D&D 4E 4e Design and JRR Tolkien

[Puggins]

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.

Well, no need for dinner (seriously, I'll punch you in the mouth ), but Rowling did put in a few references that had my wife thinking Dumbledore was gay before the announcement.

The two I remember that she cited (and, let me say this again, this was before the gay flap started):

* The eulogist at Dumbledore's funeral stated that he and Albus were going on holiday together.

* The tone of his relationship with Grindelwald struck her as being a bit more than platonic. Certain passages when their interactions are described can be interpreted in multiple ways.

There's no concrete statement anywhere in the books, but you can certainly spot areas that leave the character perfectly aligned in that regard.

 

[Desdichado]

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?

What? Based on that small list of completely nondescript "clues?"

I should think not.

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?

It's your holding yourself out there as the standard by which the genre should be defined that I'm not accepting, and not to put words into Hussar's mouth, but it seems clear to me that he's also not accepting "it's this way because I say so, and I have a literature degree, so if you don't you don't have any business talking to me!" approach you're taking. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Reading between the lines, it sounds like Hussar does know from literary criticism but simply isn't the kind of person who jumps in and tries to flout their credentials in an attempt to shut down discussion.

In any case, not to speak for Hussar, but I find the whole discussion extremely tiresome. I don't have a literary background, although certainly I took enough literature classes in college since my degree was in a liberal arts category and they were pretty much required electives (plus I enjoyed them). And every literature professer I ever had took an attitude similar to Hussar's genres don't exist as Platonic (note, for the obtuse, speaking of a Platonic ideal does not mean that Plato himself literally defined literary genres; it's a metaphor) ideals. They don't exist until someone comes along and carves out their territory, and other works cluster close to it due to similarity, and then you get a kind of literary zeitgeist and the genre is born. You don't go back and retroactively add earlier works that have some similarities into the genre.

Unless the world of literary criticism has completely changed since I was in college 15 years or so ago, your definition and usage of genre is completely inconsistent with everything I've ever heard on the subject.

I also absolutely do not accept that genre is a term that the literary criticism camp have claimed as their turf. You may wish to create a dichotomy between genre and category and try to force people coming at the question from another standpoint into the label ghetto, so to speak, but that's a pretty weak argument.

Looking at things from a purely pragmatic and practical standpoint, book publishers on the whole have a lot more to say about what "genre" is than all the literature majors in the world.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's your holding yourself out there as the standard by which the genre should be defined that I'm not accepting, and not to put words into Hussar's mouth, but it seems clear to me that he's also not accepting "it's this way because I say so, and I have a literature degree, so if you don't you don't have any business talking to me!" approach you're taking. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Suggesting that there is a meaning to the word "fantasy" that, while somewhat nebulous, is used by academics, and suggesting that this is a better definition than that put forward by someone on the Interweb, is not the same as "holding yourself out there as the standard". Far from it, actually.

If experts define X as Y, then it makes sense to use X = Y in discussions of X. That is not holding out your personal opinion; it is deferring to the opinion of those more versed than yourself. If you, instead, claim that X =/= Y, but is Z instead, whereas the experts claim that X = Y, you are holding yourself out there as the standard.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like Hussar does know from literary criticism but simply isn't the kind of person who jumps in and tries to flout their credentials in an attempt to shut down discussion.

"What? Based on that small list of completely nondescript "clues?"

I should think not."

In this case, I think you are "reading" something that just isn't there.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Looking at things from a purely pragmatic and practical standpoint, book publishers on the whole have a lot more to say about what "genre" is than all the literature majors in the world.

Of course, if you accept that, it stands to reason that McDonalds knows more about what a hamburger is than anyone else.....?


EDIT: There is certainly a question as to whether mythological or folkloric texts were fantasy or not. In many cases, these texts are considered "taproot" texts that inform later fantasy, without necessarily being fantasy themselves. The difference is, of course, whether or not the original "authors" of these stories believed that they were possible within the world they inhabited.

RC

 

[Desdichado]

Suggesting that there is a meaning to the word "fantasy" that, while somewhat nebulous, is used by academics, and suggesting that this is a better definition than that put forward by someone on the Interweb, is not the same as "holding yourself out there as the standard". Far from it, actually.

If experts define X as Y, then it makes sense to use X = Y in discussions of X. That is not holding out your personal opinion; it is deferring to the opinion of those more versed than yourself. If you, instead, claim that X =/= Y, but is Z instead, whereas the experts claim that X = Y, you are holding yourself out there as the standard.

I'm sorry, RC, but that made my burst out in laughter. That's pretty good stuff.

In any case, I'm not disparaging the idea of consulting experts, I'm saying specifically that 1) what I've heard from experts in this field (i.e., literature professors I've had in the past) does not conform with the statements made here so far, and 2) ignoring other qualified experts just because you don't like the direction they're coming from and the conclusions they reach (i.e., book publishers) seems like a poor way to establish that "expert opinion" is on your side.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm sorry, RC, but that made my burst out in laughter. That's pretty good stuff.

? And what, exactly, had you laughing there ?

Or is this an "argument by ridicule"?

In any case, I'm not disparaging the idea of consulting experts, I'm saying specifically that 1) what I've heard from experts in this field (i.e., literature professors I've had in the past) does not conform with the statements made here so far, and 2) ignoring other qualified experts just because you don't like the direction they're coming from and the conclusions they reach (i.e., book publishers) seems like a poor way to establish that "expert opinion" is on your side.

Book publishers, so far as I know, are experts in selling books, not experts in critiquing them.

From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html:

To sum up these points in a positive manner, before relying upon expert opinion, go through the following checklist:

* Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:

* Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:

* Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:

* Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:

* Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion.

