Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Authors misunderstanding Tolkien?

Expand Messages
  • David S. Bratman
    In an interview in tomorrow s New York Times magazine, the rising children s author who writes as Lemony Snicket says of his own childhood reading, I was
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In an interview in tomorrow's New York Times magazine, the rising
      children's author who writes as Lemony Snicket says of his own childhood
      reading, "I was never much of a fan of books in which people were casting
      spells, and where you had to gather the three powerful rings to fell the
      dragon. I haven't read any Tolkien."

      Does he consider that Tolkien's books meet that description? I would guess
      he does, which if true is unfortunate, because Tolkien isn't like that at
      all. There is virtually no spell-casting in Tolkien, and he is never a
      "collect the coupons" fantasist, a type of writing Tolkien fans have been
      complaining about for a long time.

      Once again, Tolkien's reputation must suffer for the sins of the less able
      of those who have followed in his path.

      David Bratman
    • ERATRIANO@aol.com
      In a message dated 04/28/01 12:16:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dbratman@stanford.edu writes:
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 28, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 04/28/01 12:16:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        dbratman@... writes:

        << and he is never a "collect the coupons" fantasist, a type of writing
        Tolkien fans have been complaining about for a long time. >>

        A what? Can someone give me some examples? TIA

        I can't help but bet that that author's negativity, the one who didn't read
        any Tolkien I mean, is another example of the same kind of negativity
        described earlier this week with regard to book reviews.

        Lizzie
      • David S. Bratman
        ... PLOT COUPONS. Term coined by UK critic Nick Lowe, who identified collect-the-coupons plotting as characteristic of uninventive Fantasyland narratives:
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 28, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          >At 05:41 PM 4/28/2001 -0400, Lizzie wrote:

          >In a message dated 04/28/01 12:16:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          >dbratman@... writes:
          >
          ><< and he is never a "collect the coupons" fantasist, a type of writing
          >Tolkien fans have been complaining about for a long time. >>
          >
          >A what? Can someone give me some examples? TIA

          "PLOT COUPONS. Term coined by UK critic Nick Lowe, who identified
          "collect-the-coupons" plotting as characteristic of uninventive Fantasyland
          narratives: the coupons are typically magical items (amulets, rings,
          swords, etc.) all of which the characters must collect before, in Lowe's
          phrase, they can send off to the author for the ending. Scattered Plot
          Coupons are a too-convenient means of motivating a Cook's Tour of the map;
          fresh ones may be introduced en route, making the story indefinitely
          extensible. Plot Coupons are most pernicious when used to decouple cause
          and effect - e.g. when they grant their holder disproportionate power, or
          when a Dark Lord is defeated solely through the manipulation of Plot
          Coupons, leaving a sense of unearned healing."

          - The Encyclopedia of Fantasy

          Books cited in the article as examples of Plot Coupon fantasies include
          "The Black Star" by Lin Carter, "Land of Unreason" by Pratt & de Camp, "The
          Chronicles of Corum" by Michael Moorcock, the Swords series by Fred
          Saberhagen, and "The War of Powers" by Vardeman and Milan. A sequence
          cited as resembling this, but rising above the pure Plot Coupon level, is
          "The Dark Is Rising" by Susan Cooper. The article also distinguishes
          Tolkien's Ring from a Plot Coupon.

          David Bratman
        • WendellWag@aol.com
          David, You beat me to the punch here. I was copying out the same definition. Anyway, it s a fairly standard term now to explain one bad habit of plotting in
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 28, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            David,

            You beat me to the punch here. I was copying out the same definition.
            Anyway, it's a fairly standard term now to explain one bad habit of plotting
            in fantasy.

