| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1974 - Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson create Dungeon & Dragons.1977 - Gygax doesn't want to share profits from D&D with Arneson, so he creates Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. In addition, John Eric Holmes creates the Basic Set, intended as an intro to the game. It is based on the original 1974 game, and covers levels 1-3.
You forget the Most Important Date of all!! :-)
1976- The Manual of Aurania, the first 3pp supplement is published!;-)
And what's this about a lawn? When I was a kid, we didnt have lawns. We had ROCKs dadgumit, and happy to have them.
Also consider me someone that is a fan of psionics, but not a fan of the spell point system. Not out of balance, but out of preference. I prefer Vancian and I've wanted a Vancian form of psionics for a long time. And 15 years hasn't shown that Vancian magic is unbalanced, rather the spells themselves need work. The concept of spell slots isn't inherently unbalanced, nor do I consider it "not real magic".
Perhaps the book could have enough space for both kind systems. And I do agree taht the problem are the spells not the vancian system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its never come up for me, but if someone brought a 3PP supplement/adventure and asked me if they could use it or if i'd run it, i would do it every time, i personally have very limited fun money so i have to be very very picky in what i choose, so i generally stick with paizo but if something came along i just had to have i'd certainly look into it (i very much want Razor Coast but can't afford it)
The Razor Coast PDF is currently on sale for $15 instead of the normal $40 on Frog God's website All their RC PDF books are on significant sale after their Ennies nominations. Worth checking out sooner rather than later if you are interested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is awesome that the CEO takes her time-on a Saturday (When she should be gaming instead of working LOL ;) ) to respond to posts on the message board!When the worker finds the task to be his entertainment, then all is leisure.
That's nice work if you can get it.
Paizo sells fiction. There is no such thing as fiction that does not have a social agenda of some sort.Eh, on this we'll have to disagree. I've read plenty of books whose only "agenda" was to tell an entertaining story, with no intent nor result to challenge any perceptions or status-quo. Doesn't make them any less entertaining IMO. So I can't say I agree with the idea that all fiction has an agenda, social or otherwise, beyond telling a tale.
There is a difference between aiming to push an agenda, and having an agenda. Having an agenda is having moral beliefs, and they always creep in somehow. Let's say you're reading Harry Potter. It's espousing the agenda that killing your enemies is wrong and loyalty to friends is of utmost importance. Harry himself outright says both within the series. The author may not be overly blatant about it or using the book as part of a political or social campaign, but the agenda itself is there. If it were removed, Harry would have killed death eaters, which espouses a different agenda.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between aiming to push an agenda, and having an agenda. Having an agenda is having moral beliefs, and they always creep in somehow. Let's say you're reading Harry Potter. It's espousing the agenda that killing your enemies is wrong and loyalty to friends is of utmost importance. Harry himself outright says both within the series. The author may not be overly blatant about it or using the book as part of a political or social campaign, but the agenda itself is there. If it were removed, Harry would have killed death eaters, which espouses a different agenda.Paizo sells fiction. There is no such thing as fiction that does not have a social agenda of some sort.Eh, on this we'll have to disagree. I've read plenty of books whose only "agenda" was to tell an entertaining story, with no intent nor result to challenge any perceptions or status-quo. Doesn't make them any less entertaining IMO. So I can't say I agree with the idea that all fiction has an agenda, social or otherwise, beyond telling a tale.
Not to mention "being mean to people because they're different is evil".
There is a difference between aiming to push an agenda, and having an agenda. Having an agenda is having moral beliefs, and they always creep in somehow. Let's say you're reading Harry Potter. It's espousing the agenda that killing your enemies is wrong and loyalty to friends is of utmost importance. Harry himself outright says both within the series. The author may not be overly blatant about it or using the book as part of a political or social campaign, but the agenda itself is there. If it were removed, Harry would have killed death eaters, which espouses a different agenda.Paizo sells fiction. There is no such thing as fiction that does not have a social agenda of some sort.Eh, on this we'll have to disagree. I've read plenty of books whose only "agenda" was to tell an entertaining story, with no intent nor result to challenge any perceptions or status-quo. Doesn't make them any less entertaining IMO. So I can't say I agree with the idea that all fiction has an agenda, social or otherwise, beyond telling a tale.
Ah. We have a difference of opinion on what "agenda" implies then. That explains a few things.
I personally would not have chosen that term for what you explain.
|
How good that there are droolbags so nothing get´s spilled on the floor.Fear not, your damning praise will be quickly silenced by all the "ha ha Failzo hates point-based psionics so they're giving us another vancian system where casters rule and martials drool' people ;-)I expect Occult Mysteries to be amazing though, because so many of the people at Paizo love the concept. They've been planning and ruminating on something they love and are excited about, and love is where the real magic comes from.
