Has any other man done more to damage fantasy as a genre?
90% of it is edgeslop/mudcore thanks to this fat donkey
Has any other man done more to damage fantasy as a genre? 90% of it is edgeslop/mudcore thanks to this fat donkey
Has any other man done more to damage fantasy as a genre?
90% of it is edgeslop/mudcore thanks to this fat donkey
I’d blame his readers and fanbase, not him. Ninety-percent don’t actually read his books the way they’re meant to be read.
>mudcore
You DO realize his world is known for its heraldry and colours, right? The show did mudcore. His books did not. The tourneys are full of bright and vibrant colourful sights.
He even goes on a nerd rant about it:
> The best fantasy is written in the language of dreams. It is alive as dreams are alive, more real than real … for a moment at least … that long magic moment before we wake.
> Fantasy is silver and scarlet, indigo and azure, obsidian veined with gold and lapis lazuli. Reality is plywood and plastic, done up in mud brown and olive drab. Fantasy tastes of habaneros and honey, cinnamon and cloves, rare red meat and wines as sweet as summer. Reality is beans and tofu, and ashes at the end. Reality is the strip malls of Burbank, the smokestacks of Cleveland, a parking garage in Newark. Fantasy is the towers of Minas Tirith, the ancient stones of Gormenghast, the halls of Camelot. Fantasy flies on the wings of Icarus, reality on Southwest Airlines. Why do our dreams become so much smaller when they finally come true?
> We read fantasy to find the colors again, I think. To taste strong spices and hear the songs the sirens sang. There is something old and true in fantasy that speaks to something deep within us, to the child who dreamt that one day he would hunt the forests of the night, and feast beneath the hollow hills, and find a love to last forever somewhere south of Oz and north of Shangri-La.
> They can keep their heaven. When I die, I’d sooner go to middle Earth.
But he hates middle-earth right? Loool. The people hating on him don’t even know what they hate about him.
>Ninety-percent don’t actually read his books
This includes his haters like OP who are complaining about what they remember from screenshots from a TV show they didn't watch loosely adapted from books they didn't read
Many such cases! Even in reverse.
Like that one time I discovered that ancient graffiti in Pompeii is indistinguishable from modern internet shit-talk.
Humans really don’t change at all.
For some reason my favorite is that sling stones can been found that say stuff like "Take that!" and "Catch!" and "Die, frickers!" just like soldiers sometimes write on artillery and bomb shells.
Morning found her squatting
>mudcore
>You DO realize his world is known for its heraldry and colors, right? The show did mudcore. His books did not. The tourneys are full of bright and vibrant colorful sights.
>Thinks actual color is what mudcore core means...
So have you heard of this bright and colorful setting call Warhammer 40k? All the soldiers wear bright colorful armor. Even the monstrous aliens are nice hues of Green, and Bone White and bright purple. Even the one mono chrome race spices it up with a powerful Neon Green.
The setting is kinda Grim, but it's Bright. A very BrightGrim setting. Because of the colors.
Actually your plastic toys aren’t a setting they’re just toys anon.
Imagine being you. Being THIS moronic. Kek. I can’t even imagine it.
40k is far from mudcore, but it's not an accident that GW has muted all the colors and made drab factions the poster boys of each race when they're trying to make it seem more mature.
>Drab factions the poster boys
>Ultramarines
>Drab
Kek
You have highlighted his shallowness in a wonderful way.
90s Warhammer before the war on terror was super colorful
The worst is people who have read neither Tolkien nor GRRM who make this picture their entire personality despite GRRM having a very clearly defined sense of morality in his work, and bad things happening to good people in LotR.
This picture is true though, and I say that as a massive fan of both universes. Lord of the rings has heroic heroes who never do any wrong or anything even a bit wrong if it would be agaisnt their morals.
Asoiaf has noble and heroic heroes, who sometimes are forced to, and do evil things out of necessity.
> GRRM having a very clearly defined sense of morality in his work, and bad things happening to good people in LotR.
You are sadly too dumb to even know what the picture is saying if you think this refutes either point. Ever heard of the Bible? A book with absolute good and evil ? That has lots of bad things happening to good people, even the goodest god person…
>Asoiaf has noble and heroic heroes, who sometimes are forced to, and do evil things out of necessity.
