Quote about fantasy?

[Narren]

I suppose that this is best place for this question.

I've been trying to remember that quote from Rich about fantasy literature. It's popped up a few times here. Something about it only being worthwhile for what it tells us about the real world....or something.

My Google-fu is weak, and I can't find it.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12718655#post12718655) is the quote you seek.

[Keltest]

Our resident banana keeps a well stocked thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335909-The-Index-of-the-Giant-s-Comments-III-We-ve-Left-a-Banana-In-Charge) with a large number of the Giant's comments. Conveniently the one(s) you are looking for are right at the top, under "recent additions"

[Narren]

Much obliged.

[Arcite]

I see that quote often in a signature line, and I am really rubbed the wrong way by it every time. Like it really irks me.

Maybe "petty escapism" is what some people might want or need after a day of hard work? There is nothing wrong with that. Not all fiction has to be a statement about reality; just entertainment can be valid too.

I think it is a quote that makes more sense if you are person whose job involves fantasy stuff all day, rather than it being after-work in your spare time.

Just my humble opinion. I probably wouldn't have as much feeling about it except for having read it so many times.

[zimmerwald1915]

Maybe "petty escapism" is what some people might want or need after a day of hard work? There is nothing wrong with that. Not all fiction has to be a statement about reality; just entertainment can be valid too.
Reality is outrageous. It can be comforting to leave it behind for a time. Unfortunately, after you've come back, reality will still be the same, and you will not have spent your time away equipping yourself to change it or even to feel outraged at it.

[Unisus]

Yes, but maybe i spent the time away feeling good, not worrying - sometimes you just need a time-out.

[Keltest]

Reality is outrageous. It can be comforting to leave it behind for a time. Unfortunately, after you've come back, reality will still be the same, and you will not have spent your time away equipping yourself to change it or even to feel outraged at it.

Perhaps not, but if you could never, for example, go home from work, don't you think that you would perform significantly worse at your job? I don't just mean go home at the end of the day, I mean eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, everything. Never leave your office building. Sometimes the best thing you can do to aid yourself in a task is to stop doing it for a while and rejuvenate yourself.

Personally what rubs me the wrong way about that statement is the word petty. Rich literally just insulted everyone who reads for fun, including me. I doubt that was his intent if only because Rich usually tries to avoid insulting a demographic unless its based on deliberately provoking him in some way. But you know, if you go slinging around words like petty, you better be darn sure that's the word you want to use.

[Unisus]

Ok, just looked up "petty" and i agree with you - at least out of the context the sentence lacks respect for the worth of taking a step back from everyday problems to gain new strength.

In the context it was used you could say it was an antipole to "worthwhile" to underline what the Giant was trying to say.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's a pretty silly quote, yes.

[Keltest]

Ok, just looked up "petty" and i agree with you - at least out of the context the sentence lacks respect for the worth of taking a step back from everyday problems to gain new strength.

In the context it was used you could say it was an antipole to "worthwhile" to underline what the Giant was trying to say.

I don't think that makes it any less disrespectful. If its being used as a counterpoint to "worthwhile" that implies that it isn't worthwhile, ie a waste.

[Unisus]

I don't think that makes it any less disrespectful. If its being used as a counterpoint to "worthwhile" that implies that it isn't worthwhile, ie a waste.

That's why i said in context - the discussion was about the significance (? not sure if it's the right word, but i hope you understand what i try to say) a story may have.

I'll try an analogy: if i evaluate food in regard to the energy it provides, fibers are worthless. So in a discussion on that topic a comment saying so would be appropriate. If the discussion was about a healthy diet, it would't be.

[Keltest]

That's why i said in context - the discussion was about the significance (? not sure if it's the right word, but i hope you understand what i try to say) a story may have.

I'll try an analogy: if i evaluate food in regard to the energy it provides, fibers are worthless. So in a discussion on that topic a comment saying so would be appropriate. If the discussion was about a healthy diet, it would't be.

And in that context its still disrespectful. As you mentioned, it is completely dismissive of the beneficial effects of taking a step back and not worrying about things for a little while, and when discussing the value of a story that is absolutely relevant to the discussion. Ironically, it would have made the point you're claiming it was trying to make better had it just left it as a neutral statement rather than making it derogatory.

[Unisus]

So you say if i want to read a story to broaden my mind, it is of no importance if the story i read does not provide any wisdom?

Don't get me wrong, i also think thet the word "petty" was a poor choice, and in the form the quote is presented here in the forum it is questionable at least, but i think in the given context it was acceptable.

[Keltest]

So you say if i want to read a story to broaden my mind, it is of no importance if the story i read does not provide any wisdom?

Don't get me wrong, i also think thet the word "petty" was a poor choice, and in the form the quote is presented here in the forum it is questionable at least, but i think in the given context it was acceptable.

I think if you want to redo your roof, you shouldn't buy a saw to use as a hammer. I have no problems with the idea that stories can be used to give across a message, but im rather offended by the idea that that is the only worthwhile reason to read or write a story. If you want books filled with wisdom, a little investigating will usually turn up plenty of books to suit your tastes; no need for a blind trial and error method, so you cant even argue that "for fun" books impede those seeking wisdom.

[Unisus]

Maybe i read it different from how you do. If the Giant's comment is about the value of literature in general, then i agree with you. I read it more as a comment about literature which wants to transport a message.

[Keltest]

Maybe i read it different from how you do. If the Giant's comment is about the value of literature in general, then i agree with you. I read it more as a comment about literature which wants to transport a message.

Statements like "No fiction is meaningful" and "Fantasy literature is only" as a rule are very inclusive statements. Its difficult to read "No fiction meant to transport a message is meaningful..." when the actual sentence lacks the "meant to transport a message" part.

[SouthpawSoldier]

I'm glad to finally read the context and qualifiers for that quote. As someone who was practically raised by fiction, "petty escapism" is a broad brush that could be (and was) read as dismissive.

It's fairly easy to point at literature that was influencial during my formative years. Authors like Robert Heinlein use their writing more as a platform for commentary than simple story telling. It's more difficult to relate Tolkein to the real world. I still find it enriching, and not "petty".

[Unisus]

Statements like "No fiction is meaningful" and "Fantasy literature is only" as a rule are very inclusive statements. Its difficult to read "No fiction meant to transport a message is meaningful..." when the actual sentence lacks the "meant to transport a message" part.

That's what i took from the context, as the discussion was about the messages the Giant wants to transport. At least that's what i get from it. But again, of course i could be misinterpreting it.

[Keltest]

That's what i took from the context, as the discussion was about the messages the Giant wants to transport. At least that's what i get from it. But again, of course i could be misinterpreting it.
context cant really change the meaning of a statement. If someone says "all vegetables are gross" then context cant change that to mean anything other than what it says, even if theyre talking about green leafy vegetables up until that point.

[Unisus]

context cant really change the meaning of a statement. If someone says "all vegetables are gross" then context cant change that to mean anything other than what it says, even if theyre talking about green leafy vegetables up until that point.

But if you take "meaningful" as "able to transport a message", the statement is correct. No fiction can transport a message (reasonably), if the message isn't valid outside the story.

And then the other sentence (which gets quoted out of context...) is to be read in context to this.

But of course, without a statement of the Giant setting this straight we won't know if he actually is against escapism.

