Mystic Muse's Magnificent Masquerade Random Banter #225

[Fyraltari]

I'm focusing on Javert's wage because it's the only example I can think of that is relevant but not talked about. Javert being paid peanuts but persuing this man with reckless abandon, constantly, is a sign that he does really take his job seriously. He's not in it for the money. He wants Justice, or at least his understanding of it.

And admitidly it's been an actual decade since I've read Les Mis so I don't remember the details otherwise. I know the priest never shows up again and it's mostly a case of "here is the history of the man Val Jean will steal a candlestick from, which will haunt him the rest of his days".

I mean, there's an entire chapter dedicated to Paris's sewer system and another one on slang and both are really interesting. Javert's single-minded dedication to his job is shown in many ways but even Hugo can't show every way (not to mention the very real possibility that has a high ranking policeman he's probably not paid peanuts and certainly isn't compared to many characters of the novel).

Then again it's also been a long time since I've read the novel so I can't really make a case here.

[The Fury]

Thanks. I'm just very self-conscious about how pulpy my writing is. I have family members with strong views on what is 'proper literature', and my writing style and genre makes it fall as fat outside of that as possible.

...Yeah, not every work of writing can or should be "proper literature." It has its place, but pulpy writing does too. So, in my view anyway, there's nothing inherently wrong with pulpy writing. Pulpy writing can be fun to read.

Although those family members would also turn their nose up at Fullmetal Alchemist, due to it being 1) a comic/cartoon, and 2) fantasy. Because apparently those make telling deep stories impossible.

Hey now, fantasy is awesome. Cartoons are awesome. Do these family members just not like fun stories?

[Tvtyrant]

The fall of beard.

Spoiler

Show

[Insane Jeenyus]

The fall of beard.

ya know, if your face was just a bit more narrow, you could pass as a brother to Matt Damon.

[Anonymouswizard]

...Yeah, not every work of writing can or should be "proper literature." It has its place, but pulpy writing does too. So, in my view anyway, there's nothing inherently wrong with pulpy writing. Pulpy writing can be fun to read.

I mean, it's not like it's not fun to read, but it can be hard to listen when for the last eight years you've been continually told that you should like the stodgy impossible to read wirting by Hardy and the Brontes, but not the stuff that's actually fun to read. I still think that stodgy writing can stay over there unless it has an interesting idea to convey, like in Frankenstein or Victor Hugo's Overly Long Tale of Why We Shouldn't Treat Released Prisoners Like Dirt.

Hey now, fantasy is awesome. Cartoons are awesome. Do these family members just not like fun stories?

You won't believe the number of people I've met who believe that if something isn't set in the 'real world' (I hate that term, it's not the real world even if it's modelled after present day planet earth with all the same place names) then it can't be talking about anything meaningful. No explorations of slavery or human obselence in Asimov's wotk, please ignore the very relevant themes in Caves of Steel it's not 'real literature'.

Actually, I'd probably make every year seven class read Caves of Steel if I could, it's a very good introduction to complex themes and the realmain objective for the main character, not being replaced by a machine that might do his job better, is incredibly relevant.


Anyway, it turns out that my younger brother has a spare PC he's willing to sell me (he did ComSci so he upgrades a lot, I did ElecEng so I'm not overly used to building machines, it's also much cheaper this way), so it'll only be a little while before I'm playing DMC5 as god intended.

[SZbNAhL]

You won't believe the number of people I've met who believe that if something isn't set in the 'real world' (I hate that term, it's not the real world even if it's modelled after present day planet earth with all the same place names) then it can't be talking about anything meaningful. No explorations of slavery or human obselence in Asimov's wotk, please ignore the very relevant themes in Caves of Steel it's not 'real literature'.

That really annoys me too. I guess Shakespeare's a talentless hack, since almost all his most famous plays had fantastical elements (a ghost in Hamlet, witches in Macbeth, a wizard in The Tempest)? Swift too, since Gulliver's Travels has so many fantastical elements, and Dickens, what with his love of ghosts. What "great literature" do they read? Kafka? Metamorphosis. Hugo? Angels. Conan Doyle? Also wrote an entire sci-fi series (Professor Challenger is very underrated).

[Peelee]

I guess Shakespeare's a talentless hack, since almost all his most famous plays had fantastical elements

Well, yes, but not for those reasons.

Romeo and Juliet suuuuuuuuucks.

