Suggestion for Jeff's Blog

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be taking the time to eyeball the genitals of something that scary.

Especially since reptiles have internal genitals and you'd have to get really, really, really close to a dragon to tell.

Dikiyoba.

[Yuna Corne]

Details, details.

[A less presumptuous name.]

I would imagine (I still haven't gotten around to playing) that the Dragons are verbal. Whether they explicitly state their gender, I'm guessing there are clues in their speech that could indicate their gender, if only to a limited degree.

[Earth]

if you are close enuf to see dragon's genitals/gender then you are too close if that dragon is still allive.

[Dintiradan]

Quote:

—Alorael, who is pretty sure Jeff is messing with his players deliberately. He couldn't get things wrong this often by accident while working from old scripts.

What if it was a hint? Maybe every Exile and Avernum game is set in a slightly different continuity. I mean, we already have Avernum 4 assuming that Erika died in E/A 3. So maybe the flip-flopping genders is not a mistake, but actually a subtle hint that there's more to the series than we'd think.

I can't wait until Crisis of the Infinite Avernums is released.

[Archaeolagent]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

khoth was female in exile 1? really? huh. i vaguely recalled a couple of slipups with Athron in exile 2 but not that

Athron was not the subject of a couple of slipups in Exile 2. Most of the references in Exile 2 are to a male Athron, including, IIRC, ALL of the references in the entire dialogue where Athron talks about his brood of eggs.

[Archaeolagent]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

I can't wait until Crisis of the Infinite Avernums is released.

That's CRISIS on INFINITE AVERNUMS

[Dintiradan]

I'm, uh, sure there is an alternate Earth where DC used a different naming scheme. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Archaeolagent]

CRISIS on/of/with/... INFINITE PREPOSITIONS

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

Unless you are about to be shipped out to a warzone and are playing a military simulator, and you know that if you frequently die in the game, you could very well die in real life, all games are escapist.

Really don't believe me? Go in to your bedroom, raise your arms and summon an eyebeast above your bed.

So...you're saying that Jeff's games are fictional, and in the fantasy genre? That's really illuminating. If you're not a college professor and/or spiritual guru already, the world is missing out.

To reiterate my original point, which you seem to have ignored:

Quote:

It would be odd for a setting to be full of realistic problems with xenophobia, racism (and its fantastic equivalents), classism, heterosexism, and the like, yet be all sunshine and puppies on issues of sexism and gender.

Stories can be escapist to varying degrees. Yes, works of fiction are by definition escapist to some degree, but that degree varies dramatically between works. Saying all works of fiction are the same amount or kind of 'escapist' is like saying that I'm the sun because we both have temperature and mass.

Jeff's games are selectively escapist: they have magic and fantasy weirdness in them, but they also have characters who mostly behave in a manner befitting real humans, and they deal with real world problems like the ones referenced above. Which many works of fiction are, even fantasy and science fiction. Really don't believe me? Read/watch A Game of Thrones, play Dragon Age, or play one of Jeff's recent games if you're looking for something a little closer to home.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

CRISIS on/of/with/... INFINITE PREPOSITIONS

slarty don't say things that will make me want to post webcomics that will then get me banned

[grasshopper]

Any form of daydreaming is escapism; any form of fictional story that came from someone else's daydream, doubly so. And, it's good to see you slowly coming to agree with me:

 

Quote:

The issue is that escapism would feel out of place in Jeff's games.

Quote:

So...you're saying that Jeff's games are fictional, and in the fantasy genre? That's really illuminating. If you're not a college professor and/or spiritual guru already, the world is missing out.

Quote:

Yes, works of fiction are by definition escapist to some degree,

 

Nah, Jeff's games are completely escapist. I remember going a couple of months without speaking or reading any english then firing up a spiderweb game. Wow, it was like I was somewhere else: a world where everyone spoke my mother tongue. Pure insanity.

 

Maybe I'll agree with you a bit more, if you could be, like a shopkeeper, and you had to play the game for thirty to forty hours just waiting for one group of adventurers to come in and offload a load of junk on you that's going to need a bank loan to buy and you've no idea who you're going to sell it on to.

 

Then the nub of your argument,

Quote:

It would be odd for a setting to be full of realistic problems with xenophobia, racism (and its fantastic equivalents), classism, heterosexism, and the like, yet be all sunshine and puppies on issues of sexism and gender.

