tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post2331758119202161819..comments2024-03-18T23:39:15.375-07:00Comments on Stars, Beetles, and Fools: Worldbuilding: Bakker vs. HarrisonJG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-56207398229107557592022-11-14T13:23:14.394-08:002022-11-14T13:23:14.394-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Willy Wobbleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14183143835150786729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-25361173394743762602021-03-09T16:53:34.663-08:002021-03-09T16:53:34.663-08:00Interesting, did he ever answer with an argument a...Interesting, did he ever answer with an argument as to why world building is good? <br /><br />I read your replies, but the subject seemed to change part way through and it was never discussed. Maybe I missed something. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01687629272713613878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-73844824616464613312020-05-19T01:09:22.797-07:002020-05-19T01:09:22.797-07:00Already procrastinating way too much at work, so I...Already procrastinating way too much at work, so I'll drop in what I've gathered from what I've read of the comments (somewhere halway through). <br /><br />For the record, I haven't read Mr. Harrison's take on worldbuilding. But this conversation reminds me of one I had with a friend in art classes when I was younger. The issue was the definition of art, which for me was the technical skill of "applied" art, namely concept art. My more traditional and (at that time definitely) intellectual firend's understanding of art was more mature and so was, therefore, her definition of it. The arguments I gave her all pertained to the technical skill of the concept artist while she was trying to communicate to me the importance of message and the story behind a piece of art, sometimes at the expense of skill or conventions, which I couldn't have given less damn about at that age. <br /> I conlcuded the debate on one afternoon in a garden at barbecue while observing the steaks being roasted for our burgers, "Whatever, I just freakin' love concept art." <br />Her boyfriend cheered me with "Now you've won it!" <br />The case seems to be the same here. I haven't read a single refutation of Mr. Bakker's either but it does seem to me he loves--and is at liberty to--excessive, complex, labyrinthine and highly convoluted worlds and is, so far as I can relate it to my own experience, reluctant to just say screw it, I love it and have no evidence for my take other than emotional response. Martin Zapletalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08085744710735226330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-16833848627716407332019-11-05T14:13:47.743-08:002019-11-05T14:13:47.743-08:00Wow. I really love reading this amazing blog. Than...Wow. I really love reading this amazing blog. Thanks once again for sharing this kind of article. Try to check this too<br /><a href="https://typesofinsects.com/" rel="nofollow">Types of Insectst</a><br />clarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077261386172777568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-88840545799555214452017-07-14T15:41:40.372-07:002017-07-14T15:41:40.372-07:00I'm glad to hear that you found the discussion...I'm glad to hear that you found the discussion thought-provoking. It's certainly a complex topic to address, and one which has a bearing on many different authors and books. As such, it's hardly surprising that there are strong views on both sides. As to your questions, I'd be happy to discuss them with you, either publicly or privately, whichever you prefer (though I doubt I'll be able to engage in much discussion in the next week).JG Keelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-19782998606916832322017-07-07T19:56:28.769-07:002017-07-07T19:56:28.769-07:00Thank you for sharing such provocation and open di...Thank you for sharing such provocation and open discourse. I have just finished reading through all the comments and responses contained here and have, truly, a great appreciation for the breadth of knowledge on display! Wow!<br />Reading this page (and other of your available critiques and reviews) has been as thought provoking as any narrative I have read (which pales in comparison to the works spaghettied about here) and found myself gasping, and indignant, and curious, and congratulatory, and shocked, and enlightened, and underwhelmed as much as overwhelmed by a number of responses, throughout the length of this wonderful scrolling debate. <br />I even found myself fogging up the screen, so closely was my nose pressed against it in concentration, consternation, comprehension, and gratitude for all the fabulous words and angles and silliness and depth. My goodness! Such a delicious pleasure.