No, I think his point would be not to read any F&#$&%@ Robert Jordan, to be precise.
|
Ah, the Wheel of Time. I gave up after..., ummm... book 8? Or was it 7? I don't remember anymore - actually, the only thing I do remember is that I was constantly thinking that "the next book has GOT to better than this". Sadly, I was wrong.
So, kids, take some advice from us old geezers and do not read any f*&!ing Robert Jordan. Death to the heron-marked, indeed.
I hate hearing gamers go on and on about some old character or session. They can't tell a story to save their life, and the word 'succinct' seems to be missing from most of their vocabulary.
I hate supremely indifferent gamers, that seem to be content to just sit there and need to be cattle-prodded to make any kind of non-combat decision, let alone actually role-play a character.
I hate fitting the stereotype of gamers (white, glasses, out of shape), and lacking any awesome element in my life that can show people I'm more than just some nerd. In fact, along a similar note of envy, I hate that the internet is filled with Eskimo black-belt supermodels with PhDs in Quantum Mechanics & Constitutional Law.
Ah, the Wheel of Time. I gave up after..., ummm... book 8? Or was it 7? I don't remember anymore - actually, the only thing I do remember is that I was constantly thinking that "the next book has GOT to better than this". Sadly, I was wrong.
So, kids, take some advice from us old geezers and do not read any f@%~ing Robert Jordan. Death to the heron-marked, indeed.
I liked the series except that then it dragged and dragged and dragged. If it was just bad then I'd not be so unhappy. Its the fact that I think the series had potential but the potential was squandered on a total lack of focus. Its the squadnering of potential that really bothers me. I feel that he can write and some of the time I was hooked. But it just dragged on and on without ever really going anywhere. Instead the side plots simply multiplied.
|
I liked the series except that then it dragged and dragged and dragged. If it was just bad then I'd not be so unhappy. Its the fact that I think the series had potential but the potential was squandered on a total lack of focus. Its the squadnering of potential that really bothers me. I feel that he can write and some of the time I was hooked. But it just dragged on and on without ever really going anywhere. Instead the side plots simply multiplied.Ah, the Wheel of Time. I gave up after..., ummm... book 8? Or was it 7? I don't remember anymore - actually, the only thing I do remember is that I was constantly thinking that "the next book has GOT to better than this". Sadly, I was wrong.
So, kids, take some advice from us old geezers and do not read any f@%~ing Robert Jordan. Death to the heron-marked, indeed.
That would be why most of us were sucked in for 5-8 books..... I just wish I hadn't wasted months of free time reading 6 600-800 page books. I would've just re-read some others. Like the Battle Circle trio(Piers Anthony), Guardians of the Flame (Joel Rosenberg), but no I had to try to "ride it out". If I ever meet Jordan I think he will be pummeled about the head and neck for a few minutes.
FH (the pugilist)
That reminds me of the "Dune" saga. I really love to read books, even long ones (read LotR perhaps 20 times), but I just gave up on Frank Herbert. The story idea is great, but it is stretched thin in his books - they drag on and on and on endlessly, and I just gave up on reading them all.
It seems to be nothing new that stories are dragged by their authors endlessly and sometimes repeating. Why can´t they just tell the _one_ story they really want to tell and be done with it? Same is with movies _ I love "Highlander", but you would have to force me to watch the part 2,3 or 4. Why can´t they leave a story alone ?
Stefan
I liked the series except that then it dragged and dragged and dragged. If it was just bad then I'd not be so unhappy. Its the fact that I think the series had potential but the potential was squandered on a total lack of focus. Its the squadnering of potential that really bothers me. I feel that he can write and some of the time I was hooked. But it just dragged on and on without ever really going anywhere. Instead the side plots simply multiplied.Ah, the Wheel of Time. I gave up after..., ummm... book 8? Or was it 7? I don't remember anymore - actually, the only thing I do remember is that I was constantly thinking that "the next book has GOT to better than this". Sadly, I was wrong.
So, kids, take some advice from us old geezers and do not read any f@%~ing Robert Jordan. Death to the heron-marked, indeed.
That would be why most of us were sucked in for 5-8 books..... I just wish I hadn't wasted months of free time reading 6 600-800 page books. I would've just re-read some others. Like the Battle Circle trio(Piers Anthony), Guardians of the Flame (Joel Rosenberg), but no I had to try to "ride it out". If I ever meet Jordan I think he will be pummeled about the head and neck for a few minutes.
