Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 04:37:01 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Ehhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Campbell invented the monomyth structure by examining various myths and stitching together originally unrelated scenes into a vaguely coherent storytelling template, but it's not actually an accurate reflection of universal human psychology or storytelling (read the ATU fairy tale index for comparison). That's not to say that humans don't have universal psychological biases, we obviously do.

My criticism is unrelated to wokeness and is a pure criticism of writers becoming increasingly uncreative and just aping Tolkien. That's been a problem even before wokeness.

First, Campbell may have been the first to codify the concept, there has been a ton more scholarship that analyzes and explores the concept further.  So, despite the evidence-poor assertion of a couple of randos on the Internet (including the page you linked), Campbell's framework has been pretty useful overall.

Secondly, you've changed your argument on Tolkien several times in this thread.  First his tropes have trapped the writers that followed by establishing a pattern to be slavishly followed; then he's inventing evil overlord tropes that clearly predate him (Ming the Merciless?  There are many others...). Lucas was expressly and consciously  copying the serials of the 1930s and 40s, which predate LotR by decades.

Honestly, your whining about the lack of good writing in modern media due to Tolkien seems predicated on a cartoonishly simple generalization.  Somehow others must be copying Tolkien, and not copying who Tolkien copied.  As brilliant as he was, Tolkien was also heavily influenced by ideas that came before him, and those ideas were expressed in a lot of other media.  So perhaps they were all reacting to ideas that were much older?  Nah, they must just be copying him...

Quote from: Fheredin on April 22, 2024, 04:55:07 PM

QuoteThis is not to object to media products being transformed into propaganda. I'd agree that they're already always propaganda. Refusing to indoctrinate someone is indoctrinating them into neutrality, just as refusing to teach children religion is teaching them nullifidianism. The Wokists have that right: most everything reinforces one political narrative or other.

I would beg to differ on this one, and I think it's better to approach this from a Christian Apologetics angle than from politics or the history of gaming. I will try to circle back after I make my point.

There's one key difference between Atheism and Theism. If you push the Atheistic universe to it's conclusion, you must assume that logic, mathematics, and ethics are self-assembling.  If you push the Theistic universe to its logical conclusion, these could be self-assembling, but it is more consistent with the universe for them to be directly provided by God.

The problem is that since the 1930s and Godel's theorems of incompleteness, we have known that mathematics especially doesn't fit into neat self-assembling boxes. Without this, ethics and epistemology follow suit. This is why pseudoscientific ethics typically resort to non-answers like survival and reproduction and secular ethics fall apart under scrutiny. In this sense I think that it's more accurate to say that as our culture abandoned Christian ethical ideals, it lost the moral fiber to resist Marxism. Marxism also failed--it became Wokeness by switched away from economic arguments to racial and gender arguments--but because the Christian moral authority was exiled from public life and there were were no other moral authorities to call it out, Marxism evolved into Wokism.

And here we come to the rub; Christianity is getting targeted by the Woke because it retains the moral authority to call Wokism out. No one else really does.

So, no, I don't agree with the sentiment that teaching children nothing is actually teaching them nullifidianism. You either teach children functional worldviews or you don't. And if you didn't, chances are they will become Woke, not because they actually believe any of the ideas, but because the only thing which is real to them is the opinions of their peers.

I stand corrected. Then, my stronger point is that the mind of a political animal abhors a vacuum--something must be sucked into it.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 23, 2024, 02:28:24 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 23, 2024, 12:18:39 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 22, 2024, 11:46:37 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMIt occurred to me that the main thing holding back the Wokification of all media products is what we might call anthropological realism...

Before I touch this subject, I'd like you to define "anthropological realism" because I have not been able to find a definition online.

As ForgottenF put it above, (1) writing fantasy as if it were history, to which I'd add (2) employing races, sexes, cultures, and religions logically as derived from the inspiring mythos or cultures from which the given fantasy comes.

It doesn't make sense to have Africans in Rohan, for example. In fact it defeats the whole purpose. LotR is a European fantasy, the Rohan are an Anglo-Saxon horse culture; the other races of man are geographically and culturally peripheral.

OK, but doesn't that go back to before Tolkien? In Beowulf there was Grendel, and even Grendel had a mother. In it's most basic form, that is "anthropological realism" in that it is a copy of western family structure.

It appears so. The difference between Beowulf and LotR would then be quantitative.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PMEhhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Indeed:

Marx's Theory of Man and the World

QuoteThe world of man — state, society — as Marx had it is the social structure that he creates for himself and that he, indeed, imprisons himself within. Man creates society and embodies that creation in the State, and the society, shaped by the State, in turn creates Man. Marx called the creation of society "praxis" and the creation of Man by society "the inversion of praxis." Praxis is theory-informed activism, so activism or "the work" done in light of Marxist Theory. It is the transforming activity done by Man on the world of man. The inversion of praxis is social conditioning. The society that Man has created for himself socially conditions him almost completely deterministically. Man is limited and thus psychically incarcerated by the limitations of his social conditioning through the inversion of praxis.

