Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7616875" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Clarity is not an element of <em>literary</em> quality. Adequate volume to be audible is not something that goes to the <em>artistic</em> quality of a performance.</p><p></p><p>I don't read as much criticism as I probably should, but when I read a review of a novel or a film or a performance of a play I learn (among other things) what the reviewer thought of the cleverness of the composition, the emotions conveyed, the feelings induced in the audience, etc. I don't read much about whether the narration was sufficiently <em>clear</em>. Clarity isn't even a particularly literary virtue - imagery, symbolism, multiple meanings, etc are the stuff of clever composition, especially poetic composition. When I read reviews of theatre and cinema, the issue of *whispering* does not seem to come up. The only exception in the neighbourhood that I can think of is the prominent Australian critic David Stratton, who is well-known for his dislike of films that have shaky hand-held camera work. But even he recognises that this is somewhat idiosyncratic to him, and hence expressly calls it out when it informs his commentary on a film. Whereas eg he doesn't see any need to call out the roles played by (say) the composition of frames, or editing, or visual contrasts, in his critical judgements.</p><p></p><p>Frankly I'm surprised that this notion of "literary quality" is found so contentious or so puzzling. Have you never looked through reviews in the New Yorker or Times Literary Supplement or the Village Voice or other literary/critical journal of your choice? Assuming that you have, then the stuff that they talk about, that they focus on: that's what <em>literary quality</em> consists in. A literary endeavour is one which aims at producing that sort of quality in virtue of caring about that stuff as part of the process of composition.</p><p></p><p>Clearly one can narrate and describe without caring about that stuff, and therefore without aiming at literary quality. People do it all the time, when they talk about what happened in their day, or a person they met; or when they speculate about how they would like to spend tomorrow, or what sort of person they would like to meet. It's not just that looking at an everyday conversation, or an IKEA instruction manual, through the lens of a New Yorker critic would lead to an unflattering review - it would be a category error, because those things aren't intended to be works of art, not even amateur or kitsch ones.</p><p></p><p>RPGing of course differs from those things in that it has crucial aesthetic and creative dimensions, but I assert that it resemble them in that <em>the literary quality of the words used</em> is not where the action is. The aesthetic is about <em>situation</em> and <em>creative participation</em>, not about beauty in composition.</p><p></p><p>But <em>teaching literature</em> to ESL students is typically not, itself, a literary endeavour. I've read plenty of English and ESL texts. They're generally not works of literature. They're instructional and academic texts.</p><p></p><p>Of course some literary criticism is itself literature. (Consider eg TS Eliot as a famous example.) But those are hardly typical teaching texts, and my guess is that the number of ESL classes that use this sort of literary criticism to try and teach English is pretty small.</p><p></p><p>If I'm using the AD&D MM, one is brown and one is yellow. If I'm using DDG, one worships Gruumsh and one worships Maglubiyet.</p><p></p><p>A person can describe and explain things without aiming at literary beauty.</p><p></p><p>Clearly plenty of folks do - everyone but you, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] as far as I can tell. And frankly even Imaro seems to understand the point, despite protesting that it's unclear. He just disagrees with it - that is, he thinks that RPGing <em>is</em> a literary endeavour, and would find a game boring in which the GM didn't aim at literary quality in his/her narration.</p><p></p><p>It seems worth mentioning at this point that not all disagreement is a result of unclear usage or uncertainty over definitions. Aesthetic debates aren't much like mathematics, in that respect at least.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, to aim at <em>literary quality</em> is to try and produce pleasing, beautiful, evocative writing. Most poets do this. Most novelists do this. Fewer instructional writers do this - I've read recipe books that seem to aspire to literary quality, but never stereo or furniture assembly instructions. I've read a lot of academic papers over the years - these tend to aim at clarity, but many clearly do not aim at literary quality. Statutes, regulations, contracts and other legal instruments - of which I've also read many - haven't aimed at literary quality since (I would say) the 18th century (eg the US Constitution clearly does aim at literary quality, in places at least; so does the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth that is the foundation of modern charities law in common law countries; but no modern constitution or statute that I'm familiar with does so).</p><p></p><p>I think it's obvious that not all writing is <em>literary</em> writing; that not every composition or act of human communication is undertaken keeping in mind the stuff that would earn it a good review in the pages of the New Yorker.</p><p></p><p>Some people - [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], for example, and as best I can tell you - think that RPGing <em>should</em> be undertaken in this sort of fashion (while obviously keeping in mind that, in practice, few tables will probably actually achieve literary greatness). That participants who produce mundane or unevocative prose aren't doing the best that they should.