I didn't want to tackle head on for two reasons:

1. A full rebuttal would mean disparaging games I have a soft spot for.

2. There are so many 'isms there, it made my brain boggle. I actually had to google the hetero-ism one. Come on! All the guys in Jeff's games walk around so much, and NONE of them ever gets a wedgie? Or a stone in their shoe? Forgets to brush their teeth, so no one will talk to them? Eats a curry and can't join the group the next day? In fact, I will email Jeff about these oversights.

 

If I were to pick up a game in a shop, and on the blurb on the back it said, this game deals with ten different 'isms. I'd put it straight back and plump for an 'ismless one.

 

Geneforge, a game with a fantasy bent that walks you through the varying vantage points of differing 'isms and 'ismizers in today's world. Is that the one where you thump thahds? Yeah ok, i'll take it.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

Geneforge, a game with a fantasy bent that walks you through the varying vantage points of differing 'isms and 'ismizers in today's world. Is that the one where you thump thahds? Yeah ok, i'll take it.

The fact that you aren't interested in an aspect of a game, and choose to ignore it, does not mean it doesn't exist, or that it is unimportant to others. You want to talk "-isms?" Last I checked, that one's called "solipsism."

Quote:

Nah, Jeff's games are completely escapist. I remember going a couple of months without speaking or reading any english then firing up a spiderweb game. Wow, it was like I was somewhere else: a world where everyone spoke my mother tongue. Pure insanity.

And this differs from any work in English how? Including works of nonfiction. By this argument the experience of talking to people in English would be a form of "complete" escapism. At this point your definition of escapism has departed so far from that employed in the preceding conversation or elsewhere that it warrants a different descriptor.

I'll make this relatively simple and straightforward, since our points seem to be consistently at cross purposes and largely irrelevant to the thrust of the other's arguments: Some elements of Jeff's stories match the real world (characters with human-like personalities, real world issues like the aforementioned -isms, war, and so on), while others do not (magical creatures, lack of many human needs and weaknesses like excretion of waste, permanent mortality, etc.). A story that was a complete escape from reality as we know it would either be very interesting or not interesting at all, given the lack of a similar frame of reference. A story that has no escapist elements can only be the experience of reality as we know it. All works of fiction created by humans are somewhere in between these two poles. Jeff's games provide an escape from reality in some ways, and not others. My original point, in response to Dikiyoba's, was that ignoring issues of gender and sexism would be a form of escapism atypical of Jeff's style of world-building and storytelling. Like I said before, calling this "complete" escapism is obviously false.

[Yuna Corne]

I'm not a huge fan of the impermanence of mortality; it doesn't make sense that when your character dies, you take her to a priest(ess), but when your enemy dies, they're forever dead.

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: Yuna Corne

I'm not a huge fan of the impermanence of mortality; it doesn't make sense that when your character dies, you take her to a priest(ess), but when your enemy dies, they're forever dead.

That;s whjere spwaning comesa in handy. Especially in Exile. On the other hand, when you Ss-Thss, you would naturally assume that you've killled all his mages and priests and all his soldiers.

[Yuna Corne]

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

That;s whjere spwaning comesa in handy. Especially in Exile. On the other hand, when you Ss-Thss, you would naturally assume that you've killled all his mages and priests and all his soldiers.

I don't always Ss-Thss, but when I do, GRAH-HOOOOOTH

[Death Knight]

My opinion is that jeff's blog is fine just how it is. He gives a lot of good advice/moments of clarity from his experience. However, i would like it if he gives his opinions on other indie rpgs more often.

 

The last time he gave his opinion, i found out about the excellent indie rpg-driftmoon, made by an awesome couple

[grasshopper]

Good, good. The more we talk, the more we come round to a common point of view. Games are by definition escapist. They take you to another world, that is of course grounded in some of the more fun realities of our own.

 

Um. If you play a game in English when you've been immersed in Swahili for a long period of time, and especially if you are not a navtive Swahil yourself, that gaming experience will be escapist.

 

If your mom rings you to talk about the price of spuds or whether she should sends you more knickers, that conversation my be enjoyable but is grounded in reality. If she however calls to you to discuss whether Snarf will ever make it off Thundera, that is less grounded in reality.

 

My initial point was just to check that you did not really believe that games were as real as real life. Following points about how real life -isms should or should not intrude on a escapist gaming environment, or how well implemented they are in Jeff's games I refused to answer:

Quote:

1. A full rebuttal would mean disparaging games I have a soft spot for.

...but if you insist: almost all -isms when tackled in games are so badly implemented as to be laughable and immersion breaking.