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 06:03:38 AMGreetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK,

How do you square your Christian faith with the commandments, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good", and "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

How can we defend the West from evil, without violating these commandments? This paradox vexes me. What are your thoughts on it?

Neoplatonist1

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 24, 2024, 12:41:52 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 06:03:38 AMGreetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK,

How do you square your Christian faith with the commandments, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good", and "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

How can we defend the West from evil, without violating these commandments? This paradox vexes me. What are your thoughts on it?

Neoplatonist1

Greetings!

Well, my friend, do not be vexed! Everything within Scripture has *context*. God does not want us to be helpless, weak, pathetic victims, just bowing down to evil and tyranny. In the New Testament, Christ commands us to when we go about into the world, to carry a sword. The disciples asked Christ, why should we go forth into the world armed, Lord? To which Christ continued, saying, for we live in an evil world. If Christ had wanted us to always be peaceful and sweet, and never do violence, then He would not have commanded us to arm ourselves.

Likewise, the Scriptures talk about being armed, and ready to defend your home and community from the wolves, from the brigand, the robber and thief.

Furthermore, the Scriptures are full of histories and stories of where righteous people rose up--and violently defended themselves, and resisted evil, wickedness, and tyranny. The Old Testament is full of this.

Perhaps, by individual temperament, a person may be so tranquil and so peaceful, as to simply be paralyzed when contemplating violence. Likewise, an individual sincerely convinced and committed to pacifism. The US government has historically acknowledged a sincere conviction of pacifism, based upon a few verses and teachings in Scripture. However, as regards a broader world view, such Scriptures and context would be a minority. There are far more examples, exhortations, and instructions for the Christian to be armed, and prepared for violence, either defending his person, his family, his home, or his community. Defending all from foreign invaders, but also from domestic evil and tyranny.

Quakers, for example, are a historic community within America that have always been committed to pacifism. I don't agree with their interpretation and application of a few Scriptures, but, they have freedom to believe as they do. I think such freedom is not just vouchesafed within our own Constitution, but also I would agree some allowance for such within the spiritual traditions of the Christian faith.

As I mentioned, I believe there is far more Scriptural evidence that does not support Pacifism, and instead counsels courage, being masculine, prepared, and ready to fight. There are also Scriptures that speak against the coward, the traitor, the man who would not fight to defend his community, his family, and his people. The Scriptures focus primarily on men, being dominant, and active--but also applauds and honours even women that stand up against tyranny, and eagerly and faithfully stand together with their men.

Search the Scriptures diligently. All I speak of is truth.

Thus, I sleep well at night, thankful to my Lord Christ, and to my armoury of weapons.

"The Lord teacheth my hands for war"

I hope that I have encouraged you, brother!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm going to offer a little unsolicited support to SHARK's position.  It really is about context.  In Luke 10:3-4, the Lord instructs his apostles

    3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
    4 Carry neither a purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

In Luke 22:35-26, he tells them

    35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
    36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

At first glance, these say opposite things.  And note in the second he told his apostles to carry a sword.  The scriptures are full of things that might seem contradictory when interpreted without an understanding of how, where, and why they are supposed to be applied.  IMO understanding the scriptures requires reading ALL of them repeatedly until you have the whole picture in your mind.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 24, 2024, 03:40:18 AMI'm going to offer a little unsolicited support to SHARK's position.  It really is about context.  In Luke 10:3-4, the Lord instructs his apostles

    3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
    4 Carry neither a purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

In Luke 22:35-26, he tells them

    35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
    36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

At first glance, these say opposite things.  And note in the second he told his apostles to carry a sword.  The scriptures are full of things that might seem contradictory when interpreted without an understanding of how, where, and why they are supposed to be applied.  IMO understanding the scriptures requires reading ALL of them repeatedly until you have the whole picture in your mind.

Greetings!

Preach on, brother!

And thank you, my friend. I did not have my Bible next to my computer, for reference. Just going by memory from studying the Word!

I was having a conversation with a buddy just the other day. I exhorted him with my observation, that when I was in college, philosophy, and discussing "Higher Criticism" and the usual Atheist's and unbeliever's critiques about the faith, that I jumped even more deeper into the Word. I searched books of Biblical commentaries that discussed the questions, usually from the viewpoint of several different Biblical scholars and strong preachers. Searching the Scriptures deeper, just dig and dig, and *BOOM*--the answers are there. There's always some BS the critics like to slide through, some distraction or obfuscation, but keep digging, listen to good men of God, and study. The Scripture is trustworthy, and powerful. Like the Word says, All Scripture is God-breathed, and sharper than any two-edged sword. Good for salvation, reproof, correction, and righteousness in all things. The Scriptures are as a lamp unto our feet.

