Disdain for new fantasy

Canis said:
Point taken. :)

:)

How rare that is to read on the Interweb. :lol:

However, for the purposes of meaningful discussion that is more informative than "Coke vs. Pepsi" the difference between "those are not objective" and "we cannot observe those objectively" is nil.

Sorry, I thought that was what "It's all subjective anyway" was meant to do..... ;)

What meaningful discussion is there to be had about "objective standards" if we cannot, in fact, observe them objectively?

You could ask the same question in any human endeavor. Our ability to objectively see anything is mythical, AFAICT, like unicorns and virgins. That doesn't mean that we can't make our subjective toolset more finely tuned (i.e., nearer objective) through this sort of discussion.

And since the alleged purpose of much in the field of "art" is to PREVENT you from being impassive or "objective" about the material, it's sort of an empty exercise in the first place.

Being impassive and being objective are two different things in this case.

All we can actually talk about with authority is the difference in our subjective experience. All else is driven by consensus, which is nothing more than the aggregate of subjective experiences (even in science to say nothing of art). "Objective" is functionally the plural of "subjective."

So.... what does that mean for "objective standards" in art?

The same thing it means for "objective standards" in science.


RC
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
... "One does not simply ride Giant Eagles into Mordor." ...

And the rest of the PCs didn't respond to this? Man, it sure is nice to be a novel author rather than a DM. Tolkien had it easy. My players would have been all over this. I wouldn't have even bothered saying it if I didn't follow it up with a "because...". They would have said - "there are only a handful of fell beasts and some crows and there are dozens or hundreds of eagles, let's give it a go!" Gandalf would be like "errr...um...you must proceed into the dungeon. That's why we're not going around Mordor but through it, sheesh. How am I ever going to level up if you don't let me fight the Balrog?".
 

Other than "anime"---whatever that even means, do we even know what we're talking about when we see the term "New Fantasy?" Because I'm not at all sure that I do. And actually, saying "anime" doesn't help me much either.
 

Hobo said:
Other than "anime"---whatever that even means, do we even know what we're talking about when we see the term "New Fantasy?" Because I'm not at all sure that I do. And actually, saying "anime" doesn't help me much either.

I tried to suggest that "new fantasy" was a totally bogus term for what was being discussed here earlier, but then I got taken to task because apparently nobody has read any non-merchanising-based fantasy novels written in the last five-seven years, so they can't possibly actually be the new fantasy...

What was being discussed by the OP is clear:

1) Anime-influence on D&D.

2) World of Warcraft/MMORPG influence on D&D.

Why in god's holy name he'd stuck these two ideas together and called it "new fantasy" as if it were a generally accepted term, I suspect we shall never know! Particularly as virtually everything in WoW is seriously "old fantasy", with few ideas post-dating Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and most anime fantasy is pretty old-skool too (particularly really "FANTASY!" anime fantasy, like Slayers or Ruin Explorers - You could make a better case that something like Naruto is "new fantasy", because he's basically a wizard, but in a fairly unique semi-modern setting and very much unlike wizardly stereotypes, even cast spells and waggles his fingers).
 

gizmo33 said:
And the rest of the PCs didn't respond to this? Man, it sure is nice to be a novel author rather than a DM. Tolkien had it easy. My players would have been all over this. I wouldn't have even bothered saying it if I didn't follow it up with a "because...". They would have said - "there are only a handful of fell beasts and some crows and there are dozens or hundreds of eagles, let's give it a go!" Gandalf would be like "errr...um...you must proceed into the dungeon. That's why we're not going around Mordor but through it, sheesh. How am I ever going to level up if you don't let me fight the Balrog?".


Whatever Gandalf said, it would have started "Fool of a Took!"

Then he would probably have pointed out that, in addition to a couple handfuls of fell beasts, the nine Nazgul, and the crebain, Sauron himself would certainly have stopped them long before they reached Mordor....or, at the very least as they crossed the border. And, had Sauron "seen" the Ringbearer and bent his will toward him, there is no doubt but that Frodo would have delivered the Ring to Barad Dur.

Not only that, but in the book Gandalf is rescued from Orthanc because he was sent there by Radaghast the Brown, who also sent the eagle to carry messages. Gandalf could not simply summon the eagles at a whim. And, even if they had deigned to carry the Ringbearer before his quest was complete, who would travel to the aeries of the Misty Mountains to speak to them?

By the time that the Nazgul had recovered, surely the Enemy would have surrounded Rivendell with spies, as the Council foretold, and nothing going into the valley or out could do so in secret. Indeed, I could easily see a scene where Orcish archers sent forth from Moria eliminate the eagles early on, when they foolishly fly low to swoop into Rivendell......

.......But, hey, it's a great plan. Go for it.