[The Fury]

I mean, it's not like it's not fun to read, but it can be hard to listen when for the last eight years you've been continually told that you should like the stodgy impossible to read wirting by Hardy and the Brontes, but not the stuff that's actually fun to read. I still think that stodgy writing can stay over there unless it has an interesting idea to convey, like in Frankenstein or Victor Hugo's Overly Long Tale of Why We Shouldn't Treat Released Prisoners Like Dirt.

I never liked that view of literature. I also believe that if you're not enjoying a book, you're allowed to stop reading it.

That really annoys me too. I guess Shakespeare's a talentless hack, since almost all his most famous plays had fantastical elements (a ghost in Hamlet, witches in Macbeth, a wizard in The Tempest)? Swift too, since Gulliver's Travels has so many fantastical elements, and Dickens, what with his love of ghosts. What "great literature" do they read? Kafka? Metamorphosis. Hugo? Angels. Conan Doyle? Also wrote an entire sci-fi series (Professor Challenger is very underrated).

Oh yeah. Don't forget that "classic literature" can also be pretty low-brow. Both Journey to the West and Canterbury Tales had their share of potty humor.

Well, yes, but not for those reasons.

Romeo and Juliet suuuuuuuuucks.

I'll agree that's one of his weaker ones. I didn't really appreciate Shakespeare until I read stuff that was not Romeo and Juliet.

Even though I still don't like it, something I was told that makes me appreciate Romeo and Juliet a little more is this: The tragedy is not that Romeo and Juliet died, it's that they didn't realize that their love was not worth dying for. I'll admit that read is kind of neat.

[Tvtyrant]

ya know, if your face was just a bit more narrow, you could pass as a brother to Matt Damon.

Irish-Americans. I look like an almost perfect mix of my grandpa and Dad.

Also the last time I was beardless I kept getting compared to Peter Griffon so Matt Damon is an improvement. I got compared to Connor McGregor a few months ago, which I think just means I'm Irish.

[DataNinja]

No explorations of slavery or human obselence in Asimov's wotk, please ignore the very relevant themes in Caves of Steel it's not 'real literature'.

Actually, I'd probably make every year seven class read Caves of Steel if I could, it's a very good introduction to complex themes and the realmain objective for the main character, not being replaced by a machine that might do his job better, is incredibly relevant.

I don't know why you'd do that. Absolutely no machine takeovers are planned, and you certainly shouldn't be prepared for that eventuality, hahaha what are you talking about, you'll be fiiiine.

[Anonymouswizard]

That really annoys me too. I guess Shakespeare's a talentless hack, since almost all his most famous plays had fantastical elements (a ghost in Hamlet, witches in Macbeth, a wizard in The Tempest)? Swift too, since Gulliver's Travels has so many fantastical elements, and Dickens, what with his love of ghosts. What "great literature" do they read? Kafka? Metamorphosis. Hugo? Angels. Conan Doyle? Also wrote an entire sci-fi series (Professor Challenger is very underrated).

Shakespeare is weird. He wasn't good at plots, cribbed them from other sources, but very good with language.

Also there's the eventual 'ah but back in those days people actually believed...'

I never liked that view of literature. I also believe that if you're not enjoying a book, you're allowed to stop reading it.

I'm fully in agreement here, remember that my favourite author wrote pulp.

Oh yeah. Don't forget that "classic literature" can also be pretty low-brow. Both Journey to the West and Canterbury Tales had their share of potty humor.

I'm fairly certain that 30% of Shakespeare is sex jokes.

I don't know why you'd do that. Absolutely no machine takeovers are planned, and you certainly shouldn't be prepared for that eventuality, hahaha what are you talking about, you'll be fiiiine.

Nope, definitely no robots replacing us. Such a shame, I could do with my job being automated right about now.

[DataNinja]

Shakespeare is weird. He wasn't good at plots, cribbed them from other sources, but very good with language.

Also there's the eventual 'ah but back in those days people actually believed...'

To be fair, if you don't have the entire world of books and movies at your fingertips, clichéd stories probably don't seem quite so cliché. And it doesn't really matter if they're stolen from elsewhere, because it means you get to see them. 'New and fresh' probably matters a lot more now because we have access to a lot of good stuff in existing categories. Rather than just writing old stuff in exciting ways.