[Keltest]

But if you take "meaningful" as "able to transport a message", the statement is correct. No fiction can transport a message (reasonably), if the message isn't valid outside the story.

And then the other sentence (which gets quoted out of context...) is to be read in context to this.

But of course, without a statement of the Giant setting this straight we won't know if he actually is against escapism.

that requires you to ignore context actually. Specifically, the part where he established that he believes the point of all fiction is to transmit a meaningful message.

[Aedilred]

Over the years I've seen Rich make a number of comments regarding fiction or literary principle or whatever. I've probably disagreed with the majority of it, and a subset of that has actively annoyed me. He does also have a habit of coming across as rather dismissive towards his own readers. I guess it goes to show that you can enjoy a creation independently of its creator's "private" opinions.

In fact, I've long felt that fiction (in whatever medium) is probably improved if you don't get to see the man behind the curtain, and I don't think I'm alone in that. I'm aware that the modern world, with its social media, making-of documentaries longer than the actual feature, and so on, has torpedoed this idea and machine-gunned the survivors, but I still think it holds good in principle. Webcomics are particularly vulnerable, since by their nature there's no marketing, PR, or indeed editorial department to keep the creator on a leash, and it's very easy for a creator to blurt something out at any time.

[Unisus]

that requires you to ignore context actually. Specifically, the part where he established that he believes the point of all fiction is to transmit a meaningful message.

Actually i did not ignore that as i did not read it. But after multiple times reading the comments in that thread i agree that you could read it as that.

[Keltest]

Actually i did not ignore that as i did not read it. But after multiple times reading the comments in that thread i agree that you could read it as that.

Im very confused now. You didn't actually read the entire post? But youre arguing based on context...

excuse me while I go into the next room over to ponder how that even works.

[Unisus]

Im very confused now. You didn't actually read the entire post? But youre arguing based on context...

excuse me while I go into the next room over to ponder how that even works.

Maybe i'm blind, but i didn't find the phrase "i believe the point of all fiction is to transmit a meaningful message" anywhere, so it must be implied in what he actually wrote. Implied content is always up to interpretation, and what i was saying is that i didnot interpret it like that. If he actually wrote that phrase, then i just did not see it and would be glad if you could point it out to me.

[jere7my]

context cant really change the meaning of a statement. If someone says "all vegetables are gross" then context cant change that to mean anything other than what it says, even if theyre talking about green leafy vegetables up until that point.

Keltest said, "All vegetables are gross."

Would reading that quote of yours in context change its meaning?

[Keltest]

Maybe i'm blind, but i didn't find the phrase "i believe the point of all fiction is to transmit a meaningful message" anywhere, so it must be implied in what he actually wrote. Implied content is always up to interpretation, and what i was saying is that i didnot interpret it like that. If he actually wrote that phrase, then i just did not see it and would be glad if you could point it out to me.


If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it.

emphasis mine.

[Unisus]

Sorry, but that i read as "the appearance of totally fictional content does not remove the validity of transported messages", not as "all literature has to transport messages", but as i said, it's an implication and thus subject to interpretation.

And by the way, statements can well be dependent on their context and have a very different meaning when used without that context.

[Keltest]

Sorry, but that i read as "the appearance of totally fictional content does not remove the validity of transported messages", not as "all literature has to transport messages", but as i said, it's an implication and thus subject to interpretation.

And by the way, statements can well be dependent on their context and have a very different meaning when used without that context.

If you are choosing to read statements that are not there, that's your prerogative. Horse, water, drink, etc... But understand that just because you choose to interpret something a certain way does not mean that it lends itself to that interpretation.

Whether or not you think that's what the Giant meant, you definitely understand how its what he said to a great many people, so my point is made.

[Kish]

I think Rich genuinely meant that he has little regard for pure escapism. I don't think his words on the subject need context or nuance; I think there, if not necessarily other places, he meant what he said and said what he meant.

That being the case, the logical approach for someone who wants pure escapism, is to look for something else to read. But instead, a number of the "want pure escapism" readers seem to think that they can convince Rich of the obvious truthiness of "a humorous stick figure webcomic is and should be and can only ever be a vessel for pure escapism" (or, at least once, "you can't have moral authority while presenting commitmentless sex without condemning it, so accept that you've established your writing as nothing more than escapism"). These people's posts inevitably lead to frustration for all.

That said, looking at this thread, I see a lot of expanding the concept of "petty escapism." Rich did not say anything critical about Tolkien (for goodness' sake) or about all literature. He did, in my opinion, fundamentally reject Arcite's statements. If you want to believe that a particular piece of writing both "has nothing to say about the real world" and "has value," then yes, in my opinion, Rich said you're wrong. If, on the other hand, you simply want to believe that a particular piece of writing has value, Rich probably wouldn't say it has nothing to say about the real world. (Still can't believe someone suggested Tolkien is just escapism...)

[Keltest]

I think Rich genuinely meant that he has little regard for pure escapism. I don't think his words on the subject need context or nuance; I think there, if not necessarily other places, he meant what he said and said what he meant.

That being the case, the logical approach for someone who wants pure escapism, is to look for something else to read. "Maybe I just want a But instead, a number of the "want pure escapism" readers seem to think that they can convince Rich of the obvious truthiness of "a humorous stick figure webcomic is and should be and can only ever be a vessel for pure escapism" (or, at least once, "you can't have moral authority while presenting commitmentless sex without condemning it"). These people's posts inevitably lead to frustration for all.

That said, looking at this thread, I see a lot of expanding the concept of "petty escapism." Rich did not say anything critical about Tolkien (for goodness' sake) or about all literature. He did, in my opinion, fundamentally reject Arcite's statements. If you want to believe that a particular piece of writing both "has nothing to say about the real world" and "has value," then yes, in my opinion, Rich said you're wrong. If, on the other hand, you simply want to believe that a particular piece of writing has value, Rich probably wouldn't say it has nothing to say about the real world. (Still can't believe someone suggested Tolkien is just escapism...)

I disagree. The logical approach for someone who wants pure escapism is to ignore whatever the author says and read the story however the heck you want, because their opinion should in no way influence your ability to enjoy their work (unless what youre doing is illegal, in which case... yeah). The logical approach for someone who dislikes the story is to go and read something else, and Rich is awful quick to point that out, not that I can blame him in this particular case.

[Unisus]

If you are choosing to read statements that are not there, that's your prerogative.

If anything, i did choose to not read a statement that was there - if we assume that the statement you said was made actually was made. That could be because it was an implied statement i just did not see as such, it could also be that i saw the possibility of this implication but did choose to err on the save side in not taking a maybe misread implication as a statement. If there have been other occasions where the Giant actually stated that every piece of literature has to contain and transport a message, i can see that people involved in those occasions may see an implied statement like this as if it was clearly written as an open statement, but as i myself never got that exact statement openly stated by the Giant, i don't see why i should ignore the possibility that the implied statement was just a misreading.

Yes, you made your point. And i agree with you that literature has its benefits even if it does not transport anything but just entertains. I agree also with you, that if the Giant thinks, literature must always transport a message, then he is obviously not aware of those benefits.

The only thing i disagree with you is if in the quote we talk about the Giant clearly stated that all literature must transport messages or not. But that aside, the shortened quote people put into their signature definitely is problematic (while absolutely valid as a quote in the case the Giant actually thinks so).