 

Quote:

I'll make this relatively simple and straightforward

I suppose this could be a veiled insult, but I'm glad you did try to make it simple and straightforward, as that is always preferable to convoluted and caught up in various ivory tower-isms.

[Nicothodes]

Originally Posted By: grasshopper

My initial point was just to check that you did not really believe that games were as real as real life. Following points about how real life -isms should or should not intrude on a escapist gaming environment, or how well implemented they are in Jeff's games I refused to answer:

Quote:

1. A full rebuttal would mean disparaging games I have a soft spot for.

...but if you insist: almost all -isms when tackled in games are so badly implemented as to be laughable and immersion breaking.

This is true of any form of media. Why shouldn't it be attempted though? The stories that are created in books, movies, and games, are influenced by real life, and these "ivory tower" -isms, as you call them, heavily influence our world and it's only natural that they show up in our entertainment.

[Archaeolagent]

I agree with Nico. That said, if I ever see a dialogue in a scenario that begins "AGATHISM VS. POSTMODERNISM" again...

[grasshopper]

The problem with -isms is that usually they are emotionally charged to the extent that the bounds of discourse on what aspects of them may or may not be discussed are rather tight. This is especially true for some of the -isms raised by our good friend: racism, sexism, heterosexism etc. You have to be an exceptionally gifted writer to see clearly through an ism-debate and then be able to deliver a real quality consumable product to the masses.

 

This difficulty is amplified for computer games, where not only do you have to write, but also program the gameplay/graphics etc. That's a hell of a lot of balls to juggle; and that is why games that try to deal with -isms tend to struggle, at least from my point of view.

 

Europa Universalis has slaves as a tradable commodity, included for historical accuracy, and the slaves all come from Africa. They bend over backwards to apologize for their inclusion in the game, and even then, it is the only commodity that does not have an icon that depicts what is being bought and sold, only one that infers.

 

Whenever any issue becomes ism-ized, it's going to be hard to approach by all but the best of the best without raising an outcry from somewhere.

[Nicothodes]

But my problem with saying that they're best left untouched by the "best of the best" is that that makes it taboo to discuss them, because most of the people I've met wouldn't think of themselves that way. Not only that, but all works build on previous ideas, so by eliminating the majority of that, the rise to great work is slowed almost to a halt. And yes, -isms are emotionally charged, but that's why it's important to not attempt to avoid them at all costs. The only way to make things better is to talk about it, and get people thinking about their own beliefs. Being quiet about it and hoping things will change never helped anyone.

[grasshopper]

Originally Posted By: Nicothodes

But my problem with saying that they're best left untouched by the "best of the best" is that that makes it taboo to discuss them,

The problem with -isms is that usually they are emotionally charged to the extent that the bounds of discourse on what aspects of them may or may not be discussed are rather tight.

A couple of issues that spring to mind I wouldn't discuss here, because it would break the CoC. I don't think I'd write about them either on my own blog, as sometimes it can be expensive to have your moderate but complex opinions misconstrued by a careless reader.

You talk about them all you want, just don't be expecting any groundbreaking spiderweb games that will smite these evil -isms in to the dust with one fell triumphant swishy swoosh.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Slartucker

That said, if I ever see a dialogue in a scenario that begins "AGATHISM VS. POSTMODERNISM" again...

TM's scenarios typically don't have all that much to do with real life, though.

Originally Posted By: Boggle

Whenever any issue becomes ism-ized, it's going to be hard to approach by all but the best of the best without raising an outcry from somewhere.

Even the best of the best will provoke outcries. And even if a particular creator didn't intend to tackle any -isms, some of the creator's audience will find the accidental -isms that slip in there. (If you have characters, for instance, you are dealing with gender. If you have human or human-like characters, you're probably dealing with race.) An outcry is basically inevitable.

On the plus side, if you are a creator who challenges the -isms, you'll provoke praise from your audience as well.

Quote:

You talk about them all you want, just don't be expecting any groundbreaking spiderweb games that will smite these evil -isms in to the dust with one fell triumphant swishy swoosh.

No one (except you) is saying that they expect that, though.

Dikiyoba.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

I suppose this could be a veiled insult, but I'm glad you did try to make it simple and straightforward, as that is always preferable to convoluted and caught up in various ivory tower-isms.

Well, it was a criticism directed at someone. I was (and am) legitimately unsure whether that someone is me or you: my points didn't seem to be getting across, and it wasn't clear whether that was incompetent reading on your part, incompetent writing on mine, or some of both.

