D&D 4E 4e Design and JRR Tolkien

[PeterWeller]

Yet, we have people here sticking The Lost World into Fantasy. After all, if Tarzan is Fantasy, why not The Lost World?

Well, travel to a lost world is a fantasy trope.

Platonic Ideal of genre

I'm not invoking Plato. Genres exist upon the sharing of a common trope. Two things use the same trope, they have a genre that can be defined. But there is no perfect divine example of each genre that all works of art intend towards.

Modern Fantasy (which is the genre we're discussing) didn't exist until about 200 years ago.

And now we're talking about modern fantasy. Can't win the argument, change the stakes, and as an aside take me to task.

retcon

Could we stop applying a term for modifying comic book continuity through modern stories to every and any change we don't approve of? It's incorrect. The term you're looking for is "grandfathered," and yes, works can be grandfathered into a genre because genre is just a convenience.

Yes, the Greek myth of Jason and the Argonauts is not in the same genre as the movie based on the same. They are different. They are written differently, they approach the material differently and they contain different elements. Never mind the fact that one is a movie and the other an oral tradition myth.

Medium has nothing to do with it. They both contain fantasy tropes and thus are both firmly in the fantasy genre.

Heh, as a side note, I find it terribly ironic that someone would take me to task for not knowing about literary criticism and then quote authorial intent as part of their proof.

I wasn't using HotB as part of my proof. It was an aside, and documented authorial intent is fair and usable in a discussion on literature. It's assumed authorial intent that is a no-no. Not only that, but whether or not Doyle intended it as so (which he did; it is documented), it functions perfectly well as such, and its major theme ties into the argument. Authorial intent is also totally fair to use when discussing why someone wrote something, which is all I was pointing out. Also, I find it terribly ironic that someone would take me to task for using authorial intent when their only shred of evidence so far has been a Wiki article, and not only that, a Wiki article that can be read in support of the opposite side of the argument.

Sorry that I offended you by asking if you had a literary background, but it really does sound like you can't divorce the concept of genre from the concept of category, and it seems like you think genre is a much more rigid and codified beast than it is. I'm sorry, Hussar, but you're incorrect, and you shouldn't be if you do come from the literary background you implied. Changing the stakes of the argument, misuse of terminology, and your sideways and unfounded attack on the use of authorial intent all imply that while you may have a background in literature, it has become rusty.

I'm sorry for that, but you really can't start being personal about things when your argument is built on faulty pillars of poor source material, poor terminology, and changing the very subject of the argument. I think I made it perfectly clear that I honestly felt you were a layman and didn't know the distinction between genre and category. You say you do have a background in literature, and I'm going to accept that, but your argument so far still implies otherwise.

 

[Hussar]

I wasn't using HotB as part of my proof. It was an aside, and documented authorial intent is fair and usable in a discussion on literature. It's assumed authorial intent that is a no-no. Not only that, but whether or not Doyle intended it as so (which he did; it is documented), it functions perfectly well as such, and its major theme ties into the argument. Authorial intent is also totally fair to use when discussing why someone wrote something, which is all I was pointing out. Also, I find it terribly ironic that someone would take me to task for using authorial intent when their only shred of evidence so far has been a Wiki article, and not only that, a Wiki article that can be read in support of the opposite side of the argument.

So Dumbledore is gay? The wiki article was as I mentioned, a pretty good start. Not a be all of the argument. But, then again, what novels has Wiki written?

On the changing terminology bit. My bad actually. I assumed, when discussing fantasy here, we were referring to to Modern Fantasy, not Romance since every example brought up was an example relating to Modern Fantasy. If you want to use Fantasy as a synonym for Romance, that's fine, we can do that too.

 

[PeterWeller]

So Dumbledore is gay?

Yeah. He's a big old gay. He likes dudes. Sorry.

On the changing terminology bit. My bad actually. I assumed, when discussing fantasy here, we were referring to to Modern Fantasy, not Romance since every example brought up was an example relating to Modern Fantasy. If you want to use Fantasy as a synonym for Romance, that's fine, we can do that too.