<br /><br />Thank you<br /><br />I have so many questions...MyCandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00365927208895637400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-38384234289192318572017-01-30T16:19:23.992-08:002017-01-30T16:19:23.992-08:00Yes, I find that whole series of monuments to be b...Yes, I find that whole series of monuments to be both beautiful and haunting. The fact that many of them have disintegrated over time due to lack of upkeep is sad--but there's also something poetic about it, true to the original pain and loss that inspired them, but also representative of the continued conflicts which have allowed some of them to become so neglected.<br /><br />As for my posting, I have gotten away from the blog, working on other things. I hope some day to get back to it, but I don't know when that might be. I am still taking notes and drafting up future articles, here and there.JG Keelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-64683698176809651162017-01-29T22:35:05.392-08:002017-01-29T22:35:05.392-08:00So it appears I'm late to the party, since thi...So it appears I'm late to the party, since this article was published quite a while ago. But I saw that you included a picture of the Kadinjača Monument and couldn't resist writing up a comment! It's delights me whenever someone shares an appreciation for Yugoslavian brutalist monuments. They so elegantly transform the pain of a tragic WWII event into expressive, abstract concrete. They're also quite obscure outside the former country, so you must have a fantastic and inquisitive eye to have picked this one out. Thank you for that!<br /><br />Anyway, your post and the lively discussion in the comments gave my mind much to chew over. I hope you haven't abandoned your posting here; your thoughts on fantasy are illuminating.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03049811167393439835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-78244476161982767802016-07-09T12:28:24.184-07:002016-07-09T12:28:24.184-07:00There are some general points of agreement between...There are some general points of agreement between Sanderson and I, it's true, but I feel there is a fundamental difference in our approach. He talks about the importance of story and character, and yet he treats magic as a mechanistic system separate from story and character.<br /><br />To me, magic is inseparable from the tone, motif, and ideas of a book. Magic takes poetic images and brings them to life, giving them a physical presence in the book. It's like a more extreme version of the Gothic tradition, where the physical rainstorm and lightning outside is a representation of the internal turmoil of the character (something I explore more in <a rel="nofollow">this post</a>).<br /><br />As such, magic already has an underlying structure--even in a 'soft magic' system of the kind Sanderson describes in his 'first law of magic'. The reason a skilled author doesn't just use magic to solve a plot problem is because they put that problem there deliberately, for a reason, to explore a certain idea or conflict through their characters, and so simply doing away with it makes no sense--the solution needs to fit the theme and the character arc.<br /><br />It's like constructing a philosophical argument: the introduction, arguments, supporting evidence, and conclusion all need to work in harmony in order for it to be effective. A skilled author isn't going to cut their own character arc off in the middle any more than a skilled philosopher would stop his proof halfway through and just say 'I'm right'--even though that might be easier.<br /><br />Certainly, if an author just thinks of their book as a mechanical construction, where conflicts are only introduced to give characters things to do to take up pages until the conclusion, then that kind of author would be tempted to find easy ways out of that conflict, rather than think of a real solution--but that's a very simplistic and superficial way to write a story.<br /><br />So, as magic is already confined and defined by the ideas and motifs of the story, I don't see a reason to place a second, arbitrary structure over that magic--if an author is having trouble with their magic getting out of control, then they need to spend more time thinking about their plot and character arcs, the symbols they want to use, and how their magic can serve those goals--instead of producing an artificial set of rules that has nothing to do with the themes they are trying to explore.