Actually, I think it''s called Research, not inspriation...
The spark told me I was a politician. Go figure.
Rip-off/Tribute?
Landfish : So you''re saying that if you change the setting (ie medieval -> western/sci-fi, etc.) it becomes a tribute rather than a ripoff?
As to Star Wars, I like the explanation that is a metaphor for sex. You have these tiny X and Y fighters trying to fly into the center of a giant SPHERICAL mass; incestuous relationships (which are (among other things) genetically a bad thing); FISHY characters; "I have felt him"; the deep breathing...
Also, most fantasy writers stem from either the Greek tragedies or medieval romance. And they''ll admit it openly. They will include little "hooks" relative to the greek versions and once a person reads it, they get that bit more hooked on the story. Yet none of us here would say that David & Leight Eddings are plagiarists...
Merrick
As to Star Wars, I like the explanation that is a metaphor for sex. You have these tiny X and Y fighters trying to fly into the center of a giant SPHERICAL mass; incestuous relationships (which are (among other things) genetically a bad thing); FISHY characters; "I have felt him"; the deep breathing...
Also, most fantasy writers stem from either the Greek tragedies or medieval romance. And they''ll admit it openly. They will include little "hooks" relative to the greek versions and once a person reads it, they get that bit more hooked on the story. Yet none of us here would say that David & Leight Eddings are plagiarists...
Merrick
LF : LMAO 
So *THAT* is why !
morfe : Star Wars a metaphor of sex ... sure ... why not.
And *I* am supposed to be a sex addict ? D'uh. People can always make far stretched comparison to prove their point, it's in the nature of man to see what he wants to see. Read "Le pendule de Foucault" (Foucaut's pendulum) by Umberto Ecco, and you'll see a perfect example of that
LF and morfe : I thought Jung was the one on the collective soul and Freud the one on sex ...
Edited by - ahw on September 25, 2000 4:44:23 AM
So *THAT* is why !morfe : Star Wars a metaphor of sex ... sure ... why not.
And *I* am supposed to be a sex addict ? D'uh. People can always make far stretched comparison to prove their point, it's in the nature of man to see what he wants to see. Read "Le pendule de Foucault" (Foucaut's pendulum) by Umberto Ecco, and you'll see a perfect example of that
LF and morfe : I thought Jung was the one on the collective soul and Freud the one on sex ...
Edited by - ahw on September 25, 2000 4:44:23 AM
quote:Original post by morfe
Landfish : So you''re saying that if you change the setting (ie medieval -> western/sci-fi, etc.) it becomes a tribute rather than a ripoff?
As to Star Wars, I like the explanation that is a metaphor for sex. You have these tiny X and Y fighters trying to fly into the center of a giant SPHERICAL mass; incestuous relationships (which are (among other things) genetically a bad thing); FISHY characters; "I have felt him"; the deep breathing...
Also, most fantasy writers stem from either the Greek tragedies or medieval romance. And they''ll admit it openly. They will include little "hooks" relative to the greek versions and once a person reads it, they get that bit more hooked on the story. Yet none of us here would say that David & Leight Eddings are plagiarists...
Merrick
You read the Rivan Codex too, eh ? Very interesting book, all writers should read this.
Runemaster now working on Acronia : Secrets of Magic
Join the Game Developers RuneRing !
The Specular Lightosis Research Fund
This is a message from God: "Rebooting the universe, please log off."
Hmmm. Sexual symbolism / hidden sexual bull***t in myths? I'm not quite sure what to think of all that. What little I read of Hero with A thousand Faces (J.Campbell?) was about freudian stuff in myths. Ie. the Oedipus / Electra complexes. (Oedipus, kills father, and marries his mother).
The problem is that I don't see how the hidden sexual aspect of these things (anything which isn't about marrying your mother that is) is supposed to make them good films, for a start many people (especially children the target audience of Star Wars) don't notice such things. My view is that the important thing is the story and characters, and action presented in the movie, book, tale etc.
Can anyone who has read the book say if this is what it was saying was the important aspect of most myths ? If so do you agree.
Edited by - Ketchaval on September 25, 2000 10:39:19 AM
The problem is that I don't see how the hidden sexual aspect of these things (anything which isn't about marrying your mother that is) is supposed to make them good films, for a start many people (especially children the target audience of Star Wars) don't notice such things. My view is that the important thing is the story and characters, and action presented in the movie, book, tale etc.
Can anyone who has read the book say if this is what it was saying was the important aspect of most myths ? If so do you agree.
Edited by - Ketchaval on September 25, 2000 10:39:19 AM
Author
Psychology is very little about what you notice, or even what you interpret rationally. The affect of these mythical strucutres does not occur when you see them at work, but rather when you only percieve them subconciously. Fact is, sex is why we''re here. It''s what we do as a species, and so even children (despite social stigma) are capable of subconciously interpreting sexual symbolism.
