamus Haney finished his translation of BEOWULF. He also released a CD of himself reading it. Now, to translate, and then read, something of that magnitude, you have to love the text. And it's obvious; we listened to it on a long car trip, and when the first CD ended in the middle of the tale, as we changed CDs my wife said "Golly, this is exciting!" Yeah. A tale 12 centuries old still thrills and delights. A generation weaned on starships and Death Stars and CGI extravaganzas still sits enraptured by a single human voice. Because it's WELL DONE. That (in my opinion, and I'm always right) is the REAL problem with "typical pseudo medieval fantasy" or "yet another version of Arthurian England" or whatever. Not that the idea is bad... but that the idea is DONE POORLY. Take feudalism. Feudalism is, at its very root, a personal relationship; I have knelt before my lord, and he has enfolded my hands in his, and we have sworn fealty one to another. And belike my vassals; each of them, her and him, did kneel before me one by one, and I took their hands in mine and we swore. What does that do to the game? How does the world play out when ALL political relationships are based on face-to-face, one-on-one interactions? I select this because I love the medieval period; I got my BA in medieval history in 1978 and I'm STILL reading it. But the same principles apply to anything you care to do. As Theodore Sturgeon said, "90% of Science Fiction is crap. For that matter, 90% of everything is crap." And it's the same with fantasy; I look through the fantasy shelves at a bookstore and mostly want to vomit, and then go back to my copy of "Le Morte d'Arthur" in the original. Every time I see "A Bold New Interpretation of Camelot" (for instance), my first thought is, "Okay, here's somebody who didn't understand what they read." (Notable exception: Lois McMaster Bujold's "Curse of Chalion" and "Paladin of Souls." Read them.) Tell me a tale Of worthy warriors Wandering the waves Sailing the swan-road; Bravest and boldest Best in the battle Mighty in mead-hall And true to their thanes. Then sang the skald: So. The Spear-Danes in days gone by And the kings who ruled them had courage and greatness. We have heard of those princes’ heroic campaigns.
There was Shield Sheafson, scourge of many tribes, A wrecker of mead-benches, rampaging among foes. This terror of the hall-troops had come far. A foundling to start with, he would flourish later on As his powers waxed and his worth was proved. In the end each clan on the outlying coasts Beyond the whale-road had to yield to him And begin to pay tribute. That was one good king...
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 13, 2013 12:05:42 GMT -6
Yeah. A tale 12 centuries old still thrills and delights. A generation weaned on starships and Death Stars and CGI extravaganzas still sits enraptured by a single human voice. Because it's WELL DONE. That (in my opinion, and I'm always right) is the REAL problem with "typical pseudo medieval fantasy" or "yet another version of Arthurian England" or whatever. Not that the idea is bad... but that the idea is DONE POORLY. That's a good point, although to expand on another point you mentioned in reference to Seamus Haney, the main problem with "typical pseudo-medieval fantasy" is that the authors don't really love it enough. That's why it's done so poorly. The authors treat the medieval period ironically or with detachment, or they really only like a couple superficial things about the medieval period, but feel obligated to use it because "that's what fantasy writers do", or "that's what readers expect"/"that's what sells". You don't have *agree* with the way things were done in the middle ages. You don't have to be an old-fashioned Catholic, don't have to believe in feudalism, don't have to believe in the same things medieval people believed. But you have to be *fascinated* with what they did and what they believed, in order to do it well. If you don't, you'll just wind up writing superficial crap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 12:28:06 GMT -6
Well, exactly. I LOVE Terry Pratchett's Discworld, but Ankh-Morpork is Victorian London, not medieval, and his greater world is that of 19th century fairy tales.
But in his case it's on purpose, so it works. As you point out, too often it's just sloppy sh*t.
Another thing that bugs the carp out of me is "fantasy" characters who talk like 21st century science fiction fans, complete with contemporary slang.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Apr 13, 2013 12:40:21 GMT -6
I am anonymously and sourceless(ly) blamed for your own reasons to love Medievalism, Michael...?
Heh. You cut to the quick with such subject matter and hardly need me as a dangling interjection for that.
My point has always remained the same. I know and have studied and have played and have lived that period. It's grand. But so are others. The same is true for Tolkien. I love his writing. Do I exclusively, or for the majority, even, want to see his type/period of fiction as all of or most of the representative fiction forthcoming. No.
Fantasy, or real life, is filled with differences, or should be. I seek those differences, not the sameness, and indeed am more like CAS in that regard.
"Tell me many tales, O benign maleficent daemon, but tell me none that I have ever heard or have even dreamt of otherwise than obscurely or infrequently. Nay, tell me not of anything that lies within the bourne of time or the limits of space; for I am a little weary of all recorded years and chartered lands.
"Tell me many tales, but let them be of things that are past the lore of legend and of which there are no myths in our world or any world adjoining. . . . Tell me tales of inconceivable fear and unimaginable love, in orbs whereto our sun is a nameless star or unto which its rays have never reached."