            Wendell Wagner


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • ERATRIANO@aol.com
            In a message dated 04/28/01 7:16:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dbratman@stanford.edu writes:
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 29, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 04/28/01 7:16:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              dbratman@... writes:

              << A sequence cited as resembling this, but rising above the pure Plot
              Coupon level, is "The Dark Is Rising" by Susan Cooper. The article also
              distinguishes Tolkien's Ring from a Plot Coupon. >>

              Thanks, David. The Cooper is the only one of the examples which I've read
              (and reread). The idea sounded sort of familiar, but I guess it's just
              another gap in my reading. LOL. I bet there are many more examples, but
              usually characters stay with me longer than plots do, so I can't think of
              any. I appreciate your taking the time to spell the Coupons thing out for
              me. And that biblio page is something else!

              Lizzie
            • Trudy Shaw
              ... From: ERATRIANO@aol.com To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien? In a
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 30, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: ERATRIANO@...
                To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:41 PM
                Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien?


                In a message dated 04/28/01 12:16:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                dbratman@... writes:

                << and he is never a "collect the coupons" fantasist, a type of writing
                Tolkien fans have been complaining about for a long time. >>

                A what? Can someone give me some examples? TIA

                I can't help but bet that that author's negativity, the one who didn't read
                any Tolkien I mean, is another example of the same kind of negativity
                described earlier this week with regard to book reviews.

                Lizzie



                Rather common situation--that the person criticizing something (Tolkien) has never read it.
                I hadn't heard the term "collect the coupons" fantasy, but it sounds apt. A little Pokemon, anyone?

                I know I've mentioned this before, some months ago, but I place a lot of the blame on role-playing games. Not that they're bad in themselves, but they're the only type of fantasy some people are "reading." Many writers' guidelines for fantasy magazines include something like, "No RPG threads made into stories," so they must be something the editors are tired of dealing with.

                Two inherent problems with the RPG model of fantasy writing are the lack of real plotting and the lack of--in my opinion--real magic.

                Real magic is something greater than we can control, definitely beyond what we can grasp or understand. Because of the very nature of games, RPG magic _has_ to have observed rules, delineated boundaries, and laid-out circumstances of use. Real magic (to avoid any misunderstanding--I'm using "real" in the sense of a secondary creation) wouldn't be bound by such things. Even the person using it wouldn't completely understand or control it. As an example of this being done _well_ in recent fantasy writing, I'd name C.J. Cherryh's Fortress series.

                I have the same problem with stories that turn magic into a kind of substitute science, with reproducible results, for example, every time a certain spell is used. Sure, wizards and their kin can study and learn about magic, but they can't expect to absolutely control it--unless the outcome of the story shows they were _wrong_ to expect this. A prime example is Sauron's expectations of the One Ring. Perhaps this is one reason, as Tolkien notes regarding the Ring, that it's a common fantasy element for characters to put a large part of their power in something external to themselves; this gives it an aspect of uncontrollability, such as real magic would have.

                Like everything else within a secondary creation, the magic has to be internally consistent--but this will be the magic's own consistency, not one imposed on it by someone else. *Thus endeth the sermon.*

                --Trudy Shaw


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • ERATRIANO@aol.com
                In a message dated 04/30/01 11:32:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tgshaw@earthlink.net writes:
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 30, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 04/30/01 11:32:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  tgshaw@... writes:

                  << I know I've mentioned this before, some months ago, but I place a lot of
                  the blame on role-playing games. Not that they're bad in themselves, but
                  they're the only type of fantasy some people are "reading." Many writers'
                  guidelines for fantasy magazines include something like, "No RPG threads made
                  into stories," so they must be something the editors are tired of dealing
                  with. >>

                  LOL I have to laugh because I have always avoided books that had seemed like
                  they might have a shred of RPG in their makeup, although I love to play D&D.
                  Now, however, as I have been talking to more gamers, some 20 years of play
                  and writing under their belts, I am noticing that their characters, systems
                  and worlds have a depth and balance that I have to appreciate. So I'm
                  setting my shudders aside and planning to read some, I don't know, some
                  DragonLance or something, this year. Maybe it's just that I haven't been
                  writing solidly the last ten years, just kind of in fits and starts, but
                  there are holes in my creations that my gaming friends have, quite gently and
                  nicely, been able to drive trucks through. Australian juggernauts, in some
                  cases.