[SouthpawSoldier]

Even with a Quenya middle name, and having been literally raised on Tolkein, I have a hard time seeing how it relates to the world. It's absolutely enriching, but at its core, it's a story, and lingust exercise.

Contrast that with Heinlein, who used fiction merely as a tool to illustrate and lecture his worldview, or authors like Chricton who educate (and lately, persuade) with their writing.

[Jasdoif]

Our resident banana keeps a well stocked thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335909-The-Index-of-the-Giant-s-Comments-III-We-ve-Left-a-Banana-In-Charge) with a large number of the Giant's comments. Conveniently the one(s) you are looking for are right at the top, under "recent additions""Resident" banana, huh? Well, that might explain why I haven't seen any other bananas.... :smalleek:

In any case, if we're going to get in-depth on the "Escapism" quote, I think a recent elaboration on that point should be brought up as well:

Between this and some of your previous statements, I have to ask: is there something inherently wrong with escapism? By being entratained by a story that might give you something emotionally while not being directly tied to real life issues?If a story gives you something emotionally, then it probably is tied to a real-life issue—the issue of how we process our emotions while making our way through the complex world in which we live. Not all messages need to be externally focused.

If a story fails to even give you that much, then it's porn. Or fanfiction. Or both, probably. Either way, I have no time for it.

[Keltest]

"Resident" banana, huh? Well, that might explain why I haven't seen any other bananas.... :smalleek:

In any case, if we're going to get in-depth on the "Escapism" quote, I think a recent elaboration on that point should be brought up as well:
For some reason none of the other bananas want to stay here for long.

anyway, I read that quote and my first thought is "so stories are connected to real life because we enjoy them?" and find myself having a difficult time moving beyond that thought.

Im going to assume that's not what Rich meant and im simply being biased against this particular topic, but that leaves me the problem that I cant figure out what else it could really mean.

[Unisus]

So what the Giant is saying is, that if we read a story and enjoy it, the story transports a valid message. Else we would not enjoy it. If we don't enjoy a story, we don't read it (at least not for long). A story is escapism if it does not transport a message. So if i want to escape reality for a while by reading a book, i have to take one i don't enjoy reading?

I'm a little confused there...

[Vinyadan]

Even with a Quenya middle name, and having been literally raised on Tolkein, I have a hard time seeing how it relates to the world. It's absolutely enriching, but at its core, it's a story, and lingust exercise.

Contrast that with Heinlein, who used fiction merely as a tool to illustrate and lecture his worldview, or authors like Chricton who educate (and lately, persuade) with their writing.

I read an interesting article about this. The journalist said that Tolkien used a free format when writing: any one of his characters could have done something entirely different. The journalist then tried to coerce the Dark Lord to represent Hitler, Stalin or some other foreign power menacing England.
This is where the journalist failed. Tolkien said a few times that he didn't write a metaphor, and he also said he tried to write a myth cycle (which turned into something else).

The relationship of Tolkien to the world is a problem which has been sought after, usually with rather disappointing results.

Anyway: I think LotR has some very practical message about the world. One is the salvific character of women, as exemplified by Elbereth, Galadriel and Luthien. The other one is the importance of Grace, which Tolkien later discussed at length in his letters. And then there is the message that the protagonist, in a world of titanic heroes bound by birth to reach the highest destinies, is a little hobbit, and, really, no one special. Common people are important: the good guys may have been betrayed by the powerful and wise Saruman, but a honest, simple, tenacious and good-hearted hobbit, without any training or bizarre prophecy, may already have in himself everything you need to save the world.

This said, I also think that Tolkien was one of the very few fantasy authors with a real understanding of aesthetics, and that they helped him creating his story as much as his culture. And an aesthetically beautiful work ends up being always enriching. The homesickness in LotR is as important as the Elves themselves to me, for what concerns the footprint it leaves.

I don't think my language has a word for escapism, so I don't know whether it is negative or not, but could it also refer to fine art in general? I have seen some wonderfully crafted column which didn't bear any weight and was only put in a building to look nice. Is this also escapism? Searching beauty for the sake of perceiving it?

[Keltest]

I read an interesting article about this. The journalist said that Tolkien used a free format when writing: any one of his characters could have done something entirely different. The journalist then tried to coerce the Dark Lord to represent Hitler, Stalin or some other foreign power menacing England.
This is where the journalist failed. Tolkien said a few times that he didn't write a metaphor, and he also said he tried to write a myth cycle (which turned into something else).

The relationship of Tolkien to the world is a problem which has been sought after, usually with rather disappointing results.

Anyway: I think LotR has some very practical message about the world. One is the salvific character of women, as exemplified by Elbereth, Galadriel and Luthien. The other one is the importance of Grace, which Tolkien later discussed at length in his letters. And then there is the message that the protagonist, in a world of titanic heroes bound by birth to reach the highest destinies, is a little hobbit, and, really, no one special. Common people are important: the good guys may have been betrayed by the powerful and wise Saruman, but a honest, simple, tenacious and good-hearted hobbit, without any training or bizarre prophecy, may already have in himself everything you need to save the world.

This said, I also think that Tolkien was one of the very few fantasy authors with a real understanding of aesthetics, and that they helped him creating his story as much as his culture. And an aesthetically beautiful work ends up being always enriching. The homesickness in LotR is as important as the Elves themselves to me, for what concerns the footprint it leaves.

I don't think my language has a word for escapism, so I don't know whether it is negative or not, but could it also refer to fine art in general? I have seen some wonderfully crafted column which didn't bear any weight and was only put in a building to look nice. Is this also escapism? Searching beauty for the sake of perceiving it?

Escapism is a fairly neutral term. It can easily be paraphrased as "I want to get away from things I don't like for a while." so whether or not that attitude is good or bad is entirely up to the individual. So in that sense, yes, art can be escapism, if you like staring at pretty pillars for whatever reason.

[SouthpawSoldier]

Escapism is a fairly neutral term. It can easily be paraphrased as "I want to get away from things I don't like for a while." so whether or not that attitude is good or bad is entirely up to the individual. So in that sense, yes, art can be escapism, if you like staring at pretty pillars for whatever reason.

Generally, the connotation is negative; the implication is that the short break may be therapeutic, but there's no effective change in what caused the distress. An anology would be putting sucralose in a hummingbird feeder; it may be fantastically sweet and taste "better" than sugar, but it lacks the calories the birds need to survive.

In the context of this discussion, reading "escapist" fantasy may be entertaining, but it doesn't make the reader think. No heady philosophical concepts like from Xenocide and the later books in the Enderverse; no forcing political issues like Heinlein; the reader may put the book away having enjoyed the read, but without growth. The argument is if such books are truly without value other than as entertainment, or if even purely aesthetic works can provide intellectual and spiritual growth.

[Toastkart]

The first quote has always bothered me too, not necessarily in the words themselves, but in the context of them. There is a wide gulf between a story that serves a social justice agenda and any story that doesn't being petty escapism. Not every story needs to address social justice issues, and they aren't lesser stories for it. There are wide ranges of themes and meanings that have nothing to do with social justice issues that are probably more important on an individual level.

It is, all in all, a pretty narrow definition of 'worthwhile', and it's always bugged me because of how dismissive it is. The second quote, at least, expands on what the Giant thinks counts as meaningful. Even so, I find it difficult to imagine that any kind of story could be so bereft of meaning to count as petty escapism.

