Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8088438" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I'm snipping most of your discussion, because while interesting, I feel like it is just going to go into circles, and I want to focus on this.Let me requote [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] 's opening paragraph that got this line started.Note how he is specifically saying that the stakes do not make an Epic, epic? Note how he does not mention an epic scale of geography stretching most of the setting, or epic timescale involving multiple generations?In fact, his only point mentions the number of characters, and their backstories.So, I pushed back on that singular point. That an Epic Fantasy story is defined solely by having a large cast. A point that Hussar has since agreed with, a point that you agree with in your above post, even italicizing in the section I bolded.So.... if everyone agrees with me, how was I making a bad faith argument, reducing his argument into a absurd caricature in an intellectually dishonest move?I guess instead of saying "No, I think you are wrong and using too simplistic a definition, here is an example of something that is not an Epic Fantasy Story that has a large cast to back-up my assertion with evidence" I should have just said "No, you are wrong, it is more than that." And had you guys provide the evidence yourselves? Because, after all, you both agree with me. You both agree that a large cast with complex backstories are only one part of what makes Epic Fantasy Epic. So, how was I doing anything wrong by providing evidence to back up an assertion we all agree with in the first place?Maybe, instead of backhandedly telling me "But that would require reading what other people have written and contextualizing their arguments appropriately through good faith readings" you could... maybe do the same? Because I keep making very simple points, that as the discussion moves on, everyone agrees with, but I keep getting called dishonest and ignorant in the process, and I don't understand why.sighAn American City? What is this America? Oh, they came from England? What is that? Democracy has it's roots in the Native Americans and the Greek City of Athens? Oh, the mob seems to have a lot of Italian roots, how did that happen? Why was Italy that way? Rome? Didn't that involve the Greeks?But yeah, just a history a few decades old is brought along to talk about the real world. Totally.Might want to re-read my post where I said that "brings with it the entire weight of American history"See, Tolkien had to explain millenia of stuff, because he was building a new world millenia old. Dresden doesn't need to tell us about the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War, or World War 1 and 2... because they are our History and we are assumed to know it, unlike the story of Middle Earth, which Tolkien had to write themselves.Yes, what Tolkien did was monumentally impressive, but the reason it is impressive is because of the weight you can gain from reference real-life history, which brings all of that weight Tolkien constructed, ready made.The very fact you had to list out all those elements means I was right!My entire point was that the size of the cast ALONE did not define Epic Fantasy. Which you claimed it did. If that wasn't your claim, then perhaps you should have said so, instead of attacking the details of my argument and trying to show how badly I understand the original intent of Tolkien's work.I mean, what effort was I supposed to put in to disagree with a point that you yourself disagree with? My only conclusion is that I should stop trying to back up my claims and just state them as facts, because every time I try and put forth a reasoned example, I get attacked over quibbles even when people agree with my point.Which was, to reiterate.The size of the cast alone does not determine if a work of Fantasy is Epic Fantasy or not.Right, I suppose it sprang fully formed from the mind of Tolkien, with no references at all to prior forms of creative writing. No Epic Poems, no collections of mythological stories, none of it.After all, the modern novel was completely unique right? It was based on say... collecting stories together into a single volume. Which happened for centuries if not millenia since people invented writing.I mean, I mentioned it depended on how you define things. But I guess nuance is a pointless endeavor for me to embark on, since my arguments are ignored outright due to my perceived idiocy.</blockquote>

Verification