...But he is already a bag, this could become recursive pretty damn quick, and considering that drool is a bodily fluid... maybe incestuous? Not really a big expert when it comes to bags ..
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I supported the recent legendary gamess mythic kickstarter, and the plan seems to be to send out the pdfs to us, then gather the feedback to fix every typo and only then send it to the printer.
I appreciate, that this might cause some trouble with retail, but would this be an option you would be willing to experiment with?
Crowdsourcing development and editing come with their own problems. Yes, you will probably catch and fix more mistakes, but the in-house effort spent to find each issue will be significantly higher. Let me give you a small-scale example:
Whenever we prepare to reprint a book, we have somebody—usually Jason—scan the FAQ queue and go through the main discussion threads for that product looking for things that need to be fixed. This is a process that might take a few days. Then, he and his team work on solving those problems if they haven't already been solved. During this process, they will also be investigating problem reports that are actually false positives; for example, somebody might have complained that a number in a stat block is wrong, but when we redo the math, we often find that we were right in the first place. This might take another few days. At the end of it, we have a list of changes that then go through editing, layout, and proofing, meaning more people spending more days. And the end result of that work gets summed up in an errata doc that's usually less than a page or two. In short, many man-hours of effort that result in maybe a dozen little changes.
Now image that we do that as an open call. Our days would turn into weeks, and maybe our errata doc would grow from a dozen items to two dozen, with each of the additional items very likely being far less noticeable than the previous dozen. It's the law of diminishing returns.
And crowdsourcing still won't catch everything. We're in our 6th printing of the Core Rulebook now, and in each printing, we've made corrections in response to our community identifying...
Yes it may not be perfect, but a concentrated proofreading of fresh eyes might be able to catch quite a bit. Problems where an ability is not clearly written (example:Hunter pet skirmisher tricks), where an ability was changed and the changes to the monsters were't updated (Mythic Adventures), or when an item is printed without a saving throw (ACG Cape of Feinting).
These are the sort of errors a most people will be able to find, of course there are others, who take the time to correct things on the level of an editor (the Mythic Adventures errata threat has a good example of this). I think this would be a nice way to prevent some of the negative feelings resulting from some of the recent releases.
Obviously this would not catch everything, some combinations (Mythic x your level of system proficiency) are quite difficult to spot.
|
|
One ACG criticism which I belive warrants some merit is the issue of disjunction between the class chapter (which was, AFAIK, written by Jason/Sean/Stephen) and the archetypes and feats chapters which are, again I'm guessing, outsourced to freelancers mostly. As a result, there's less coherency and consistency than it would be if everything would be written just by 3 guys. Of course the question is, whether such model is necessary to be able to put the book in a reasonable time at all.I do think that Paizo needs to look at how they design archetypes and feats in particular, because that's where I see the most problems. A lot of archetypes are thematically awesome and mechanically underwhelming, across multiple books.
I tend to agree, my specific example is the primal companion hunter archetype, I would love to play it, but it is so damn broken. And you only give up animal focus for it. This is only one specific example, but things like this tend to happen. I don't mind the outsourcing, but it sometimes feels like there are things that slip through the net.
Things like Divine Protection... just feel like a someone missed a step. I can see this, and the warpriest as some ways for people to get their very own "build a paladin kit", but essentially this feat is a huge gift to a number of classes and builds.
Things like Divine Protection... just feel like a someone missed a step. I can see this, and the warpriest as some ways for people to get their very own "build a paladin kit", but essentially this feat is a huge gift to a number of classes and builds.
Divine protection would have been fine it if gave a flat +1 sacred bonus to all saves. As it is, it is broken, broken, broken for Oracles.
|
|
Divine protection would have been fine it if gave a flat +1 sacred bonus to all saves. As it is, it is broken, broken, broken for Oracles.Things like Divine Protection... just feel like a someone missed a step. I can see this, and the warpriest as some ways for people to get their very own "build a paladin kit", but essentially this feat is a huge gift to a number of classes and builds.
Yeah, pretty much and frankly I am quite happy that it at least requires a domain, otherwise aasimars might be able to qualify.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo sells fiction. There is no such thing as fiction that does not have a social agenda of some sort.Eh, on this we'll have to disagree. I've read plenty of books whose only "agenda" was to tell an entertaining story, with no intent nor result to challenge any perceptions or status-quo. Doesn't make them any less entertaining IMO. So I can't say I agree with the idea that all fiction has an agenda, social or otherwise, beyond telling a tale.