[Aedilred]

So what the Giant is saying is, that if we read a story and enjoy it, the story transports a valid message. Else we would not enjoy it. If we don't enjoy a story, we don't read it (at least not for long). A story is escapism if it does not transport a message. So if i want to escape reality for a while by reading a book, i have to take one i don't enjoy reading?

I'm a little confused there...
It's a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Escapism is petty and not worthwhile. If you take enjoyment in something apparently escapist, then it has value, so it's not just escapism and is worthwhile after all.

[Jasdoif]

anyway, I read that quote and my first thought is "so stories are connected to real life because we enjoy them?" and find myself having a difficult time moving beyond that thought.

Im going to assume that's not what Rich meant and im simply being biased against this particular topic, but that leaves me the problem that I cant figure out what else it could really mean.I think you were reading it backwards actually, mixing up cause and effect, but I'm going to go with it anyway.


Good fiction captures the imagination, by getting readers emotionally invested in what's happening in the story or to the characters in it. People respond much better to being presented with the details of a particular situation and deciding for themselves how they feel or think about it, than with being told how they should feel or think about it; that's the basis of the "show, don't tell" principle of storytelling.

But for that to work, the situation needs to parallel real life in some aspect. Whether emotional reactions to an unfolding event, implications of something that happened earlier in the story, a character forced to choose between alternatives where there isn't a clear-cut "good" choice, or something else entirely; without a frame of reference to the reality all readers are presumably from, there simply isn't conceptual backing for understanding the situation at hand, and without understanding there's no basis for relating to the story.

The defining trait of fiction is that it originates in someone's imagination, and because of that all fiction is escapism to some degree. Escapism isn't inherently petty, although of course petty escapism can exist.


As far as the Giant's comments on it go....I get the feeling the Giant is commenting on the standards he holds his writing to, and not the standards he expects his readers to hold to.

[Kish]

Except insofar as periodically someone tries to convince him to quit trying to write anything other than literary junk food as a non-prudish humorous stick figure comic, because at least one of those guarantees it has to be junk food.

[factotum]

The argument is if such books are truly without value other than as entertainment, or if even purely aesthetic works can provide intellectual and spiritual growth.

Well, there's an interesting point...is something which is purely entertaining without merit because of that? I perhaps see these things the opposite way to the Giant, and some people in this thread; to my mind, fiction's primary purpose is to entertain. You can also have it teach, or raise philosophical questions in the reader, but those are ancillary to the story's prime purpose. If you write the most worthy story ever put to paper, but it's so boring hardly anyone ever finishes it, you've failed as a writer, IMHO.

[Aedilred]

Good fiction captures the imagination, by getting readers emotionally invested in what's happening in the story or to the characters in it. People respond much better to being presented with the details of a particular situation and deciding for themselves how they feel or think about it, than with being told how they should feel or think about it; that's the basis of the "show, don't tell" principle of storytelling.

...

As far as the Giant's comments on it go....I get the feeling the Giant is commenting on the standards he holds his writing to, and not the standards he expects his readers to hold to.
Without wishing to dredge up the whole Strip #959 controversy again (no really, it's just that that's still fresh in my mind) my problem with that strip was exactly for the reasons you describe: that it looked very much like it was telling, not showing, and giving a pointer as to what the reader was supposed to think of it.

The response to which - not my comments specifically - from Rich was that it was worth sacrificing any and all narrative logic etc. on the altar of getting the right message across. Whereas my views are rather closer to factotum's here:


Well, there's an interesting point...is something which is purely entertaining without merit because of that? I perhaps see these things the opposite way to the Giant, and some people in this thread; to my mind, fiction's primary purpose is to entertain. You can also have it teach, or raise philosophical questions in the reader, but those are ancillary to the story's prime purpose. If you write the most worthy story ever put to paper, but it's so boring hardly anyone ever finishes it, you've failed as a writer, IMHO.

With which I pretty much agree entirely. I think (no, really (again)) that South Park actually offers a reasonable illustration of this in action. At its best it's hugely entertaining, albeit extremely puerile and crude. It also often manages to be quite thought-provoking. But, especially a little later in its run when it started to concentrate on the message du jour more, and the fart jokes less, that's when pretty much everyone agreed the quality dropped. Putting in a message is fine... well, depending what that message is. But you shouldn't compromise the integrity of the story itself to accommodate it, and I think doing so is actually counterproductive anyway.

[veti]

I read an interesting article about this. The journalist said that Tolkien used a free format when writing: any one of his characters could have done something entirely different. The journalist then tried to coerce the Dark Lord to represent Hitler, Stalin or some other foreign power menacing England.
This is where the journalist failed. Tolkien said a few times that he didn't write a metaphor, and he also said he tried to write a myth cycle (which turned into something else).

The relationship of Tolkien to the world is a problem which has been sought after, usually with rather disappointing results.

The journalist was thinking far too small - basically, in the terms journalists are accustomed to think. "Myth" is to "metaphor" as "metaphor" is to "words" - it's a whole other layer of abstraction. Myths are stories whose purpose is to convey many different points, depending on whoever happens to be retelling it at the time.

(To qualify as a myth, it has to be retold. There is no such thing as an "authoritative version" of myth, which is why it's so hard to create a new one, and all the best ones predate the existence of writing.)


Anyway: I think LotR has some very practical message about the world. One is the salvific character of women, as exemplified by Elbereth, Galadriel and Luthien. The other one is the importance of Grace, which Tolkien later discussed at length in his letters. And then there is the message that the protagonist, in a world of titanic heroes bound by birth to reach the highest destinies, is a little hobbit, and, really, no one special. Common people are important: the good guys may have been betrayed by the powerful and wise Saruman, but a honest, simple, tenacious and good-hearted hobbit, without any training or bizarre prophecy, may already have in himself everything you need to save the world.

Yes, there's a very powerful message about "little people" (in every sense) overcoming the adversary by sheer gutsy perseverence. Also faith (the little people have absolutely no idea what they're doing, they literally just follow instructions and blindly trust that it'll work out), and teamwork (no one of the little people can accomplish much of anything on their own, they all need lots of help). There's also some morals about the importance of tradition and authority, which it's easy to miss because those are unfashionable values currently.


This said, I also think that Tolkien was one of the very few fantasy authors with a real understanding of aesthetics, and that they helped him creating his story as much as his culture. And an aesthetically beautiful work ends up being always enriching. The homesickness in LotR is as important as the Elves themselves to me, for what concerns the footprint it leaves.

Beautifully put.

[halfeye]

Contrast that with Heinlein, who used fiction merely as a tool to illustrate and lecture his worldview
Heinlein was a good writer, but Farnham's Freehold was way out there. If that was his worldview, then he was a racist.

I tend to the view that he didn't actually intend it that way, but was too much a controversialist to let it slide when the book became justly notorious.

[Kish]

Heinlein's views are...probably impossible to discuss without breaking board rules. Suffice to say that he definitely wrote as a vessel for pushing his political ideas, with far less subtlety than Rich or Tolkien or most authors.

[Keltest]

Heinlein's views are...probably impossible to discuss without breaking board rules. Suffice to say that he definitely wrote as a vessel for pushing his political ideas, with far less subtlety than Rich or Tolkien or most authors.