Quote:

...but if you insist: almost all -isms when tackled in games are so badly implemented as to be laughable and immersion breaking.

We'll have to disagree there. I think there are many instances in which the issues in question (and other 'hot button' real world issues) are handled ham-handedly in games, but I think there are others that work well. In truth, the majority of video games do handle these sorts of things, especially prejudice, in preachy 'very special episode' ways, but it's not as if that's always the case. I think the Geneforge series deals with interspecies prejudice in a way that's thoughtful and free of sanctimony.

Quote:

I agree with Nico. That said, if I ever see a dialogue in a scenario that begins "AGATHISM VS. POSTMODERNISM" again...

@Slarty: ...and now I'm curious.

Quote:

Quote:

You talk about them all you want, just don't be expecting any groundbreaking spiderweb games that will smite these evil -isms in to the dust with one fell triumphant swishy swoosh.

No one (except you) is saying that they expect that, though.

What Dikiyoba said.

[grasshopper]

Quote:

And even if a particular creator didn't intend to tackle any -isms, some of the creator's audience will find the accidental -isms that slip in there.

Yes of course, that's why everyone hates Tintin these days.

Quote:

No one (except you) is saying that they expect that, though.

Um, not quite. I don't expect it in the least:

Quote:

Is that the one where you thump thahds? Yeah ok, i'll take it.

Because...

Quote:

almost all -isms when tackled in games are so badly implemented as to be laughable and immersion breaking.

Because...

Quote:

You have to be an exceptionally gifted writer to see clearly through an ism-debate and then be able to deliver a real quality consumable product to the masses.

This difficulty is amplified for computer games, where not only do you have to write, but also program the gameplay/graphics etc. That's a hell of a lot of balls to juggle; and that is why games that try to deal with -isms tend to struggle...

and I clarified:

Quote:

...at least from my point of view.

And that Tolkien quote that Slarty found illustrates further:

Quote:

Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called “willing suspension of disbelief.” But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.

If you don't find you have to suspend your disbelief to enjoy a certain arty product, then that's fine; but someone else might find they have to; and it's almost futile arguing about the whys and wherefores between those who have to suspend that sense and those that don't. I knew that from the start, which is one of the reasons I delicately said:

Quote:

I didn't want to tackle (it) head on (as)... a full rebuttal would mean disparaging games I have a soft spot for.

But after a lot of prodding, I have, and now everyone's unhappy.

As a final example, I recently tried to read an -ism filled book, "Atlas Shrugged", but threw it to the floor after a hundred pages because bad writing such as this:

Quote:

Behind sheets of glass, rows of girls sat at typewriters, the clicking of their keys like the sound of speeding train wheels.

Some won't be able to see quite what's wrong with this similie, but if you're one of the ones that can, it irritates.

So an -ism orientated novel is unreadable for me because the focus is on the -ism and not on the words, and actually from reading reviews, it was an -ism I was interested in learning more about.

I don't expect anything. Let these games and books and films be made that push the -ism boundary in their own way, but you can't expect everyone to be immersed in it, because in making a work that conciously deals with 'isms rather than subconciously (like Tintin), it's a hell of a lot of balls to juggle.

And coming back to the beginning,

Quote:

To reiterate my original point, which you seem to have ignored:

Quote:
It would be odd for a setting to be full of realistic problems with xenophobia, racism (and its fantastic equivalents), classism, heterosexism, and the like, yet be all sunshine and puppies on issues of sexism and gender.

and then...

Quote:

The fact that you aren't interested in an aspect of a game, and choose to ignore it, does not mean it doesn't exist, or that it is unimportant to others. You want to talk "-isms?"

No, I never did. As it's a bloody quagmire of a topic. Now as the Arabs say, khalas!

[Yuna Corne]

Originally Posted By: grasshopper

As a final example, I recently tried to read an -ism filled book, "Atlas Shrugged", but threw it to the floor after a hundred pages because bad writing such as this:

Quote:

Behind sheets of glass, rows of girls sat at typewriters, the clicking of their keys like the sound of speeding train wheels.

Some won't be able to see quite what's wrong with this similie, but if you're one of the ones that can, it irritates.

I hate being ignorant, but I'm ignorant of what is so specifically wrong with that sentence. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me?

[grasshopper]

It's not the train wheels by themselves in isolation that make the sound, but a mixture of the clicking of the bogies as they and the wheels go over the breaks in the rails.

