Search results

That is true, and the key point there is that much of the ancient stories were written as poetry, but that did not last forever. Outside of that the best difference I can seem to think of is that more monsters are used, mixing monster/race tropes from all manner of legends that have been...

No problem. When things get intense, it becomes hard to tell the difference between a minor concession and sarcasm. :)

This seems like sarcasm. So a writer can have a goal of writing fantasy without knowing they're writing fantasy? If your statement was genuine, and not sarcasm, then disregard this post.

Well then we agree, but disagree on what that means. The receptors (the readers in later generations) have no bearing on what the writer's goal was. The myths weren't canonized (declared a religious tenant) until centuries after the death of the authors, and yes, I did say that earlier.

In that case, I find it suspect that Hobo knows. But then, you don't have to know to see from their professions and histories what the writer's goal in his writing was (as I explained when referencing "heroic prose"). I don't pretend to know what his thoughts are (that was Hobo, not me), but...

Oh really. Your evidence? Here's mine: Webster's 1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b: parable, allegory 2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has...

I'm not going to repeat myself. This is false, and scroll up and read my posts to find out why.

Differing authorial goals I addressed this directly. I made it clear that both Homer and Virgil had goals exactly identical to modern goals in writing: creativity and self-expression. Why a modern point of view suffusing the story is irrelevent I addressed this too. I said that comparing...

Providing facts isn't just "nuh-uh". Providing facts is "nuh-uh, and here's why...". It wasn't a wasted post as you seem to be implying. But instead of arguing with you about the semantics of an argument, I'll let this stew until we get some new ideas and new approaches in the thread. I...

Oops. Sorry. I thought this was a "discussion" thread. I didn't realize it defaults to a "post your opinion but don't dispute ideas" thread if I don't make it clear. Come on man. If someone disagrees, you don't have to argue it if you don't want to, but don't try making them look like a fool...

What I'm finding here is people thinking that the myth relates and is created by the religion, but in fact the religion usually adopts the pre-existing story as a myth to express values and beliefs. Make no mistake, the writers knew that what they wrote was shear fantasy. And again, what their...

Actually, a myth, while it may be used to EXPLAIN a historical event, only has the necessity of being canonized as a religious belief. That is the ONLY requirement. It need have no more historical significance than telling a teacher a dog ate your homework.

Both Homer and Virgil did not believe what they wrote. They were not redactors or historians. They were poets and storytellers. Much of what they wrote was original to their own text, and some borrowed from other fanciful tales. It wasn't until long after their deaths that their stories were...

I could base a superhero off a real person and a real event, but that doesn't make the concept any less fantasy.

I've noted that peaceful, non-combative statements of this kind have been permitted frequently. Only when someone starts turning it into an edition war is any moderation necessary. Even then they may just ask to keep it polite or if necessary remove the offending poster(s) from the thread.

That is simply comparing a highly superstitious people to a wishful people, not the differences between fictions or their philosophies. The writers certainly knew (I know for a fact that Homer knew) they were writing fiction. It doesn't matter what the recipients believed. It only matters what...

Such discussion is impossible from two entrenched camps. If you want such discussion you will only find it from people who like both editions. For instance, I hate 3e and will therefore only have bad things to say about it. The same goes for anyone who hates 4e. Only those who like both will be...

I like this peaceful atmosphere. If I want edition wars, I'll go to any other forum. I'm enjoying being here because there aren't constant edition wars going on here. Edition wars are disruptive and serve no good purpose.

Forked from: Forked Thread: What is the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy? And how do you distinguish Lord of the Rings from Aenid, The Illiad, The Odyssy, Orpheus, beowulf, the Chronicles of Gilgamesh, or the legends of Hercules? What powers? What philosophies? There is nothing...

EDIT. Made a new thread for the subject of "What is the difference between New Fantasy and Old Fantasy"?