Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Odhanan" data-source="post: 3461016" data-attributes="member: 12324">I don't necessarily agree with your point that world-building would be more &quot;necessary&quot; in RPGs than literature. That's just the way we've learned to run and &quot;take possession&quot; of them as &quot;ours&quot; (i.e. the act of world-building makes us own the world depicted by the RPG, even (more so) if it is a world suggested rather than fully described, as in the case of core DnD, imo). But you make a sound point: his comment was about writing, not GMing.His point of view applied to literature is utter crap. Crap on the tone and way it's written, and crap on the sense because it is terribly short-sighted. You'll excuse me to quote a previous poster (I could have posted the comment about Victor Hugo, which was IMO very appropriate, but here you go):Spot on. People criticizing Tolkien for engaging in &quot;needless side-trips&quot; and considering his writing to be &quot;bad storytelling&quot; just don't understand the Lord of the Rings, and subsequently its main influences (which aren't literary, but poetic -in its broadest definition- and mythological, from an era preceding 'modern writing' efficiency traps and mumbo jumbo to rather depict a vivid emotional tone and image of what the story's supposed to mean, no matter how long it takes).He can say he is not from the same &quot;school&quot;. He can say he dislikes the LOTR and explain why. He can explain how he writes efficient stories, what works for him. That's all perfectly fine. But pretending to &quot;know better&quot; is just preposterous (not to mention short-sighted, pretentious, with the knee-jerk tone that goes with it).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Odhanan, post: 3461016, member: 12324"] I don't necessarily agree with your point that world-building would be more "necessary" in RPGs than literature. That's just the way we've learned to run and "take possession" of them as "ours" (i.e. the act of world-building makes us own the world depicted by the RPG, even (more so) if it is a world suggested rather than fully described, as in the case of core DnD, imo). But you make a sound point: his comment was about writing, not GMing. His point of view applied to literature is utter crap. Crap on the tone and way it's written, and crap on the sense because it is terribly short-sighted. You'll excuse me to quote a previous poster (I could have posted the comment about Victor Hugo, which was IMO very appropriate, but here you go): Spot on. People criticizing Tolkien for engaging in "needless side-trips" and considering his writing to be "bad storytelling" just don't understand the Lord of the Rings, and subsequently its main influences (which aren't literary, but poetic -in its broadest definition- and mythological, from an era preceding 'modern writing' efficiency traps and mumbo jumbo to rather depict a vivid emotional tone and image of what the story's supposed to mean, no matter how long it takes). He can say he is not from the same "school". He can say he dislikes the LOTR and explain why. He can explain how he writes efficient stories, what works for him. That's all perfectly fine. But pretending to "know better" is just preposterous (not to mention short-sighted, pretentious, with the knee-jerk tone that goes with it). [/QUOTE]

Verification