(BTW, near Moria, the crebain that find the company were sent by Saruman, who does not alert Sauron because he wants the Ring for himself. Thereafter, the Enemy believes that Aragorn, as Isuldur's Heir, has the Ring. This is because Sauron thought that Saruman had captured the Ringbearer and was torturing him by forcing him to look into the Palantir that Grima Wormtongue chucked at Gandalf's head. Sauron immediately sent a Nazgul to Orthanc, but found it sacked with a victorious army heading away. Aragorn was part of that army. Aragorn then contested Sauron's will with the Palantir, and bent it to his will. It was for this reason that Sauron sent so much of his might against Gondor when he did, and why his Eye was fixed on Aragorn when they marched to the Black Gate.)
 

Hobo said:
Other than "anime"---whatever that even means, do we even know what we're talking about when we see the term "New Fantasy?" Because I'm not at all sure that I do. And actually, saying "anime" doesn't help me much either.
Well, at the very least, it includes videogames too...

Probably refers to anything more recent than the various old "classics" of fantasy that get brought up once and a while, that I never read. I guess "new fantasy" is anything more recent than Vance's Dying Earth, but I'm not certain... The same people who have a disdain for "new fantasy" also seem to have a disdain for the classic myths and legends I like, at least whenever I bring up their relevence to D&D. As such, aybe it really just is "disdain for anything but a select group of canonical Fantasy texts" rather than "disdain for new fantasy"

Though, I think it is mostly anime and videogames that we are really talking about in thsi thread. And abstract discussion on the proper way to evaluate the absolute quality of art, it seems...
 

Doug McCrae said:
I don't see much difference. D&D was originally inspired by pop culture trash - fantasy pulps, space opera, Hammer horror, David Carradine's Kung Fu, 70s Marvel comics, and even bizarre kids' toys. Now it's still being inspired by pop culture trash.

Okay, some D&D is derived from ancient myth and folklore but it's not a deep reading thereof. It's myth as cheap thrill, being mined solely for weird-shaped monsters for the PCs to murder.

I agree with this 100%.

I really wish WotC would have made the anime stuff a separate supplement instead of core for 4th edition. Fighters shooting lightning lightning bolts out of their swords, etc. is just not for me.

By making this stuff core (which is very obviously the way they are going from the bits of information they are giving us) it will make it very hard to remove from the game. Gamers tend to get upset when you take things away from them (especially stuff from the PHB!!!) - but adding things is usually not a problem (and this is what would happen if the anime stuff was an add on supplement).

Eric
 

erc1971 said:
I agree with this 100%.

I really wish WotC would have made the anime stuff a separate supplement instead of core for 4th edition. Fighters shooting lightning lightning bolts out of their swords, etc. is just not for me.

By making this stuff core (which is very obviously the way they are going from the bits of information they are giving us) it will make it very hard to remove from the game. Gamers tend to get upset when you take things away from them (especially stuff from the PHB!!!) - but adding things is usually not a problem (and this is what would happen if the anime stuff was an add on supplement).

Eric
I'm sorry but...I am confused.

What?

Is this sarcasm or not?

If the former, good for you...if the latter, I return to my previous "I am confused."
 

erc1971 said:
I agree with this 100%.

I really wish WotC would have made the anime stuff a separate supplement instead of core for 4th edition. Fighters shooting lightning lightning bolts out of their swords, etc. is just not for me.

By making this stuff core (which is very obviously the way they are going from the bits of information they are giving us) it will make it very hard to remove from the game. Gamers tend to get upset when you take things away from them (especially stuff from the PHB!!!) - but adding things is usually not a problem (and this is what would happen if the anime stuff was an add on supplement).

Eric
What, exactly, is the "anime stuff" that you think they are adding?
 

Canis said:
No, none of those are objective at all. I've studied linguistics. Even "what is grammatical?" is derived by polling the populace. Seriously. Grammaticality, despite my 7 years of grammar classes in school that tried desperately to instill a standard, is in actual fact derived from common usage.

Really? So I should be writing everything in netspeak then? Or using "ain't" more liberally? Perhaps I should start "axing" people questions...

Canis said:
To say nothing of "pacing" and "use of language." Pacing, in literature and film is wildly variable and subject to fashionable trends. In the case of movies, it is not uncommon for pacing to be taken out of the hands of the director by the studio.

Hmmm I didn't think it was common practice. I've heard of studios editing movies after the director/editor was down with it, but to my understanding that was considered bad form and somewhat rare.

Canis said:
They argued with me until they were blue in the face, and it didn't change the fact that "Great Expectations" is pretentious crap that is poorly constructed for its modern usage in addition to being overwrought and remarkably unconvincing and uninteresting...

Well that would really be your opinion, not fact. Right?
 

Remove ads

Top