How about we just say that times were different and leave it at that?

[halfeye]

Heinlein's views are...probably impossible to discuss without breaking board rules.
Yeah, mea tipsy, I didn't think. :smallredface:

[SouthpawSoldier]

To be fair to Heinlein, some of his stuff wasn't that bad. I'm hard-pressed to think of much that can be discussed apolitically ATM.

But it's not just about writing with a Message, even (relative to Heinlein) subtly like Card or beneignly like Bova. Compare (some) Doyle or Verne and contemporaries to Burroughs or his virtual plagiarist, John Norman. On one hand we have books that serve to educate, or at least stimulate the intellect. On the other, pure fluff, with no nutrition for the mind. The adventures of John Carter/Tarl Cabot may be fun and entertaining, but there's little that relates to how healthy people interact with their world.

Don't get me wrong; I DEVOURED books like that as a kid. Heck, I still have metaphorical needle tracks on my frontal lobe. If I'm feeling lazy and tired, I'll reach for the fun stuff first. But I will be the first to admit that my use of video games and fiction (good and even the REALLY bad) for escapism only serves to make the lows of everyday life even worse. Rather, I SHOULD be reading books that entertain, and inspire development and change.

[Jasdoif]

Without wishing to dredge up the whole Strip #959 controversy again (no really, it's just that that's still fresh in my mind) my problem with that strip was exactly for the reasons you describe: that it looked very much like it was telling, not showing, and giving a pointer as to what the reader was supposed to think of it.

The response to which - not my comments specifically - from Rich was that it was worth sacrificing any and all narrative logic etc. on the altar of getting the right message across.First, here's the post in question in case anyone reading along hasn't seen it.

Anyway, something that bears mentioning here is that the Giant tends to use exaggeration and hyperbole more often when he's agitated...like when people are declaring his personal views pointless, as had been happening in the thread. I'm certain this was a case of hyperbole, expressing that he considers "real good" more important than "story logic" if he's forced to choose one. Because if "I will happily sacrifice any or all story logic on the altar of accomplishing one fraction of an ounce of real good in the real world" was meant literally, the accompanying strip would have been unquestionably blatant about the message he was trying to convey.

[Keltest]

First, here's the post in question in case anyone reading along hasn't seen it.

Anyway, something that bears mentioning here is that the Giant tends to use exaggeration and hyperbole more often when he's agitated...like when people are declaring his personal views pointless, as had been happening in the thread. I'm certain this was a case of hyperbole, expressing that he considers "real good" more important than "story logic" if he's forced to choose one. Because if "I will happily sacrifice any or all story logic on the altar of accomplishing one fraction of an ounce of real good in the real world" was meant literally, the accompanying strip would have been unquestionably blatant about the message he was trying to convey.

That's based on the assumption that "blatantly stating the message" is more effective than "presenting it in an organic manner that people want to read" which was, if I recall correctly, the issue several people had with that page.

[mikeejimbo]

"Resident" banana, huh? Well, that might explain why I haven't seen any other bananas.... :smalleek:

At least you're not second banana to anyone.

With regards to escapism, I feel like it's possible for a consumer to want both at different times, although I'm definitely in the camp that "stories that don't illustrate points about the real world aren't petty" side.

However, I am also hard-pressed to find a work that doesn't mean anything to anyone. You can write about the silliest, pettiest things, and people will still find something in them. Meaning, truth, even just something offhand that happens to trigger an epiphany.

[Unisus]

The adventures of John Carter/Tarl Cabot may be fun and entertaining, but there's little that relates to how healthy people interact with their world.

One could argue though that the Gor books transported messages - not necessarily right ones, especially from today's point of view.

Actually i'm trying to come up with a work of literature which contains no message at the moment, but i have yet to find one. Maybe i'm just reading the wrong books...

[Aedilred]

Anyway, something that bears mentioning here is that the Giant tends to use exaggeration and hyperbole more often when he's agitated...like when people are declaring his personal views pointless, as had been happening in the thread. I'm certain this was a case of hyperbole, expressing that he considers "real good" more important than "story logic" if he's forced to choose one.

Very possibly. Although that comes back to my earlier thing about how maybe it's better not to have direct acccess to the creator's thoughts on a given work, especially a sole creator with no "screening" between them and the fanbase. For everyone's sakes.



Actually i'm trying to come up with a work of literature which contains no message at the moment, but i have yet to find one. Maybe i'm just reading the wrong books...
The Very Hungry Caterpillar?

[Unisus]

The Very Hungry Caterpillar?

I'm not really sure about that - i mean there's this little caterpillar who's munching anything he finds until his tummy aches, then it eats a nice green leaf, the right thing for a caterpillar, and is feeling better. And in the end, this little glutton develops to a beautyful butterfly.

That aside from the fact that the book teaches about metamorphosis of butterflies in a child-appropriate manner.

I think i differ on that one.

[Math_Mage]

Without wishing to dredge up the whole Strip #959 controversy again (no really, it's just that that's still fresh in my mind) my problem with that strip was exactly for the reasons you describe: that it looked very much like it was telling, not showing, and giving a pointer as to what the reader was supposed to think of it.

The response to which - not my comments specifically - from Rich was that it was worth sacrificing any and all narrative logic etc. on the altar of getting the right message across.
It should be noted that from the perspective of a reader who's taken a hiatus from the OotS sub-forum for the past several months, nothing was actually sacrificed. The perception of sacrifice is largely due to the manufactured controversy on this sub-forum. The problem isn't access to the creator's thoughts, either, otherwise we'd feel bad about reading Rich's comments in the printed books. It's the meat-grinder forum discussion that sucks the entertainment out of the story.

Now you know why I've been on hiatus.

Also, no story survives on showing alone. "Show, don't tell" is a pretty-sounding maxim that breaks beginning writers of bad habits, but it's not a meaningful standard by which to judge quality work.

That said, I agree that entertainment is a primary goal of fiction. I also think Rich walked back his stance significantly when he said that emotional reaction entails real-world meaning--few works of fiction have neither a message nor an emotional impact.

[hamishspence]

I tend to the view that he didn't actually intend it that way, but was too much a controversialist to let it slide when the book became justly notorious.

Based on his other books - I figure his message was "Oppression begets oppression, and the oppressed can become the oppressors".


(Still can't believe someone suggested Tolkien is just escapism...)

Of course, if you believe Moorcock, Tolkien, Heinlein, and Lucas, all communicate the same message - a paternalistic "pro-hero, anti-ordinary person" one.

[Keltest]

Based on his other books - I figure his message was "Oppression begets oppression, and the oppressed can become the oppressors".



Of course, if you believe Moorcock, Tolkien, Heinlein, and Lucas, all communicate the same message - a paternalistic "pro-hero, anti-ordinary person" one.
If that's the case for Tolkien, its only because there are no "heroic versus ordinary" people in his world, everyone has the capacity for both.

[hamishspence]

If that's the case for Tolkien, its only because there are no "heroic versus ordinary" people in his world, everyone has the capacity for both.

This was the essay I was thinking of: "Starship Stormtroopers"

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html

[Keltest]

This was the essay I was thinking of: "Starship Stormtroopers"

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html

Skimming through that it sounds like the author is just bitter that people like the works of authors he doesn't care for. I see very little actual reference to the books themselves, and a lot of reference to the politics of the readers and authors.