 

It's a small point, but if you know in your head that if the rails had no breaks, there would be no clack clack clack sound, then the wheel allusion fails.

 

If that doesn't work try the dialogue where a guy decides to quit his job:

 

Quote:

“Kellogg, is there nothing I can offer you?” she asked.

“Nothing, Miss Taggart. Nothing on earth.”

He turned to go. For the first time in her life, she felt helpless and beaten.

 

Conclusion: the main protagonist of the story has had such an easy life that I can't relate to her.

 

This book is purely a vehicle to deliver -isms. It works for some, for many in fact, but I can't get to the end, because the focus is on the -isms, not on making a ripping yarn, and that is a shame.

 

[Sudanna]

Ayn Rand's works are, I would say, exactly the sort of ism-laden subpar writing that you're arguing against. They do a good job of embodying all the problems you've outlined - the focus is definitely more on the ismic message than the story, the writing is subpar and immersion-breaking*, the details that make good character development and plot are ignored in favor of giving a clearer and purer ismic message, and the authors' prejudices infect everything, making a balanced and truthful portrayal of ismic problems an impossibility, and apparently not even an objective in the first place.**

 

There are a few reasons why that doesn't really matter to the portrayal of serious, relevant themes in books and other media as a whole.

 

Not everything dealing with ismic problems is written by Ayn Rand, whose way of dealing with those problems seems to be yelling at you about them for several hundred pages. There exist authors with subtlety and class, that can give voice to an ism through quality stories and characters. Tolkien and his environmentalism is a good example. So are the novels of Orwell with their political focus. The trilogy I'm reading right now, The Prince of Nothing, does this well. Gaiman's American Gods. A Canticle for Leibowitz. Mark Twain's books.

 

I chose those names just by sitting up, looking around my room, and picking the names of books you'd probably heard of, because virtually every form of media deals with isms, whether it's obvious and explicit or not, and the use of these themes adds power and relevance to a story. What we've been calling "isms"*** are words that describe human life and experience, and as all of our media is in some way constructed by humans, they cannot be simply ignored, and moreover, ignoring them leads to a poor quality of media. They shape and govern our experiences and interactions, and help define what reality is for us. If a book were devoid of isms, it would either be a piss-poor pile of dull, or not of human construction.

 

In keeping with the first point, Isms can be delivered effectively and consciously without being the focus of a piece, and you can deliver a quality story without it being the focus of a piece. Some of those books I mentioned earlier are great examples of this. Tolkien had a message of environmentalism in his books. It was a component of the larger story, and sometimes a major one, but it was never the focus. Contrarily, Orwell's focus in Animal Farm and 1984 was definitely political, but I would still hold the stories that accompanied and communicated those messages as well-constructed, interesting, and well-written. These are examples, and while there's room for subjectivity, I don't think you'll contest that they are both excellent authors that have made excellent books - with real, relevant messages and quality stories.

 

Immersion isn't everything. Well, maybe it is for you, but not for everyone. I can find enjoyment in the meta-story of a piece of media as well as the story itself. What was the creator trying to say here? Why would they say it there, in that way? Is that even the real purpose of this scene or portion? Were they even trying to say anything at all? I get a kick out of analyzing things like that. This is obviously a purely personal argument, but I'm sure there are others who don't consider it the be-all/end-all of every piece of media.

 

Finally, What does and does not qualify as an ism? Is it anything controversial? Is it everything that makes you uneasy? Is it anything serious and real? Is it anything that offends you? Is it anything that breaks your immersion? Is it really anything that ends in -ism? We've all been guessing at what you mean by "isms", and I guess we've been hitting decently close to each others' marks, but it's important to actually know what you mean, because I'm having significant trouble finding an example of media that doesn't somehow involve or embody something that I've been calling an ism.

 

*Though your choice of the train wheels seems pointless and nitpicky enough that I would look at you strangely and say "Alright" while chuckling if you'd said it in person.

**It should be obvious from this paragraph that I have a personal distaste for Ayn Rand, her books, and her philosophy, which makes a balanced and truthful portrayal of any of those impossible and not even an objective in the first place. But that's not the larger point we're discussing here.

***We need a better word, by the way, not all of these things end in -ism. There are ias and itys and things without suffixes at all!

[Student of Trinity]

It would be weird to complain about books just for dealing with ideals. Apart from anything else, dealing with ideals is simply realism, because people really do often act from ideals, or at least feel strongly about them.

