Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt.2

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

So wait, are both sides at least agreeing that we don't want to parrot a girl's opinions back at her for 60 hours so we can fade to black and imagine we saw her ****, or is that a point of contention?

[Amentep]

I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is.

 

[THE LORD OF THE RINGS] is essentially a children's book - a children's book which has somehow got out of hand, since, instead of directing it at the juvenile market, the author has indulged himself in developing the fantasy for its own sake; and it ought to be said at this point, before emphasizing its inadequacies as literature, that Dr. Tolkien makes few claims for his fairy romance. In a statement prepared for his publishers, he has explained that he began it to amuse himself, as a philological game: the invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. I should have preferred to write in 'Elvish'. He has omitted, he says, in the printed book, a good deal of the philological part; but there is a great deal of linguistic matter... included or mythologically expressed in the book. It is to me, anyway, largely an essay in 'linguistic esthetic,' as I sometimes say to people who ask me 'what it is all about.'... It is not 'about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular or topical, moral, religious or political. An overgrown fairy story, a philological curiosity - that is, then, what The Lord of The Rings really is. The pretentiousness is all on the part of Dr. Tolkien's infatuated admirers, and it is these pretensions that I would here assail.

 

...

 

Now, how is it that these long-winded volumes of what looks to this reviewer like balderdash have elicited such tributes as those above? The answer is, I believe, that certain people - especially, perhaps, in Britain - have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash. They would not accept adult trash, but, confronted with the pre-teen-age article, they revert to the mental phase which delighted in Elsie Dinsmore and Little Lord Fauntleroy and which seems to have made of Billy Bunter, in England, almost a national figure. You can see it in the tone they fall into when they talk about Tolkien in print: they bubble, they squeal, they coo; they go on about Malory and Spenser - both of whom have a charm and a distinction that Tolkien has never touched.

 

From literary critic Edmund Wilson's review printed in The Nation in 1956.

 

Point is, not everyone thinks Tolkien is "good writing". Just like not everyone thinks video game romance is good writing (to try vainly to approach the topic of the thread).

[evdk]

So wait, are both sides at least agreeing that we don't want to parrot a girl's opinions back at her for 60 hours so we can fade to black and imagine we saw her ****, or is that a point of contention?

Basically. It's the method to achieve this that differs. Our "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" is not exactly compatible with the other side's "invest more manhours".

[Living One]

"You people." That's a good start.

 

Comparing taste in fiction to scientific theory is kind of like comparing favorite colors to determining how many apples are in a basket.

 

One in subjective, the other is objective.

 

One in personal opinion, the other is empirical fact.

 

 

I'm indifferent to Tolkien but...

...it's not just taste vs scientific theory.

 

Social sciences can't rely on rock-solid scientific theories,yet sociologists/psicologists/antropologists/historians still have the duty to try to be as objective as possible.

 

If you want to undergo through a well constructed discussion you have to do something similar and try to be objective.Standing there,tell each other's opinions and ending it there is not a useful discussion.Wich is something very common with biodudes.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Living One

[jarpie]

I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is.

 

[THE LORD OF THE RINGS] is essentially a children's book - a children's book which has somehow got out of hand, since, instead of directing it at the juvenile market, the author has indulged himself in developing the fantasy for its own sake; and it ought to be said at this point, before emphasizing its inadequacies as literature, that Dr. Tolkien makes few claims for his fairy romance. In a statement prepared for his publishers, he has explained that he began it to amuse himself, as a philological game: the invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. I should have preferred to write in 'Elvish'. He has omitted, he says, in the printed book, a good deal of the philological part; but there is a great deal of linguistic matter... included or mythologically expressed in the book. It is to me, anyway, largely an essay in 'linguistic esthetic,' as I sometimes say to people who ask me 'what it is all about.'... It is not 'about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular or topical, moral, religious or political. An overgrown fairy story, a philological curiosity - that is, then, what The Lord of The Rings really is. The pretentiousness is all on the part of Dr. Tolkien's infatuated admirers, and it is these pretensions that I would here assail.

 

...

 

Now, how is it that these long-winded volumes of what looks to this reviewer like balderdash have elicited such tributes as those above? The answer is, I believe, that certain people - especially, perhaps, in Britain - have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash. They would not accept adult trash, but, confronted with the pre-teen-age article, they revert to the mental phase which delighted in Elsie Dinsmore and Little Lord Fauntleroy and which seems to have made of Billy Bunter, in England, almost a national figure. You can see it in the tone they fall into when they talk about Tolkien in print: they bubble, they squeal, they coo; they go on about Malory and Spenser - both of whom have a charm and a distinction that Tolkien has never touched.

 

From literary critic Edmund Wilson's review printed in The Nation in 1956.

 

Point is, not everyone thinks Tolkien is "good writing". Just like not everyone thinks video game romance is good writing (to try vainly to approach the topic of the thread).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I dont think higher fantasy was exactly very high regarded back in the 1950s.

[evdk]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I dont think higher fantasy was exactly very high regarded back in the 1950s.

It's well regarded now?!

[Amentep]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I dont think higher fantasy was exactly very high regarded back in the 1950s.

 

Eh, Wilson goes on to praise James Branch Cabell's Poictesme. He liked some of the classic fantasies. He hated Lovecraft. He tended to favor symbolists though.

 

Point was not everyone liked/likes Tolkien.

[jarpie]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I dont think higher fantasy was exactly very high regarded back in the 1950s.

It's well regarded now?!

 

No, not really

[Monte Carlo]

I'm not really a fantasy literature fan, but I always loved Michael Moorc0ck and recently I've gotten into Joe Abercrombie.

 

Moorc0ck's idea of romance usually involves death by poison or by mutilation, though.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

So wait, are both sides at least agreeing that we don't want to parrot a girl's opinions back at her for 60 hours so we can fade to black and imagine we saw her ****, or is that a point of contention?

Basically. It's the method to achieve this that differs. Our "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" is not exactly compatible with the other side's "invest more manhours".

Ah, alright.

 

Good to know we're at least not really a fan of those then, so we'll probably get a passing attempt at trying not to do that.

 

I'm probably in an obnoxious position for either set though, I'm pretty indifferent. It's definitely hard to do romance "well" though, because the easiest thing to do is to have a bar that fills up if you're "nice" and allows you to "deserve" sexytimes. This seems to mesh well with a large portion of the videogame audience's viewpoints on romantic relationships, but it doesn't really fit if you actually have access to something called empathy and the ability to think of other human beings as people.

Edited October 19, 2012 by HungryHungryOuroboros

[kenup]

I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is.

 

[THE LORD OF THE RINGS] is essentially a children's book - a children's book which has somehow got out of hand, since, instead of directing it at the juvenile market, the author has indulged himself in developing the fantasy for its own sake; and it ought to be said at this point, before emphasizing its inadequacies as literature, that Dr. Tolkien makes few claims for his fairy romance. In a statement prepared for his publishers, he has explained that he began it to amuse himself, as a philological game: the invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. I should have preferred to write in 'Elvish'. He has omitted, he says, in the printed book, a good deal of the philological part; but there is a great deal of linguistic matter... included or mythologically expressed in the book. It is to me, anyway, largely an essay in 'linguistic esthetic,' as I sometimes say to people who ask me 'what it is all about.'... It is not 'about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular or topical, moral, religious or political. An overgrown fairy story, a philological curiosity - that is, then, what The Lord of The Rings really is. The pretentiousness is all on the part of Dr. Tolkien's infatuated admirers, and it is these pretensions that I would here assail.

 

...

 

Now, how is it that these long-winded volumes of what looks to this reviewer like balderdash have elicited such tributes as those above? The answer is, I believe, that certain people - especially, perhaps, in Britain - have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash. They would not accept adult trash, but, confronted with the pre-teen-age article, they revert to the mental phase which delighted in Elsie Dinsmore and Little Lord Fauntleroy and which seems to have made of Billy Bunter, in England, almost a national figure. You can see it in the tone they fall into when they talk about Tolkien in print: they bubble, they squeal, they coo; they go on about Malory and Spenser - both of whom have a charm and a distinction that Tolkien has never touched.

 

From literary critic Edmund Wilson's review printed in The Nation in 1956.

 

Point is, not everyone thinks Tolkien is "good writing". Just like not everyone thinks video game romance is good writing (to try vainly to approach the topic of the thread).

I see that in this thread already and I knew it from before. Doesn't change my opinion, or opinions of anyone who is not here to support romance mini-games. or all the opinions of all the people who for some "strange" reason like the books more than the movies(for a lot of book to movie transitions, not just LOTR). You know humans have been writing for too many years, we kinda have a collective knowledge about what's good about it and what's bad, or at least not as good. I'm expecting people to use arguments and examples to support those arguments, but all I see is:

 

"I want romances. Here's a list with all the possibilities I want included so as to be fair to all sexual orientations. Oh, and by the way, I love the writing style of the writers that work at the company who's writing style I say I don't like."

 

That's ****ed up.

Edited October 19, 2012 by kenup

[Merin]

I'm implying that if you like the movies and not Tolkien's books, you may not understand what good writing is.

 

[THE LORD OF THE RINGS] is essentially a children's book - a children's book which has somehow got out of hand, since, instead of directing it at the juvenile market, the author has indulged himself in developing the fantasy for its own sake; and it ought to be said at this point, before emphasizing its inadequacies as literature, that Dr. Tolkien makes few claims for his fairy romance. In a statement prepared for his publishers, he has explained that he began it to amuse himself, as a philological game: the invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. I should have preferred to write in 'Elvish'. He has omitted, he says, in the printed book, a good deal of the philological part; but there is a great deal of linguistic matter... included or mythologically expressed in the book. It is to me, anyway, largely an essay in 'linguistic esthetic,' as I sometimes say to people who ask me 'what it is all about.'... It is not 'about' anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular or topical, moral, religious or political. An overgrown fairy story, a philological curiosity - that is, then, what The Lord of The Rings really is. The pretentiousness is all on the part of Dr. Tolkien's infatuated admirers, and it is these pretensions that I would here assail.

 

...

 

Now, how is it that these long-winded volumes of what looks to this reviewer like balderdash have elicited such tributes as those above? The answer is, I believe, that certain people - especially, perhaps, in Britain - have a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash. They would not accept adult trash, but, confronted with the pre-teen-age article, they revert to the mental phase which delighted in Elsie Dinsmore and Little Lord Fauntleroy and which seems to have made of Billy Bunter, in England, almost a national figure. You can see it in the tone they fall into when they talk about Tolkien in print: they bubble, they squeal, they coo; they go on about Malory and Spenser - both of whom have a charm and a distinction that Tolkien has never touched.

 

From literary critic Edmund Wilson's review printed in The Nation in 1956.

 

Point is, not everyone thinks Tolkien is "good writing". Just like not everyone thinks video game romance is good writing (to try vainly to approach the topic of the thread).

 

Damn, I had not read that before. He's harsher on it that I am. At least he points out that Tolkien, himself, knew it wasn't literature but playing with a world for his languages he invented as a hobby.

 

But I think attacking the fans of Tolkien is a step over the line.

 

...

 

And I love Howard Phillips's work.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Merin

[Amentep]

I see that in this thread already and I knew it from before. Doesn't change my opinion, or opinions of anyone who is not here to support romance mini-games. or all the opinions of all the people who for some "strange" reason like the books more than the movies(for a lot of book to movie transitions, not just LOTR).

 

Wasn't really trying to change your opinion; I just felt it strange to single out a posters not-liking Tolkien's writing as a reason to discredit his opinion (at least that's how I took what you were saying). People have disliked his writing since the books came out and it continues today.

 

I'm well disposed to him and I still find getting through LOTR a bit of a chore (like Melville who I also like but not an easy writer to read due to the impenetrability of the prose).

 

 

But I think attacking the fans of Tolkien is a step over the line.

 

 

Thing is, if you read the whole review, he's talking about some of Tolkien's more influential literary admirers when he talks about the "fans" and pointing out problems with their pro-LOTR comments and how he believes that they're unjustly praising Tolkien by overlooking things that they themselves would criticize in other works.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Amentep

[Merin]

I'm well disposed to him and I still find getting through LOTR a bit of a chore (like Melville who I also like but not an easy writer to read due to the impenetrability of the prose).

 

Milton and (whomever wrote Beowulf) are hard to get through, too, thought that's more due to language changing over time / translation.

 

...

 

Wait, didn't even LotR have a few romances in it?

[Amentep]

Wait, didn't even LotR have a few romances in it?

 

Samwise and Frodo at least...

 

I kid, I kid...

[GrueWithNoLight]

My main problem with romances usually revolves around time. I'm sitting there for some hours on end at a time, but probably for one play through it lasts about a week. I realize that in game terms a whole bunch of time has supposedly passed, but for me the progression from friend to something else happens so fast that I'm just irritated at it. No, I dont really love you. Go away.

 

I can see friendships developing, sure. Getting out of tight spots together can generate that camaraderie, fine. But the insta-romance just leaves me wishing they had spent the precious commodity called time on more monsters, more areas, or more quests. Or all three. At least with those I know I will get some use out of them, even in multiple playthroughs.

 

I understand there are those who like the romances. I get it. I just think of romances like...an appendix. There, but kind of useless and occasionally getting red, angry, and rupturing my gameplay.

[Merin]

But I think attacking the fans of Tolkien is a step over the line.