Asoiaf morality is just "outcasts good, those who suffer are good, nobility bad"
>Lord of the rings has heroic heroes who never do any wrong or anything even a bit wrong if it would be agaisnt their morals.
That guy wasn't in Lord of the Rings, IIRC they don't even mention him. Also his story arc is basically just a paladin with a shitty GM, where he's constantly trying to do the right thing even though he knows he's set up to fail.
>Lord of the rings has heroic heroes who never do any wrong or anything even a bit wrong if it would be agaisnt their morals.
Yeah, like Boromir.
Boromir did nothing wrong. QED.
He was literally magically corrupted by an evil artifact. Doesn’t count chud
>That has lots of bad things happening to good people, even the goodest god person…
>When has it ever been about only good things happening to good people or only bad things happening to bad people?
>Well if the story is good vs evil then don’t we need to see the evildoers doing evil things?
My point was that people get very performatively mad that something bad happened to Ned Stark, and say it's evidence of grey morality that a noble hero was betrayed and killed by villains.
>Has any other man done more to damage fantasy as a genre?
Only with the virtue of ruining literature as whole.
>despite GRRM having a very clearly defined sense of morality in his work,
I hate how modern fiction depicts morality so I can't take something like that at face value. Clearly defined and correct are two different things.
>and bad things happening to good people in LotR.
When has it ever been about only good things happening to good people or only bad things happening to bad people? Stop with this Materialistic thinking.
>I hate how modern fiction depicts morality so I can't take something like that at face value. Clearly defined and correct are two different things.
Which system of ethics do you subscribe to then?
The one doesn't think global socialism should be the first and only solution to climate change instead of something like nuclear power.
>There are hundreds of classic iconic fictional and mythologic stories whose author is unknown
>If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
We are descendants of countless nameless forgotten caveman. That doesn't mean killing them in the past wouldn't change anything.
>The one doesn't think global socialism should be the first and only solution to climate change instead of something like nuclear power.
what the frick does that have to do with anything you fricking nutcase
A Song of Ice and Fire is allegory for climate change.
>Muslim characters by people who don't understand Islam praised by people who don't understand Islam
>A Song of Ice and Fire is allegory for climate change.
Gave me a slight chuckle.
He literally couldn't have made it more obvious and inbreds like you still don't get it.
>Everyone is too preoccupied with who may call himself King of the what and who bends to whom to actually fight the world ending threat.
>This has nothing to do with our current situation at all. It's just a story about dragons hahaha.
Didn't give me a chuckle this time.
Work on it.
A Game of Thrones came out in 1996
>1996
So coming hot off the heels of that whole ozone layer crisis thing and after we've known about climate change for a cool 100 years. Gotcha.
It's obviously about mesoamerica and how everyone should have united against Cortez.
>The one doesn't think global socialism should be the first and only solution to climate change instead of something like nuclear power.
>There are exactly two schools of thought in all and everything now until the end of time: Mine the obviously redpilled and based one; and the globohomosexual [insert buzzword of the week] one that's totally wrong on everything because this wildly complex and self-contradictory conspiracy mythos says so.
nta, but he wasn't giving you a genuine answer- He was describing having an opinion on actual problems as opposed to subscribing to hypothetical value systems that will only be compromised for the sake of politics/IRL application anyways.
Read the reply chain. Thinking there exist exactly two mutually exclusive value systems is brain rot of the highest order.
Reread the reply chain, you're right he moronicly said there was a difference between "clearly defined" and "correct" moral values, lol. My bad
Are you implying that the concept of Death of the Author is bad? The entire point of art is what it make us feel and think rather than the author intentions.
>Are you implying that the concept of Death of the Author is bad?
It *is* bad, because of the degree to which it is misused by people with agendas to claim that a work is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the author intended by deliberately ignoring the author's own statements on the matter.
To select a simple example, I had multiple literature professors in both secondary and uni claim that the Lord of the Rings can only be properly interpreted as an allegory for WW2, and that, *regardless of JRRT's statements on the matter*, creating a WW2 allegory was the real purpose of the work. And ordinary people BELIEVE THAT, because those critics are "professionals" and people trust their opinions. And I shouldn't have to say, but JRRT said explicitly that LOTR wasn't an allegory for anything, whatsoever, and he detested allegory and avoided using it.