FH (the pugilist)
Exactly. You guys have hit it on the head. The fact is that Jordan confused the idea of world building with creating thousands of second and third tier characters and then forcing the reader to spend equal time with all of them. He's taken the worst of Charles Dickens (all character fluff with none of the charm or humor) with the worst of Tolkien (tons of detail in the setting, but very archetypal characters) and made a huge library of it. I admire the fact that he's so prolific, but he could have saved a lot of trees and a lot of headaches if he had learned to evaluate his goals as an artist. Rather than having a cast of about three main characters, nine secondary characters and a whole mass of bit players in some labyrinthine political maneuvering that causes the reader to stop halfway through the book and say,"I have no idea who this character was or what part they play in the plot unless I look them up in the glossary, which takes up a third of the book", he could have written a whole mess of smaller novels set in different parts of the world he created with a lot more focus.
In a D&D comparison, it's like the DM insists on acting out every exchange between NPCs that would normally be off camera in front of his players who all have to sit there and wait for the puppet show to end before they can have their twenty minutes of spotlight time for the night.
I think J. Gregory Keyes' two novels, The Waterborn and The Blackgod and his short stories from Dragon magazine spread out a few years ago are a bit more up my alley (personal preference) and had a much more interesting world created in a smaller and more manageable package. He used more of an animistic approach to his cosmology, imagining a world where there really is a god living in everything and what kind of consequences it could have. And his characters fit the archetypes but are a bit more involving to me. The Hero archetype for Jordan, Rand, only has the fault that he's kind of arrogant and "doesn't know how to express his feelings". Not too interesting. Keyes' Perkar fits the archetype, but you also get the sense that Keyes remembered being an 18 year old a little better than Jordan and he's able to get into his role a bit more. Perkar is headstrong, reckless, arrogant and kind of a bigot at first which makes him all the more interesting and dynamic within the story. That is a matter of personal preference, though.
So, what are your thoughts about an author using books as an allegorical platform to express his own beliefs and viewpoints and make a statement about the world, while simultaneously trying to write good high fantasy (and we're not talking about RAS' pathetic attempts at this)? I'm curious, as I hope to make "fantasy author" my career (either that, or go to work for Paizo someday- let me know if you all are hiring, Oh Great Staff!).
There was some backlash against long books/series as well- is that a cry against the length in general (I hope not, since I like long stories and will probably write that way, and thus may loose the good people here as a potential audience), or just a cry against long books that don't go anywhere or do anything and could easily afford the be cut down (which I completely sympathize with)?
|
|
So, what are your thoughts about an author using books as an allegorical platform to express his own beliefs and viewpoints and make a statement about the world, while simultaneously trying to write good high fantasy (and we're not talking about RAS' pathetic attempts at this)? I'm curious, as I hope to make "fantasy author" my career (either that, or go to work for Paizo someday- let me know if you all are hiring, Oh Great Staff!).
There was some backlash against long books/series as well- is that a cry against the length in general (I hope not, since I like long stories and will probably write that way, and thus may loose the good people here as a potential audience), or just a cry against long books that don't go anywhere or do anything and could easily afford the be cut down (which I completely sympathize with)?
I personally don't like books that draw a parallel to real world events. Too preachy. I look to fantasy to escape from reality, not to wash it down and re-package it for my consumption. I also tend towards 300-400 page books as any more is too much of a commitment and, barring some examples, any less tends towards not enough character building or plot building.
My opinion, hope it helps
FH (short attention spandex)
|
|
So, what are your thoughts about an author using books as an allegorical platform to express his own beliefs and viewpoints and make a statement about the world, while simultaneously trying to write good high fantasy (and we're not talking about RAS' pathetic attempts at this)? I'm curious, as I hope to make "fantasy author" my career (either that, or go to work for Paizo someday- let me know if you all are hiring, Oh Great Staff!).
There was some backlash against long books/series as well- is that a cry against the length in general (I hope not, since I like long stories and will probably write that way, and thus may loose the good people here as a potential audience), or just a cry against long books that don't go anywhere or do anything and could easily afford the be cut down (which I completely sympathize with)?
My view would be: make sure it is good fantasy. I don't really care if you are trying to create some sort of allegory, just write a good, interesting and entertaining book. If you create an allegory along the way, fine. But a boring allegory is, well, just a boring book and a good allegory is, well, a good book. I hope that's makes sense.
Re length - a book is as long as it needs to be to tell the story. What is important, as above, is not the length per se, but the quality of the writing, plotting and storyline. Jordan is crap not because his stuff is long, but because it is BORING. If someone could write a 20-part saga that was rivetting all the way through, it would be great. But most storylines probably don't need much more than a few volumes, otherwise you are probably looking at padding.
It isn't a question of length, really. He's not a fantasy author, but Haruki Murakami's "Wind Up Bird Chronicle" was probably about as long, if not longer, than a Robert Jordan fantasy debacle. But it wasn't burdened by cumbersome sub-plots; all the parts that seemed to be unconnected ultimately tied into each other in strange ways, and the elements seperate from the main character served to peak the reader's interest rather than drain it. The book was as long as the author required it to be and no longer. And it helps that it was one long self-contained book rather than sixteen long novels full of unnecessary intricacy.
Allegory in general bothers me, somewhat. If you agree with the ultimate message it may be perfectly fine, but the things I didn't like about Narnia were the blatant Christian themes, as well as the part where the author kind of tells us that you aren't a man unless you kill things. If one wishes to talk about modern issues, I would prefer an essay. There's nothing wrong with writing for entertainment; as long as the writing is good, the reader (or viewer or listener) will walk away affected.
|
|
[I liked the series except that then it dragged and dragged and dragged. If it was just bad then I'd not be so unhappy. Its the fact that I think the series had potential but the potential was squandered on a total lack of focus. Its the squadnering of potential that really bothers me. I feel that he can write and some of the time I was hooked. But it just dragged on and on without ever really going anywhere. Instead the side plots simply multiplied.
Y'know, I initially felt the same way - he needed the first book to introduce the characters and set up the plot, but THEN he would surely get to the point in the next ones? No? Ah, it is because he needed the second book to introduce some critical societal features and some extra villains - but the next one will be great, right? No...? Ah, it is because... blah blah. Worst of all: after seven or so books chock-full of supposedly important info, I still did not feel like I knew anything about his world.
On some level, that actually makes me feel worse than I would have felt if the books were just plain bad - Jordan has got some talent, but he's he's using it for the dark side. Of course, I would have given up the series if it was just plain crap, but that would have been less annoying at some level - it is more disappointing when a real writer fails to deliver than when some hack produces something mediocre, even if the end product is the same.
|
|
So, what are your thoughts about an author using books as an allegorical platform to express his own beliefs and viewpoints and make a statement about the world, while simultaneously trying to write good high fantasy (and we're not talking about RAS' pathetic attempts at this)? I'm curious, as I hope to make "fantasy author" my career (either that, or go to work for Paizo someday- let me know if you all are hiring, Oh Great Staff!).
There was some backlash against long books/series as well- is that a cry against the length in general (I hope not, since I like long stories and will probably write that way, and thus may loose the good people here as a potential audience), or just a cry against long books that don't go anywhere or do anything and could easily afford the be cut down (which I completely sympathize with)?
I'm a really fast reader, so, in general, book length is never a problem IF THE STORY IS INTERESTING (see our Robert Jordan discussion above). The problem is, of course, that a lot of books are long because they are full of unwarranted content. I guess this is where that dreaded and largely unresolvable conflict between "fluff" and "crunch" comes in. However, some stories just have to be long - one non-fantasy example I like is James Ellroy's "The Cold 6000", which is almost 700 pages long, yet is so devoid of fluff that it is largely written in incomplete sentences. At the other end of the spectrum, you have chronic adjective-itis sufferers like RAS or Jordan, who cannot resist tacking at least two adjectives to every noun. Though I love the Ellroy experiment, both of these extremes are probably excessive.
As for allegories - if you can pull it off, I actually kinda like that. However, it is tricky to write like that, and if you fail, it quickly becomes completely unreadable - the last thing I want more of is more "Left Behind"-type preaching.
I hate that the internet is filled with Eskimo black-belt supermodels with PhDs in Quantum Mechanics & Constitutional Law.
What about Susan Aglukark?
So, what are your thoughts about an author using books as an allegorical platform to express his own beliefs and viewpoints and make a statement about the world, while simultaneously trying to write good high fantasy
Depends what your allegory is I suppose. If it is the same as everyone else's, then to be perfectly honest I'm not interested in reading any more good triumphing over evil stories. Tell me a story where the characters are realistic (i.e. no-one is really good or evil) and if you are going to parallel the real world discuss something original that affects modern society, like freedom of information or rampant consumerism. It's fantasy, remember that you can do anything. Personally I don't think the world needs any more allegories of:
The NazisState oppression
Good vs. Evil
Religious Fundamentalism versus Freedom
Racism
Noble savage/decadent civilization
There was some backlash against long books/series as well- is that a cry against the length in general (I hope not, since I like long stories and will probably write that way, and thus may loose the good people here as a potential audience), or just a cry against long books that don't go anywhere or do anything and could easily afford the be cut down (which I completely sympathize with)?