If a work of fiction does not in any way challenge the status quo, then the social agenda it's pushing is that they agree with the status quo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a work of fiction does not in any way challenge the status quo, then the social agenda it's pushing is that they agree with the status quo.Paizo sells fiction. There is no such thing as fiction that does not have a social agenda of some sort.Eh, on this we'll have to disagree. I've read plenty of books whose only "agenda" was to tell an entertaining story, with no intent nor result to challenge any perceptions or status-quo. Doesn't make them any less entertaining IMO. So I can't say I agree with the idea that all fiction has an agenda, social or otherwise, beyond telling a tale.
As I said above, I wouldn't use "agenda" for that. To me "agenda" implies more active involvement than most stories have. Ayn Rand had an agenda. Jim Butcher... not so much. (And IMO Butcher writes the better stories of the two.) Not sure what a better word would be.
Also not necessarily. It may just mean that the author... you know... doesn't want to write a story about challenging public perceptions or anything of that sort. It's perfectly possible to include things in a story, in a manner that doesn't disparage them or deliver a message to the reader that the author disapproves of them, and still dislike/disapprove of them. It's probably more difficult than writing where your personal inclinations drive you, I'll admit.
I think some literary types are a bit too eager to search for meaning where there may or may not be any. =) But that's us geek/nerd types in a nutshell isn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After some deliberation I've decided that I will only purchase core books after they've been out for a few weeks and most of the known heavy issues have been noted.
Honestly if I had known about the archetype section of ACG and the hilariously broken (in every connotation of the word) material in the book I would not have purchased it. Next time I wont be a dummy and early adopt that way I can make an informed decision.
The CEO coming in to talk was nice, but I will let the books themselves be my guide from now on.
Creative Director
|
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an industry leader now, it's really Paizo's responsibility, in my opinion, to try to make the industry itself more welcoming and friendly and safe for people of all walks of life to take part in the hobby. I suppose that would mean that we have an agenda... but that agenda is "Make the game welcoming to us all."
That has pretty much ZERO impact, though, on how long it takes us to produce a product, since it takes just as long to design a gay character as it does a straight one.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a work of fiction does not in any way challenge the status quo, then the social agenda it's pushing is that they agree with the status quo.Paizo sells fiction. There is no such thing as fiction that does not have a social agenda of some sort.Eh, on this we'll have to disagree. I've read plenty of books whose only "agenda" was to tell an entertaining story, with no intent nor result to challenge any perceptions or status-quo. Doesn't make them any less entertaining IMO. So I can't say I agree with the idea that all fiction has an agenda, social or otherwise, beyond telling a tale.As I said above, I wouldn't use "agenda" for that.
Also not necessarily. It may just mean that the author... you know... doesn't want to write a story about challenging public perceptions or anything of that sort.
I think some literary types are a bit too eager to search for meaning where there may or may not be any. =)
I'm a literary type, and there is always a meaning, whether you want to read it in a text or not.
Take for example the book Magician by Raymond E Feist. I love that book. It's a wonderful fantasy story possibly one of the best ever written. It also has zero queer representation and its female representation game is pretty weak. Raymond E Feist's agenda is to create a fantasy medieval culture, but it participates in the erasure of queer and female contributions to medieval culture. Intentional or not Feist has an agenda and bias that exists in the book. It's his book, he has a right to his agenda.
All art is political.
I can be aware of all that, and still love Magician, still be entertained by the story and the cosy feeling of home I get when I start into those opening pages with a boy on a beach.
When a company, such as Paizo includes queer representation it is an agenda, but there's nothing wrong with that because Paizo is allowed an editorial policy that's what freedom of expression is. I think that Paizo has always been clear what their editorial stance on inclusion is and has been for a long time. It's what makes me proud to support this company.
I'll leave you with this.
“And if we can’t write diversity into sci-fi, then what’s the point? You don’t create new worlds to give them all the same limits of the old ones.”
Respectfully,
DM_aka_Dudemeister.
Gonna agree with JJ there. We already are gonna get blurbs for important NPCs and it really doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of the NPC is, unless a player wants to Cpt. Kirk them.
We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" stuff.
|
|
I really like the inclusive stance paizo has taken on the issue, of well everything. Of course most players are unlikely to learn those details, but I think it is an important step nonetheless.
One example of this would be early in WotR, the marriage bit might be a surprise (one of my players said something stupid and I responded with: You are playing a sorcerer, with the blood if over sized magic lizard in your veins and try to stop a huge rift in the fabric of the universe.... and you have a problem with lesbian marriage?" It worked, but I see no chance that they will ever discover the magical bit of that relationship.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" stuff.