I'm doing no such thing, but if you want to recognize that modern fantasy and romance are both part of a greater fantasy genre, we can do that.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Yeah. He's a big old gay. He likes dudes. Sorry.

Is he the only one in the village?

 

[Hussar]

Yeah. He's a big old gay. He likes dudes. Sorry.

Tell you what. If you can point to a single instance in any of the seven books that supports that reading, I'll buy you dinner. The whole Dumbledore is gay thing is the precise reason why authorial intent is bogus and completely ignored in any serious literary criticism. If your interpretation is not based on the text, it's wrong.

As a side note, I could kiss J. K. Rowlings on the mouth for doing what she did. She's such a perfectly beautiful example of why we ignore authorial intent when discussing a text.

Or, as another example, there is a huge body of work describing how Lord of the Rings is a WWII analogy, despite the Professor's repeated denials of it. Sorry Professor, but, after you release your work into the wilds, you lose any and all control over it. Unless, of course, you are George Lucas.

I am honestly curious about one thing though PeterWeller. Greater Fantasy genre? What is that? That's a new one to me. Romance is a genre that covers literature up to about the end of the 19th century (give or take) and Modern Fantasy, which overlaps for sure, generally takes over. I've never heard of greater fantasy as a genre before. But, as you say, it's been a few years since Uni, so, I could be behind.

On another side note. I have no problem with Nosferatu and Dracula being considered part of the same genre. I do have a problem including them in the same genre as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Conan.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, travel to a lost world is a fantasy trope.

Yup. I again point out that this work is in the excellent Encyclopedia of Fantasy, which should be a must-have for the bookshelf of anyone with an interest in this topic.

Can't win the argument, change the stakes, and as an aside take me to task.

I'm sorry, Hussar, but you're incorrect, and you shouldn't be if you do come from the literary background you implied. Changing the stakes of the argument, misuse of terminology, and your sideways and unfounded attack on the use of authorial intent all imply that while you may have a background in literature, it has become rusty.

I don't have the aforementioned EoF with me here at work, but it contains a pretty lengthy discussion of what the fantasy genre is and is not. Far too long for me to quote the entire thing, but it might be of interest to excerpt from for those whose backgrounds in literature are.....rusty.

RC

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Tell you what. If you can point to a single instance in any of the seven books that supports that reading, I'll buy you dinner. The whole Dumbledore is gay thing is the precise reason why authorial intent is bogus and completely ignored in any serious literary criticism. If your interpretation is not based on the text, it's wrong.

John Scalzi, on What Authors Know About Their Characters.

It is obviously true that people can and do read more things into books than the author intended; sometimes they're seeing things that really are there but not intentionally added by the author, sometimes they're just projecting their own thoughts and beliefs onto the text, but in any case it doesn't mean the authorial intent is nonsense

Basically, Rowling as the author is the final word on her world and characters. She wrote them. And as her revelation that Dumbledore was, indeed, homosexual, doesn't contradict anything in the text, I see no reason not to accept that yes, she as the author knows what she meant.

(The belief that the readers or the fans somehow "own" the characters or the setting is a related bit of rubbish. What you own is your take on the characters, setting etc., not the original thing.)

 

[PeterWeller]

Tell you what. If you can point to a single instance in any of the seven books that supports that reading, I'll buy you dinner. The whole Dumbledore is gay thing is the precise reason why authorial intent is bogus and completely ignored in any serious literary criticism. If your interpretation is not based on the text, it's wrong.

He never married. We never see him romance a female character, especially in a school crawling with older women, amongst which he could be the alpha male if he so wished. He heaps attention upon his male protege, Harry Potter. Finally, while all other professors have at least small details about their love lives revealed, we never hear a single bit about Dumbledore's, probably because you can't have an out and out homosexual character in an already controversial children's novel. Wanna send me a gift certificate to Sizzler's now?