As ridiculous as it sounds in the above example, the destruction of the Death Star in Star Wars is a pretty straightforward act of aggression, in the form of penetration. Now, that doesn''t necessarily mean anything, but one could make the arguement that all agression is sexual on a primordial level. This subconsious stuff is how we interpret the world, so there''s no reason we shouldn''t see it everywhere.
As ridiculous as it sounds in the above example, the destruction of the Death Star in Star Wars is a pretty straightforward act of aggression, in the form of penetration. Now, that doesn''t necessarily mean anything, but one could make the arguement that all agression is sexual on a primordial level. This subconsious stuff is how we interpret the world, so there''s no reason we shouldn''t see it everywhere.
LF : if you like this kind of stuff, then I''ll advise you to find a copy of the book "Psychanalyse des contes de fées", by Bruno Bettelheim ("Psychanalysis of fairy tales"). I dunno if it is translated in english, but if it is, it''s a very intruiguing read. It tells all the underlying concepts of a bunch of the most popular children stories, Snow White, Cinderella, the little red cap (is that how you translate?), the Grimm tales, etc.
It''s ... uuh... scary
but very interesting. Of course, it all comes down to sex. The nice thing about the book is the fact that all those stories are for kids, the explanations about how a kid perceive that are quite interesting.
Not sure it can help you do any better games, but it sure teaches you a lot about symbolism, and deeper meaning of things.
youpla :-P
It''s ... uuh... scary
but very interesting. Of course, it all comes down to sex. The nice thing about the book is the fact that all those stories are for kids, the explanations about how a kid perceive that are quite interesting.
Not sure it can help you do any better games, but it sure teaches you a lot about symbolism, and deeper meaning of things.
youpla :-P
Ok, this has been lightly mentioned here, but bears repeating:
There is solid value in a straight retelling of a classic theme for modern audiences. It is so ludicrous that "cultured" people are expected to read and appreciate literature written in, say convoluted Elizabethan verse. (heh, just an example) Shakespeare aimed straight for what would be the MTV generation of today. Sure, he broached the great themes and layered meaning upon meaning in each line. Of course he did- the guy was an artist. But the enjoyment of his plays was 90% visceral! So to people who scoff at the "MTV remake" of Romeo and Juliet, I give a hearty *THHHHHBBBBBT* While the motives may have been quite different, by popularizing this classic tale, the producers of this remake were continuing the life''s work of none other than the Bard himself, AKA the greatest rip-off artist of all time.
There is solid value in a straight retelling of a classic theme for modern audiences. It is so ludicrous that "cultured" people are expected to read and appreciate literature written in, say convoluted Elizabethan verse. (heh, just an example) Shakespeare aimed straight for what would be the MTV generation of today. Sure, he broached the great themes and layered meaning upon meaning in each line. Of course he did- the guy was an artist. But the enjoyment of his plays was 90% visceral! So to people who scoff at the "MTV remake" of Romeo and Juliet, I give a hearty *THHHHHBBBBBT* While the motives may have been quite different, by popularizing this classic tale, the producers of this remake were continuing the life''s work of none other than the Bard himself, AKA the greatest rip-off artist of all time.
ahw, LF, any others who may be interested:
The Bettelheim book is available in the States and it is absolutely essential to anyone dealing in classic themes. (if you are writing an RPG, this means you!!!)
And I would say that any book that teaches you about primal symbology helps you in any media. The lack of cultural awareness in today''s media is just appalling. I''m not talking about Political Correctness either. If you want to be vulgar, biased, and/or appeal to the lowest common denominator, well, fine. But at least become educated as to when and where this was attempted and how it succeeded or failed, and why.
*phew* Ok, I''m done.
If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal
The Bettelheim book is available in the States and it is absolutely essential to anyone dealing in classic themes. (if you are writing an RPG, this means you!!!)
And I would say that any book that teaches you about primal symbology helps you in any media. The lack of cultural awareness in today''s media is just appalling. I''m not talking about Political Correctness either. If you want to be vulgar, biased, and/or appeal to the lowest common denominator, well, fine. But at least become educated as to when and where this was attempted and how it succeeded or failed, and why.
*phew* Ok, I''m done.
If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal
Author
I should note for acedemic purposes that the relevant information and theory in that book can also be found in many other places, and probably better if you read them IN ADDITION to everything else.
In fact, reading about this stuff is just a good idea, not matter what the source. The #1 problem with RPGs is poorly designed systems, but the #2 problem is easily ignorant writers.
In fact, reading about this stuff is just a good idea, not matter what the source. The #1 problem with RPGs is poorly designed systems, but the #2 problem is easily ignorant writers.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