It all depends on what you are sensitive (detection, not reaction) to and how that relates to normative (ie. majority) society. Normative privilege is to see no political motive force in a work which leaves the status quo unchallenged.
People who are sensitive to non-normative topics in society will be aware of tangentially touched subjects, omissions, and slights that others may not notice.
edit: edited my quote of Orthos to reflect their edit.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" tripe.
The idea that reinforcing the status quo isn't political -- that those who want to change it are acting from an agenda (and therefore, it's implied, biased, self-serving, and ideologically driven) while those who uphold it are not (and therefore objective, unselfish, and neutral) -- is generally one insisted upon by people who believe they benefit from the status quo not changing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've spoken to DMD privately, but I think this deserves a public apology as well. That post was, for a few reasons, a bit out of line. I've edited the post in question, though it appears a handful of people quoted me before I could get to it. If a mod would be so kind as to either edit that line or something, I'd appreciate it.
I just loathe politics. Really, really hate it. I don't vote, I don't pay attention to political subjects, I do everything I can to avoid getting involved in political discussions online and off (which, living where I do and knowing the people I do, is quite a challenge in itself), and I hate it getting into my entertainment, because it's brought me nothing but misery. I used to be very involved in political stuff and it made me utterly miserable. I made the decision years ago to step back and ignore it because it was do that and be happy or stay informed and involved and be unhappy, and that's frankly a very easy decision for me to make.
So having someone throw the idea at me that everything I do and love has a political bent behind it makes me angry. I'd like to have just one thing at least in this wretched world untainted by politics.
Paizo has an uncanny talent for putting things like this in their stories in a way that DOESN'T come across, at least to me, as political. Hence how I can enjoy their content without feeling like I've wandered into one of the countless debates that plague the internet.
Apologies again for letting my temper get the better of me. I'll be stepping out of this thread now, as I've nothing really further to contribute on the main topic of discussion here anyway, now that that particular derail has been put to bed.
I'll confess ignorance on this topic, but I believe Orthos is drawing a distinction between "having an agenda" and "having a political effect" (presumably one based on intent).
It seems to me that there are two ways to reinforce the status quo - obliviously and intentionally (or perhaps unknowingly and in a considered fashion) Although they may be indistinguishable with respect to outcomes, that doesnt make them identical. I guess you could make the same distinction with respect to "challenging" stories - though it's probably harder to buck the cultural trend without being aware that you're doing it.
Rather than use a modern example it may be easier to demonstrate the point with well known examples from the past.
Merchant of Venice is basically dripping with antisemitism. We notice it immediately today because as a society we are aware of it in the language and find it to be unacceptable. Shakespeare did not pen the story with the idea that he was writing a "political" piece about the place of Jews in society. His English, white, Christian contemporaries didn't notice it either. They saw Shylock as a "regular" depiction of a "typical" Jewish person. But there is no doubt that, despite the fact that no authorial intent existed, Shakespeare's depiction of Shylock perpetuated an outmoded and stereotypical view of Judaism with just as much force as an intentional political movement might have. Indeed, most likely more.
This is what is meant by all art has politics in it. The author includes politics whether they wish to or not, and sometimes includes politics they didn't intend to.
Yeah, thanks. That's a good example of what I meant.
I would think Shakespeare clearly had a political slant towards antisemitism, even though he probably didnt have an agenda, as such.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to put this out there. Not everyone dislikes ACG, MA, and WotR.
I love the advanced class guide. Sure mistakes happen, but it has some very creative and fun classes that fill new niches. My players that have used it like it too.
I also love Mythic Adventures and Wrath of the Righteous. I feel they fill a more thematic niche.
Different players have different tastes. I am grateful for the variety Paizo provides. Even though I may not like everything.
Ha ha ha Nutella is for the soft Vegemite is for the hardcore... It puts hair on your chest and it's made from beer.I will see your Vegemite and raise you one Marmite. Generally known to many who taste it as "Good God, HOW CAN YOU EAT THIS STUFF?!" and known to the rest of us as Ambrosia.
o_O
Despite what it might have said in the first printing of Uncle Xanxost's Advanced Slaadi Guide, I am not made of marmite.
And anyone who says I spent a month baleful polymorphed into a Bovril paraelemental is a dirty liar.
|
|
I just want to put this out there. Not everyone dislikes ACG, MA, and WotR.