                  I do prefer magic as being something beyond our understanding most of the
                  time, but shouldn't it be consistent? Or can it seem to be sort of
                  inconsistent, the way God doesn't always answer prayers, because after all
                  it's magic?

                  I have enjoyed some C.J. Cherryh in the past and perhaps should look up the
                  Fortress books. So much reading, so little time.... I still have those
                  issues of Mythlore tantalizing me. And where in the vast library of Tolkien
                  I have yet to read do I find the most poetry? I love his poems. What modern
                  authors use so much poetry? Anne McCaffrey does, or did, but the writers
                  that haunt one more, like Tepper and McKillip, I can't recall whether they do.

                  As for Pokemon, my son misplaced his Goldeen this morning. She's red and
                  white, like a carp with a horn on her nose, and about the size of the end of
                  your thumb. So if she turns up anywhere please let me know! Thanks.

                  Lizzie
                • David S. Bratman
                  ... No, magic needn t be consistent, and we needn t draw on religion to prove it. The problem is, few things in human experience work consistently and
                  Message 8 of 16 , May 1, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 09:13 AM 4/30/2001 , Lizzie wrote:

                    >I do prefer magic as being something beyond our understanding most of the
                    >time, but shouldn't it be consistent? Or can it seem to be sort of
                    >inconsistent, the way God doesn't always answer prayers, because after all
                    >it's magic?

                    No, magic needn't be consistent, and we needn't draw on religion to prove it.

                    The problem is, few things in human experience work consistently and
                    predictably the way magic in consistent magic-using novels does. Science
                    doesn't, though scientists pretend it does: real science is messy, and
                    scientific laws are derived by from averaging a lot of messy, approximate
                    observations.

                    One thing that does purport to work consistently and predictably is
                    technology. But we all know it doesn't really do so, or has your computer
                    never crashed on you? Consistent magic in these books winds up looking a
                    lot like an idealization of technology, the way it's supposed to work.
                    That's not magic, that's science-fiction writers' pet dreams.

                    I prefer to read about magic as working like interpersonal psychology.
                    There are known procedures for getting people to react the way you want,
                    and they've been codified. But they're rules of thumb: they don't always
                    work, they work on some people more than others, some people are much more
                    talented at applying them than others, and the mental state and care taken
                    by the practitioner makes a big difference on how well it works.

                    Also, the best magic books don't have impossible things happen. Magic
                    works by manipulating the laws of probability. See Diana Wynne Jones's
                    _Fire and Hemlock_.

                    David Bratman
                  • David J. Finnamore
                    ... That s what all those different dice are for, ya know. ... What a coincidence! So does Game Mastering. ;-) -- David J. Finnamore Nashville, TN, USA
                    Message 9 of 16 , May 3, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      David S. Bratman wrote:

                      > I prefer to read about magic as working like interpersonal psychology.
                      > There are known procedures for getting people to react the way you want,
                      > and they've been codified. But they're rules of thumb: they don't always
                      > work, they work on some people more than others, some people are much more
                      > talented at applying them than others

                      That's what all those different dice are for, ya know.


                      > Magic
                      > works by manipulating the laws of probability.

                      What a coincidence! So does Game Mastering. ;-)

                      --
                      David J. Finnamore
                      Nashville, TN, USA
                      http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
                      --
                    • Trudy Shaw
                      ... From: David S. Bratman To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien? Also, the
                      Message 10 of 16 , May 3, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: David S. Bratman
                        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 6:25 PM
                        Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien?


                        Also, the best magic books don't have impossible things happen. Magic
                        works by manipulating the laws of probability. See Diana Wynne Jones's
                        _Fire and Hemlock_.

                        David Bratman



                        Gee, I wasn't planning on doing PR for C.J. Cherryh's Fortress series--but this is exactly how it works in those books. She also makes a distinction between wizardry, which someone has to study, and magic, which is innate in a person. Even those with innate magic, though, have to learn to discipline and focus it and--even more important--to consider the possible outcomes of their manipulation, including ones that might be very different from what they intended. The comparison to interpersonal relationships, which I didn't keep in this reply, also fits very well with this series (all four books have been published now: Fortress in the Eye of Time, Fortress of Eagles, Fortress of Owls, and Fortress of Dragons).