<br /><br />Because of this, I often find that many so-called 'soft magic' writers actually have much more meaningful and solid structure behind their magic than authors who spend their time worldbuilding and inventing magic systems, because those systems aren't integrated into the meaning of the story they are trying to tell.JG Keelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-2089604533919908852016-07-05T17:52:51.752-07:002016-07-05T17:52:51.752-07:00Sorry about commenting more than a year after this...Sorry about commenting more than a year after this post was published, but I thought you might be interested in this lecture by Brandon Sanderson (author of The Way of Kings) on the subject of worldbuilding. Here's a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlYt3zdw4Xg&list=PL2FCD81A6FE4280AC&index=45<br /><br />How would you respond? His views seem to align with yours on a couple of points, but he also makes a good argument (in my opinion) for the importance of creating unique and detailed settings. If this lecture seems intriguing, the rest of the course is also available on the playlist, which I've found very helpful in planning my own fantasy novel.Frigidermhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688320542501600692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-25410755181312927212016-03-30T11:07:12.101-07:002016-03-30T11:07:12.101-07:00"we are now back to the simpler question of d...<i>"we are now back to the simpler question of determining what worldview is best"</i><br /><br />That's not really the question that interests me, no--one must understand and engage with many different worldviews in order to look at the world, though of course you don't have to agree with them all. Trying to claim one is best is the work of the answer-men, trying to tell you what to think. The person who values questions over answers will seek many paths, and learn something from each one.<br /><br />The journey that we are on, in our lives individually, and as a culture, is never ending. There is always something more to be learned, there is never one answer that will end all discussion. That is why a literature of questions is important, because it's there to help guide us on our journey. Too often, we make the mistake of thinking we know the answer, but in the end, it always turns that we were short-sighted, and things aren't as they seem.<br /><br />My problem with Tolkien isn't that he puts forth an old-fashioned worldview, it's that he fails to address our modern concerns, he behaves as if they don't exist. Post-modernism was a direct response to that traditional worldview, tearing down many of its assumptions and creating new, vital questions about what it means to live.<br /><br />Tolkien fails to respond to this critique. He just gives us the same old thing over again. It's like someone today trying to use Aquinas' proofs for god, despite the fact that they are all based on Aristotelian physics, and that the modern discoveries of Newton and Einstein invalidate his premises.JG Keelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-54156581921112063742016-03-30T11:06:58.148-07:002016-03-30T11:06:58.148-07:00"We invite all these Muslims to the West and,...<i>"We invite all these Muslims to the West and, lo and behold, great men like Nasr (and many others) pop up among them to explicitly denounce the bases of contemporary Western thought!"</i><br /><br />But Muslim thought is part of Western thought--their religion is a branch of the Judeo-Christian, and their great philosophers based their work on Socrates and Aristotle--most of the Greek influence (and texts) of the Renaissance in Europe were received from the Muslim empires who had kept up the scholarship during the Dark Ages.<br /><br /><i>"So post-modern philosophy is not in itself an authority?"</i><br /><br />A philosophy, itself, is not an authority, no. It is a collection of ideas, which can be used by anyone for their own purposes. An academic structure which promotes a certain reading of that philosophy is an authority, though.<br /><br /><i>"Just the fact that you think one is "lagging behind" if they do not write according to such standards shows that it is an authority."</i><br /><br />Oh, it's not that--it's the fact that post-modern philosophy has fundamentally changed how we think, and at this point has trickled down even into our pop culture. The fact that it should be so pervasive, and yet fantasy writers ignore it and do not even acknowledge it in their works is what is most telling.<br /><br />I'm not suggesting that they should be thorough post-modernists, and agree with all the principles laid out by those thinkers, but the fact that they completely fail to address them is a great oversight--and I think, a rather deliberate one.<br /><br />You say that Tolkien and Lewis question this system of thought--but that's simply not true. They revert to old modes and pretend that the revolution never happened. They do not deal with it, they do not refute it, they merely try to evade it and ignore its influence and arguments.<br /><br /><i>"you can pretend that now there is no authority, just as you can pretend that post-modern writings give no answers, and only questions, and you can also pretend that in the past there was only authority, only answers and no questions, but that is all pretend."</i><br /><br />Those aren't claims I make--you are arguing against straw men of your own invention. Even if they were claims I was making, merely saying 'it's pretend' is not a refutation--it is a schoolyard assertion.