 

Of course, one can complain about a book upholding ideals with which one disagrees. But it's not really fair to complain just for this. If the book is well written, you have to give the devil his due.

 

But sometimes a book only seems good if you're a member of the choir to which it's preaching. A book is a great bully pulpit. An author can always make all the characters who hold their favorite views also be clever and kind and brave and all. And the author can make events turn out in ways that show their own favorite ideas to be practical.

 

I consider Atlas Shrugged a fine example of this. Rand's bizarre idolization of selfishness just seems stupid to me, because I don't see how anyone who wasn't pretty stupid could seriously imagine that wealthy industrialists are personally inventing wonderful devices, or hold such a childish view of how technological development actually works. So, having no sympathy with her ideology, I look at the book she evidently wrote as a vehicle for the ideology, and I find it pretty darn awful. I don't recall being particularly offended by the prose, though it was nothing special, but the plot is unbelievable, and the characters are only saved from being really repulsive by being equally unbelievable.

 

In particular the heroine is appalling, since absolutely the only thing heroic about her is her faithful hewing to Rand's ideological line. Dagny Taggart does nothing at all impressive herself, but simply serves as a trophy for a series of ridiculously accomplished male characters. The one remarkable thing about her, in fact, is just how fast she drops each one of her lovers, the instant somebody a little more accomplished comes along. Shrewd businesswoman that she supposedly is, she trades up fast.

 

Compared to Ayn Rand, Jane Austen was a forthright feminist. It's funny, though, how there is no final chapter in which Galt dumps Taggart for a younger woman ... or maybe for one who had actually done something impressive herself. If Rand were really being honest in representing her own views, instead of just indulging a rather ugly fantasy, that chapter ought to have been there, just for balance.

 

Apart from that, though, the basic problem with Atlas Shrugged is a general one. It's not that it deals with ideology, but that it makes ideology work as a deus ex machina, directing the plot and coloring the characters in unrealistic ways that merely reflect the author's whim.

 

Bad ideological books are like that. Not all ideological books have to be bad.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

@TGF and SoT: I agree that using Ayn Rand as an example of why ideologically motivated fiction is bad fails because Ayn Rand is a bad example of ideologically motivated fiction. I kind of hate her (work and personal life), but even most people I know who genuinely like her ideals and work will acknowledge that books like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are worth reading because they communicate those ideals, not because they're great literature.

 

My problem with Grasshopper's argument, in short, is this: s/he takes a set of premises so reasonable as to essentially be truisms (all fiction contains elements of escapism, and escapism is a valuable and enjoyable element in some fiction), and argues from these to a much less obvious point (escapism is the only valuable element in fiction, and works of fiction with real world commentary and ideology are worse for their inclusion). All well and good, but none of Grasshopper's arguments convince me of the logical connection between premises and conclusion. The example of Ayn Rand is a clear straw man, because Ayn Rand is considered by everyone but her Objectivist fans (and even some of them) to be a bad writer; using her as the spokesperson for ideological fiction is like using Bernie Madoff as a spokesman for capitalism, or Pol Pot as a spokesman for communism. I doubt anyone here will dispute that some ideological fiction is bad, but that's a much less all-encompassing argument than we see elsewhere in this thread.

 

Moreover, most of the criticism you, Grasshopper, level at Rand is based on her writing, not the presence of ideology. You posit a necessary connection between the two, "So an -ism orientated novel is unreadable for me because the focus is on the -ism and not on the words..." but this is not an obvious connection to me. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be the case for all ideological fiction, or just a general trend. If the former, all I need is one counterexample to disprove the argument, and I can think of several. Both Virgil's Aeneid and Dante's Divine Comedy have explicitly political agendas, and are rightly considered among the greatest poetic works ever written: the former seeks to create a Roman origin story to put them on the same cultural tier as the Greeks, and to promote the rule of Augustus, while the latter has notorious passages in which Dante meets various of his political enemies after they've been condemned to hell. Rabelais' Pantagruel spends many pages mocking and insulting the intellectuals of its time, and is hilarious in so doing. China Mieville's fantasy novels are absolutely saturated with his politics, but still have believable characters, entertaining prose, and bloody horrifying monsters. So we can pretty much rule out the notion that all ideological writers are bad writers.

 

Even if you just mean to argue for ideological fiction being worse writing on average, one work, or even one author, is far from sufficient evidence to demonstrate this. Yes, Ayn Rand writes boring, anvilicious prose, but so do many purely escapist authors. There are entire bookshelves full of forgettable fantasies and space operas that can attest to this.