I love the advanced class guide. Sure mistakes happen, but it has some very creative and fun classes that fill new niches. My players that have used it like it too.
I also love Mythic Adventures and Wrath of the Righteous. I feel they fill a more thematic niche.
Different players have different tastes. I am grateful for the variety Paizo provides. Even though I may not like everything.
I think you will find, that only people who are somehow invested in something tend to complain a lot. I can only speak for myself, but I really like MA and WotR, they just don't work together very well (I think at this point, it is pretty clear, that the AP could have benefited from a 6-12 month delay).
I agree, that you can't make everybody happy, the art in most pathfinder products is a good example here. I might love the occasional piece, but there are certainly some I could live without.
Edit: Some might not like an adventure in a jungle on the moon, fighting a succubus antipaladin... but it made me subscribe ^^
Ha ha ha Nutella is for the soft Vegemite is for the hardcore... It puts hair on your chest and it's made from beer.I will see your Vegemite and raise you one Marmite. Generally known to many who taste it as "Good God, HOW CAN YOU EAT THIS STUFF?!" and known to the rest of us as Ambrosia.o_O
Despite what it might have said in the first printing of Uncle Xanxost's Advanced Slaadi Guide, I am not made of marmite.
And anyone who says I spent a month baleful polymorphed into a Bovril paraelemental is a dirty liar.
Marmite is for poseurs.
;-)
So having someone throw the idea at me that everything I do and love has a political bent behind it makes me angry. I'd like to have just one thing at least in this wretched world untainted by politics.
The folks who work in the favor of special interests have the greatest incentive in fostering this attitude among those not among the empowered clique. It discourages those that might block their self-serving agendas and helps leave the field uncontested. These are the same people who move heaven and earth to spread voter supression by making it as inconvenient and expensive to participate in the public sphere.
Politics is not a vice, it is not an ugly profession. When the honorable and the virtuous abandon the art of politics, they leave it in the service of those who would abuse and corrupt it.
Politics should not be an epithet. It's the only alternative to rule by naked force.
Your's is a different use of politics, perhaps a more common one. What I am talking about with the word politics are "comments reflective of the body politic."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" stuff.
I suppose it could be seen depending on whether you think pre-schoolers and kindergartners have an agenda with each picture they draw.
They put out art at a very tremendous rate. It seems they scribble on one piece of paper for five seconds, and then switch to the next piece of art.
I suppose you could say each scribble has an agenda...
But that is probably how we interpret what an agenda is.
There is a what we call an agenda, and then what we call a theme. Many books and pieces of art can have themes, which may be used by others, or even the creator, to eventually be pushed or used to support an agenda. However, the theme may not even be an intentional theme. An agenda is different then a theme.
To me, an agenda is where you have a way that things should be, and you push that as the main topic or point of what you draw or write. It could even be secondary...but it normally is intentional. (Though it could also be unintentional at times...however...when you get to younger people drawing...and when they get old enough...to write...I think they usually lack any specific agenda and are just doing it to entertain themselves...and also plaster your fridge with their artwork each day if you have kids).
Shakespeare is a poor example with his Merchant of Venice to use as an anti-Semitic theme (it is a theme, but FAR MORE as I point at as follows). He knew what he was doing and targeting, it is definitely an agenda in there. The anti-semetism may be unintentional as a main agenda (I see it as intentional though), but it is definately intended as an agenda in a very specific and pointed statement and portrayal of a race, and encouragement for others to utilize that viewpoint. However, with another item in the play there is a theme that is not necessarily an agenda, even unintentionally, but could still be seen as a minor theme running throughout. This theme is the dangers of shipping in Shakespeare's time.
As the above, most kids artwork have themes, maybe that scribble that I can't see what it is, is meant to be a car. It simply means the kid likes cars. They want to share that with others. Or, thinks it's interesting to draw at least, and then forgets about it. Later, when we pick it up and tell him what a nice light bulb he drew because we can't tell what it is, and they tell us it's actually a car...we still cant' see it, but that apparently was what the kid wanted to draw.
Themes can be much stronger, and even worse than something drawn or written for an agenda. Disney's Song of the South is far better at showing an offensive theme that could be utilized to push an agenda. It was unintended to be offensive, and probably was not at the time to it's intended audiences. It's main story was to be about a child getting told folk stories from a farmhand. It was supposed to show the love between an adult and a child who were unrelated.
HOWEVER...it includes a theme with slaves who were very happy to be enslaved. In fact, more than happy, exuberant. I wouldn't say anyone who wrote that had this as an agenda at the time, or even considered it something vital to push. They had no intention of trying to say slavery was good and it should be reintroduced (as far as I know).