Again, I am blessed by your encouragement and good faith!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Rhymer88 on April 23, 2024, 09:39:57 AMFictional world-building has been around since Plato's Atlantis. For world-building in more modern times, Lovecraft and Howard have already been mentioned. E.R.Burroughs started even earlier, with his Barsoom setting (Under the Moons of Mars, 1912). In his quest to create a historicized mythology, Tolkien was, among other things, almost certainly influenced by the Old Testament.

WTF bro. Atlantis was real.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 24, 2024, 12:06:37 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 04:37:01 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Ehhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Campbell invented the monomyth structure by examining various myths and stitching together originally unrelated scenes into a vaguely coherent storytelling template, but it's not actually an accurate reflection of universal human psychology or storytelling (read the ATU fairy tale index for comparison). That's not to say that humans don't have universal psychological biases, we obviously do.

My criticism is unrelated to wokeness and is a pure criticism of writers becoming increasingly uncreative and just aping Tolkien. That's been a problem even before wokeness.

First, Campbell may have been the first to codify the concept, there has been a ton more scholarship that analyzes and explores the concept further.  So, despite the evidence-poor assertion of a couple of randos on the Internet (including the page you linked), Campbell's framework has been pretty useful overall.

Secondly, you've changed your argument on Tolkien several times in this thread.  First his tropes have trapped the writers that followed by establishing a pattern to be slavishly followed; then he's inventing evil overlord tropes that clearly predate him (Ming the Merciless?  There are many others...). Lucas was expressly and consciously  copying the serials of the 1930s and 40s, which predate LotR by decades.

Honestly, your whining about the lack of good writing in modern media due to Tolkien seems predicated on a cartoonishly simple generalization.  Somehow others must be copying Tolkien, and not copying who Tolkien copied.  As brilliant as he was, Tolkien was also heavily influenced by ideas that came before him, and those ideas were expressed in a lot of other media.  So perhaps they were all reacting to ideas that were much older?  Nah, they must just be copying him...

You're ascribing a lot more media literacy to modern authors than they actually possess. I don't know exactly when it happened, but the past few generations of writers have become increasingly ignorant of the histories of the genres. They don't read 1930s pulps, they read Tolkien and Lucas.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 24, 2024, 12:25:19 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PMEhhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Indeed:

Marx's Theory of Man and the World

QuoteThe world of man — state, society — as Marx had it is the social structure that he creates for himself and that he, indeed, imprisons himself within. Man creates society and embodies that creation in the State, and the society, shaped by the State, in turn creates Man. Marx called the creation of society "praxis" and the creation of Man by society "the inversion of praxis." Praxis is theory-informed activism, so activism or "the work" done in light of Marxist Theory. It is the transforming activity done by Man on the world of man. The inversion of praxis is social conditioning. The society that Man has created for himself socially conditions him almost completely deterministically. Man is limited and thus psychically incarcerated by the limitations of his social conditioning through the inversion of praxis.

And this conversation just disappeared up its own ass.

Sorry, but Karl Marx and his teachings have nothing to do with how Tolkien was a major influence on early D&D. I give benefit of the doubt to young college socialists in the early 70s playing D&D and being horrified by the game's capitalist basis, but Tolkien was the author to read at that moment in time on college campuses if you liked fantasy.

Dragging Marx into this is like dragging Heinlein into this and declaring that Glory Road had less of an influence on early D&D than Stranger in a Strange Land.

To answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

Quote from: Trond on April 24, 2024, 04:12:18 PMTo answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

I think that's a fair critique. There's thousands and thousands of Middle Earth rip-offs, but only one Nyambe and it's not even supported anymore.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2024, 04:33:23 PMI think that's a fair critique. There's thousands and thousands of Middle Earth rip-offs, but only one Nyambe and it's not even supported anymore.

Then what the Hell is stopping you from writing one? Chop, chop. Put up or shut up.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 24, 2024, 01:16:44 PMAnd this conversation just disappeared up its own ass.

Sorry, but Karl Marx and his teachings have nothing to do with how Tolkien was a major influence on early D&D. I give benefit of the doubt to young college socialists in the early 70s playing D&D and being horrified by the game's capitalist basis, but Tolkien was the author to read at that moment in time on college campuses if you liked fantasy.

Dragging Marx into this is like dragging Heinlein into this and declaring that Glory Road had less of an influence on early D&D than Stranger in a Strange Land.

Didn't say it did. Tangentially, I pointed out that Marxism agrees with Eirikrautha where "...the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics."