Anyone Else Tired of The Tyranny of Novelty?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don’t think anyone is. What we are talking about here is the phenomenon wherein people will act like something is bad simply because it isn’t super-original.

I think a lot of it is that they have a certain specific view of a thing, and then someone comes along and recreates it with some slightly different spin, and they are disturbed by that. It doesn't match up with their mental model of how that thing is supposed to be. So they reject it, and one easy, perhaps one might say at times lazy, argument is "that's not original!" So it could be code for something else.

 

[Campbell]

I don’t think anyone is. What we are talking about here is the phenomenon wherein people will act like something is bad simply because it isn’t super-original.

There's no universal truth to how good something is though. We're subjective aesthetic judgements based on aesthetic principles. Different humans are just wired differently. There's some research that shows a negative correlation between harm avoidance and novelty seeking behaviors for instance. Generally the more novelty seeking you are the more you are apt to take risks in other parts of your life. You are also less likely to be conscientious.

The Perils of Novelty Seeking

Are you a novelty seeker or adrenaline junkie?

www.psychologytoday.com

I think we would all benefit from understanding that our brains do not work in the same ways. We should not expect people with phenomenally different brain chemistry to think and act like we do.

 

[Campbell]

Anytime you take a pithy and obviously hyperbolic thread title totally seriously, you have already messed up.

Ever heard of the idea of “the tyranny of fun”?

I mess up all the time, but I take it seriously. =P

On a more serious note I think the language we use to describe this stuff really matters. Taking an inclusive view that respects individual preferences (and our right to choose what we aught to value) is something that matters to me quite a bit. I don't think the answer to someone saying you should value novelty (even though you do not) is to throw it back in their face and try to get them to change what they value. I think respecting that we (as in the greater RPG community) have different preferences and valuing the diversity of play that exists is a much more fruitful message to send.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There's no universal truth to how good something is though.

That is literally the point of the OP.

 

[Campbell]

That is literally the point of the OP.

Except the argument that is being put forward is not that individual people will have different aesthetic priorities. The argument is pushing back at the perceived slight by instead making an impassioned argument to the tribe that novelty seeking should not be valued. Instead of advocating for us all to take personal ownership of our aesthetic judgements the argument is that we should all take on the values put forward instead of valuing novelty or originality.

This is not a small difference from my personal perspective.

Am I reading you wrong?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think a lot of it is that they have a certain specific view of a thing, and then someone comes along and recreates it with some slightly different spin, and they are disturbed by that. It doesn't match up with their mental model of how that thing is supposed to be. So they reject it, and one easy, perhaps one might say at times lazy, argument is "that's not original!" So it could be code for something else.

That is an interesting idea. It seems to not take people at their word, though, and i'm not sure why we shouldn't in this case. Can you elaborate?

I don't think the answer to someone saying you should value novelty (even though you do not) is to throw it back in their face and try to get them to change what they value

I didn't do that. At worst, I indirectly chastised people who mock and/or denigrate creative works on the basis that they aren't far enough into their own preference.

But the push for ever more novelty, the disparagement of retellings, etc, has spread far beyond just people who are instinctively novelty-seeking, and instead has become a sort of "rule" of creative works that more novelty is inherently better, and derivative works are inherently lesser than ones with more obfuscated influences. That is a thing worthy of being challenged.

And I'm quite tired of moralizing, tone-policing, nitpicking. If you can't help yourself from hyper-analyzing every turn of phrase with an eye toward what could possibly ever be interpreted in a bad light, please just put me on your ignore list or something.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Except the argument that is being put forward is not that individual people will have different aesthetic priorities. The argument is pushing back at the perceived slight by instead making an impassioned argument to the tribe that novelty seeking should not be valued. Instead of advocating for us all to take personal ownership of our aesthetic judgements the argument is that we should all take on the values put forward instead of valuing novelty or originality.

This is not a small difference from my personal perspective.

Am I reading you wrong?

So wrong that it comes across as probably intentional, or at best a result of confirmation bias, where you have already decided that I would mean something like that before you fully comprehended the OP.

Criticising a social and critical phenomenon where a preference bias has become a thing considered obviously true to the point where it is normal to complain about remakes and marvel movies in specifically the context that they are not creative because they are not hyper-original.

Suggesting that the above is a bad thing is not, in any way, a statement that novelty is bad or even that preferring novelty on a personal level is bad.

 

[Aldarc]

With some additional thought, I think that the "tyranny of novelty" does not necessarily stem from a desire to make something new for the sake of making something new, but, rather, it often stems from a desire from creatives to make something of their own creation and sense of ownership. This may entail their own "unique" version of a pastiche setting - e.g., "this is my own version of a Hyboria-like setting" or "this is Greyhawk done right!" - or the desire to push the boundaries of an aesthetic in a way that they find fun - e.g., "it's like a fantasy Mad Max dialed up to eleven!"

 

[Fenris-77]

We need smaller gradients. If people were willing to dial fantasy mad max to like 10.25 to start there would a lot more room for improvement.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That is an interesting idea. It seems to not take people at their word, though, and i'm not sure why we shouldn't in this case. Can you elaborate?

Well, OK, I don't think any of us are intent on going around calling each other liars. OTOH anytime you have a difference of opinion with someone which involves any objective facts you basically call into question the other person's understanding, veracity, or maybe willingness to be objective. Obviously that doesn't cover ALL differences of opinion though.

So, yeah, sometimes maybe people do NOT know their own minds. They have not really examined their opinions. They had a reaction to something and they go with it, but maybe there's something deeper. PERSONALLY I don't think humans are rational or objective. Those are not particularly traits which work well in the real world surprisingly. This is not an attack on people, but it may be a truth about them which doesn't sit easily with any of us.

I didn't do that. At worst, I indirectly chastised people who mock and/or denigrate creative works on the basis that they aren't far enough into their own preference.

But the push for ever more novelty, the disparagement of retellings, etc, has spread far beyond just people who are instinctively novelty-seeking, and instead has become a sort of "rule" of creative works that more novelty is inherently better, and derivative works are inherently lesser than ones with more obfuscated influences. That is a thing worthy of being challenged.

And I'm quite tired of moralizing, tone-policing, nitpicking. If you can't help yourself from hyper-analyzing every turn of phrase with an eye toward what could possibly ever be interpreted in a bad light, please just put me on your ignore list or something.

I think he's just being thoughtful. Anyway, I'm not really sure we can say that novelty is any more valued today than in the past, at least the recent past. Clearly at some point our culture, and I think that means the culture of the 'globalized' world to an extent, has moved into a realm in which we can accept novelty. There was obviously a time when traditional values were supreme most everywhere and even creative activities were restricted to certain standardized forms, etc. Think of Chinese verse or landscape painting, where certain schools persisted across a dozen centuries or more, and work that fell outside of the recognized ones was usually rejected (though 100's of years later it might be recognized as establishing a new school too, or sometimes even in the artist's lifetime).

So, we have a culture which does value novelty, or at least tolerate new forms and styles more than in the past. OTOH I'm not sure I see where traditional stories and creativity is exactly denigrated. Maybe sometimes it is outshone by things that claim to be 'new', but I think mostly it is still there, perhaps just not in the spotlight so much. Beyond that "there is nothing new under the Sun" may be an old adage, but it is a true one.