Later, this theme was noticed quite a bit, and in fact, is quite offensive. There was NO agenda, as far as I know, with it. It just happened to be part of how they constructed he story for the movie.
It is far more offensive then the actual agenda, or many other agendas. It could be used to support agendas of like matter today. AS such, Disney HAS come with an agenda of the movie in the US (though ironically not as strongly in Europe). In that light, Disney has not released Song of the South for many decades because of that agenda due to how disturbing one of the themes in the movie is.
So, what many are calling agendas here, I wouldn't call an agenda, but a theme. Themes may be no more or less harmful or offensive then an agenda, but whereas an agenda is put in on purpose to convince people to think or act a certain way, themes are things that just happen to be part of a story, or to portray something that someone is interested in.
Ha ha ha Nutella is for the soft Vegemite is for the hardcore... It puts hair on your chest and it's made from beer.I will see your Vegemite and raise you one Marmite. Generally known to many who taste it as "Good God, HOW CAN YOU EAT THIS STUFF?!" and known to the rest of us as Ambrosia.o_O
Despite what it might have said in the first printing of Uncle Xanxost's Advanced Slaadi Guide, I am not made of marmite.
And anyone who says I spent a month baleful polymorphed into a Bovril paraelemental is a dirty liar.
Marmite is for poseurs.
;-)
I'll say, I won't touch Marmite normally, or even Vegemite. I'll stick with Marmalade, thank you very much.
You know how hard it is to find that stuff sometimes...and occasionally I think I'm the only one who actually really likes it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll say, I won't touch Marmite normally, or even Vegemite. I'll stick with Marmalade, thank you very much.
You know how hard it is to find that stuff sometimes...and occasionally I think I'm the only one who actually really likes it!
Marmite, Vegemite AND Marmalade? Don't you think you're spreading yourself a little thin?
We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" stuff.I suppose it could be seen depending on whether you think pre-schoolers and kindergartners have an agenda with each picture they draw.
They put out art at a very tremendous rate. It seems they scribble on one piece of paper for five seconds, and then switch to the next piece of art.
I suppose you could say each scribble has an agenda...
But that is probably how we interpret what an agenda is.
There is a what we call an agenda, and then what we call a theme. Many books and pieces of art can have themes, which may be used by others, or even the creator, to eventually be pushed or used to support an agenda. However, the theme may not even be an intentional theme. An agenda is different then a theme.
To me, an agenda is where you have a way that things should be, and you push that as the main topic or point of what you draw or write. It could even be secondary...but it normally is intentional. (Though it could also be unintentional at times...however...when you get to younger people drawing...and when they get old enough...to write...I think they usually lack any specific agenda and are just doing it to entertain themselves...and also plaster your fridge with their artwork each day if you have kids).
Shakespeare is a poor example with his Merchant of Venice to use as an anti-Semitic theme (it is a theme, but FAR MORE as I point at as follows). He knew what he was doing and targeting, it is definitely an agenda in there. The anti-semetism may be unintentional as a main agenda (I see it as intentional though), but it is definately intended as an agenda in a very specific and pointed statement and portrayal of a race, and encouragement for others to utilize that viewpoint. However, with another item in the play there is a theme that is not necessarily an agenda, even unintentionally, but could still be seen as a minor...
Theme/agenda are pretty mutable when talking about literary works. If you don't agree with the merchant of Venice example then how about another; Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn with the express purpose to challenge the deep seeded institutions of white supremacy in the United States, yet his narrative (even if not his narrator) is racist at every turn. His story perpetuates the ideas of a dim-witted black man who can't hold a candle up to the intelligence of a white child who actively refuses education. Twain is driving home this paradigm in a novel that he sets out to try and say virtually the exact opposite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Merchant of Venice is basically dripping with antisemitism.
This is actually highly debated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shylock
"Critics today still continue to argue over the play's stance on antisemitism."
Shylock himself says it best:
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. |Act III, scene I}}
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disney's Song of the South is far better at showing an offensive theme that could be utilized to push an agenda. It was unintended to be offensive, and probably was not at the time to it's intended audiences. It's main story was to be about a child getting told folk stories from a farmhand. It was supposed to show the love between an adult and a child who were unrelated.
HOWEVER...it includes a theme with slaves who were very happy to be enslaved. In fact, more than happy, exuberant. I wouldn't say anyone who wrote that had this as an agenda at the time, or even considered it something vital to push. They had no intention of trying to say slavery was good and it should be reintroduced (as far as I know).
Later, this theme was noticed quite a bit, and in fact, is quite offensive. There was NO agenda, as far as I know, with it. It just happened to be part of how they constructed he story for the movie.
It is far more offensive then the actual agenda, or many other agendas. It could be used to support agendas of like matter today. AS such, Disney HAS come with an agenda of the movie in the US (though ironically not as strongly in Europe). In that light, Disney has not released Song of the South for many decades because of that agenda due to how disturbing one of the themes in the movie is.
There are no slaves in Song of the South.
It is set in the Reconstruction, after the Civil War.
My friend Jim Korkus has written a excellent book on the subject: Who's Afraid of the Song of the South?
We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" tripe.The idea that reinforcing the status quo isn't political -- that those who want to change it are acting from an agenda (and therefore, it's implied, biased, self-serving, and ideologically driven) while those who uphold it are not (and therefore objective, unselfish, and neutral) -- is generally one insisted upon by people who believe they benefit from the status quo not changing.
I have to somewhat agree with Orthos. Why does every piece of art have to be political? Can't I just enjoy the tale / story / painting / statue / whatever without having to think of what the meaning is?
For instance, when the movie "Avatar" came out, my wife, myself, my adult (30+) son, and our 16 year old grandson went to see it. After the movie, my son started on a minor tirade about political meaning, etc.. I just said, good story. Bad guy becomes good guy and the good guys win in the end.
Do I have to look at everything thru the lens of politics or can I just enjoy the story?
-- david
ps. since WotR has been mentioned above, I am running that as a PbP here. Have read all six chapters. I enjoy the back stories of all the characters. It gives depth to them and it is a good story.
pps.Politics. A buddy of mine sent me this picture.
Merchant of Venice is basically dripping with antisemitism.
This is actually highly debated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shylock
"Critics today still continue to argue over the play's stance on antisemitism."Shylock himself says it best:
"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. |Act III, scene I}}
Yea, and then he goes on to completely implode from usury greed to the point that he loses his family, livelyhood, and freedom. Not to mention perpetuating castration myths/fears based on a caricature understanding of circumcision with his desire for "a pound of flesh." But sure, Merchant of Venice totally isn't antisemitic.
We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" tripe.The idea that reinforcing the status quo isn't political -- that those who want to change it are acting from an agenda (and therefore, it's implied, biased, self-serving, and ideologically driven) while those who uphold it are not (and therefore objective, unselfish, and neutral) -- is generally one insisted upon by people who believe they benefit from the status quo not changing.I have to somewhat agree with Orthos. Why does every piece of art have to be political? Can't I just enjoy the tale / story / painting / statue / whatever without having to think of what the meaning is?
For instance, when the movie "Avatar" came out, my wife, myself, my adult (30+) son, and our 16 year old grandson went to see it. After the movie, my son started on a minor tirade about political meaning, etc.. I just said, good story. Bad guy becomes good guy and the good guys win in the end.
Do I have to look at everything thru the lens of politics or can I just enjoy the story?
-- david
ps. since WotR has been mentioned above, I am running that as a PbP here. Have read all six chapters. I enjoy the back stories of all the characters. It gives depth to them and it is a good story.
pps.Politics. A buddy of mine sent me this picture.
No, you certainly do not have to look for or experience political meaning in anything. That doesn't mean it isn't there, nor does it make others strange to find it.
I have to somewhat agree with Orthos. Why does every piece of art have to be political? Can't I just enjoy the tale / story / painting / statue / whatever without having to think of what the meaning is?
For instance, when the movie "Avatar" came out, my wife, myself, my adult (30+) son, and our 16 year old grandson went to see it. After the movie, my son started on a minor tirade about political meaning, etc.. I just said, good story. Bad guy becomes good guy and the good guys win in the end.
Do I have to look at everything thru the lens of politics or can I just enjoy the story?
I personally enjoy seeing the social, political, cultural ramifications and origins of a work of art. Popular media say a lot about who we are, what we care about, and how we see ourselves. At the same time, they can also show our prejudices, taboos, and hangups through what is said and what is not said.
Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it for the fiction that it is. Sometimes I too like to stop analyzing. But fiction doesn't spring forth of its own accord. It comes from reality, for good or ill. It influences us too, also for good or ill.
No, you certainly do not have to look for or experience political meaning in anything. That doesn't mean it isn't there, nor does it make others strange to find it.We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" tripe.The idea that reinforcing the status quo isn't political -- that those who want to change it are acting from an agenda (and therefore, it's implied, biased, self-serving, and ideologically driven) while those who uphold it are not (and therefore objective, unselfish, and neutral) -- is generally one insisted upon by people who believe they benefit from the status quo not changing.
