Ratty said:
Very impressive, and I respect your studies. But that doesn't mean you can make sweeping statements about every work in the genre such as:
I would disagree, a fantasy world can be both. Or neither, depending on how rigidly you choose to define "fantasy". But in my experience good stories usually have characters grow organically out of their environment in some way. Including in fantasy.
Interesting, I'd read that Tolkien had been acquainted with MacDonald's work in childhood but suppose I was misinformed.
I haven't studied this as deeply as you obviously, but it seems apparent to me that the moral dualism of Tolkien and Lewis has its roots in their religious convictions about the existence of an absolute good and evil. After recovering a bit from the shock of war, tales of heroic fantasy could serve as a wish fulfillment to see absolute good. And to see it triumph.
With people today more secularly-minded it's not surprising that they're more inclined towards gray morality, and see less and less merit in clean cut good vs. evil in fiction generally.
It is entirely possible Tolkien read MacDonald's fairie stories as a child, don't get me wrong. It is just that MacDonald did not become a major influence over Tolkien -at least consciously- until adulthood, when Lewis and another friend introduced him to MacDonald's poetry and essays on forming a fantasy world, which were obviously heavily influential on Tolkien. So, we could both be right on this.
Tolkien and Lewis are far more morally complex then all that, though judging from the people that often invoke their work, I might be easy to judge them guilty by association. Take MacDonald's "My Two Geniuses," a poem written about the conflict between MacDonald's spirituality and his opium addiction. MacDonald suffered from tuberculosis, and one of the few effective treatments for the coughing fits he suffered was opium. This eventually lead him into addiction, understandably. Though it really did not seem to effect MacDonald's family life or career negatively, he still struggled with it. At the time they were maturing as writers, there was a great apologetic movement for the tragedy of WWI, usually invoking the "complexity" of politics and morality. The seeming simplicity of Tolkien and Lewis' morality is something of a retort to that, saying: Even if politics are complex, sometimes morality itself is simple, and there is often clearly right and clearly wrong. Many brilliant writers came out of WWI, Hemingway -for example- found brilliance, but also in the end, suicide and despair. Tolkien and Lewis found something else, something more beautiful, and that is what I find so fascinating about them.
endtherapture said:
What...you may dislike the game because it is well written and politically complex?
No, I am saying that what many often think is complex and well-written sometimes just isn't quite enough for me. Though from what I have heard here, it is likely I will give Witcher a try.
Stavros Dimou said:
What makes it harder to talk about 'Dark' fantasy and 'Dark' games in general is how different people perceive 'Dark' to mean different things.
You are correct. I am aware that "dark fantasy" is what is called an "empty signifier." Meaning, it does not really have a definition, and people tend to fill in their own definitions when they hear the term, depending on their ideology and discourse. But I did not want to get too deep into that here, because I could go way off topic talking about that haha. Thanks for bringing it up.
Witty Name Here said:
That's good to hear! ^.^
I think another thing that seperates the Witcher from other "dark fantasy" settings is the fact that, well, there are still good people in spite of their being some really terrible people as well. Hell, even characters that have a lot of flaws and could be seen on the darker side of things occasionally display some good traits.
Interesting. Skyrim -which is about as 'dark' as I can go without my stomach turning- was a decent game, though I am not as big a fan as some others. One thing I was disappointed in was the whole 'civil war' storyline, where you got to pick between the lesser of two evils, between people trying to stomp out religious freedom, and people who are kinda racist jerks. So, Witcher seems -from what you say- more up my alley in that regard. In Skyrim, I just ended up with the thieves guild, playing at being Robin Hood. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, though they don't let you give away money very easily in that game.
briankoontz said:
Cynicism that passes for "realism" is nothing new. It offers ignorant people who believe they are sophisticated by "knowing how the world really works" the pleasure of consuming media (Game of Thrones, Deadwood, Breaking Bad classic examples) that "know how the world really works". Meanwhile, the actual world works very differently.
Often true. A wise man once said: "Cynicism is not a sign of intelligence."