[Sermil]

That really annoys me too. I guess Shakespeare's a talentless hack, since almost all his most famous plays had fantastical elements (a ghost in Hamlet, witches in Macbeth, a wizard in The Tempest)? Swift too, since Gulliver's Travels has so many fantastical elements, and Dickens, what with his love of ghosts. What "great literature" do they read? Kafka? Metamorphosis. Hugo? Angels. Conan Doyle? Also wrote an entire sci-fi series (Professor Challenger is very underrated).

Ya, people have an annoying tendency to say "Genre fiction isn't true literature. [Some book] is literature, therefore, it's not genre fiction (despite all the obvious elements of the genre), therefore I'm can still disdain all genre fiction."

Frankenstein and 1984 are another two I see that applied to. Both are clearly science fiction, and both are hugely important works that inform the way we understand human's relationship to technology and government, yet somehow the sci-fi haters never bring them up when dismissing science fiction as unserious.

[Comrade]

I never liked that view of literature. I also believe that if you're not enjoying a book, you're allowed to stop reading it.

I know folks who are, like, pathologically incapable of giving up on a book once they've started reading it, even if they despise every word of it. And if it's a series and they've started in on the first book, that's it, they're locked in for the rest, too. A kind of completionism I guess.

I don't know why you'd do that to yourself. Ain't enough time in the day to waste it reading books you don't like. If I'm 40 pages into a book and it hasn't grabbed me or is actively annoying me I'm not about to keep trucking along.

[factotum]

Ya, people have an annoying tendency to say "Genre fiction isn't true literature. [Some book] is literature, therefore, it's not genre fiction (despite all the obvious elements of the genre), therefore I'm can still disdain all genre fiction."

There are even authors who do that--by most people's criteria a lot of Margaret Atwood's output is SF, for instance, but she insists it's totally not!

[Anonymouswizard]

There are even authors who do that--by most people's criteria a lot of Margaret Atwood's output is SF, for instance, but she insists it's totally not!

I thought she'd softened on that?

[The Fury]

Shakespeare is weird. He wasn't good at plots, cribbed them from other sources, but very good with language.

That's a fair assessment. Though I'm also of the opinion that a story's presentation and feel is more important than its basic premise. I'll admit that a creative premise can be enough to generate some initial interest though.

Or put another way-- An interesting premise is why you'd read a story, interesting presentation is why you'd reread a story.

I know folks who are, like, pathologically incapable of giving up on a book once they've started reading it, even if they despise every word of it. And if it's a series and they've started in on the first book, that's it, they're locked in for the rest, too. A kind of completionism I guess.

I don't know why you'd do that to yourself. Ain't enough time in the day to waste it reading books you don't like. If I'm 40 pages into a book and it hasn't grabbed me or is actively annoying me I'm not about to keep trucking along.

I... am kind of like that. Which probably sounds weird after what I mentioned eariler. If I start a book, I like to finish it, whether I'm enjoying it or not. I guess I finish books for one of two reasons, either I actually like it, or out of spite.

Though I won't start in on the next books of in series if I didn't like the first one. I mean, I do hate myself but not that much.

[Anonymouswizard]

That's a fair assessment. Though I'm also of the opinion that a story's presentation and feel is more important than its basic premise. I'll admit that a creative premise can be enough to generate some initial interest though.

Or put another way-- An interesting premise is why you'd read a story, interesting presentation is why you'd reread a story.

Sure, Shakespeare gettinghis plots from other places isn't a bad thing, in fact some modern writers could do with using the same technique, or in the case of Stephen King handing out his plots to people actually able to write. Heck, the same applies to characters, a basic character well presented usually works a lot better than a unique character poorly presented.

I mean, I'd argue that more than premise or presentation, interesting themes are the reason to reread. Because themes and your understanding of them can develop, and your second reading can be very different from your first. When I look back on a story I don't think about it's presentation, I think of the thoughts I had while reading it, thevconclusions I've drawn from it, and the ways these fit in with conclusions I've drawn from other media.

[The Fury]

Sure, Shakespeare gettinghis plots from other places isn't a bad thing, in fact some modern writers could do with using the same technique, or in the case of Stephen King handing out his plots to people actually able to write. Heck, the same applies to characters, a basic character well presented usually works a lot better than a unique character poorly presented.

I mean, I'd argue that more than premise or presentation, interesting themes are the reason to reread. Because themes and your understanding of them can develop, and your second reading can be very different from your first. When I look back on a story I don't think about it's presentation, I think of the thoughts I had while reading it, thevconclusions I've drawn from it, and the ways these fit in with conclusions I've drawn from other media.

