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="Mercurius" data-source="post: 4942460" data-attributes="member: 59082">I apologize for not replying sooner--I don't want this thread to got he way of the dodo...yet.It was probably a poor analogy. What I was trying to get at is that while digital may be a more accurate representation in terms of hearing range, there is something that "seeps through" with analog perhaps because it is less exact.True, good point. I guess this is why I shouldn't be upset when people like Harry Potter and think it is "good fantasy." <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Again, this is a good point. The problem being, though, that because there is such a large consumer base, the money is also bigger--so the market becomes more and more dictated by finances, which is why, I think, we see so many more re-makes than new ideas in the larger scifi/fantasy market. But again, it might be as you say that even that isn't truly the case, just the popular remakes outshine and even obscure the original material coming out. But where is that original material? Whether or not Avatar will be good, I applaud James Cameron for trying something new.Look at Wizards of the Coast, where the first three settings are the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun. What about a new setting and not just another kitchen sink one, but something thematically innovative and unique? We can hope for 2011, but I'm kind of doubtful. But it is a tricky business, because we might ask the question of how should WotC "reinvent the wheel" with 4th edition. Do you just go through all the hundred or so hardcover books for 3.x and basically re-arrange them and 4thedify them? Or do you try something different? Do we really need a 4th edition of Frostburn? Probably not. But we do need the monster books, and I suppose many need the "Power" books, although with D&D Insider they are becoming rather superfluous. But I'm getting a bit off topic; maybe a new thread on this...Yes, as long as these new options aren't "creative down-grades." A lot of novelists, for instance, make a living as "professional writers" by writing novelizations, Star Trek or RPG novels. My guess is that the vast majority would rather be coming up with their own material.  I suppose it is a weeding out process.Yes, the generational thing is huge. As for your last comment, I think it depends upon what we mean by "creativity." I have noticed in conversations I've had about this and related topic both in cyber and meatspace, many equate creativity with such things as processing speed, problem-solving, and other more computative/left-brain aspects of thinking. I'm using it more in terms of aesthetics, imagination, and right-brain thinking. This is where I see MMOs and other video games as good for the left-brain in that they stimulate and even develop the ability to react and respond to certain situations, but they--at the very least--neglect the right-brain, image-making and what Jung called the "collective unconscious" aspects of human consciousness. I'd love to hear more about this. Very interesting stuff here. The concern that arises for me is that even if we come up with technologies that enhance "Imaginary Enterprises," how will they enhance our own inner capacities to create said enterprises? An analogy would be if we could come up with a pill that took away a smoker's interest in smoking; great, they won't smoke anymore--at least for the time being--but it creates a reliance on something external (a drug, most likely), and it doesn't build the correlative capacity required to quit smoking, namely willpower.A perhaps more accurate or appropriate analogy would be the use of psychedelics to stimulate visionary experience and/or imaginative experience. In the right context, fine. But what about the artist who can only create with a joint in hand? Or the shaman who relies on psilocybin or peyote to do "soul healings"? This goes into the whole issue of transhumanism and my belief that in the future we will see a real split in humanity, those that have developed with and through technology, and those that have developed inner, even mystical, capacities. I have no doubt that the latter will be far fewer than the former, but we are already seeing this occuring.OK, fair enough--and very true. But photography and painting (or virtual and imaginary) are two very different mediums, and I think they can vary in terms of how conducive they are to allowing the artist to enter into the work. The painter is actively engaged in creating the medium by the very act of the brush strokes, whereas the photographer's work is more about adjusting and working with a more pre-given medium. This isn't a judgment for or against photography, just a matter of making meaningful distinctions. As I believe you said or implied, a given photographer can be much more of an artist than a given painter; but my point is that this directly relates to the degree to which they are simulative vs. imaginative, and that the mediums have some impact on this.Yup, which is why "vanilla fantasy" is more popular than "anything goes." Being more of a humanities guy, I see this less through the lens of neuroscience than that of mythology and psychology. What you are saying points to the reality of archetypes, in my opinion, that there are certain qualities--or gestalts of qualities--that deeply resonate without our consciousness. Why elves and dwarves? Why not kridnors and xyguts? Why orcs and dragons? Why not otyughs and modrons? Well, otyughs and modrons are kind of fun, but they are less archetypally resonant (god, I hope that doesn't sound pretentious!).Now whether archetypes are simply a kind of psychological storehouse of mytho-historical imagery, or whether they represent universal patterns is less important than the actuality of their "energy signatures," so to speak. In other words, the hermeneutics are less important (although still important) than the phenomenology.</blockquote>

Verification