[Psyren]

While I agree that the quote is a bit harsh and that there is inherent value in escapism for escapism's sake, I personally believe works that deliver on escapism while also providing a lens to examine the human condition on a deeper level are much more valuable.

[hamishspence]

Skimming through that it sounds like the author is just bitter that people like the works of authors he doesn't care for.

It does seem a little paranoid in style - as well as a little bitter at times.

[halfeye]

Skimming through that it sounds like the author is just bitter that people like the works of authors he doesn't care for. I see very little actual reference to the books themselves, and a lot of reference to the politics of the readers and authors.
It's about real world politics. :smalleek:

[Unisus]

While I agree that the quote is a bit harsh and that there is inherent value in escapism for escapism's sake, I personally believe works that deliver on escapism while also providing a lens to examine the human condition on a deeper level are much more valuable.

I think we all agree that there are differences in the value of literature - but that does not mean that any literature that is not of "high value" is utterly worthless.

[hamishspence]

It's about real world politics. :smalleek:

Not all the "messages" talked about are, though. "Individualism" can be a way of life.

Probably best to focus more on nonpolitical "Messages" an author may want to communicate though.

[Jasdoif]

Although that comes back to my earlier thing about how maybe it's better not to have direct acccess to the creator's thoughts on a given work, especially a sole creator with no "screening" between them and the fanbase. For everyone's sakes.I have to disagree that it'd be better that way. Knowing the creator's thoughts behind a given work can't change the work...because they were already there when the work was created, regardless of who currently knows them.

Knowing a creator's motivations can give greater understanding to the work. Even if you disagree with the ideas behind a work you like, that's a clear clue that there's something else in it that you like, and you're closer to being able identify that something than you would be otherwise. And seeing a creator's responses to feedback gives insight on the creator as a person, whether you approve or disapprove of what you learn; Which I feel is much more informative than the creator acting as some sort of...non-interactive force of literary nature, I suppose.

[Psyren]

I think we all agree that there are differences in the value of literature - but that does not mean that any literature that is not of "high value" is utterly worthless.

Yeah the Giant probably went a bit overboard on that count but honestly, he didn't miss the mark by that much either. If I have work A that can entertain me, and work B that can entertain me and teach me something about myself, well, work B is going to be pretty much strictly better. It's like comparing, say, Doom 3 vs. Bioshock.

[Peelee]

Yeah the Giant probably went a bit overboard on that count but honestly, he didn't miss the mark by that much either. If I have work A that can entertain me, and work B that can entertain me and teach me something about myself, well, work B is going to be pretty much strictly better. It's like comparing, say, Doom 3 vs. Bioshock.

"Better" is still subjective, though. Right now in my life, I go for all the escapism I can grab. I'm married with a full-time job and am going back to school, also full-time. I take summer classes so that I can actually try to make it out in four years. It's pretty stressful, and if I read a book or play a game, I'm wanting pure entertainment value out of it. I'm not adamantly against, say, The Giant putting messages into his strip, but I'm going to gloss over them all at the moment and just follow along in the adventures of Roy and Co. And sure, maybe later when I don't have quite as much going on in my life, I may want to re-read the whole strip specifically for the messages I know are laden throughout, and then I'll be happy that The Giant put all that in there, and I'll probably enjoy it more for that. Right now, though, pure escapism is an ideal method of relaxation for me, and I rather enjoy it.

[Unisus]

Yeah the Giant probably went a bit overboard on that count but honestly, he didn't miss the mark by that much either. If I have work A that can entertain me, and work B that can entertain me and teach me something about myself, well, work B is going to be pretty much strictly better. It's like comparing, say, Doom 3 vs. Bioshock.

I played neither tho one nor the other, so i can't compare them. But actually i have times, when i won't read a book if i feel like it's trying to get a certain message over to me - when i rather read a funny story without any deeper meaning, just because my head is so full of thoughts.

So actually he did miss the mark by as much as he would if he threw away a simple golden ring for $50 just because it's value is only marginal compared to that of a diamond collier for $10,000.

[veti]

Skimming through that it sounds like the author is just bitter that people like the works of authors he doesn't care for. I see very little actual reference to the books themselves, and a lot of reference to the politics of the readers and authors.

I read the whole essay, and found it very enjoyable. He doesn't say there's anything wrong with Tolkien, per se - just that he doesn't agree with his politics. And he has the integrity to give props to authors, such as Kipling, with whose politics he disagrees, but whose writing he admires. (Which makes it all the more pointed when he goes on to rubbish the writing of some others, such as Lovecraft and Heinlein.)

"Pro-hero, anti-ordinary-person" is a bit of a mischaracterisation: his only complaint is that all those authors are, in their different ways, authoritarian/paternalistic/conservative in their outlook. And he's right. I don't know of anyone today who doubts that about any of them. His bitterness, in so far as it is bitter, is that at the time he wrote - 1977, which for the mathematically impaired was quite a while ago now - this perception wasn't the norm.

I'm not sure if he's right about that - I was too young to have much feel for political nuance at the time - but he may well be. I know, in the 80s, people kept telling me to read Heinlein because it would appeal to my anarchistic leanings. (I never did.)

I think the kind of polemical fantasy that pretty much everyone seems to be in favour of, is most interesting as a historical document. The fact that it's ostensibly set in a completely different world, or 900 years in the future or the past or whatever, in practice doesn't divorce it from the time it was written. Reading Heinlein or Asimov, you read the zeitgeist of cold-war America; Tolkien, of inter-war Britain. Even those whose politics is the reverse of those (e.g. LeGuin, and Moorcock himself) still couch their ideas and frame their arguments in the terms of the time. Moorcock, for instance, writes stories that are profoundly elitist, forever harping on about "secret wisdom" that even the most intelligent of "normal people" can never appreciate.

And if anyone reads 'Order of the Stick' in 2050... I'm sure they'll see a hundred giveaways in it, quite apart from the contemporary culture references, that date it as being from the early 21st century. The one thing I'm sure of is that the messages Rich is purposefully writing into it now, will look very quaint to their eyes. "Gosh, did people really believe that? What jackasses our ancestors were!" Or possibly "Gosh, did Burlew really believe these older-than-dirt fallacies would persuade anyone? What a simpleton."

"Good" writing, I think, is writing that will still be read for pleasure, long after its "ideas" and "morals" have become meaningless or even repugnant. Of course that leaves a massive subjective space (how many people have to read it for pleasure? - and do we go by raw numbers, or do we demand that they have some kind of literary standards? and either way, how can you explain the continued popularity of H P Lovecraft?). But for me, it's a start to answering the question "what is good?".

[factotum]

"Good" writing, I think, is writing that will still be read for pleasure, long after its "ideas" and "morals" have become meaningless or even repugnant. Of course that leaves a massive subjective space (how many people have to read it for pleasure? - and do we go by raw numbers, or do we demand that they have some kind of literary standards? and either way, how can you explain the continued popularity of H P Lovecraft?). But for me, it's a start to answering the question "what is good?".

I think the continuing popularity of Lovecraft comes down to the imagination deployed in his works. Let's be brutally frank here, the man couldn't write for toffee--he'd never use one adjective when fifteen would do, and to have a character introduce *himself* as "the crawling chaos Nyarlathotep" was the height of absurdity. However, the mythos as a whole is an example of the type of work I, personally, find fascinating: stories nominally set in the real world, but implying that there's a lot more to that than meets the eye. I suspect a lot of other people like that sort of tale, and they're surprisingly thin on the ground compared to the usual fantasy and SF fare.