 

 

Thing is, if you read the whole review, he's talking about some of Tolkien's more influential literary admirers when he talks about the "fans" and pointing out problems with their pro-LOTR comments and how he believes that they're unjustly praising Tolkien by overlooking things that they themselves would criticize in other works.

 

Ah, that wasn't clear in the parts you quoted.

 

By all means - literary critics can be critical of each other. Still a bit on the harsh side, but more understandable.

 

 

Wait, didn't even LotR have a few romances in it?

Samwise and Frodo at least...

 

I kid, I kid...

 

I thought it, too... I just wasn't going to say it.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Merin

[Kymriana]

 

I see that in this thread already and I knew it from before. Doesn't change my opinion, or opinions of anyone who is not here to support romance mini-games. or all the opinions of all the people who for some "strange" reason like the books more than the movies(for a lot of book to movie transitions, not just LOTR). You know humans have been writing for too many years, we kinda have a collective knowledge about what's good about it and what's bad, or at least not as good. I'm expecting people to use arguments and examples to support those arguments, but all I see is:

 

"I want romances. Here's a list with all the possibilities I want included so as to be fair to all sexual orientations. Oh, and by the way, I love the writing style of the writers that work at the company who's writing style I say I don't like."

 

That's ****ed up.

 

Excuse me?

 

Also, a MAJORITY of the people I have seen comment in the last day or two have simply said "I hope they do have romance in." and the response has been to attack that opinion by saying 'NO ROMANCE BIOWARE IS EVIL' which then diverts the conversation to said company and said writers. The ones who are technically guilty of bringing Bioware into this are the ones who are screaming that they don't want it anywhere near their game. Who brought up a BW writer? It wasn't the people commenting on romance. Who was throwing personal insults bombs, personally attacking, and dismissing people because they didn't match up to 'special standards' that no one by the person attacking decided were important? We are not dealing with a Bioware game. Not a single one of the writers on any of the Bioware games are involved in this game. And there is not a chance in heck that PE is going to magically become a Bioware game just because someone who does happen to enjoy them, which is their opinion and not yours so who gives a flip, comments that they liked those romances.

 

The idea that the 'anti-romance' people are Boo-Hoo'ing about being told to be respectful and somehow think they are the only ones who are not respected is a LARK. I have not seen the romance crowd throwing the personal attack bombs or blanket 'biotards all suck' comments.

 

Good GRIEF.

[Amentep]

But I think attacking the fans of Tolkien is a step over the line.

 

 

Thing is, if you read the whole review, he's talking about some of Tolkien's more influential literary admirers when he talks about the "fans" and pointing out problems with their pro-LOTR comments and how he believes that they're unjustly praising Tolkien by overlooking things that they themselves would criticize in other works.

 

Ah, that wasn't clear in the parts you quoted.

 

By all means - literary critics can be critical of each other. Still a bit on the harsh side, but more understandable.

 

Yeah, I had trouble getting something that I felt would represent his article without posting the whole thing.

[kenup]

I see that in this thread already and I knew it from before. Doesn't change my opinion, or opinions of anyone who is not here to support romance mini-games. or all the opinions of all the people who for some "strange" reason like the books more than the movies(for a lot of book to movie transitions, not just LOTR).

 

Wasn't really trying to change your opinion; I just felt it strange to single out a posters not-liking Tolkien's writing as a reason to discredit his opinion (at least that's how I took what you were saying). People have disliked his writing since the books came out and it continues today.

 

I'm well disposed to him and I still find getting through LOTR a bit of a chore (like Melville who I also like but not an easy writer to read due to the impenetrability of the prose).

Why is it wrong for me to discredit his opinion? Does he have any reason to like movies(and I'm not saying the movies are bad) more than books? What I get from his argument is that he doesn't like reading and just likes CGI etc. Does he have some well thought theory, or proof for romance minigames being good? Does he make any valid arguments as to why 'such and such'? All he does in each thread is point out a poll, which only shows popularity, not reasons to support romance minigames. And most of them just contradict themselves. They say don't want bioware romances, but when i say something about the people who wrote those romances, they get defensive and cry. How can I take them or their opinions seriously after that? How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.

[Amentep]

Also, a MAJORITY of the people I have seen comment in the last day or two have simply said "I hope they do have romance in." and the response has been to attack that opinion by saying 'NO ROMANCE BIOWARE IS EVIL' which then diverts the conversation to said company and said writers. The ones who are technically guilty of bringing Bioware into this are the ones who are screaming that they don't want it anywhere near their game. Who brought up a BW writer? It wasn't the people commenting on romance.

