Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIt's also why I think Terry Pratchett's one of the most dangerous men working in contemporary fantasy, if you look past the jokes you'll find a creative agenda that's nothing short of revolutionary.

:wtfsign:

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalDo you mean Jim Wallis the progressive christian writer?

Why do you think the Republicans have lost their lock on the vote of the Religious Right?  It's not all down to Jim, but "God's Politics" was on the New York Times best-sellers list for how long?

JimBobOz: yep.  Deeply subversive writer

Pratchett's recent novels have all been about change.  The most obvious example of this is the largely taboo issue of technological progress in a fantasy world.  He also talks a lot about the value of multi-culturalism and old racial enemies getting by.  As a general rule, the agents who oppose change are seen as the bad guys, contrary to most fantasy.  His last adult discworld novel even talked about the 7/7 bombings and the need for moderate voices within minority communities to take the lead away from divisive extremists.

Throughout his career, under the cloak of humour, he's taken a hammer to pretty much every genre convention fantasy has.

See now, this kind of talk might get me to actually read Pratchett.  Especially this concept of the technology of fantasy actually advancing.

That was on of the core elements that really fascinated the hell out of me in Fullmetal Alchemist.  They took a world with where magic actually worked, but then followed through with it, into the future, instead of sticking in the past.  The result is fascinating, just in the unique way the tech develops in their world as compared to our own, a comparison driven further home later in the series when they link our real world to this other world where alchmey is real.

Fullmetal Alchemist is indeed good viewing (except when they try and do comedy but Far Eastern senses of humour are hideous... just look at Kung-Fui Hussle) but that's a slightly different phenomenon.

FMA thinks through the ramifications of having people able to use magic.  So you get a quite interesting fusion of 1940's technology with magic to create something different.  However, as I recall, the technology level doesn't change throughout the cartoon.  This is a common reaction because writers create their world and are then unwilling to unmake it or radically alter it, that generally makes for pro-status quo conservative protagonists.

Pratchett though spent 20 books creating a fantasy world and then started changing it and modifying the technology, the economics and the nature of his fantasy society.  The protagonists are the ones who want change and the forces of conservatism with their vested interests and traditions are seen as negative.

Quote from: ImperatorI said before, blame the hacks, not the genius they try to imitate. Blame the imitators of Howard, not REH. Blame the imitators of Tolkien, not Tolkien.

I blame dungeonpunk.  But what's that have to do with dinosaurs that pee heroin?

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's just that stock human urge to create some bygone age where things were simpler/better/etc.

Create?!  Hey!  1985 really happened!

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalPratchett though spent 20 books creating a fantasy world and then started changing it and modifying the technology, the economics and the nature of his fantasy society.  The protagonists are the ones who want change and the forces of conservatism with their vested interests and traditions are seen as negative.

    I wouldn't say that in Pratchett that change=good and conservatism=evil.  He is a revolutionary, but one in the tradition of the English classical liberal philosophers.  There is more than a hint of Hobbes in the way his characters think.  Vimes considers democracy a nutty concept because it would *shudder* allow peopl--er, make that beings like Nobby Nobbs have an equal say in government.  Radical progressivists like Reg Shoe or fanatical reformers are either seen as a bit silly or flat-out dangerous.  Pratchett's view on change is Burkean: progress is to be valued, but tempered by experience and valuing those old values that do work.  There is a lot of comment of how the "little lies" humanity tells itself--fables like the Hogfather--allow humanity to tell the big lies like mercy, honour, and love.  I loved the scene in Pyramids (one the most overtly change is needed books) where Pteppic must *literally* stand on the shoulders of his ancestors to save the kingdom.

    One of the major themes in the Discworld novels is the balancing of ideals and humanity.  Several of the iconic characters have to suppress their own inner fanatics.  Vimes must temper his burning desire to bring justice to the world with the understanding that all justice must be restrained by law and fair treatment.  Granny Weatherwax is...well, not scared, but ever watchful that she doesn't fall into the trap her sister did:  that because you have the power to make people do the "right thing", that you should.  The technological changes sweeping Ankh Morpork are possible because Lord Veterinari has learned that "suppressing for people's own protection" is not always a good thing.

    Long live Pterry!

Andrew

Absolutely.

I was looking at how revolutionary he was from the point of view of the genre, rather than how extreme his political views are in and of themselves.  As for the content of his beliefs then I'd agree with you about their content.

However, my point was that there mere fact that he created a fantasy world and then starts showing the effects of political reform on it, and presents said reform as a good thing makes him a genre revolutionary.  When I wrote about change = good, status quo = bad, I was thinking mainly of books like The Truth and Going Postal which do specifically look at the march of technology.  As opposed to his Watch books which look at wider political issues in general.

I think we're in agreement broadly speaking :-)

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAbsolutely.

I was looking at how revolutionary he was from the point of view of the genre, rather than how extreme his political views are in and of themselves.  As for the content of his beliefs then I'd agree with you about their content.

However, my point was that there mere fact that he created a fantasy world and then starts showing the effects of political reform on it, and presents said reform as a good thing makes him a genre revolutionary.