[Vinyadan]

"Good" writing, I think, is writing that will still be read for pleasure, long after its "ideas" and "morals" have become meaningless or even repugnant. Of course that leaves a massive subjective space (how many people have to read it for pleasure? - and do we go by raw numbers, or do we demand that they have some kind of literary standards? and either way, how can you explain the continued popularity of H P Lovecraft?). But for me, it's a start to answering the question "what is good?".

I like how you talk about good writing, as it is something different from good books, about which everyone will probably have slightly different opinions - and, very likely, most people won't have an abstract opinion on this, but only name a few books they find good.

[hamishspence]

I think the continuing popularity of Lovecraft comes down to the imagination deployed in his works. Let's be brutally frank here, the man couldn't write for toffee--he'd never use one adjective when fifteen would do, and to have a character introduce *himself* as "the crawling chaos Nyarlathotep" was the height of absurdity.

That was in The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath - I think he was pastiching Lord Dunsany for that one.

And the phrase "the crawling chaos Nyarlathotep" is repeated throughout the story as a recurring motif - the guy himself has a long conversation with Carter and only reveals his name at the end - after he's given Carter a task, and is bidding him goodbye:

"Farewell, Randolph Carter, and beware; for I am Nyarlathotep, the Crawling Chaos!"

[Porthos]

For people who like 'context' (and, hey, I nearly worship at the altar of context), a few months later, Rich provided some more context for that famous quote of his.

Might be worth reading (including the rest of his posts in that thread) if one wants a fuller idea of where he was coming from.

---

As for the larger debate itself, litcrit would have say, as I understand it at least, that ALL works of fiction have something to say about the world, either by design or by accident. Upto and including unintedend messages and biases of the author(s). Now one can disagree with that theory, but it won't stop people from making it. :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

"Pro-hero, anti-ordinary-person" is a bit of a mischaracterisation: his only complaint is that all those authors are, in their different ways, authoritarian/paternalistic/conservative in their outlook.

"Heroes betray us. By having them, in real life, we betray ourselves."

The idea seems to be that all fiction about heroes in which the heroes win and make the world a better place, even if the heroes are "Rebels" along the line of Star Wars - is intrinsically authoritarian.

Which might be why Moorcock's best known Hero, Elric of Melnibone, ends up destroying everything he cares about, including the world itself.

With respect to OoTS - do you think it's at all likely that it will be an Elric-esque story in which Roy ends up destroying the world through trying to be a Hero?

I doubt it. Whatever the "message" The Giant wants to send, I'm inclined to think that it will be one that incorporates some degree of "heroism is good" in it - even if its only a case of Roy inspiring others, rather than Saving The Day himself.

This is, of course, just speculation though.

[Keltest]

"Heroes betray us. By having them, in real life, we betray ourselves."

The idea seems to be that all fiction about heroes in which the heroes win and make the world a better place, even if the heroes are "Rebels" along the line of Star Wars - is intrinsically authoritarian.

Which might be why Moorcock's best known Hero, Elric of Melnibone, ends up destroying everything he cares about, including the world itself.

With respect to OoTS - do you think it's at all likely that it will be an Elric-esque story in which Roy ends up destroying the world through trying to be a Hero?

I doubt it. Whatever the "message" The Giant wants to send, I'm inclined to think that it will be one that incorporates some degree of "heroism is good" in it - even if its only a case of Roy inspiring others, rather than Saving The Day himself.

This is, of course, just speculation though.

At the very least, Rich seems unlikely to take up or have taken up a "heroism is bad" stance.

[hamishspence]

At the very least, Rich seems unlikely to take up or have taken up a "heroism is bad" stance.
"Sometimes heroes have Feet of Clay and mess up royally" on the other hand, I can see. The Order of the Scribble springs to mind, and maybe the Sapphire Guard.

And even the Order of the Stick have personally destroyed two gates.

Still, I think that the "happy ending" Elan gets will be because the Order succeed on at least some level, rather than because the Order fail and someone else causes the happy ending.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

As for the larger debate itself, litcrit would have say, as I understand it at least, that ALL works of fiction have something to say about the world, either by design or by accident. Upto and including unintedend messages and biases of the author(s). Now one can disagree with that theory, but it won't stop people from making it. :smallwink:

This is pretty much how I feel about the issue. I think that any work that I can connect to in some way provides some kind of a message or theme (or more than one), whether it is intentional or not, a good one or a bad one.

[veti]

With respect to OoTS - do you think it's at all likely that it will be an Elric-esque story in which Roy ends up destroying the world through trying to be a Hero?

I doubt it. Whatever the "message" The Giant wants to send, I'm inclined to think that it will be one that incorporates some degree of "heroism is good" in it - even if its only a case of Roy inspiring others, rather than Saving The Day himself.

This is, of course, just speculation though.

Good point. Yes, from that point of view, I think it very likely that OOTS will end up being just another Reactionary Authoritarian TractTM.

So perhaps fortunately, I don't know of any evidence that Moorcock has ever heard of it...

I'm grateful to you for linking that essay. I must admit, it's a whole angle I hadn't considered before. I think the point Moorcock makes is a good one, even though it's somewhat narrow-minded: to brand all "heroic" fiction as intrinsically "authoritarian" seems - overly broad, sacrificing a great many shades of nuance. There's more dimensions to fantasy than heroes vs. failures.

[Kish]

I don't think "heroes vs. failures" is what Moorcock is getting at. I think, rather, he's getting at "the course of history is determined by a few extraordinary people," vs. "the course of history is determined by everyone."

[ti'esar]

I don't think "heroes vs. failures" is what Moorcock is getting at. I think, rather, he's getting at "the course of history is determined by a few extraordinary people," vs. "the course of history is determined by everyone."

Of course, the former is still a pretty explicit element in (almost) any D&D campaign, so hamishpence is still right.

I'm not sure what this even has to do with the main topic anymore, though.

[Keltest]

Of course, the former is still a pretty explicit element in (almost) any D&D campaign, so hamishpence is still right.

I'm not sure what this even has to do with the main topic anymore, though.

Little, but the question was answered within two posts, and the topic is interesting.

[SaintRidley]

As for the larger debate itself, litcrit would have say, as I understand it at least, that ALL works of fiction have something to say about the world, either by design or by accident. Upto and including unintedend messages and biases of the author(s). Now one can disagree with that theory, but it won't stop people from making it. :smallwink:

Your understanding is on point, if I may say so as (likely) the person whose signature has so rubbed Arcite the wrong way.

[Aedilred]

As for the larger debate itself, litcrit would have say, as I understand it at least, that ALL works of fiction have something to say about the world, either by design or by accident. Upto and including unintedend messages and biases of the author(s). Now one can disagree with that theory, but it won't stop people from making it. :smallwink:
Well, I can agree with that, although Rich himself seems not to, given that post you linked to there: "There are lots of entertaining stories that have no real value to them..."

I'm also troubled by the statement that entertaining the reader is not a specific goal of his, although maybe he's just using a narrower definition of "entertain" than I do (and most people on this thread appear to). I would argue that entertaining the reader/viewer/listener should be the first and most important goal of any fictional media. If you're really just trying to inform or educate, that's what the much larger non-fiction genre is for. Which isn't to say that fiction isn't, shouldn't, or can't be informative or educational, and indeed better fiction usually is to some extent, but (imo at least) entertainment should come first. Apart from anything else, even if you're trying to get a message across as your motivation for creating it, if it isn't entertaining, people won't engage with the "message" as well as they otherwise might, and possibly at all.

[Keltest]

Well, I can agree with that, although Rich himself seems not to, given that post you linked to there: "There are lots of entertaining stories that have no real value to them..."

I'm also troubled by the statement that entertaining the reader is not a specific goal of his, although maybe he's just using a narrower definition of "entertain" than I do (and most people on this thread appear to). I would argue that entertaining the reader/viewer/listener should be the first and most important goal of any fictional media. If you're really just trying to inform or educate, that's what the much larger non-fiction genre is for. Which isn't to say that fiction isn't, shouldn't, or can't be informative or educational, and indeed better fiction usually is to some extent, but (imo at least) entertainment should come first. Apart from anything else, even if you're trying to get a message across as your motivation for creating it, if it isn't entertaining, people won't engage with the "message" as well as they otherwise might, and possibly at all.

I don't know about entertainment specifically, but engaging the reader should definitely be an author's first goal. I don't care if theyre trying to help along world peace, or summon an eldritch abomination, or get a laugh at how many people are dumb enough to read your book, people have to want to read the thing before it can do anything else. Entertainment does happen to be the easiest way to get a large number of people to read your book though.

[veti]

I don't think "heroes vs. failures" is what Moorcock is getting at. I think, rather, he's getting at "the course of history is determined by a few extraordinary people," vs. "the course of history is determined by everyone."

I think, although I may be projecting here, that he'd take issue with the idea that "the course of history is determined, period". History is something that unfolds despite people's attempts to determine it. "Trying to shape it" is a mug's game, on a par with trying to predict a roulette wheel, and celebrating "heroes" makes about as much sense as deciding to follow the predictions of someone who successfully bet the pot on '0'.

I was thinking, in my previous post, about the protagonist of the game 'Morrowind'. That hero slays one (or, optionally, more) 'false gods' and saves the land from a terrible blight. Then two games later, 'Skyrim' reveals that those same False Gods had left a dead man's switch hanging over the land (literally, in this case), and what follows from their defeat is far more terrible than the Blight could ever have been. It's a textbook case of "Nice Job Breaking It, Hero", illustrating (I think) heroism that is, simultaneously, fearless, selfless, triumphant and pointless.

To bring this discussion back to OOTS: you could argue the same for the Scribblers. They contained the Snarl, which was the immediate threat in their day - but only at the expense of creating 'gates' that were effectively doomsday weapons that would - inevitably, as even they foresaw - be abused by some future supervillain. That's a very common device for "sequels", in gaming as well as literature - I've literally lost count of the number of campaigns where we started by contemplating the mess left by the previous party...

So you could argue that Moorcock has had his way: we no longer believe "heroes fix everything", even though we pretend to. All they do is patch over one problem, and leave another - usually, bigger - one for whoever comes next.

[Keltest]

I think, although I may be projecting here, that he'd take issue with the idea that "the course of history is determined, period". History is something that unfolds despite people's attempts to determine it. "Trying to shape it" is a mug's game, on a par with trying to predict a roulette wheel, and celebrating "heroes" makes about as much sense as deciding to follow the predictions of someone who successfully bet the pot on '0'.

I was thinking, in my previous post, about the protagonist of the game 'Morrowind'. That hero slays one (or, optionally, more) 'false gods' and saves the land from a terrible blight. Then two games later, 'Skyrim' reveals that those same False Gods had left a dead man's switch hanging over the land (literally, in this case), and what follows from their defeat is far more terrible than the Blight could ever have been. It's a textbook case of "Nice Job Breaking It, Hero", illustrating (I think) heroism that is, simultaneously, fearless, selfless, triumphant and pointless.

To bring this discussion back to OOTS: you could argue the same for the Scribblers. They contained the Snarl, which was the immediate threat in their day - but only at the expense of creating 'gates' that were effectively doomsday weapons that would - inevitably, as even they foresaw - be abused by some future supervillain. That's a very common device for "sequels", in gaming as well as literature - I've literally lost count of the number of campaigns where we started by contemplating the mess left by the previous party...

So you could argue that Moorcock has had his way: we no longer believe "heroes fix everything", even though we pretend to. All they do is patch over one problem, and leave another - usually, bigger - one for whoever comes next.

To be fair to the Elder Scrolls, if I remember correctly the hero didn't actually activate the dead man's switch; it was the Oblivion Crisis that Vivec disappeared in, which was after the hero left Morrowind to go explore parts unknown. And even after that, the silly elves STILL kept the freaking moon hovering over their city, through less moral means, and some different guy went and blew up the device they used to do it.

[Porthos]

Apart from anything else, even if you're trying to get a message across as your motivation for creating it, if it isn't entertaining, people won't engage with the "message" as well as they otherwise might, and possibly at all.

He addresses this point in another post in that thread.

Which, incidentally, is why I keep hammering away at context context context. Isolating single sentences (or even worse, words) while ignoring everything else I think is an unwise thing to do.

I would also point out that he has said elsewhere (though I can't find the exact quote at the second) that if one has been "entertained" by the comic for the last 300 or 400 hundred strips, then one will (should) continue to be entertained in the future (ETA: the quote was actually about rules discussion, not writing FWIW - still instructive reading to see where Rich is coming from IMO).

IMO, what Rich is really saying is that he doesn't want his work to be Just Another Piece of Disposable Entertainment. That doesn't mean he doesn't want it to be Entertaining. It's just.. he wants it to be MORE than that.

Hardly a criticizable stance, I would have thought. But, even after all the decades I've been online, I still get surprised at what is or is not 'controversial' on the net. :smalltongue::smalltongue:

[SouthpawSoldier]

Dean Koontz has a character in the Seize the Night series that makes an interesting, related point; people wanting to "leave a mark" on the world are graffiti artists. Entertainment, teaching a Message, et al. I can see his point, to a degree.

Pursuit of knowledge, or approaching any art for the art's sake, is noble. It's self enrichment, answering one's own questions about the universe, or satisfying a need. Entertaining or stimulating growth in others is a nice byproduct, but should it be the central goal? Isn't the universe already wondrous enough without a t metaphorical "Killroy wuz here"?

Little too tired to go too in depth, especially when battling a tablet autocorrect.

[Lombard]

Rich's views have evolved over the years and will continue to evolve. The archetypal lad craving fun for fun's sake, the young man with his strident pronouncements of philosophical correctness, the middle-aged pragmatist, the greybeard reveling in the miracle of it all. As long as there's talent and motivation we can enjoy the best of each phase.

[factotum]

That's actually a very good point. OotS has been going for ten years now, and it's quite unusual to see any sort of story develop over such a period of time. Even in the case of stories which took that long to write (e.g. The Lord of the Rings is a good example here) all the *reader* sees is the final result, which no doubt has a lot of the inconsistencies of tone edited out in the final draft. In the case of OotS we're seeing it as it's written, thus we tend to notice the changes in style and content moreso than other works.