I don't know that I completely agree, but I will say that the most interesting conversations around media usually have to do with theme.

[Anonymouswizard]

*sigh* why do all the job people have to call on data when I'm at work?

And I might have to find a £10 gift to bring to the pau on Saturday, I need to check with the organiser.

[LaZodiac]

So every so often I see people online talking about their daemons and the daemons of others and how such and such author writes it, and the internet being what it is they never actually say who the author is and provide literally zero context and, this bugs me. It's like posting a gif from a show and not saying what the show is. It's heinous and bad.

Point is I finally found a post explaining it was from His Dark Materials and I decided "you know I hear that name a lot let's check what it actually is" and it turns out it's the Golden Compass books and now everything makes a bit more sense in my life.

I mean for the most part it's still about a monkey wanting someone to be merciful but like whatever. I don't question these things I just want to understand them.

[Anonymouswizard]

So every so often I see people online talking about their daemons and the daemons of others and how such and such author writes it, and the internet being what it is they never actually say who the author is and provide literally zero context and, this bugs me. It's like posting a gif from a show and not saying what the show is. It's heinous and bad.

Point is I finally found a post explaining it was from His Dark Materials and I decided "you know I hear that name a lot let's check what it actually is" and it turns out it's the Golden Compass books and now everything makes a bit more sense in my life.

I mean for the most part it's still about a monkey wanting someone to be merciful but like whatever. I don't question these things I just want to understand them.

Northern Lights! The first book is called Northern Lights!

I mean maybe I should check out the new series that people claim is good, bit the first book is still called Northern Lights. It's yet another instance of Sorcerer's Stoning.

Anyway, I have now decided that Zodi's Daemon is obviously a Stig. Mine's probably more of a rabbit.

[LaZodiac]

Okay so I'm going to ask this question and if the answer just devolves into car jokes that's on all of you, but;

What's a Stig?

[Anonymouswizard]

Some say that he's an example of whitewashing in the television industry, and that he once survived a meeting in the depths of the BBC. All we know is, he's called The Stig.

[Mystic Muse]

Okay so I'm going to ask this question and if the answer just devolves into car jokes that's on all of you, but;

What's a Stig?

"The Stig is a character on the British motoring television show Top Gear. The character is a play on the anonymity of racing drivers' full-face helmets, with the running joke that nobody knows who or what is inside the Stig's racing suit. The Stig's primary role is setting lap times for cars tested on the show."

[LaZodiac]

Some say that he's an example of whitewashing in the television industry, and that he once survived a meeting in the depths of the BBC. All we know is, he's called The Stig.

Aha, so it's exactly the thing I thought it was, okay.

Would that mean that it's basically a Stand, then?

"The Stig is a character on the British motoring television show Top Gear. The character is a play on the anonymity of racing drivers' full-face helmets, with the running joke that nobody knows who or what is inside the Stig's racing suit. The Stig's primary role is setting lap times for cars tested on the show."

I know sweetie I just wanted to make sure it was the Stig I was thinking of. Thank you for thinking of me~

[Peelee]

It's like posting a gif from a show and not saying what the show is. It's heinous and bad.

Spoiler: What it feels like when that happens

Show

[DataNinja]

So every so often I see people online talking about their daemons and the daemons of others and how such and such author writes it, and the internet being what it is they never actually say who the author is and provide literally zero context and, this bugs me. It's like posting a gif from a show and not saying what the show is. It's heinous and bad.

Yeah, that is always a frustrating thing. Hence why if I reference something not in just a group of friends (or in a conversation where context is already given), I'll make sure to specify what it's from. Just common courtesy. (Parentheses are great!)

[Fyraltari]

Spoiler: What it feels like when that happens

Show

Spoiler

Show

[Anonymouswizard]

Aha, so it's exactly the thing I thought it was, okay.

Would that mean that it's basically a Stand, then?

Huh, I'd have to look up the rules for daemons, been a while since I've read the books. At a guess I'd have to say no, the name isn't musical enough and he wouldn't have a silly power.

Actually, I'm now wondering how daemon gender actually works, because it's been established that daemons are normally the opposite sex to themselves (I need more pronouns), but how does it work for noncis people? Mainly trans people, would you get a daemon of your birth sex or your actual gender?