                        I haven't read the Diana Wynne Jones book; thanks for giving the suggestion.

                        Trudy Shaw



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • David S. Bratman
                        ... I haven t read these books, but I should add that there are some novels whose authors understand this -- and which still make magic work mechanically.
                        Message 11 of 16 , May 3, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 04:20 AM 5/3/2001 , Trudy wrote:

                          > Gee, I wasn't planning on doing PR for C.J. Cherryh's Fortress series--but
                          >this is exactly how it works in those books. She also makes a distinction
                          >between wizardry, which someone has to study, and magic, which is innate in
                          >a person. Even those with innate magic, though, have to learn to discipline
                          >and focus it and--even more important--to consider the possible outcomes of
                          >their manipulation, including ones that might be very different from what
                          >they intended.

                          I haven't read these books, but I should add that there are some novels
                          whose authors understand this -- and which still make magic work
                          mechanically. Whenever you have a situation with 1st level wizards who can
                          do A, 2nd level wizards who can do A and B, and 3rd level wizards who can
                          do A, B, and C, and this is rigidly applied (except perhaps for the hero,
                          who has the Gift and can do them all except for needing training to control
                          that Gift), it's probably still mechanical. Consider science again: some
                          people without degrees are naturally skilled without being possessed of
                          perfect Gifts; some Ph.D.'s are ignorant klutzes, especially if they assume
                          their degree implies mastery over all fields of science.

                          David Bratman
                        • WendellWag@aol.com
                          As Trudy said, one of the reasons for bad fantasy novels is that authors import into novels characteristics that work reasonably well in games but which don t
                          Message 12 of 16 , May 6, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            As Trudy said, one of the reasons for bad fantasy novels is that authors
                            import into novels characteristics that work reasonably well in games but
                            which don't apply to novels. Indeed, these characteristics often trivialize
                            the point of a good novel. A game has to have simple, quantifiable goals so
                            that the game will eventually end and one player will be declared the winner.
                            That's why the goal of most RPG-type games is something like "Find the gold
                            in the dungeon. Completely explore the castle and collect the most magical
                            items. Kill all the other players. Survive to the end of the game." None of
                            those goals consistently applies to good novels. A good novel could have the
                            hero sacrifice himself to save other people, or triumph over evil while
                            ending up penniless. A hero in a good novel doesn’t travel all over the map
                            on pointless tours or collect magical items for the heck of it. At best, the
                            plot habits acquired in RPG's are useful only in a very narrow subset of
                            fantasy novels.

                            I think that there's another problem though. Too many fantasy authors steal
                            plot devices from Tolkien without understanding what the point of those plot
                            devices were for Tolkien. A lot of these clichéd plot devices are catalogued
                            rather thoroughly in _The Encyclopedia of Fantasy_, from which David quoted
                            that definition of "plot coupon." It's a great book that I recommend it all
                            of you, but a quicker way to learn about these clichés is Diana Wynne Jones's
                            _A Tough Guide to Fantasyland_. This pretends to be a tourist guide to a
                            generic fantasy world (the title is a pun on the British tour book series _A
                            Rough Guide to . . ._, which are guides for off-the-beaten-track traveling),
                            but really it's a list of clichés in modern fantasy. When I read this book,
                            I found myself looking at each entry and saying, "Which part of _The Lord of
                            the Rings_ did some author misunderstand in order to turn this plot device
                            (or type of character or standard setting or whatever) into a cliché?"