<br /><br />Certainly, there are always authorities, and there have always been skeptical individuals, but pervasive skepticism as a cultural value is not something you see studying history--indeed, you tend to see acceptance of authority as the norm, and skepticism as something a few people have.<br /><br />The way that thinkers like Socrates or Gallileo were shut up for speaking against tradition, the fact that countries would hold trials on religious heresy, trials which they took very seriously, in order to get rid of skeptical people, to silence their voices. These were not considered sham trials against dissidents (as we have today), but were taken seriously by the populace as real crimes.<br /><br />The fact that in pop culture the most common depiction of authority is as something you can't trust--lying politicians, sleazy lawyers, pedophile priests, corrupt bankers, sociopathic CEOs, killer cops, hanging judges--this shows a pervasive cultural recognition that systems of power are arrayed against the little guy, and that these formerly respected and irreproachable positions have been revealed as corrupt, not only to the educated thinker, but to the common man.<br /><br /><i>"once those in power in a society accept a worldview it becomes authoritative"</i><br /><br />Certainly, any movement, especially one which threatens authority, will then be taken by authority, repackaged, and sold back to the masses in a safe, declawed form. This is not the same as saying that the authority genuinely takes to heart the lessons of post-modernism (indeed, how could authority operate on a philosophy of individual rebellion?), but that it twists the words of that philosophy in order to justify itself (as in your examples).JG Keelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-55221897136208307082016-03-30T11:06:25.537-07:002016-03-30T11:06:25.537-07:00"names in Tolkien's world, which have an ...<i>"names in Tolkien's world, which have an inner consistency and logic that most authors never get close to, and this logic arises out of Tolkien’s philological knowledge"</i><br /><br />I feel it has as much to do with his philological <i>habit</i> as his knowledge--that he uses the rules of philology for fiction, even though they aren't really a good match. It's like how a science-minded writer might suddenly go off on a tangent about some cosmological theory, or another author makes their character a mouthpiece for their personal philosophies. The author's personal hobbies start intruding into the work in a way that doesn't benefit the story.<br /><br />So, you end up with situations in Tolkien where a bunch of characters, or places have confusingly similar names--because that happens in history and linguistics, so Tolkien copies that style. But that's not a good enough reason--fiction isn't real, you can do whatever you want, and it's best to write in a way that communicates effectively to the audience.<br /><br />Now certainly, Tolkien's knowledge also led to some interesting and lovely names--I won't begrudge him that--but I'm not convinced the entire linguistic structure was effective or necessary for the story he wrote.<br /><br /><i>"The thinkers you mentioned are simply the type of decadents that always arise when a civilization is at its end."</i><br /><br />Oh, not at all--indeed, they rejected and rebelled against the decadence of great power structures like the church. They works were about personal responsibility, about not taking anyone else's word for it, but being your own man, creating yourself, and not leaning on old assumptions, but making your way forth and into the future.<br /><br /><i>"these men are a passing fashion, while mythology is timeless"</i><br /><br />They are as vital as Socrates, Aquinas, and Descartes in changing the way we view the world--their thoughts pervade our society, from top to bottom. Certainly, someday a new school of thought will come forth, and we will change again--but it will be built upon the foundations of those thinkers, just as they built on the foundations of those who came before.<br /><br />Likewise, they recognized all too well the power of mythology. Had you forgotten that Freud based his theories on mythology? From Oedipus and Electra to Narcissus, he drew on the wisdom of the ancients (indeed, he sometimes missed insights they had into psychological types). Likewise, Nietzsche has his theory of Apollonian vs. Dionysian expression, as well as his magnum opus, <i>Thus Spake Zarathustra</i>, a mythological work drawing on Zoroastrianism, the New Testament, and Pre-Socratic traditions.<br /><br /><i>"one can already see the paradigm beginning to shift away from materialism as Western science is coming up against the fact that we cannot account for consciousness materially"</i><br /><br />Curious, you must be reading different sources than I am, because neurology and artificial intelligence keep trundling forwards and making new discoveries about consciousness, learning, identity, and the structure of the brain, giving constant new revelations about how we think and feel. Just because we have not solved the great question yet does not mean we are faltering.