To the Daemon, A prose Poem by Clark Ashton Smith
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 13, 2013 14:42:53 GMT -6
I agree with the sentiments that 90% of everything is crap and that all those Middle-earth and Arthur knockoffs are tiresome. But it is also true that the desire for novelty in storytelling is a modern one. In medieval—and other—times, retelling a story well was what audiences wanted. Stories inevitably changed and evolved with the retelling, and most everyone already knew how they would end, but it was the art of the storyteller that was valued.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Apr 13, 2013 15:22:53 GMT -6
But one can have their cake and eat it too, eh? Both variety and good story-telling together.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 17:26:11 GMT -6
I am anonymously and sourceless(ly) blamed for your own reasons to love Medievalism, Michael...? Heh. You cut to the quick with such subject matter and hardly need me as a dangling interjection for that. My point has always remained the same. I know and have studied and have played and have lived that period. It's grand. But so are others. The same is true for Tolkien. I love his writing. Do I exclusively, or for the majority, even, want to see his type/period of fiction as all of or most of the representative fiction forthcoming. No. Fantasy, or real life, is filled with differences, or should be. I seek those differences, not the sameness, and indeed am more like CAS in that regard. "Tell me many tales, O benign maleficent daemon, but tell me none that I have ever heard or have even dreamt of otherwise than obscurely or infrequently. Nay, tell me not of anything that lies within the bourne of time or the limits of space; for I am a little weary of all recorded years and chartered lands. "Tell me many tales, but let them be of things that are past the lore of legend and of which there are no myths in our world or any world adjoining. . . . Tell me tales of inconceivable fear and unimaginable love, in orbs whereto our sun is a nameless star or unto which its rays have never reached." To the Daemon, A prose Poem by Clark Ashton Smith Well first, I wasn't aware I was blaming anybody for anything. Jeez. Second, that "To the Daemon" is exactly what got me thinking, and I would have quoted that if I could have found it. My point is that I think the reason so much pseudomedieval fantasy is crap is not that it's pseudomedieval, but that it's crap. I still think this topic is an interesting one for discussion. If you want to create something worthwhile, whether entirely or mostly new, or an homage to another style, you have to learn basic principles. What makes BEOWULF classic? Why do people still read it 1200 years or more later? Why, for that matter, is the "Epic of Gilgamesh" still worth reading, while the bookshelf stores are full of things forgotten in a season? One has to read these things for oneself. And be prepared to disagree with those called experts; I recently reread Marlowe's "Faust," and reading the "Teacher's Notes" on the themes of the play wondered if the very learned professor writing the notes had read the same play I just finished. If you want to be creative and inventive, pondering what makes Beowulf great -- or for that matter, what makes "Lord of the Rings" great and "Sword of Shanarra" crap -- isn't a bad thing.
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Apr 13, 2013 18:40:54 GMT -6
Sure. But most people aren't interested in good literature these days; nor good movies; nor good games; nor good food; just about anything that was good, literate, artful, or required a little more of something to get that extra ummph out of has been marginalized, sanitized and brought down to the lowest common denominator. This is mostly about what our societies, especially America, have become through the mass marketing to the middle and starts there for the critique, i fear...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 19:08:43 GMT -6
I agree. Way back in the 40s, C.S. Lewis wrote about the demand for "absolute novelty". This has resulted in a lot of garbage. To go back to the Arthurian legends, for instance, somebody says "I'll write a book where Mordred is the good guy!" But if you ask why, what they're trying to say, all they can come up with is "because."
Simply aping a work is no worthy thing; simply turning it 'on its head' is no better. A twelve year old can do it.
I'd rather see somebody base their game on the works of CAS because they loved CAS then on Tolkien because "it's popular". Vice versa, if someone loves Tolkien, then let her base her game on that. Starting from something one truly loves will always be better.
Games have gone much the same way. I played Star Wars d20 and we played for three years. You KNOW how much I love Star Wars -- but I could BARELY bear to play, because THE RULES ARE SO F*CKING BAD. Mechanically speaking, they violate everything I've ever learned about game design, including the very FIRST rule of game design I ever learned way back when... "For every ability, there MUST be a countermeasure". Likewise I hear a lot of condemnation for the game Dave and Gary cooked up... but when I dig deeper I discover things like "Oh, we never used the NPC reaction table." Their entire vision of "original D&D" is completely a straw man.
I'm not sure I have a "grand point" to all this, other than I thought it was interesting where my mind wandered after reading the poem "To the Daemon." Well, that, plus I thought it interesting that my wife, who doesn't share my depth of love for the Middle Ages, thought Beowulf was exciting. I think that's worth pondering; even in this jaded mass media age, a poet's love for a certain work comes through.
Maybe that's the point. "Do what you truly love and it will be worthwhile."
|
|
rjkuntz
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Pioneer of OD&D
Posts: 345
|
Post by rjkuntz on Apr 13, 2013 20:07:35 GMT -6
Only this to add:
"If education is beaten by training, civilization dies.," he [Lewis] writes, for the "lesson of history" is that "civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost." It is liberal arts, not vocational training, that preserves civilization by producing reasonable men and responsible citizens…--Gregory Dunn, "C. S. Lewis on Liberal Arts Education", April 1999.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 20:35:10 GMT -6
Speaking of Lewis, this might amuse.
I kicked in some money for the Kickstarter for "Kobolds Ate My Baby," because it looks like the sort of tongue in cheek thing I like, and looks like the game plays in a couple of hours. Plus I like John Kovalic's art. So, a few bucks to folks I like? Why not.
But then before Gary Con something occured to me. KAMB describes the Kobold society as "and so to avoid being thrown in the pot they gear up and hunt babies." Kobolds eat your baby because babies is so tasty... but Kobolds are almost as tasty as babies.
Which put me in mind of Lewis' "Screwtape Letters." One of the reasons I think it's brilliant is that his devils have no time for cartoon "Evil;" they are entirely practical. Human souls are food for them, and if they cannot get human souls, stronger devils prey on weaker ones... "bring us food, or be food yourself."
So I decided to apply that philosophy to kobolds in my game, in a NON humorous way. Kobolds are voracious and will cannibalize each other, and they send out raiding parties to gather other food. But if you are a kobold and you come back empty handed you know you will be killed and eaten yourself.
Maybe it doesn't show up as anything different for my players, but when I run my game, it makes kobolds feel different for me; they're horrible, ravenous little monsters and they actually creep me out a bit.
Just an example of how something done in fun can connect to something else from somewhere else and give rise to another idea.
Just sort of free-associating.
|
|