This why Death of the Author is a bad thing - it enables interpreters with overinflated egos to claim that they are the sole interpreters of the TRUE nature of a work, and that the intent of the author means literally nothing and only their word can be trusted. It's become nothing more than a shield for critics with agendas to hide behind, and I'm fricking sick of it.
>In theory, DotA is fine when used for it's intended purpose: to prove the audience's reaction is still valid regardless of the author's intent. But that's NOT how it gets used, and it would be better if it had never been conceived.
Smallbrain take. Tolkien admits the influence that WWII had on him, just as he discusses many of the other allegories used in his stories, he 'detested allegory' in a very limited sense of the word. This isn't even "death of the author", this is "reading the author in the context of that author's life experience and latent biases", i.e. "Your fricking job if you teach lit".
"Death of the author" is the idea that the author's beliefs and intentions don't even matter and that it's more useful to focus on what others read into it.
>critic detected
>It's become nothing more than a shield for critics with agendas to hide behind
Pretty much. Even the guy who wrote it had it used against him. Funny stuff.
>To select a simple example, I had multiple literature professors in both secondary and uni claim that the Lord of the Rings can only be properly interpreted as an allegory for WW2, and that, *regardless of JRRT's statements on the matter*, creating a WW2 allegory was the real purpose of the work. And ordinary people BELIEVE THAT, because those critics are "professionals" and people trust their opinions. And I shouldn't have to say, but JRRT said explicitly that LOTR wasn't an allegory for anything, whatsoever, and he detested allegory and avoided using it.
It's reasonable to think the guy experiences shaped his views that inevitably shaped his works even if they didn't noticed it by themselves, it's also naive to think many writers wouldn't lie about the content of their work, artists push controversial messages on their works all the time then cover their asses by denying it when questioned just to admit it was their intention all along after the subject is no longer a taboo, other writers just like to frick with the audience for furn and deny the most obivous shit just to see people reactions that's not even something rare, it's almost a rule almost all sucessful writers follow.
>Are you implying that the concept of Death of the Author is bad?
Yes.
>The entire point of art is what it make us feel and think rather than the author intentions.
The point of art is human expression. If you actually read DotA and still accepted, you would have to accept supernatural bullshit like the collective consciousness, divine inspiration, and/or muses. There is no argument against AI art from a DotA perspective.
>"Death of the author" is the idea that the author's beliefs and intentions don't even matter and that it's more useful to focus on what others read into it.
DotA is about ignoring the "author" autonomy and calling him a scriptor or ignoring causality because the past couldn't be proven to exist.
It is still not what the essay is about. It is online for free. Read it.
There are hundreds of classic iconic fictional and mythologic stories whose author is unknown, nowadays we have hundreds of famous stories written by anonymous online writers, nevermind all the ancient art like caveman paitings, egypt, greek etc, the author statements don't matter, many famous stories were even by the original author so some hack could get rich from it and people thought their statements meant shit when they couldn't even understand it themselves nor had much interest on it other than making money selling it, so you can never even be sure the "author" is the actual one and even if they are authors lie most of the time for several reasons. If it's not in the novel it does not matter.
and nowadays things are even more complex, who can say what is canon or the message when there is the executive who had the basic idea, the company owner who hired the writer using the executive basic idea, the first writer who was hired to develop some executive idea, the editor, the second writer, the third writer etc.
>and nowadays things are even more complex, who can say what is canon or the message when there is the executive who had the basic idea, the company owner who hired the writer using the executive basic idea, the first writer who was hired to develop some executive idea, the editor, the second writer, the third writer etc.
You could use some fricking common sense instead of pretending that a movie trilogy made by Disney without a fricking plan has some connection to a movie trilogy released 40 years prior.
>and bad things happening to good people in LotR.
Well if the story is good vs evil then don’t we need to see the evildoers doing evil things?
post the real version
>muh moral greyness
I wish that meme would die. Nobody actually gave a good reason why this is inherently good. Does Fist of the North Star suddenly get better when it starts questioning if Ken-shiro should splatter rapists and slavers? Capeshit has rot people's brains.
