Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3853828" data-attributes="member: 30001">But his point doesn't rely on the similarity or difference between S&S and Tolkien and I think it's somewhat of a distraction to debate the meaning when Rounser's core issue (from what I can tell by by the quote) is that some prior edition of DnD was generic fantasy, whereas some other version (4E I guess, or whatever) is not.  If the difference between S&S and Tolkien is significant to the discussion, then IMO it's just easiest to say that in specific ways that avoids relying on the definition.  I'd say something like "Conan, an example of S&S, doesn't have dwarves.  Furthermore, the literature in that genre is distinct in many significant ways from Tolkien.  So saying that DnD stays close to Tolkien would then suggest that DnD has strayed far from Conan".  Or something like that - I'm not really sure of the context of the conversation.  But this way you avoid having to debate something that ultimately doesn't support your conclusion AFAICT.  Or at least your point is just as easily established - and in a way that implicitly defines your terms.The bottom line for me with this thread (or this section of it) and in other places where this is discussed is that I think everyone knows what everyone else is really trying to say.  It's possible that the vocabulary thing is causing a conflation of ideas or other problems that need to be cleared up.  But AFAICT the folks calling "shennanigans" on the use of the term anime are too general IMO in their objections for me to make much use of them in understanding their ideas that are pertinent to the subject.  Sort of a "you're wrong, now say everything again" kind of response that IMO is not constructive.</blockquote>

Verification