<br /><br /><i>"Check out Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s ... lecture on consciousness"</i><br /><br />I will, thanks for the suggestion.JG Keelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-55962019760048822002016-03-26T10:09:31.948-07:002016-03-26T10:09:31.948-07:00"I've heard it said that much of fantasy ..."I've heard it said that much of fantasy is lagging far behind when it comes to how it presents society, as if the entire post-modern philosophical revolution had never happened. Looking at the way Tolkien presents race, sex, class, faith, and nationalism, he has a very old-fashioned viewpoint. His world is one where authority and proper place are not questioned, where there is an ultimate order to which all things must adhere."<br /><br />So post-modern philosophy is not in itself an authority? Just the fact that you think one is "lagging behind" if they do not write according to such standards shows that it is an authority. Well, Tolkien (and since you mentioned it, Lewis as well) questioned the new authority. I suppose you can pretend that now there is no authority, just as you can pretend that post-modern writings give no answers, and only questions, and you can also pretend that in the past there was only authority, only answers and no questions, but that is all pretend. <br /><br />The plain fact is you cannot get away from authoritative worldviews; once those in power in a society accept a worldview it becomes authoritative, and enough of the powerful in our society accept post-modern views as to make them authoritative (and not just intellectuals and leftist politicians. Capitalists also use equalitarian views to their advantage. Instead of being seen as ruthlessly looking for the workers whom they can pay the least money, they can say they are “promoting diversity” as their machinations cause population displacements all across the globe). <br /><br />At any rate, per the above we are now back to the simpler question of determining what worldview is best (none is perfect, and this has always been recognized). Maybe Lockean liberty and capitalism is the lens through which all else should be viewed, maybe postmodernism is that lens, or maybe more 'traditional' worldviews are that lens. <br /><br />Tolkien took the latter view, he was a traditionalist, and therein we can see why the literary establishment cannot abide him.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-9293165994513033772016-03-26T10:09:07.083-07:002016-03-26T10:09:07.083-07:00"What do you think imagination is except for ..."What do you think imagination is except for the synthesis of knowledge?"<br /><br />Well, I suppose we could split hairs as to "what is imagination."<br />I am talking about arbitrariness vs. consistency in a work of fiction. Arbitrariness does not imply knowledge as a basis, but mere whim or fancy. <br />An example of what I am talking about are names in Tolkien's world, which have an inner consistency and logic that most authors never get close to, and this logic arises out of Tolkien’s philological knowledge. <br /><br />"Well, there's quite good reason that those works went out of fashion: the work of influential thinkers like Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, and Darwin on old systems of authority, including economic powers, churches, racial separation, nationalism, class and caste systems, and even the nature of identity."<br /><br />Corbin said "since the grail cycle," not "since the 19th century." At any rate, these works have not "gone out of style" as many across the globe are still interested in them, especially outside of the West. The thinkers you mentioned are simply the type of decadents that always arise when a civilization is at its end. Freud, Nietzsche, Darwin...these men are a passing fashion, while mythology is timeless; I recognize that “mythology is timeless” may sound cliché, but the fact is it is nonetheless true. Mythology is found everywhere, it is universal, in that sense democratic as well. Freud, Nietzsche and the like are not found universally, across space and time, but are rather representatives of a very particular time and place, a decadent time and place whose influence will pass.<br /><br />Not to get too far off topic, but the thinkers you mention more or less work off of the assumptions of materialism, and one can already see the paradigm beginning to shift away from materialism as Western science is coming up against the fact that we cannot account for consciousness materially. Check out Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s (first Iranian graduate of MIT) lecture on consciousness given at Harvard, titled, “In the Beginning was Consciousness.” The full lecture can be found on youtube. We invite all these Muslims to the West and, lo and behold, great men like Nasr (and many others) pop up among them to explicitly denounce the bases of contemporary Western thought! Ha! I love it! <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-86177835463893282102016-03-25T18:26:40.268-07:002016-03-25T18:26:40.268-07:00"You cannot get away from giving answers, so ...