</p><p></p><p>It's not the case that I agree with you about this and am adopting some obscure meaning of "literary quality" to say that what you're advocating doesn't go to the issue of literary quality. <em>I disagree with you about what is at the heart of RPGing/</em> It's not an issue about word meaning. It's a difference, perhaps a deep difference, of aesthetic judgement in relation to RPGing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7616875, member: 42582"] Clarity is not an element of [i]literary[/i] quality. Adequate volume to be audible is not something that goes to the [i]artistic[/i] quality of a performance. I don't read as much criticism as I probably should, but when I read a review of a novel or a film or a performance of a play I learn (among other things) what the reviewer thought of the cleverness of the composition, the emotions conveyed, the feelings induced in the audience, etc. I don't read much about whether the narration was sufficiently [i]clear[/i]. Clarity isn't even a particularly literary virtue - imagery, symbolism, multiple meanings, etc are the stuff of clever composition, especially poetic composition. When I read reviews of theatre and cinema, the issue of *whispering* does not seem to come up. The only exception in the neighbourhood that I can think of is the prominent Australian critic David Stratton, who is well-known for his dislike of films that have shaky hand-held camera work. But even he recognises that this is somewhat idiosyncratic to him, and hence expressly calls it out when it informs his commentary on a film. Whereas eg he doesn't see any need to call out the roles played by (say) the composition of frames, or editing, or visual contrasts, in his critical judgements. Frankly I'm surprised that this notion of "literary quality" is found so contentious or so puzzling. Have you never looked through reviews in the New Yorker or Times Literary Supplement or the Village Voice or other literary/critical journal of your choice? Assuming that you have, then the stuff that they talk about, that they focus on: that's what [i]literary quality[/i] consists in. A literary endeavour is one which aims at producing that sort of quality in virtue of caring about that stuff as part of the process of composition. Clearly one can narrate and describe without caring about that stuff, and therefore without aiming at literary quality. People do it all the time, when they talk about what happened in their day, or a person they met; or when they speculate about how they would like to spend tomorrow, or what sort of person they would like to meet. It's not just that looking at an everyday conversation, or an IKEA instruction manual, through the lens of a New Yorker critic would lead to an unflattering review - it would be a category error, because those things aren't intended to be works of art, not even amateur or kitsch ones. RPGing of course differs from those things in that it has crucial aesthetic and creative dimensions, but I assert that it resemble them in that [i]the literary quality of the words used[/i] is not where the action is. The aesthetic is about [i]situation[/i] and [i]creative participation[/i], not about beauty in composition. But [i]teaching literature[/i] to ESL students is typically not, itself, a literary endeavour. I've read plenty of English and ESL texts. They're generally not works of literature. They're instructional and academic texts. Of course some literary criticism is itself literature. (Consider eg TS Eliot as a famous example.) But those are hardly typical teaching texts, and my guess is that the number of ESL classes that use this sort of literary criticism to try and teach English is pretty small. If I'm using the AD&D MM, one is brown and one is yellow. If I'm using DDG, one worships Gruumsh and one worships Maglubiyet. A person can describe and explain things without aiming at literary beauty. Clearly plenty of folks do - everyone but you, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] as far as I can tell. And frankly even Imaro seems to understand the point, despite protesting that it's unclear. He just disagrees with it - that is, he thinks that RPGing [i]is[/i] a literary endeavour, and would find a game boring in which the GM didn't aim at literary quality in his/her narration. It seems worth mentioning at this point that not all disagreement is a result of unclear usage or uncertainty over definitions. Aesthetic debates aren't much like mathematics, in that respect at least. Anyway, to aim at [i]literary quality[/i] is to try and produce pleasing, beautiful, evocative writing. Most poets do this. Most novelists do this. Fewer instructional writers do this - I've read recipe books that seem to aspire to literary quality, but never stereo or furniture assembly instructions. I've read a lot of academic papers over the years - these tend to aim at clarity, but many clearly do not aim at literary quality. Statutes, regulations, contracts and other legal instruments - of which I've also read many - haven't aimed at literary quality since (I would say) the 18th century (eg the US Constitution clearly does aim at literary quality, in places at least; so does the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth that is the foundation of modern charities law in common law countries; but no modern constitution or statute that I'm familiar with does so). I think it's obvious that not all writing is [i]literary[/i] writing; that not every composition or act of human communication is undertaken keeping in mind the stuff that would earn it a good review in the pages of the New Yorker. Some people - [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], for example, and as best I can tell you - think that RPGing [i]should[/i] be undertaken in this sort of fashion (while obviously keeping in mind that, in practice, few tables will probably actually achieve literary greatness). That participants who produce mundane or unevocative prose aren't doing the best that they should. It's not the case that I agree with you about this and am adopting some obscure meaning of "literary quality" to say that what you're advocating doesn't go to the issue of literary quality. [i]I disagree with you about what is at the heart of RPGing/[/i] It's not an issue about word meaning. It's a difference, perhaps a deep difference, of aesthetic judgement in relation to RPGing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
Top