In my case it's a cry against poor editing. I don't in fact read high fantasy at all any more. The last one I read was Harry Potter (if that qualifies) and as Rowling got more famous her editors got more and more afraid to cull out unnecessary bits. The last one I read, I remember thinking "if she was a first time author, this book would be about half the thickness it is. The editor would have sat there with a big red pen and gone "don't need this bit, or this bit, this bit is wank, this bit is just unnecessary backstory. There we go! 250 pages!"
The sad thing is, fantasy authors often seem to get away with the sort of pointless waffling that would be instantly removed from most mainstream fiction or even sci fi. So I vote with my wallet. Just because it's fantasy shouldn't mean you're allowed to bore me with half a book of meaningless hamfisted subplots and bad poetry.
Another pet peeve I have with fantasy books is when the author has characters or passages whose sole purpose is "world exposition." People in real life don't look at a rabbit and "note it's pointed ears, strong back legs and short fluffy tail, smudged with dirt." They go "oh hey, a rabbit." If something is common enough that the character wouldn't think twice about it then its something about the world that the reader doesn't need to know either. World builing should occur organically as needed, rather than being forced down the reader's throat. It's more beleivable and dramatic that way, not to mention succinct.
Two more of my cents on why high fantasy irritates me. What we need is a comeback of sword and sorcery, and I think maybe I should stop talking about it and get off my arse and try to do it!
|
No, I think his point would be not to read any F&#$&%@ Robert Jordan, to be precise.Not anymore.
Death to the Heroine-marked
FH
I think one of the best indicators of whether a book should be read is if it has ever been banned or burned by any organized government, religion or school board, or if you get a weird feeling purchasing it from a matronly clerk at Border's.
If you switch lines to try and buy it from a bearded white rasta gamer-stoner-rocker-lookin clerk dude, it's prolly gooood readin'.
No, I think his point would be not to read any F&#$&%@ Robert Jordan, to be precise.Not anymore.
Death to the Heroine-marked
FH
I think one of the best indicators of whether a book should be read is if it has ever been banned or burned by any organized government, religion or school board, or if you get a weird feeling purchasing it from a matronly clerk at Border's.
If you switch lines to try and buy it from a bearded white rasta gamer-stoner-rocker-lookin clerk dude, it's prolly gooood readin'.
Hmm. Let's put that theory to a little test.
Michael Moorcock- Has had work banned in several countries, usually produces work worth reading. One in favor of your theory.
Mark Twain- A fine New Englander, wrote one of the first African American characters in American literature that actually was a character. Quite possible that my memory has failed me somewhat, but I believe he's been banned. Another in favor.
Henry Miller- Another decent writer, has been banned. Check.
Saliman Rushdie- Banned several times, has had fatwa declared on him. Can't write for his life.
Not every theory is 100%.
Saliman Rushdie- Banned several times, has had fatwa declared on him. Can't write for his life.
Not every theory is 100%.
It's true not every theory is 100%, but I really enjoyed the Satanic Verses. The only other one of his books I've read is Midnight's Children, which I must admit was a bit borng. I think you may be being a little harsh on him though. He does have a Booker Prize, they don't just hand those out in packets of corn flakes.
But this is a rant thread after all, so *shrug*
So, what are your thoughts about an author using books as an allegorical platform to express his own beliefs and viewpoints and make a statement about the world, while simultaneously trying to write good high fantasy (and we're not talking about RAS' pathetic attempts at this)? I'm curious, as I hope to make "fantasy author" my career (either that, or go to work for Paizo someday- let me know if you all are hiring, Oh Great Staff!).
There was some backlash against long books/series as well- is that a cry against the length in general (I hope not, since I like long stories and will probably write that way, and thus may loose the good people here as a potential audience), or just a cry against long books that don't go anywhere or do anything and could easily afford the be cut down (which I completely sympathize with)?
Well, for me, its not the length of the story that is the problem. I have already mentioned that I felt Tad Williams Otherland was maybe the best Fantasy novel I've ever read (personal opinion of course - and its not exactly fantasy).
The thing I noticed with Otherland that was clearly missing from George R. R. Martin's and Robert Jordan's work was that the story line progressed, constantly and inexorably toward a finale. Basically I simply don't believe either Robert Jordan or George R. R. Martin had any idea, whatsoever, what the middle of their respective series where going to be. The probably new how it would start and they probably new how it all ended. However all the books in between they are just making up as they go along and the floundering plot and lack of focus are clearly evident as a result of this.
You don't get this with Otherland. It is really, really, long and it starts somewhat slow. To the point where half the Amazon reviews are basically people crying that the book is too big. But, be that as it may, pretty much every part of the story has focus and meaning. It all fits together and it was all relevant when the final curtain came down. If something happened in Otherland it was pretty much always part of the main plot line or something meaningful and important to the development of one of the main characters.
So I guess my main piece of advice would be 'know your story, all of it, ahead of time.' Your book or five part series will be that much better in the end. Also let the story determine its own length. So far as I can tell these experiments to 'out Tolkien' Tolkien by making an even bigger epic are basically flops.
It is so very frustrating because I felt that both Jordan and Martin (and maybe especially Martin) can write ... but I want them to write about something! I want the books to be meaningful. If I can simply skip an entire book and not really have missed much in the way of the real plot then that is a clear indication that the book was a waste of paper even if the writing on the paper was good and the prose or whatever was wonderful - don't waste paper... it is bad for the environment or something.
If you want to just make characters that can be reused in all sorts of interesting plots or even just set a lot of stories in a specific local - That's cool. I got no problem with that. Just make sure that they are different stories with discrete beginnings, middles, and ends instead of one long rambling disjointed attempt at a story. Something like Thieves World works in this case or maybe some kind of a fantasy version of Hammers Slammers. In both cases the authors tell specific stories and tie them loosly together over the course of many books but each individual book is self contained. You can read them out of order and you don't loose much.
|
|
I can't remember where, but I'm sure I heard somewhere that publishers like big books because they dominate the shelves well, and get pulled out and browsed (and therefore posibly purchased) at the bookshop. So there is a resultant trend toward giant, fat, poorly-edited tomes. Some authors do OK in this format. But there are a lot that don't (or who get carried away, like Jordan and Rowling).
I remember the glory days when a book was about 200 pages long, and zipped along merrily to a conclusion in a day or so. Those were classics, too - economically written, plot-driven. Ah, me - the good old days.
|
|
I hate my neighborhood association.
I will make you mow my lawn like a goat, human scum.
There, you scum! I dug up all my bushes, planted new ones, so now I can keep the grass out of the flower beds (omigod what an #$%&@ing crime! Neighborhood association fascist bastiches! I send zombies and ghouls to your house!
|
|
There, you scum! I dug up all my bushes, planted new ones, so now I can keep the grass out of the flower beds (omigod what an #$%&@ing crime! Neighborhood association fascist bastiches! I send zombies and ghouls to your house!I hate my neighborhood association.
I will make you mow my lawn like a goat, human scum.
Just clean your yard and stop trying to drive other peoples' property values down! Damn! That's a good little lamb. ;P
FH (The Mulchinator)
|
|
There, you scum! I dug up all my bushes, planted new ones, so now I can keep the grass out of the flower beds (omigod what an #$%&@ing crime! Neighborhood association fascist bastiches! I send zombies and ghouls to your house!I hate my neighborhood association.
I will make you mow my lawn like a goat, human scum.
Your neighbourhood association told you that there cannot be grass in your flowerbeds????? WTF?? What happened to the land of the free and all that?
An aside - does grass even grow in Texas? I somehow imagined that you and your neighbours had Astroturf lawns with free-range dust devils and those rolling bush-things...
|
|
Grass turns brown in July in Texas. A lovely, no need to mow brown. Except in my flower bed, which I dug up, because every time I pull all the grass out of it, at least one of my bushes gets killed. And there's water restrictions now due to a drought, so I don't really want to water my lawn anyway. But I guess the whole Hank Hill--lawn neurotic thing on King of the Hill is kinda true to life.
Ragga fragga....maga rogga...
Oh well, it's dealt with now. I got some new plants in there, and I can kill them in a few weeks when I have to pull the grass up again to keep my house looking like a Martha Stewart magazine photograph.
Oh well, at least there's just the MMIV coming out this month, and I'm not too excited about it anyway, so time to buy some perrenials flowers.
Heathensson (druid of the sacred flower beds)
Thank you to all those who chimed in with a "Book should be as long as it needs to be." That's always been my theory as well. And my prefered allegory isn't religiously themed, but more about the human condition influenced by current events.
As a side note about religious allegory, I happen to think that, while spirituallity is extremely important, organized religion is one of the biggest problems with human society as a whole. JUST AN OPINION.
And perhaps I misspoke. While I enjoy allegory, I think I equally enjoy, if not more, books that simply have a message that extends beyond just the context of the novel, be it fantasy or otherwise. When I read To Kill a Mockingbird in my sophomore year of high school, I loved it. Dracula put me to sleep and offended me with its presentation of Victorian culture as a model society.
Another thing I've been considering is my love of rambling, impressionistic works, much like the songwriting of Bob Dylan, although I realize that has no place in a novel. Too bad my join high and elementary schools were so bad and never touched on poetry once in the 13 years of my primary education of K-12.
I'll look into Otherworld, Jeremy. Thanks for the recommendation.
Finally, I'd just like to say that I think that an author looking to reuse a character over and over should look into short stories. They're also a great way to work on world building and exposition without artificially jamming that into a main plot. If good/prolific enough, the short stories can later be consoldated into a single book for a "Complte Tales of Bob the Fighter" or whatever. And as far as inorganic descriptions of things that characters in the book would already know, that's always struch a sour chord with me as well. I much prefer small, encyclopedia-like excerpts at the start of each chapter that provide relevant information on things coming up in the chapter so that time isn't taken away from narration or advancing the plot, or the dialogue isn't compromised (The Runelords did this). Or, you can include an glossary in the back of the book where all information can be looked up at the reader's convenience (such as with the Death Gate Cycle).
|
|
"Otherworld" is an excellent series. However, I liked his "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" series (a trilogy so ridiculously massive it is now sold as four books...) even better. It is more classic fantasy, but well worth the read once you get into it. Also, it has the best villain ever! All hail Ingen Jegger!!
|
|
"Otherworld" is an excellent series. However, I liked his "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" series (a trilogy so ridiculously massive it is now sold as four books...) even better. It is more classic fantasy, but well worth the read once you get into it. Also, it has the best villain ever! All hail Ingen Jegger!!
I have to second this. I haven't read Otherworld, but the reviews I have read and received from friends are mixed. Memory, Sorry and Thorn is, however, a brilliant series.
|
|
As a side note about religious allegory, I happen to think that, while spirituallity is extremely important, organized religion is one of the biggest problems with human society as a whole. JUST AN OPINION.
An opinion I agree with about 1000%. Personally, I don't think spirituality really matters at all - mumbo-jumbo clap-trap or belief in "something else" is up to you, but I carry on perfectly well without it. But at least it is harmless.
Organised religion, on the other hand, seems to me to be the realm of charlatans and fools. The great world religions have, by and large, been co-opted by the powers that be as a tool of state repression. Is it a coincidence that all of them basically say, "Be quiet, keep your head down, don't make a fuss, do as you are told and after you die everything will be great"?
What a fantastic tool for getting people to do what you want! Anything from slaving a peasants because that is their "natural place" to blowing yourself up to further the politcal cause of your superiors (who, funnily enough, never seem to want to blow themselves up). Any belief system which says, "Check your brain at the door, just do what I say," is innately dangerous and liable to (frequent) abuse. I don't agree with Marx (Karl, not Groucho or Richard) too often, but when he called religion "the opiate of the masses" he was bang on.
I remember a conversation I had on the train with a muslim guy, just after the invasion of Iraq. He was saying that he had just been to Iraq, and people were saying that they didn't want democracy, but instead wanted the "rule of God". He simply didn't get it when I pointed out that such a rule would actually be the rule of men, who would have an insupportable claim that they knew what God wanted. Or maybe he did get it, and just intended to be one of those men.
Of course, religion in and of itself is not the problem. Any all encompasing belief system, such as Nazism, Soviet Communism, can have a similar effect. But these are, rightly, condemned - religion seems to get away with it.
As a connected aside, am I the only one who worries that our leaders seem to be religious maniacs (Bush and, in my case, Blair)? A lot of their thinking seems to rely on comforting, but ultimately false moral/religious absolutes. Would be in this mess with a bunch of atheists? Discuss.
|
|
In the Myth of Sisyphus (sp?) Albert Camus said that communism and religion are identical. The belief that humankind can only reach its ultimate potential, and gain a utopian existence of heaven on earth, when the proletariate throws off the shackles of tyranny is for them a religious principle as powerful as the myriad other belief systems that came before Karl Marx started stirring up insurrection.
|
|
Any school of thought, be it religious or otherwise, that bases itself on absolutes is bound to run into problems that more reasonable people could sort out through civilised discussion. So absolutes are always bad (though that is an absolute in itself! AAAHHHH...*head explodes*).
When did Blair devolve into a religious maniac, BTW? He always seemed like a relatively secular guy to me, though I haven't followed him closely for a while. Of course, this might be a matter of persective - when you watch the exploits of pols like Tom DeLay and, my personal favourite, Rick Santorum, most other religio-weirdos seem like perfectly normal folks.
|
|
And I think I'm the only person in the state of Texas that voted for Carey. I kinda don't trust anybody who thinks they have a special insight into what God thinks. Or who believes their rise to power is a divine mandate. Two possibilities are they are delusional or full of crap. That kind of thinking has rarely meant anything good historically.
As to the state of the world now...I think the world is going through a massive competition for a finite commodity, that being oil and energy, and conflict is as inevitable as two dogs fighting over one food bowl. It's mammalian politics at its worst, and it will get worse before it gets better. The religious zeal of fanatics on whatever side is like lighter fluid--it helps the flame burn brighter, but the fire is set to be lit irregardless.
As to whether athiests would do things any different, I really don't think so; they are biological organisms with survival instincts as much so as religious fanatics. The whole situation is a mess right now. I think the roots of the whole problem lie in the papal bull that the west created at the end of World War I, and it is exacerbated by the end of the cold war; so many civil conflicts that were kept in check by the Soviets are now allowed to burn full force.
|
|
Any school of thought, be it religious or otherwise, that bases itself on absolutes is bound to run into problems that more reasonable people could sort out through civilised discussion. So absolutes are always bad (though that is an absolute in itself! AAAHHHH...*head explodes*).
When did Blair devolve into a religious maniac, BTW? He always seemed like a relatively secular guy to me, though I haven't followed him closely for a while. Of course, this might be a matter of persective - when you watch the exploits of pols like Tom DeLay and, my personal favourite, Rick Santorum, most other religio-weirdos seem like perfectly normal folks.
Blair is actually quite religious. He doesn't go on about it because it would weird the eloctorate out (the UK is very secular) but a lot of what he does would appear to be informed by religious belief, including the invasion of Iraq.
|
*screeeech....* Ah, thread back on track again. *whew* Gotta watch out for those crazy tangents.
Where were we? Oh, yes. Rants to get things off your chest, without offending the deeply held, sacred, life-driving beliefs of other participants on this board. That's a different thread entirely, I'm just sure of it. You guys are all way too cool to do that here...
So, my rant for the afternoon. To stick with a recent gardening theme, I hate it when my weeds grow taller than my head in less than a week, but I can't seem to get those darn Wal-mart seeds to make it over an inch. I also hate it when my cat seems to explode all over the house just after I vacuum. And those great, sexy, but not over-doing it new shoes I bought? I'm peeved when they leave lasting scars on the back of my ankles after wearing them for an hour. Grrr. Argh. But most of all, I hate it when I have a fantastic idea for my character in D&D just as I'm falling asleep and can't remember an iota about it in the morning. *sigh*
|
|
Blair is actually quite religious. He doesn't go on about it because it would weird the eloctorate out (the UK is very secular) but a lot of what he does would appear to be informed by religious belief, including the invasion of Iraq.
That does actually clear things up a bit - he seems to talk a lot about moral imperatives and such. I guess that he's just "good with words" and thus manages to avoid sounding deranged.
As for the survival instincts of atheists and their counterparts - I agree that they are essentially the same. But when you consider, for example, that powerful religious groups here in the US of A oppose peace treaties in the Middle East because that would upset the timetable for the second coming of Christ, it does make me wonder whether beliefs do not play a more prominent role than sane people would like.
|
|
Grass turns brown in July in Texas. A lovely, no need to mow brown. Except in my flower bed, which I dug up, because every time I pull all the grass out of it, at least one of my bushes gets killed. And there's water restrictions now due to a drought, so I don't really want to water my lawn anyway. But I guess the whole Hank Hill--lawn neurotic thing on King of the Hill is kinda true to life.
Ragga fragga....maga rogga...
Oh well, it's dealt with now. I got some new plants in there, and I can kill them in a few weeks when I have to pull the grass up again to keep my house looking like a Martha Stewart magazine photograph.
Oh well, at least there's just the MMIV coming out this month, and I'm not too excited about it anyway, so time to buy some perrenials flowers.
Heathensson (druid of the sacred flower beds)
2 words......Landscaping fabric. No more weeds. nothing grows but that which should.
FH (Green thumb)
I don't have any problems with organized religion and I think it's a bit silly to decry it as somehow wrong or inherently foolish. Fanaticism is bad, but organized religion at its best makes a group of people into a community, which is a rare enough thing to happen in the last 50 years. Is it for me? Not in my experience. But it has its benefits. In fact, in the Baroque and Renaissance eras, going to church was the best way to meet people, which may be an underused idea in D&D. Honestly, how many people really sit around in a tavern all day waiting for a group of adventurers to come in and solve their problems?
I don't have any problems with organized religion and I think it's a bit silly to decry it as somehow wrong or inherently foolish. Fanaticism is bad, but organized religion at its best makes a group of people into a community, which is a rare enough thing to happen in the last 50 years. Is it for me? Not in my experience. But it has its benefits. In fact, in the Baroque and Renaissance eras, going to church was the best way to meet people, which may be an underused idea in D&D. Honestly, how many people really sit around in a tavern all day waiting for a group of adventurers to come in and solve their problems?
Actually, I think they sit around the tavern hoping to FORGET about their problem, and the adventurer's job is to make them think they can solve it, lol.
Saern I played many a first edition wizards and third edition wizard will kick the first edition wizards butt. Especially at first level, you had one spell and you rolled 1st level hit points.The real difference was not in the mages at all but in the fighters, clerics and thieves. With no feats and less magic there really was an upper limit to how great your fighter could become.
Agreed. Also feats make a fighter much more diverse in attack and defense style.
|
|
I hate stuff!!!! Stuff needs to be thrown into the fires of the Abyss!!!! The worst is when Stuff does stuff that I don't want it to and everyone agrees with stuff because it isn't "P.C." to disagree!!!!!! !!@#$$%&**@#$!!
This is the rant thread guys. Please stick to the above outline if you become confused or disoriented. Thank You.
FH (guidance through severe beatings)
|
|
I don't have any problems with organized religion and I think it's a bit silly to decry it as somehow wrong or inherently foolish. Fanaticism is bad, but organized religion at its best makes a group of people into a community, which is a rare enough thing to happen in the last 50 years. Is it for me? Not in my experience. But it has its benefits. In fact, in the Baroque and Renaissance eras, going to church was the best way to meet people, which may be an underused idea in D&D. Honestly, how many people really sit around in a tavern all day waiting for a group of adventurers to come in and solve their problems?
:-) I guess the tavern thing is probably unlikely - serious liver disease would be an additional problem for the adventurers to resolve.
I don't doubt that the Church (or whatever) has had its place in society in the past. I just think that in a world which has basically debunked religious mythology it really doesn't have a place anymore, and is dangerous. In medieval times, it was actually the main bastion of learning (in both European and Islamic cultures) but when that eventually threatened the tenets to which it owed its place in society it became reactionary.
Yeah, community. But only for those who agree with the religion in question. Try coming to Northern Ireland to see how well religion creates community. Two communities, in fact, Catholic and Protestant, and each eager to kill the other.
I don't doubt that religion is a comfort for many people, and that is a good thing as far as it goes. But ultimately, it says that doing certain things, which are perfectly acceptable in a modern secular society, is just wrong. This promotes bigotry, misunderstanding, and potential violence.
I am greatly disturbed when Hollywood thinks its more important to pay homage to other Hollywood films in a series than to make a film that is actually true to the story of a character that has been around for such a long time. Yes, I am looking at you "Superman Returns." Making "Superman Returns" the sequal to Superman II makes about as much sense as someone deciding to make Batman Begins a sequal to the 1989 Batman movie. It seems Bryan Singer was more interested in preserving Christopher Reeves legend than the Man of Steel's.
But at least Superman continues the self-centered, arrogant disregard for responsibility that he showed in Superman II when he got rid of his powers. So, hey, consistancy.
Maybe I'm just grumpy because on the A&E special they started talking about how brillian Bryan Singer's story was by cutting down the script that Kevin Smith worked on, and lumping in all of the stupid revisions that Hollywood made to Smith's script as if they were Kevin Smith's ideas.
And when they start teeing off on the whole "this is Superman, but all of these scripts were trying to do Star Wars" thing, I wanted to scream. Some of the best Superman stories ever in the comics have had to do with Darkseid, Mongul, Braniac, and this "Star Wars stuff." I guess I'm just disappointed, since at one time I never thought a movie would include Ra's al Ghul, and yet Batman Begins does, I thought maybe someday we would get Darkseid in a Superman movie . . . but now I doubt it.
Sorry, had to rant on this. After seeing X-3, I was hoping for a comic book movie that made me feel like I was watching a movie made by fans of the comics, and this one just made me feel like I was watching someone do a tribute to Christopher Reeves (no offence to the man or anything, but Superman existed long before he got the part).
I hate it when I am in Italy, like I am right now, and I cant post on these baords every day. It sucks. I want to comment on every little thing.
And I want to play D&D, but none of these Italians do. A whole month more to go. DAMN IT!