<i>"You cannot get away from giving answers, so in the end you can just give better or worse answers."</i><br /><br />While I agree that it's not possible to have a book without ideas and conclusions, you can definitely have a book which does not give out answers, by exploring the issue from many sides, and giving different perspectives, as Shakespeare did. Instead of structuring the work (and its world) to conform to one specific answer, building up an argument piece by piece, as in an allegory, you can instead present a multifaceted world where each character has their own motivations and desires. Instead of saying to your reader <i>'this is how it is'</i>, you can instead pose a difficult question to your reader--or a series of such questions.<br /><br /><i>"The post-modern work without 'easy answers', is itself an answer."</i><br /><br />Haha--only in the way that 'fasting' is a school of cuisine.JG Keelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-85524518374557772612016-03-25T18:21:36.176-07:002016-03-25T18:21:36.176-07:00"The idea that world-building somehow makes a...<i>"The idea that world-building somehow makes a work bad because it gives away too much is nonsense. What does this criticism even mean?"</i><br /><br />That isn't a criticism I ever put forward. The problem with worldbuilding is that it tries to explain things that don't need an explanation. an author can skip over a night of sleeping, or a long day's trek, if it doesn't play materially into the story. They don't need to tell us what every character is wearing. We don't need to know the identity of the protagonist's grandfather in order for him to be an engaging character.<br /><br />Writing is all about deciding what details to leave in, and which ones are better left out. A worldbuilding author is spending huge amounts of time on thinking up all sorts of extraneous details that add nothing to the story except length and tedium.<br /><br /><i>"as far as I am familiar with the work of post-modern/surrealist SFF I find it practically unreadable"</i><br /><br />The fact that you happen to struggle with such books is not an argument against them or their methods.<br /><br /><i>"they are like a bad cook telling us his desiccated, ‘tough-as-nails’ steak is good because we have to ‘work’ to get it down. Who would buy that?"</i><br /><br />I could say the same thing about worldbuilding authors: that their novels are dependent on the amount of work the reader is willing to put in to collect and memorize all the random details they have included. Even if you just want to read it for the pure adventure, you still have to wade through all those extraneous details just to squeeze a meagre story out of a massive tome.<br /><br />I also don't think the tough steak analogy is apt, because no one would find a tough steak palatable, while many people find Post-modern SF to be delightful and wondrous. I would say it is more like an acquired taste, something which can certainly be off-putting at first (sometimes deliberately so), but which, the more you learn about it, the more you come to recognize the unique flavors and experiences it has to offer.JG Keelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-46521066531303309712016-03-25T18:21:23.269-07:002016-03-25T18:21:23.269-07:00"Tolkien's world seemingly organically em...<i>"Tolkien's world seemingly organically emerged out of his life-long interests and studies. Tolkien did not just sit down one day and say 'I am going to make a world.' This may be a huge difference between the don and other author’s"</i><br /><br />All authors' worlds emerge from their life-long interests and studies. Certainly, you could argue that Tolkien's studies go deeper than most, but I don't think he always succeeded in turning this knowledge into effective storytelling, because he concentrated so much on shoehorning the <i>forms</i> of history and philology into his fiction (an idea I go into more in <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/12/worldbuilding-part-iii-what-fiction.html" rel="nofollow">Part III</a> of my Worldbuilding series).<br /><br /><i>"Tolkien's world is not just a product of his imagination, but is really an organic synthesis of is knowledge"</i><br /><br />What do you think imagination is except for the synthesis of knowledge?<br /><br /><i>"Henri Corbin said of LOTR "I think that this is the first time since the conclusion of the Grail cycle that there has appeared in the West an epic at once heroic, mystic and Gnostic, the narrative events of which can enchant the wise both young and old because they will recognize its hidden meaning.""