[Lilith]

Heck, sometimes ideological fiction can interesting precisely because it fails to make a good case for its own ideology. Look at the Romantic interpretations of Paradise Lost.

[grasshopper]

Ok that's a hell of a lot of words all directed pretty much at me. You'll have to excuse me for now spending the next while defending myself a little, rather than continue the conversation, which thanks to the theif and SoT's comment has become quite a bit more interesting than it has been in a while. So here we go...

 

Thin Gypsy Thief

 

That’s a lovely long personal reply there, thin gypsy thief. I really can’t comment too much on the intricacies of the politics of “Atlas Shrugged”, as the bad prose and slow pace where nothing much ever happened meant I was nodding off by the time the –isms really started to kick in. My choice of quote might cause you to chuckle, but that would of course be missing the point. Picking one nit is silly, to pick a thousand means you have an infestation.

 

Although there’s a hell of a lot of information in your carefully crafted 800 word comment, which I wish I could go through point by point, as I agree with an awful lot of it. I’d also like to compliment you on the number of books you have in your room! You are quite right. There’s a good chance I do know the titles of some of them, it’s quite possible I’ve read a few of them and maybe even possess one or two of them myself. Imagine that!

 

It’s nice of you to try and steer the conversation into new waters. I’m not sure that environmentalism existed before Silent Spring, though I expect that you are more of an expert on inter-war environmentalism than I.

 

What topics did I mean by isms? A careful reading of earlier posts shows that the topics mentioned were things like racism, sexism, heterosexism and gender. Gender of course doesn’t end in ism, but I’m too stupid to think of a matching ending, maybe one of your books has the answer to that.

 

I saw him die, said the fly? Not quite, but I did scratch my head at why you went to the trouble to weave such a sardonic undertone in to an otherwise top quality comment.

 

SoT

 

I am humbled by anyone who has actually managed to finish this book, and thanks for an informative comment. The language is so awful, I wonder why the hell she didn’t write it in Russian, then get it translated by someone more competent in English.

 

It’s hard to make a good story if the –ism is your primary goal. Orwell drove himself to an early grave writing 1984, and it’s easy to see why. Guys like these are the best of the best, and the rest of us can only hope to chatter in their shadows.

 

And guy with gentleman in his name.

 

I started off arguing nothing, merely pointing out that all stories are escapist to some degree, which you disagreed with initially. You’re doing a good job of dog-piling me after thief’s comment. I commend you for your bravery. I’m also impressed that you know so much about Ayn Rand. In fact, I think you know more than me. After all I’ve only read the first hundred pages before I gave up: too many pebbles in my mental shoes, and all I could tell is that it is a failed delivery vehicle for some –ism or other. What that ism is, you, Thief & SoT know much better than me.

 

Looking through my previous responses, it’s seems that I didn’t make it quite clear enough that I was completely unwilling to discuss –isms from the word go. I have not built any straw men, only answering your calls with all the politeness I could muster to discuss sexism, racism, gender, heterosexism and some other stuff.

 

And to the three of you, I must apologize, I reckon there's close to 2000 words there all directed at me, I've had to focus on the negative, because that is harmful, there was so much positive there too, but I simply don't have the time to focus on it!

[Student of Trinity]

That's an interesting example to me, because Paradise Lost happened to be the high water mark of my English literature education — I wrote an honors year essay on it, for the last English credits I would ever get (too few for a minor). My take on it, which I only later found out is one of the standard ones today, is that the Romantic reading is there by Milton's design. It's Satan's spin, and Milton intended his readers to see that it was a case well put, but ultimately to see through it. A Satan who wasn't a damn smooth spinmeister wouldn't be much of a Satan, after all.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Boggle

There’s a good chance I do know the titles of some of them, it’s quite possible I’ve read a few of them and maybe even possess one or two of them myself. Imagine that!

You do realize this comes off as sarcastic and condenscending, right?

Quote:

My choice of quote might cause you to chuckle, but that would of course be missing the point. Picking one nit is silly, to pick a thousand means you have an infestation.

Yes, but when you provide an example, it has to be a good example. Your first example isn't a good one. While it could have been phrased better, it's a good simile; most people can visualize the train wheels clicking on the rails without a problem. The "for the first time in her life" example is a much better one, because it's cliche and melodramatic. That's bad writing right there.