Yes.
lol people are still pissed about this Rudi guy in the year of our lord 2023
It's honestly just really funny. He's a giant black queer muslim feminist vampire who loves mortals. Conceptually the idea of a vampire political activist is comical on its own, so the fact that it's such absurd politics is even funnier.
>Conceptually the idea of a vampire political activist is comical on its own, so the fact that it's such absurd politics is even funnier.
Someone hasn't played a World of Darkness game before.
Every day I say to myself, "I gotta normalize more awful trends." I like to think of myself as a real 9-5 hard worker at normalizing awful trends. I go to the awful trends factory and by god do I pull the lever that normalizes it all. And you better believe that I'm a proud union member: we don't want scabs getting in on our normalizing awful trends business.
>Every day I say to myself, "I gotta normalize more awful trends." I like to think of myself as a real 9-5 hard worker at normalizing awful trends.
>implying that you get paid
Buddy do you think I would joke about the money I get for normalizing awful trends? Every day I visualize myself normalizing awful trends and imagining things that would piss off guys on /tg/, and then I go out and do them.
No, it's always been funny. I've literally always found White Wolf's populist cringe hilarious.
WoD is meant to be absurd
He's obviously a malk too deep into the schizo stuff to realise it.
>Why can't you just pretend awful trends are normal?
>Disagreeing with an ideology that most people don't subscribe to? Why are being so political?
>Why do sites that exist to promote shows and movies promote shows and movies?
Nobody can be this dumb.
It's not even that, whoever took that screenshot googled castlevania+isaac then filtered for news results about isaac. A google search served him what he asked to see, the horror.
It's always the god damned redheads. What the frick. Like is that a coincidence? I genuinely can't tell.
Anyway GRRM says GURPS is good
>Nobody actually gave a good reason why this is inherently good.
Thinking only ever in absolutes is totally fine for children. Children will condemn friends and family for minor grievances and in that moment they hate the other person with all their heart.
But at some point in your life you grow up and start to understand nuances and context. Yes, stealing is wrong, but a mother stealing to feed her starving child is less reprehensible than some exec embezzling a million to buy his second house. Yes, killing another person is the ultimate evil, but in a self-defense or a trolley problem situation killing is necessary or even "good".
Our lives are not black and white. Why should our literature be?
Stealing is intrinsically wrong. The mother's solution should be to go to the church, where people will help her. Killing is pointless when death sends good people to heaven. Most morality puzzles are pointless outside of materialist thought bubbles.
>Stealing is intrinsically wrong.
I've said as much. Do you even read whole posts or does your ADHD riddled mind just skim until it finds something it can be upset about?
>go to the church
Imagine that through no fault of her own she doesn't have that opportunity right now. The point isn't she is absolved of every sin because of hardship. The point is even good people can end up in situations where they have to make tough decisions and our moral judgement of these decisions must take this situation into account.
>Killing is pointless when death sends good people to heaven.
Seeing that you're a good person you will obviously let yourself be killed if given the opportunity. Right?
>Most morality puzzles are pointless outside of materialist thought bubbles.
No. Have you actually read the Bible?
>Imagine that through no fault of her own she doesn't have that opportunity right now.
Okay, but how many people does this situation actually apply to? How many people REALLY need to steal to survive, with no other feasible options at all? This is what he meant by moral puzzles not really existing outside of materialist thought experiments. If your argument still disqualifies 99.9% of thieves, it's not a very good argument for withholding judgement regarding thievery.
Again. It's not about withholding judgement indefinitely.
I am arguing this
>But at some point in your life you grow up and start to understand nuances and context. Yes, stealing is wrong, but a mother stealing to feed her starving child is less reprehensible than some exec embezzling a million to buy his second house.
Basically some acts of thievery are morally just worse than others. Nuances exist.
You/the guy you're aiding seems to argue
>Stealing is always the same level of wrong. No matter the circumstances which led someone to steal. No matter the consequences of that theft.