</i><br /><br />Well, there's quite good reason that those works went out of fashion: the work of influential thinkers like Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, and Darwin on old systems of authority, including economic powers, churches, racial separation, nationalism, class and caste systems, and even the nature of identity.<br /><br />I've heard it said that much of fantasy is lagging far behind when it comes to how it presents society, as if the entire post-modern philosophical revolution had never happened. Looking at the way Tolkien presents race, sex, class, faith, and nationalism, he has a very old-fashioned viewpoint. His world is one where authority and proper place are not questioned, where there is an ultimate order to which all things must adhere.<br /><br />Of course, there will always be some people who want a throwback to a 'simpler' time, where one could simply trust in authority in all important things, and didn't have to form ones own opinions.JG Keelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-73440088898697734182016-03-25T12:25:41.181-07:002016-03-25T12:25:41.181-07:00The OP said:
"To me, worldbuilding (and dida...The OP said:<br /><br />"To me, worldbuilding (and didactic literature in general) whether it comes in the form of Tolkien and Lewis or Rand, is a literature of answers, a literature which delineates, which presents the reader with clear right and wrong, which narrows and simplifies the world into certain fundamental and opposed views." <br /><br />You cannot get away from giving answers, so in the end you can just give better or worse answers. The post-modern who says 'there are no answers' is answering. The post-modern work without 'easy answers', is itself an answer.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-372762157301717582016-03-25T12:05:36.180-07:002016-03-25T12:05:36.180-07:00If you want a philosophical defense of world-build...If you want a philosophical defense of world-building how about looking into what Tolkien wrote about 'sub-creation' (and then musing on it)? You should also look into Shippey's work on Tolkien.<br /><br />Now, Tolkien may be the father of world-building, but I think he probably stands apart from almost all other world-builders. Tolkien's world seemingly organically emerged out of his life-long interests and studies. Tolkien did not just sit down one day and say 'I am going to make a world.' This may be a huge difference between the don and other author’s, and one of the reasons Tolkien’s world works so well and does not feel forced. <br /><br />Furthermore, Tolkien's world is not just a product of his imagination, but is really an organic synthesis of is knowledge of the 'ancient North' and its peoples, and this basis in the ‘real world’ is another reason for its substantiality.<br /><br />True for Tolkien, the story was secondary, yet what a story! Maybe this bugs some authors, that a man whose self-avowed goal was to make stories simply so that he could find a reason for using his invented languages, wound up being named 'author of the century'; wound up being a man whose works will almost certainly be read long after most authors have faded into obscurity.<br /><br />And at least as Tolkien is concerned, the idea that there is nothing there to interpret because the world-building supposedly explains it all is pure nonsense. Tolkien can be taken on multiple levels, as can any great work. LOTR can simply be read as a great action/adventure story, it can be studied for its references to real history, and like any 'authentic mythology' it can be taken as a mystical text. As the French scholar of religion, Henri Corbin said of LOTR "I think that this is the first time since the conclusion of the Grail cycle that there has appeared in the West an epic at once heroic, mystic and Gnostic, the narrative events of which can enchant the wise both young and old because they will recognize its hidden meaning."<br /><br />The idea that world-building somehow makes a work bad because it gives away too much is nonsense. What does this criticism even mean? <br /><br />As it is, as far as I am familiar with the work of post-modern/surrealist SFF I find it practically unreadable. Where these author's will claim they are making the reader 'think' by not giving away too many details of their worlds (as if this is the only thing a reader thinks about!) I think they are like a bad cook telling us his desiccated, ‘tough-as-nails’ steak is good because we have to ‘work’ to get it down. Who would buy that? <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-64143361302686253032016-02-07T14:22:52.586-08:002016-02-07T14:22:52.586-08:00"It kinda like TV in every home hitting the n...<i>"It kinda like TV in every home hitting the novel writers...they lost an audience too."</i><br /><br />A common misconception. Indeed, the rise of television (and the internet) have coincided with a great boom in books. More are being written, published, and bought today than at any earlier time in history.