Also, where is Authorial intent ignored in any serious literary criticism? Not in Faulkner's criticism, and he's a known liar, but we still take his word for what he was trying to do with his novels. Whether he succeeds or not at his intent can be discussed, but intent isn't ignored. Reader response is not the only valid form of literary criticism.

As a side note, I could kiss J. K. Rowlings on the mouth for doing what she did. She's such a perfectly beautiful example of why we ignore authorial intent when discussing a text.

Not really, but I guess you can go and kiss her after you mail me my gift certificate for Sizzlers.

Or, as another example, there is a huge body of work describing how Lord of the Rings is a WWII analogy, despite the Professor's repeated denials of it. Sorry Professor, but, after you release your work into the wilds, you lose any and all control over it. Unless, of course, you are George Lucas.

Sure, you can read a book as something and find enough evidence to back up your claim whether the author wants you to read it that way or not. That doesn't support your claim that authorial intent is ignored in all serious literary criticism. Also, it makes a better WWI analogy by far, and the Professor would agree with that.

I am honestly curious about one thing though PeterWeller. Greater Fantasy genre? What is that? That's a new one to me. Romance is a genre that covers literature up to about the end of the 19th century (give or take) and Modern Fantasy, which overlaps for sure, generally takes over. I've never heard of greater fantasy as a genre before. But, as you say, it's been a few years since Uni, so, I could be behind.

Yeah, fantasy as defined as a collection of shared tropes covers a lot of other genres, including myths, fairy tales, romance (the early kind), modern fantasy, etc. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

On another side note. I have no problem with Nosferatu and Dracula being considered part of the same genre. I do have a problem including them in the same genre as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Conan.

That's too bad you have a problem with it. They're all fantasy stories. While you could further categorize Nosferatu and Dracula as supernatural horror stories, Harry Potter and LotR as high fantasy, and Conan as sword and sorcery, that doesn't mean that all those don't fall under an umbrella cast by fantasy.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Tell you what. If you can point to a single instance in any of the seven books that supports that reading, I'll buy you dinner. The whole Dumbledore is gay thing is the precise reason why authorial intent is bogus and completely ignored in any serious literary criticism. If your interpretation is not based on the text, it's wrong.

As a side note, I could kiss J. K. Rowlings on the mouth for doing what she did. She's such a perfectly beautiful example of why we ignore authorial intent when discussing a text.

Or, as another example, there is a huge body of work describing how Lord of the Rings is a WWII analogy, despite the Professor's repeated denials of it. Sorry Professor, but, after you release your work into the wilds, you lose any and all control over it. Unless, of course, you are George Lucas.

Are you saying that the author can be wrong about their own characters and stories and what those characters and stories represent if indeed they represent anything at all? If Tolkien said that his work wasn't an allegory then who is to say otherwise when he knew his intent and whatnot in writing the LoTR series?

I know that one's subconscious can give one away. I work in mental health and do hypnosis with clients so I am well versed in the ways the subconscious can speak via symbols and metaphors. However, it takes a very individualistic approach to translate these symbols. There are some cultural norms in regards to symbology and metaphor but one has to dig pretty deep before making any assumptions. Its like real Jungian dream analysis, not the stuff in the books, but the real work were the symbols are sifted and placed in personal context.

Literary criticism is IMO often the same as other criticisms (art critics, music critics, etc.)...folks who make a living interpreting the work of those with actual talent. IMO there is some validity to serious critical analysis but it takes some hubris to think that one's interpretation trumps the author's own.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wanna send me a gift certificate to Sizzler's now?

I sense you'll have a long wait on that gift certificate.....

That's too bad you have a problem with it. They're all fantasy stories. While you could further categorize Nosferatu and Dracula as supernatural horror stories, Harry Potter and LotR as high fantasy, and Conan as sword and sorcery, that doesn't mean that all those don't fall under an umbrella cast by fantasy.

Quoted for Troof!