 

To be fair, while this time around as I recall it was an "anti" poster who brought up Bioware, since this topic has a long history in the PE forums (can a month be long enough for a long history?) some posters who are "pro" have started by listing Bioware romances from the ME / DA series, so its not uncommon for BIO to get pulled in from either side in these discussions.

 

I think that there have been knee jerk reactions from both sides as well, so not every post has been part of a solid discourse on the pros / cons of romance as a type of between party (or outside party) relationship.

[Grimlorn]

I hate reading.

[Kymriana]

Also, a MAJORITY of the people I have seen comment in the last day or two have simply said "I hope they do have romance in." and the response has been to attack that opinion by saying 'NO ROMANCE BIOWARE IS EVIL' which then diverts the conversation to said company and said writers. The ones who are technically guilty of bringing Bioware into this are the ones who are screaming that they don't want it anywhere near their game. Who brought up a BW writer? It wasn't the people commenting on romance.

 

To be fair, while this time around as I recall it was an "anti" poster who brought up Bioware, since this topic has a long history in the PE forums (can a month be long enough for a long history?) some posters who are "pro" have started by listing Bioware romances from the ME / DA series, so its not uncommon for BIO to get pulled in from either side in these discussions.

 

I think that there have been knee jerk reactions from both sides as well, so not every post has been part of a solid discourse on the pros / cons of romance as a type of between party (or outside party) relationship.

 

I'm aware of this. I've been following this thread for about... 3 of them now. (This being the third.) I acknowledge that I don't know from beginning to end the rise and fall of the flow of discourse around here. That said, his statement was not true. Several people in this thread alone have brought up reasons. Also, when earlier someone decided that they were the maligned party because they were told to maybe try to be civil and were thus the only ones 'not being respected' because they were 'evil'.... it's just laughable.

[Living One]

I see that in this thread already and I knew it from before. Doesn't change my opinion, or opinions of anyone who is not here to support romance mini-games. or all the opinions of all the people who for some "strange" reason like the books more than the movies(for a lot of book to movie transitions, not just LOTR). You know humans have been writing for too many years, we kinda have a collective knowledge about what's good about it and what's bad, or at least not as good. I'm expecting people to use arguments and examples to support those arguments, but all I see is:

 

"I want romances. Here's a list with all the possibilities I want included so as to be fair to all sexual orientations. Oh, and by the way, I love the writing style of the writers that work at the company who's writing style I say I don't like."

 

That's ****ed up.

 

Excuse me?

 

Also, a MAJORITY of the people I have seen comment in the last day or two have simply said "I hope they do have romance in." and the response has been to attack that opinion by saying 'NO ROMANCE BIOWARE IS EVIL' which then diverts the conversation to said company and said writers.

They wouldn't bring up Biowaste if:

1-Quite a few Obsy romances weren't so dangerously similar to Bioware's.

2-Quite a few of people didn't actually demand/show appretiation for Bioware romances(this includes BG,DAO,ME or even the unholy 'things' they released recently).

3-Quite a few of people didn't show appretiation for Bioware's rather shallow writing.

 

The idea that the 'anti-romance' people are Boo-Hoo'ing about being told to be respectful and somehow think they are the only ones who are not respected is a LARK. I have not seen the romance crowd throwing the personal attack bombs or blanket 'biotards all suck' comments.

 

Good GRIEF.

You must have missed some passive-aggressive posts then.

Furthermore their 'I'll bring up this point and if someone brings up a good counter argument I'll just drop the ball for a bit and when enough posts have buried that discussion I'll repeat it again instead of trying to have a constructive discussion' tactic isn't particularly positive don't you think?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Living One

[Amentep]

Why is it wrong for me to discredit his opinion?

 

I didn't say "wrong" but "strange" since I'm not sure one's appreciation (or lack thereof) for Tolkien translates in any relative way to video game writing or video game romance writing.

 

If you like Tolkien and he hates Tolkien but you both like some other game (lets say, for the sake of argument, SSI's Pool of Radiance from 1988 since I think you both mentioned "Gold Box" games) does that validate or invalidate your respective opinions about romance in video games?

 

It seems to me - and I accept I may be wrong - that ultimately it doesn't. So it seems a strange argument to make that tries to debate the debater and not the subject up for debate.

 

How can I not discredit their opinion when they support bad writers, but discredit good ones? They don't even know what they ask for.

 

But aren't "bad" and "good" ultimately subjective? Which is the problem with arguing absolutes with writing - again to me.

 

Don't let me change your posting style with my comments, certainly not my intent.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Amentep