<br /><br />It's a mistake to assume that the folks who sit all day watching TV now would instead have been reading books a century ago. The time they now spend on TV would have been spent gossiping at the pub, or playing cards at the dinner table, or attending church, or more likely working 18 hours a day for minimal pay at the shirtwaist factory. TV consumption has increased largely as the underclass has found they have more time for leisure, not as a replacement for other forms of leisure.JG Keelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-74591698366395141672016-02-07T13:53:13.534-08:002016-02-07T13:53:13.534-08:00One experimental technique leads to another, until...One experimental technique leads to another, until its exhausted. Yet, literatures experiments are not yet exhausted, and people who write such stuff, was Pynchon the wipping boy? they probably do not do so for an audience other than whom they belong to.<br />Do we assume narcissism for seeking fame beyond one's gateway group?<br />So, the idea of World Building must connect to the idea of what is the audience.<br /><br />Well, it no more a audience of the past. Really, that is gone, Wallace's cohorts will continue...its fine, the literate experimentors need a place too.<br />But, the literary is going to decline as the Oral increases in usage.<br />It kinda like TV in every home hitting the novel writers...they lost an audience too.<br />And the reaction?<br />Its not a reflection on their humanity, no.<br />Their humanity is systemized, contained, within the academic study of humanity, which does hold more authority than rock and roll lyricists.wwgmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16028480181175831930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-75326844747958589822016-02-07T13:14:10.346-08:002016-02-07T13:14:10.346-08:00Denoting one thing, connoting another.
"The s...Denoting one thing, connoting another.<br />"The sword was named Ardisil."<br />okay, thats odd, a sword with a name, but it fits better in that there is something odd, probably not in todays world, but taken from the past...in that name I cannot identify. <br />A strange word wrongly connotes the past, so we swallow, or capacitate a doubt (trying reading Hegel...needs a lot of capacitence) but after a while someone who has strong curiosity is going to be overwhelmed.<br />Those who are so full of confidence, not really thoughtful but just going with the flow...they can move on through a swamp of terminology.<br />I can barely learn another language. Its a particular stupidity. I almost stopped reading Dune for its terminology, and I did stop reading A Clockwork Orange...or read it frustrated.<br />This kind of sci if world is established by PKDICK in ways that are mentions. <br />The humor is that the mentions, which are usually understated, turn out to be whole revision of reality.<br />What kind of World is PKD creating!<br />wwgmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16028480181175831930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-22346590950544442712016-02-06T19:01:31.365-08:002016-02-06T19:01:31.365-08:00My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty s...My liege, and madam, to expostulate<br />What majesty should be, what duty is,<br />What day is day, night night, and time is time,<br />Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;<br />Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,<br />And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,<br />I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . .<br /><br />But one is to reference Hamlet as a habit when discussing the doubts of fantasy worlds.<br />Fantasy itself was more vastly transformed by rpgs than novelists.<br />Not to minimize the meanings of genre. RPG's though had this drama of interacting, tapping more into the inter subjective, wherein, ambiguities proliferate, and that fogs meaning.<br />Also, rpgs are like puppet theater directing within Fantasy.<br />So the magnitude of the discussion fails me.<br />Clarity is of course, Hapaxious wit at work. <br />A candidate I say, to play Sherlock Holmes!<br />Poets then, past the pat to tones at play, <br />what a world they made.<br />No longer lone cliches,<br />more like a pox after a parade.<br /><br />wwgmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16028480181175831930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-27217621062430012552016-02-06T17:38:39.079-08:002016-02-06T17:38:39.079-08:00World building, like Connections, or Glass Bead Ga...World building, like Connections, or Glass Bead Game.<br />http://playingworlds.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Let me respond in reading, I am just posting this as it relates to World Building as I understand.<br />wwgmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16028480181175831930noreply@blogger.com