It is phenomenally unfair to compare ancient myth with the modern novel. The "ancient myths" have gone through untold generations of retellings, alterations and becoming deeply woven into our language and culture long before our births. When LotR is retold over 40 generations and ripped apart, rebuilt, added upon and regurgitated upteen times before being written down again, I'm quite sure it will be an even more resonant tale.

Its really fascinating to read early versions of myths. Not many exist, but you can find variations and older versions of many popular myths and often, they have deeply weird bits that were expurgated long before Brothers Grim or Disney brought them into the modern age.

That said, I highly recommend reading Beowulf before you pick up whatever the next "hot" fantasy novel might be. There's a certain unique power in reading about swords & sorcery written in a time when the sword was the gun of the day and sorcery was believed to be real by those who would hear the tale.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1061880That said, I highly recommend reading Beowulf before you pick up whatever the next "hot" fantasy novel might be. There's a certain unique power in reading about swords & sorcery written in a time when the sword was the gun of the day and sorcery was believed to be real by those who would hear the tale.

Not a bad idea, actually. Beowulf laid the foundation for a lot of High Valor.

Not quite getting this one.

Comparing RP-ing to the style of the Illiad, rather than I don't know lets pick on Twilight (just to bash the sparkly vampires). I can understand that. It kind of fits my play style so can agree that it is a good technique for developing the game. If somebody likes playing where the PCs all sit around being angsty, and talking about their feelings that's cool, not my thing but whatever floats their boat.

As far as novels being a bad idea in general, I really couldn't follow the logic, but I was paying a lot of attention to the cat fight so was a bit distracted.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061801When I read the John Carter books, I couldn't help but think the guy was a hyper-violent sociopath. Get between him and his girl, and he'll kill you--and that's even if he only thinks you might be in the way, because he won't take the risk of losing time by talking to what might be a bad guy.

I got a totally different vibe from the John Carter books, a much more upbeat one. My take away was he took care of the people with him and responded to people based on their actions, not who they were or what they looked like. In turn they became loyal companions. He only killed the things that needed killin (I'm sure he was a Texan, although don't believe it was explicitly stated).

Quote from: Spinachcat;1061880It is phenomenally unfair to compare ancient myth with the modern novel. The "ancient myths" have gone through untold generations of retellings, alterations and becoming deeply woven into our language and culture long before our births. When LotR is retold over 40 generations and ripped apart, rebuilt, added upon and regurgitated upteen times before being written down again, I'm quite sure it will be an even more resonant tale.

Its really fascinating to read early versions of myths. Not many exist, but you can find variations and older versions of many popular myths and often, they have deeply weird bits that were expurgated long before Brothers Grim or Disney brought them into the modern age.

That said, I highly recommend reading Beowulf before you pick up whatever the next "hot" fantasy novel might be. There's a certain unique power in reading about swords & sorcery written in a time when the sword was the gun of the day and sorcery was believed to be real by those who would hear the tale.

Agree, reading actual myths and legends is great stuff for gaming. A lot of kids in high school moaned and groaned about having to read the Iliad, the Odyssey, and Beowulf. I loved reading those, but then again I'm one of those weirdos who will read history for fun.

Quote from: Orphan81;1061830Isn't a little bit of Gate Keeping preferable though? To actually have a culture you need to do SOME form of gate keeping to make it distinct from others and get dedicated buy in.

Certainly that's necessary for all those who want to feel special by virture of their hobbies, yes.

It's just rolling dice, eating snacks, and pretending to be an elf, people. Let's not overthink it.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1061885Not quite getting this one.

Comparing RP-ing to the style of the Illiad, rather than I don't know lets pick on Twilight (just to bash the sparkly vampires). I can understand that. It kind of fits my play style so can agree that it is a good technique for developing the game. If somebody likes playing where the PCs all sit around being angsty, and talking about their feelings that's cool, not my thing but whatever floats their boat.

As far as novels being a bad idea in general, I really couldn't follow the logic, but I was paying a lot of attention to the cat fight so was a bit distracted.




I got a totally different vibe from the John Carter books, a much more upbeat one. My take away was he took care of the people with him and responded to people based on their actions, not who they were or what they looked like. In turn they became loyal companions. He only killed the things that needed killin (I'm sure he was a Texan, although don't believe it was explicitly stated).

He was most definitely NOT a Texan. It was stated over and again that he was "a gentleman of Virginia" from the period right after the Civil War.

Quote from: nightlamp;1061796Others have already rightly pointed out the action-oriented nature of the pulps.  Let's also remember that Tolkien's works, while certainly "modern novels," are steeped in European mythology and (IMHO, at least) are still largely action-oriented -- at least in the sense that the attention given to physical description (action, history, setting) vastly outweigh that given to the internal workings and motivations of the characters.  

For context, here's how the Nautilus article referenced in Pundit's blog post includes, describes its first example of "superior" modern fiction:

OTOH, if you look at Raymond Chandler's early novels, he would take 2-4 of his unrelated short stories from the pulp Black Mask, triple their length by adding lots and lots of description, and sort of half-assedly patch them together. Even though the resulting product would make little sense from a traditional mystery sort of view, they are good reads.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061904He was most definitely NOT a Texan. It was stated over and again that he was "a gentleman of Virginia" from the period right after the Civil War.

Curiously though, John Carter was also apparently immortal, having stopped aging at 30 (even while on Earth) and apparently so old he couldn't remember his childhood.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1061868Telling people how they could run more awesome games is not gatekeeping. Telling people "they're fired from D&D" or to "Fuck off from the hobby" or that they need to be institutionalized for re-education therapy is Gatekeeping.

You're correct, you don't do that, which is commendable. One place you do share with them is redefining things to fit your narrative to achieve an agenda.

I've been complaining about dry and predictable story structure for years.  The notion that rpgs should follow that or video game boss fight structures makes me nauseous.  As for gate keeping, if you want to force people into your political and literary notions at the game table, I'll be happy to show you the door.

I think you can't pin all the trouble on the novel.  The invention of writing, the printing press, and every improvement in writing since--also share in the blame.  

When you are telling a story that you must memorize (more or less), there is a certain economy of form, and focus on the parts that grab interest.  There is still "filler", but is of a different, more limited nature.  The more options you have to plan and pad, the more someone will do so.  It's no accident that the digital age saw yet another doubling down on the trend.  

Vapid writing abhors a vacuum, as the "penny dreadfuls" demonstrated in Victorian England.

Quote from: S'mon;1061827I think the difference is that calling something a fairy tale means "We don't actually believe this stuff" AND "this is just a story, it doesn't say anything about the human condition". Myths have an element of truthiness that fairy tales lack in conception.

I may be wrong, but it seems easy to distinguish mythic films like Star Wars, Robocop and Mad Max II: The Road Warrior from fairy-tale films like Wizard of Oz, Dark Crystal & Legend.

I disagree. The peasants who told fairy tales genuinely believed such events could happen, and many fairy tales are about aspects of the human condition... particularly moral lessons.

Seriously, all three of the "fairy tale" films you cite are textbook examples of the Hero's Journey. For example, take the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Jim Henson's Labyrinth. Dorothy and Sarah both get pulled into extraordinary circumstances, go on quests to restore a semblance of normality, make numerous friends along the way, overcome dangerous magical overlords, return home having learned from their experiences, then go on loads more adventures in the future.

I googled the difference and the best I could find on limited time was this:
https://mastersreview.com/literary-terms-legend-myth-and-fairy-tale/
https://www.thoughtco.com/defining-terms-myth-folklore-legend-735039
https://thepoeticsproject.com/2017/05/03/myths-legends-and-fairy-tales/
https://literarytransgressions.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/fairy-tale-friday-myth-vs-fairy-tales/

These do not really shed much light. The popular distinction between myth and fairy tale seems to be entirely arbitrary. As far as I can tell, fairy tales simply appear to be all the myths told after the inception of Christianity.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1061953I disagree. The peasants who told fairy tales genuinely believed such events could happen, and many fairy tales are about aspects of the human condition... particularly moral lessons.

Seriously, all three of the "fairy tale" films you cite are textbook examples of the Hero's Journey. For example, take the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Jim Henson's Labyrinth. Dorothy and Sarah both get pulled into extraordinary circumstances, go on quests to restore a semblance of normality, make numerous friends along the way, overcome dangerous magical overlords, return home having learned from their experiences, then go on loads more adventures in the future.

I googled the difference and the best I could find on limited time was this:
https://mastersreview.com/literary-terms-legend-myth-and-fairy-tale/
https://www.thoughtco.com/defining-terms-myth-folklore-legend-735039
https://thepoeticsproject.com/2017/05/03/myths-legends-and-fairy-tales/
https://literarytransgressions.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/fairy-tale-friday-myth-vs-fairy-tales/

These do not really shed much light. The popular distinction between myth and fairy tale seems to be entirely arbitrary. As far as I can tell, fairy tales simply appear to be all the myths told after the inception of Christianity.

The term Fairy tale itself has taken quite a turn as well. At the present (and for some time) Fairy tale is almost synonymous with children's story. They were much darker in the past, some pretty brutal. I'm not sure at what point in time they changed, but the stories peasants told were not the nice stories with happy endings most of us grew up with. Those older versions are a lot closer to mythology.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061904He was most definitely NOT a Texan. It was stated over and again that he was "a gentleman of Virginia" from the period right after the Civil War.

I know that, I was poking fun at the perception of Texas having a "He needed killin' " clause in addition to more typical self defense. John Carter definately believed in the "he needed killin' " philosophy, although to be fair that was usually turned out to be the case in the stories. The Martian cultures weren't exactly what one would call enlightened.

I was actually rather surprised by the writing, having heard for years how awful, sexist, racist and any other -ists you can think of that they are often accused of being. I didn't get that at all, for an author writing near the turn of the century Burroughs seems to have been pretty forward thinking in his attitudes. Almost a Star Trek like quality highlighting some of the BS attitudes common in his time.

There was a very clear message that people should be evaluated for their deeds, not their race, gender or social standing.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1061844I see what you did there.

Thank you. I'm surprised it took that long.