                            This leads me to a dilemma I find in reviewing any sort of narrative. (I'll
                            use narrative to refer generally to novels, short stories, movies, plays,
                            epic poems, legends, mythologies, or anything with an overall plot. I'll be
                            using movie examples because I do film reviews on a website, but I think my
                            point applies to any kind of narrative.) On one hand, it's not a good idea
                            if a narrative steals plot points from previous works without trying to
                            understand how those plot points fit into those works. On the other hand,
                            great works often can be fitted into a general plot schema or a tightly
                            defined genre. So sometimes I find myself putting down a work for stealing
                            and misunderstanding plot ideas from other works and sometimes I find myself
                            praising a work for stealing its general structure from other works in a more
                            artful fashion. I wonder then if I'm being consistent or if I'm merely
                            making my criticism arbitrarily fit whatever intuitive feeling I have about a
                            work.

                            Let me give some examples. Take a look at the D.C. Film Society website
                            (http:www.dcfilmsociety.org). Click on Reviews. Click on the reviews for
                            _The Star Wars Trilogy_ and _The Phantom Menace_. (The review for _The
                            Phantom Menace_ appeared in a slightly different form in _Mythprint_.) It's
                            my contention that what makes the Star Wars films great isn't special effects
                            (which look a bit old-fashioned now), nor acting (which wasn't really that
                            good), nor is it that they have thrilling plots (in the usual sense of plot).
                            What the Star Wars movies excel in is that they have a great Story, in the
                            sense that C. S. Lewis uses this term in his essay "On Story." This is not
                            plot in the sense of the events of the narrative, but some sort of
                            overarching pattern to these events. It's reasonably close to what Joseph
                            Campbell calls the mythic or archetypal elements of the plot. I contend that
                            to some extent, the Star Wars movies, along with _The Lord of the Rings_ and
                            _The Wizard of Oz_, and to a lesser degree the Prydain Chronicles, the Ring
                            cycle, the King Arthur legend, and the Earthsea books are all exemplars of a
                            Story pattern that I sometimes refer to as the Archetypal Quest Narrative.
                            This isn't a perfect name, I suppose, since some of these narratives are more
                            like anti-quests than quests, since they want to get rid of an item, but it's
                            as close as I can get to describing it. Incidentally, most of the people who
                            notice this about the Star Wars movies ascribe it to the fact that George
                            Lucas read Joseph Campbell and deliberately tried to fit his plots into
                            Campbell's Monomyth from his study _The Hero with a Thousand Faces_. I may
                            be alone in thinking that Lucas does better when he goes back to the original
                            works and ignores Campbell's attempt to fit them into a neat pattern.

                            That's the good side to stealing ideas from older works. For the bad side,
                            see my reviews of _L.A. Confidential_ or _The Gingerbread Man_ where I
                            discuss the problems of filmmakers trying to make a film noir-type movie
                            without really understanding what the point of film noir is. You can't have
                            a film noir end with a blazing shoot-out in which the hero triumphs (that's
                            an action film) or an ending in which a flawed hero is disappointed but
                            resolves to become a better person (that's a sitcom with a moral at the end).
                            Film noir is about the lack of trust in society. Such a film can only end
                            with evil triumphant because the supposed hero was never anything but a
                            patsy, or with everybody dead, or with a naive innocent surviving because
                            everyone else has killed each other off, or with a hero surviving but no
                            happier because no one trusts him. Film noir isn't about conventional happy
                            endings, and any supposed film noir that ends with one has missed the point.

                            So how can I resolve these two contrary statements about how an author should
                            treat the narratives he wishes to imitate? On one hand, I want authors to
                            understand the structures of the great narratives and to imitate them, but I
                            don't want them to imitate minor plot devices in those narratives. I think
                            the distinction I'm trying to make is that an author has to understand the
                            overall Story and not try to steal minor plot points without fitting them
                            consistently into a good Story. The reason that the clichés of fantasy
                            listed in _The Encyclopedia of Fantasy_ and _The Tough Guide to Fantasyland_
                            are annoying isn't that they are stolen from Tolkien but that they are stolen
                            without understanding their use in the overall Story. A fantasy author who
                            says that he admires Tolkien but who then writes a novel supposedly in the
                            tradition of Tolkien, except that the novel ends with the equivalent
                            character to Frodo becoming rich, getting married, becoming king, and living
                            happily ever after, has completely missed the point of _The Lord of the
                            Rings_.