If others find political meaning in it, fine with me. Just don't make me out to be a bad person according to Jessica, since I allegedly "am one who believe that they benefit from the status quo not changing".
-- david
Added bold tags to the relevant part of her quote.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you certainly do not have to look for or experience political meaning in anything. That doesn't mean it isn't there, nor does it make others strange to find it.We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" tripe.The idea that reinforcing the status quo isn't political -- that those who want to change it are acting from an agenda (and therefore, it's implied, biased, self-serving, and ideologically driven) while those who uphold it are not (and therefore objective, unselfish, and neutral) -- is generally one insisted upon by people who believe they benefit from the status quo not changing.If others find political meaning in it, fine with me. Just don't make me out to be a bad person according to Jessica, since I allegedly "am one who believe that they benefit from the status quo not changing".
-- david
Added bold tags to the relevant part of her quote.
Benefiting doesn't make you a bad person, but whats interesting about your example is that Avatar doesn't promote the status quo. The underlying political message is against argi-business which is very much in opposition to the status quo.
Jessica is talking about works that actually purport to offer no political view by design but do so by process. So, to me, as a straight white guy, I go to see Gravity in the theater and it's a visually interesting spectacle that offers no real political message beyond the fact the Russians need to do a better job at keeping their space stuffs maintained. But they lady I was with immediately noticed that Sandra Bullock needed the ghost of George Clooney to calm her down so she could get her bearings in the soyuz.
She was right, that is a stupid scene that perpetuates a gender stereotype of a white knight figure charging in to save the damsel in distress. But, whats worse, is that in the scene George Clooney isn't even real. So the director is telling us that Sandra Bullock invented the Ghost of George Clooney to save her because she wasn't emotionally strong enough to do it alone. That she needed a white knight to charge in to rescue her. It's crap. And I didn't notice it the first time. Because of exactly what Jessica is talking about. As a dude I have a vested interest in perpetuating that stereotype.
Does that make me a terrible person? I don't think so. It just makes me a dude in American society today. Anyway, just an example... basically, don't take it personally, just be aware that it happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you certainly do not have to look for or experience political meaning in anything. That doesn't mean it isn't there, nor does it make others strange to find it.We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" tripe.The idea that reinforcing the status quo isn't political -- that those who want to change it are acting from an agenda (and therefore, it's implied, biased, self-serving, and ideologically driven) while those who uphold it are not (and therefore objective, unselfish, and neutral) -- is generally one insisted upon by people who believe they benefit from the status quo not changing.If others find political meaning in it, fine with me. Just don't make me out to be a bad person according to Jessica, since I allegedly "am one who believe that they benefit from the status quo not changing".
-- david
Added bold tags to the relevant part of her quote.
Benefiting doesn't make you a bad person, but whats interesting about your example is that Avatar doesn't promote the status quo. The underlying political message is against argi-business which is very much in opposition to the status quo.
Jessica is talking about works that actually purport to offer no political view by design but do so by process. So, to me, as a straight white guy, I go to see Gravity in the theater and it's a visually interesting spectacle that offers no real political message beyond the fact the Russians need to do a better job at keeping their space stuffs maintained. But they lady I was with immediately noticed that Sandra Bullock needed the ghost of George Clooney to calm her down so she could get her bearings in the soyuz.
She was right, that is a stupid scene that perpetuates a gender stereotype of a white knight figure charging in to save the damsel in...
Actually, I'd find that as an example of finding a political agenda that may or may not necessarily there. I've seen the same movie, with my girlfriend, and we both though it was a provocative film about someone in a tight spot and some of the things your mind does to cope with it. We didn't see a white knight helping a defenseless damsel in distress, but a person in distress using a coping mechanism to get through a terrible time. If it would a man in an astronaut suit with a woman ghost helping him, I would have thought the same thing. Same if it was a black man getting help from a ghostly white dude, or reversed. This doesn't mean you're wrong, but it doesn't mean you're right. I just think people will take different things from different films, no matter what the intent of the director is.
And I can absolutely tell you that I'm not invested in perpetuating the stereotype of a weak woman being saved by a man.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen the same movie, with my girlfriend, and we both though it was a provocative film about someone in a tight spot and some of the things your mind does to cope with it.
I saw it with my wife and I thought it was Cast Away in space but a lot less interesting. I could try to examine agenda-pushing, but I'm too distracted by how they temporarily changed how space works just long enough to kill the chatty dude. :/
Guys, Gravity is not what this thread is about. Can we get back on subject, please?