   Quite right.  What I enjoy about Pratchett's work is the nuance.  In _Jingo_ he wrote that war by and large is a crime and a stupid thing.  But in _Thud_ there's a wonderful exchange between Nobby and Colon where Colon opines that "war?  What's it good for?"  Nobby provides several "just war" examples--defending against a rapacious enemy, defeating an evil dictator--and ends with "Fred, what in the end is anything good for?"  Pratchett *never* provides the easy or pat answer.  There is always the acknowledgement that supposedly-harmful or "evil" practises are at times neccessary, and by the same token one must be careful how one defines neccessity.

     Also, the man is still frigging hilarious despite the serious tone of his latter novels.  Even when he overuses stock bits like The Librarian or Death, Pterry always has at least one laughing-crazily-in-public moment per book.

Quote from: J ArcaneNo you don't.  The MA sucked.  If I lived in the middle ages, I'd be a fucking dead man, and so would you.  

Provided I even lived past childbirth, I'd be looking forward to a life of endless toil, eating rotting food of plates made of stale bread, and probably eventually dying of plague of some sort.  I would have no rights as a human being, and my very life would be effectively forfeit.  But hey, it could be worse, I could be a woman.

You would be looking forward to that.
I, on the other hand, am european nobility; the best possible situation to find one's self in if you were in the middle ages, and I still wouldn't want to be there under any circumstances. Not only would I not want to live in the middle ages (even as a Count), but I can think of at least a half-dozen other historical periods that I would rather live in if forced to, before I would end up with the middle ages.

Note "forced to". If I had to choose, I would rather live in this time, the 21st century.  We are LIVING IN the fucking "golden age".  The average minimum-wage slob has a better standard of living than a Duke did in the 1400s.
And you're only a minimum-wage slob because you haven't been very creative. Our time is filled with opportunity for adventure.

QuoteBut about the only RPG I can think of that presents an appropriately unpleasant view of the medieval era is WFRP.

Actually, WFRP presents an appropriately unpleasant view of the Renaissance; which is another era I wouldn't want to live in under any circumstances, and its STILL better than the middle ages.


RPGPundit

Quote from: Pebbles and MarblesI have two theories, that might be complimentary or not:

1) All hobbies, particularly among those participants who have been in it for a long time, have Cheevys.

2) People tend to become Cheevy-esque around their 30th birthday.

In almost all of the hobbies that I've been enough of a participant in to notice such things, I've encountered Cheevy types, who lament long and often about how things were better in the past, before Dreadful Development X occurred.  The only hobby that I've not encountered this in is birding.  I guess tromping around in the woods, staring at flying critters just doesn't change enough to have people whinging for the good ol' days.  I've heard a few laments about not seeing as much of a particular species as one might have in the past, but I think that's a much different complaint.

So, gaming isn't unique in this regard, or even the worst.  I've probably encountered this attitude the most among music buffs.  And that particular incarnation of the Cheevy Syndrome is often, perhaps damn near always, coupled with my second theory.  "Music isn't as good as it was when I was younger!  Everything sucks now!  It's all the same!"


*shrugs*

Um, I think you're confusing "cheevy syndrome" with "old coot syndrome".  The latter is complaining about how things aren't as good as when you were younger; the former is pining for a time in which you never lived (before you were born).

For my part, I am slightly an old coot (mostly about music) but in most things I'm very happy to be living in this time and place.  I'd love to see how the future turns out (concerned as I am about it), but considering how much I know about the past, there's no way I'd want to live in it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Create?!  Hey!  1985 really happened!

Yea, but not the way you think it did.  You're just seeing it through a coke-hazed jumble of miami vice reruns.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYea, but not the way you think it did.  You're just seeing it through a coke-hazed jumble of miami vice reruns.

RPGPundit

To be fair, for many people the 1980s was a coke-hazed jumble.

Years don't have a single truth, for some people the 1980s were as Dr Rotwang views them, for others they were a period of disaffection and mass unemployment.  Both are true, it's just neither is the whole truth.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou would be looking forward to that.
I, on the other hand, am european nobility; the best possible situation to find one's self in if you were in the middle ages, and I still wouldn't want to be there under any circumstances. Not only would I not want to live in the middle ages (even as a Count), but I can think of at least a half-dozen other historical periods that I would rather live in if forced to, before I would end up with the middle ages.

Note "forced to". If I had to choose, I would rather live in this time, the 21st century.  We are LIVING IN the fucking "golden age".  The average minimum-wage slob has a better standard of living than a Duke did in the 1400s.
And you're only a minimum-wage slob because you haven't been very creative. Our time is filled with opportunity for adventure.



Actually, WFRP presents an appropriately unpleasant view of the Renaissance; which is another era I wouldn't want to live in under any circumstances, and its STILL better than the middle ages.


RPGPundit

Well, I referenced the peasantry simply because it was statistically the most likely place one'd end up.  There was a not exactly large number of people in the nobility.

Me personally, I'd have probably run off to join a monastery.