                            Wendell Wagner


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Trudy Shaw
                            ... From: WendellWag@aol.com To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien? A game has
                            Message 13 of 16 , May 7, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: WendellWag@...
                              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 2:50 PM
                              Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien?


                              A game has to have simple, quantifiable goals so
                              that the game will eventually end and one player will be declared the winner.
                              That's why the goal of most RPG-type games is something like "Find the gold
                              in the dungeon. Completely explore the castle and collect the most magical
                              items. Kill all the other players. Survive to the end of the game." None of
                              those goals consistently applies to good novels. A good novel could have the
                              hero sacrifice himself to save other people, or triumph over evil while
                              ending up penniless. A hero in a good novel doesn’t travel all over the map
                              on pointless tours or collect magical items for the heck of it. At best, the
                              plot habits acquired in RPG's are useful only in a very narrow subset of
                              fantasy novels.

                              Wendell Wagner



                              Reading these comments made me think of another aspect of many (not all) RPG's. There really isn't "good" and "evil." There's just "us" and "them." Talk about missing a major theme! How does a hero sacrifice, or even risk, himself for the good of others if there's nothing at stake except who gets the gold? How would you even define a "hero" in such a plot?

                              I also notice that Wendell specifies *plot* habits from RPG's not being very useful. That's probably a good point, although I would add characterization that goes beyond special abilities, etc. The world-building skills might be useful--for certain types of fantasies--but there are other ways of learning those.

                              The ones who have the biggest problem are people who don't read what Wendell calls "good novels," but think they know how to write one from what they've learned from RPG's.

                              Trudy Shaw


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                              The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • ERATRIANO@aol.com
                              In a message dated 05/07/01 8:53:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tgshaw@earthlink.net writes:
                              Message 14 of 16 , May 7, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 05/07/01 8:53:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                tgshaw@... writes:

                                << That's why the goal of most RPG-type games is something like "Find the
                                gold
                                in the dungeon. Completely explore the castle and collect the most
                                magical
                                items. Kill all the other players. Survive to the end of the game." >>

                                tournaments, sure. But not regular games. Regular games are more like life,
                                they have a temporary goal (find the gold or whatever) which will in a good
                                game also involve issues of loyalties and other human (so to speak) themes...
                                then after the gold is found, another quest usually appears. At least if
                                you have a good group that enjoys playing together. It is not really
                                appropriate to try and apply the same standards to gaming as to novels. Can
                                someone put this better?

                                << At best, the plot habits acquired in RPG's are useful only in a very
                                narrow subset of fantasy novels.>>

                                So I think that my initial comment, about learning from gaming things that
                                can be applied to writing, does not apply so much to actual plotting (which
                                is a problem for me anyway), as to world-creating and character balance. A
                                good DM puts a lot of work into his or her world, it has to have an
                                incredible level of detail to stand up to the rigours of a good game. But
                                there is I suppose an aspect of that control which would be a drawback in
                                fiction, at least for me, where I like a more lifelike unknowable atmosphere.
                                Something like that. Maybe we are actually in agreement, Wendell, and just
                                can't make the words mesh. LOL

                                Lizzie
                              • WendellWag@aol.com
                                In a message dated 5/7/01 11:31:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... True, and it s not really appropriate to apply the same standards to novels as to gaming. So
                                Message 15 of 16 , May 8, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 5/7/01 11:31:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                  ERATRIANO@... writes:


                                  > It is not really
                                  > appropriate to try and apply the same standards to gaming as to novels

                                  True, and it's not really appropriate to apply the same standards to novels
                                  as to gaming. So the point is that only a limited set of criteria from
                                  gaming carries over to novels and only a limited set of criteria from novels
                                  carries over to gaming. I guess we are in agreement here. If you want to
                                  write (or criticize novels), you have to learn about how novels work. You
                                  shouldn't just automatically import things from gaming. If you want to
                                  create (or criticize) games, you should learn about how gaming works. You
                                  shouldn't just automatically import things from novels.