Quote:

Gender of course doesn’t end in ism,

Dikiyoba thinks of gender essentialism as the top umbrella term for all the issues and inequalities relating to gender, but it probably has a more specific meaning and shouldn't be used for that.

[grasshopper]

Thanks for the critique of my defensive comment Dikiyoba. I'm very aware of all the points you raised.

 

I waste not only your time here, but my time too, so I'm now going to post publicly the request I made to you privately a couple of days ago:

 

Hi there Dikiyoba,

 

I was wondering if you could be so kind as to ban me. I really need to learn to stay away from these forums, and I think only a firm banning will do.

 

Regards

 

Grasshopper

 

 

Omnia in opinione sita: manifesta enim sunt

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: grasshopper

I was wondering if you could be so kind as to ban me. I really need to learn to stay away from these forums, and I think only a firm banning will do.

As was already explained to you, we do not ban members on request. If these forums are stressing you out or taking up too much of your time, avoid discussions that are causing problems for you. The moderators do not exist as a substitute for your own self-control.

[Sudanna]

Quote:

I saw him die, said the fly? Not quite, but I did scratch my head at why you went to the trouble to weave such a sardonic undertone in to an otherwise top quality comment.

That is my signature, not part of the content of my post. You have one too, it's veni vidi exivi.

Also, I understand this is confusing, but while my PDN (Public Display Name) is Thin Gypsy Thief, I actually go by Nalyd here. Othar Trygvassen: Gentleman goes by Fnord, if I remember correctly.

Apologies for everyone ganging up on you. You have raised some interesting points, but (I think) gone as far as you can with a flawed argument. We (Or, well, I, at least) would appreciate your continued presence here.

[Jerakeen]

Ah, the Spiderweb general forum. This is where I come to get my fill of long, articulate, insightful, and occasionally snippy arguments about nothing much.

 

[Callie]

We all left our sanity at the door a long, long time ago.

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: grasshopper

Thanks for the critique of my defensive comment Dikiyoba. I'm very aware of all the points you raised.

I waste not only your time here, but my time too, so I'm now going to post publicly the request I made to you privately a couple of days ago:

Hi there Dikiyoba,

I was wondering if you could be so kind as to ban me. I really need to learn to stay away from these forums, and I think only a firm banning will do.

Regards

Grasshopper






Omnia in opinione sita: manifesta enim sunt

I suggest you do something offensive if you want to get banned.

[waterplant]

waterplant say: 'remember the 5th amendment, grasshopper, before incriminating your good self'.

 

 

I don't want you to leave btw, especially over some stalemated discussion.

[*i]

VCH, I'm looking at you here and I'm going to hold you partially responsible for encouraging any bad behavior. Instigation is not acceptable. Same goes for anyone else. Understand?

 

I think this thread has run its course.

[Student of Trinity]

I've been in some internet discussions that I decided to just abandon, because I had no hope in communicating with the other people. But those were fairly extreme cases — the conspiracy theorist subset of a group of ex-Scientologists, for example* — and even then it was only a few people who really seemed to be running different hardware, as it were, as opposed to just having a different OS from mine.

 

Otherwise, you know, it's normal to have people disagree with you, but it's fairly rare for this to occur because those other people are stupid. My personal experience has been that people don't even really disagree with me as much as it seems; often we turn out just to be using words differently.

 

Sometimes this happens in a particularly heated way, if I happen to express a thought that seems original to me, but that is actually very widely shared. Maybe it's not exactly obvious, but it's a view that an awful lot of educated or intelligent people come around to before long.

Originally Posted By: Disserl, in the last scene of _Cugel's Saga_

I believe that this thought has been enunciated before. A surly critic might even use the word 'banality'.

People already familiar with the idea being expressed tend to ignore the main content of it, because they consider it obvious, and take issue with some minor details in the phrasing that it has been given on this occasion.

 

I am then surprised and appalled that my obviously compelling notion has apparently been rejected, instead of being hailed with enthusiasm. Shenanigans ensue. Nothing is more frustrating than trying to defend a banal statement. The more irrefutably you demonstrate its truth, the more banal you make it seem; the more dramatically you emphasize its significance, the more you risk distorting it into idiocy. And somehow it seems that both sides tend to end up defending banalities.

 

Rather than just giving up, I recommend realizing that scenarios like that are the default. Recognize them early, and don't waste time trying to argue over degrees of enthusiasm. If the audience doesn't laugh the first time, move on to your next joke.

 

*No, I've never been a Scientologist myself. I was just interested in their experience.