If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then it commits the fallacy of appeal to misleading authority.​

Now, I would posit that "What does the term fantasy mean, in relation to the fantasy genre?" and "What is the fantasy genre?" are questions which, while we certainly can have opinions on, are questions that cannot be answered objectively. It is, IMHO, a topic to which study allows a greater understanding, and thus one to which authority can speak. It is not, IMHO, a topic where everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's.

Is expert opinion available? Certainly. I would claim that the rigorously researched Encyclopedia of Fantasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Encyclopedia_of_Fantasy) is a good example of a source for expert opinion. Conversely, we can neither examine the remarks made by your lit profs, nor can we be certain of their credentials.

Is the EoF biased? I don't believe so, but I would be willing to entertain discussion on that topic. Conversely, we can't determine whether or not your profs or mine were biased on the basis of (for example) their personal preferences.

Is the EoF's opinion representative of expert opinion? In some ways, yes, and in others no. Certainly there is a great deal of debate on this topic. However, insofar as there is a representative expert opinion, I would argue that the EoF represents just that.

Therefore, I tend to think that the EoF is a pretty good authority to use, and I will attempt to copy out some of the text thereof (esp. Def. of Fantasy) over the course of the week, if you'd like.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, you can open the EoF to almost any page and get some great ideas for RPGs. If you don't have this book on your shelf, you should consider it. Even more, you should consider the Dictionary of Imaginary Places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictionary_of_Imaginary_Places). These two books really are "must-haves" (IMHO at least)!

RC

 

[Green Knight]

Finally, while all other professors have at least small details about their love lives revealed, we never hear a single bit about Dumbledore's

I never read the first two books, but was anything said about Professor McGonagall's love life? How about Professor Trelawney? Or Professor Sprout? If so, are they all lesbians?

 

[Wormwood]

I never read the first two books, but was anything said about Professor McGonagall's love life? How about Professor Trelawney? Or Professor Sprout? If so, are they all lesbians?

The fanfic just writes itself, doesn't it?

 

[PeterWeller]

What? Based on that small list of completely nondescript "clues?"

I should think not.

It's your holding yourself out there as the standard by which the genre should be defined that I'm not accepting, and not to put words into Hussar's mouth, but it seems clear to me that he's also not accepting "it's this way because I say so, and I have a literature degree, so if you don't you don't have any business talking to me!" approach you're taking. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Reading between the lines, it sounds like Hussar does know from literary criticism but simply isn't the kind of person who jumps in and tries to flout their credentials in an attempt to shut down discussion.

In any case, not to speak for Hussar, but I find the whole discussion extremely tiresome. I don't have a literary background, although certainly I took enough literature classes in college since my degree was in a liberal arts category and they were pretty much required electives (plus I enjoyed them). And every literature professer I ever had took an attitude similar to Hussar's genres don't exist as Platonic (note, for the obtuse, speaking of a Platonic ideal does not mean that Plato himself literally defined literary genres; it's a metaphor) ideals. They don't exist until someone comes along and carves out their territory, and other works cluster close to it due to similarity, and then you get a kind of literary zeitgeist and the genre is born. You don't go back and retroactively add earlier works that have some similarities into the genre.

Unless the world of literary criticism has completely changed since I was in college 15 years or so ago, your definition and usage of genre is completely inconsistent with everything I've ever heard on the subject.

I also absolutely do not accept that genre is a term that the literary criticism camp have claimed as their turf. You may wish to create a dichotomy between genre and category and try to force people coming at the question from another standpoint into the label ghetto, so to speak, but that's a pretty weak argument.

Looking at things from a purely pragmatic and practical standpoint, book publishers on the whole have a lot more to say about what "genre" is than all the literature majors in the world.

You're accusing me of a few things with this post that I think I should address. First of all, I'm not putting myself out as a standard. I've pointed out the terms by which I have been taught that genre is defined. Namely, it is a convenience using sets of tropes to say this is like that. I've shown how the titles in question fall into the fantasy genre under that definition. Problem is, Hussar claims they aren't, but hasn't put forth an argument to say why, except to say, "no, they aren't." If anything, he's the one putting himself out as the yardstick by which genre is measured. He hasn't defined what genre is.

Also, I haven't invoked my credentials to take a condescending attitude and speak down to Hussar or anyone. I brought it up because I got the impression he was using terms in a different manner than I was. Neither have I said that literary critics hold genre as their exclusive domain to define. We can be operating under different definitions of what genre and, more specifically, fantasy are, but then what is Hussar's definition of the two?

Also, where did you get the impression that I was taking his invocation of Plato as anything but a metaphor? I merely said that an invocation of Plato was incorrect because I was in no way declaring that their was a Platonic ideal that defined genres.

Now, the definition of genre I have been taught is that it's merely a convenience, and something can be included in a genre if it evidences tropes from that genre. I guess that is different than the one you learned. The landscape of literary discussion does change, and there are different schools of thought at work and at odds.

Which is what I think is going on here. I've come from a school of thought that views genres as ever changing groupings of mere convenience. You and Hussar appear to come from a school that sees them as more concrete than that. Therein lies the crux of our argument, but the problem is one side of the argument is working from a definition and the other side is saying it is wrong without providing a counter definition. Neither side is wrong, of course, this is nothing but literary ****-waving on the internets, but we deserve a counter definition by which the provided definition can be said to be wrong.

Finally, as for publishers, I never said that they have no place in the definition of genre, but for practical and pragmatic purposes, they developed the concept of category as a separate but related system to genre to stay out of the mires of this sort of discussion.

For the too long/didn't read crowd, I'm not putting myself up as the arbiter of what is and isn't genre. I've put forth a definition and have been told its wrong without receiving a counter definition under which it is wrong. The only problem here is two schools of thought butting heads, and neither is more valid than the other.