                                  Wendell Wagner


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • David S. Bratman
                                  ... As I put it in a review once, Tolkien s gold, like the fairies , turns to dust when it is stolen away. It is possible, though, to use Tolkien s gold
                                  Message 16 of 16 , May 8, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 12:50 PM 5/6/2001 , Wendell wrote:

                                    >I think that there's another problem though. Too many fantasy authors steal
                                    >plot devices from Tolkien without understanding what the point of those plot
                                    >devices were for Tolkien.

                                    As I put it in a review once, "Tolkien's gold, like the fairies', turns to
                                    dust when it is stolen away." It is possible, though, to use Tolkien's
                                    gold without stealing it at all: in Brian Attebery's estimation (and mine),
                                    Le Guin's Earthsea is the most successful example of this. (Has everyone
                                    seen the new book, _Tales from Earthsea_, by the way?)

                                    >So sometimes I find myself putting down a work for stealing
                                    >and misunderstanding plot ideas from other works and sometimes I find myself
                                    >praising a work for stealing its general structure from other works in a more
                                    >artful fashion. I wonder then if I'm being consistent or if I'm merely
                                    >making my criticism arbitrarily fit whatever intuitive feeling I have about a
                                    >work.

                                    Maybe you are. But it's more likely that your intuitive feeling is telling
                                    you something important that your intellect is merely trying to analyze
                                    afterwards. There is no point in evolving a personal criteria of literary
                                    quality unless it helps explain what you like and dislike, and why. All my
                                    own high-flown theories of what is good or bad in fantasy I've derived
                                    inductively, by reading books and noting what works and what doesn't. To
                                    create a theory of what's good and apply it rigidly, describing books as
                                    good or bad by means of this pre-existing theory in isolation of whether
                                    you liked them or not - that would be the worst sort of criticism.

                                    >I discuss the problems of filmmakers trying to make a film noir-type movie
                                    >without really understanding what the point of film noir is. You can't have
                                    >a film noir end with a blazing shoot-out in which the hero triumphs (that's
                                    >an action film) or an ending in which a flawed hero is disappointed but
                                    >resolves to become a better person (that's a sitcom with a moral at the end).
                                    > Film noir is about the lack of trust in society. Such a film can only end
                                    >with evil triumphant because the supposed hero was never anything but a
                                    >patsy, or with everybody dead, or with a naive innocent surviving because
                                    >everyone else has killed each other off, or with a hero surviving but no
                                    >happier because no one trusts him. Film noir isn't about conventional happy
                                    >endings, and any supposed film noir that ends with one has missed the point.
                                    >... A fantasy author who
                                    >says that he admires Tolkien but who then writes a novel supposedly in the
                                    >tradition of Tolkien, except that the novel ends with the equivalent
                                    >character to Frodo becoming rich, getting married, becoming king, and living
                                    >happily ever after, has completely missed the point of _The Lord of the
                                    >Rings_.

                                    There's another possibility, though I admit it doesn't actually happen very
                                    often. The author or filmmaker could be trying to do something different,
                                    by playing on your expectations for the genre and then subverting them.
                                    (The term "deconstruction" is sometimes loosely used to describe this.)
                                    _Tehanu_ certainly subverted most readers' expectations for a fourth
                                    Earthsea book, but it was clear that the author was retroactively
                                    reimagining the entire premise, rather than merely failing to understand
                                    what she had created. I don't know whether the makers of _L.A.
                                    Confidential_ thought they were making a film noir or not. But there's no
                                    law that says they can't make a film that starts out looking like a film
                                    noir and then turning into something else. And if the less perceptive
                                    critics keep calling such a film a film noir, that's not the film's fault.
                                    I thought _L.A. Confidential_'s ending had more problems with sheer
                                    believability than whether it fit into the conventions of the rest of the film.

                                    David Bratman
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.