I think that's a huge and convenient assumption on your part. As long as we're assuming though, I'll do some of my own, and I'll even highlight what he says that makes me think my assumptions about him and his argument. He says that stealing is unequivocally wrong. He also agrees to the statement that society is failing because people commit petty acts of theft. Therefore, he follows the idea that even small acts of wrongdoing contribute to a broader character of society, and therefore even petty theft for good reasons is intrinsically the wrong thing to do. No where in this description of events is it implied that all acts of theft are equal, and I'd challenge you to point to anything he's said which suggests evil does not exist in degrees of severity.
"Strawman" is a term often thrown around, and most often used to attribute malice. A "Strawman" is actually when you, mistakenly or otherwise, frame an opponent's argument in a light so uncharitable that it in no way resembles his original statements, but is much easier to contradict. I'd say it's a strawman to presume he believes that stealing food from an orphan is identical in severity to stealing israeliteelry from the wealthy simply because he's stated that all stealing is wrong regardless of context.
What exactly is my assumption? If you argue against the existence of nuances on principle you propose that everything is equal in moral value. Do you not?
>broader character of society,
We will not be broadening the scope of this discussion.
I am not strawmanning here. I said "seems to argue". I did not argue specifically against that simplified premise. Please use words you understand. This is an anonymous image board and there's no need to sound more educated than you actually are.
He argues against the idea of nuances mitigating the wrongness of an act, but that's different than claiming that all acts are equally wrong. Your logic is something like follows:
Imagine that Goodness and Evil are a numerical spectrum.
Stealing has an Evil value of 10
Satisfying starving has a goodness value of 5
Therefore, stealing to satisfy starvation has an evil value of 5.
I can't speak for his ideas specifically, but I can tell you there are many other ways to do this math. For example, I personally do not believe that Goodness and Evil are a spectrum at all. My logic goes more like:
Imagine that Goodness and Evil are separate numerical measurement systems.
Stealing has an evil value of 10.
Satisfying hunger has a goodness value of 5.
Therefore, stealing to satisfy hunger has an evil value of 10 and a goodness value of 5.
Another way that one might think of the matter, and one that he may think of it, is one that bakes context into the initial judgement.
Imagine that Goodness and Evil are a numerical spectrum.
Stealing is always Evil.
Stealing for fun has an evil value of 20.
Stealing to satisfy hunger has an evil value of 10.
It is not 10 because satisfying hunger is Good and he's weighing the pros and cons of the act, it is 10 because that is the judged severity of the Evil of stealing for that reason.
Even though it may seem that the reason "For fun" and "for hunger" and the difference between them is a mitigation factor- It's not that stealing for survival is more good, it's that stealing for fun is more evil.
>Stealing has an evil value of 10.
>Satisfying hunger has a goodness value of 5.
>Therefore, stealing to satisfy hunger has an evil value of 10 and a goodness value of 5.
To be frank I fail to see how this system is not
>Stealing is always the same level of wrong. No matter the circumstances which led someone to steal. No matter the consequences of that theft.
Yes, you attach a goodness value, but committing if theft is always 10 evil points, then it is always 10 evil points.
>Stealing is always Evil.
>Stealing for fun has an evil value of 20.
>Stealing to satisfy hunger has an evil value of 10.
No complaints here, bro. This (or something similar) is what I'm arguing. The circumstances and motivations matter. I've posted
>a mother stealing to feed her starving child is less reprehensible than some exec embezzling a million to buy his second house
two time already.
Since morality is definietly expressible in simple numerical calculation, this isn't drivel at all
Sub room temp IQ. Please kys. It is obviously meant as a shorthand...
If it can't be expressed in numbers it can't be expressed in words either, and everything we've done here is pointless. I wasn't attempting to express morality strictly through numbers- I was attempting to express the logic behind different moral viewpoints through numbers, because numbers are an excellent way to express different forms of logic.
You might notice that my writing did not include a value judgement about which logic system was superior, only that I expressed which I preferred. This is because I was not attempting to express morality itself through numerical calculation- I was attempting to describe moral logic in simple, i.e. numerical terms.
>If it can't be expressed in numbers it can't be expressed in words either
Literal autism take. Sorry about your genetics, bro.
>He doesn't know that math is a language
I don't actually like math.
Moral relativism leads to genocide, mass violation of individual rights and atrocity because EVERYTHING is inherently permissible it's just the situation that matters. You are trying to build an ethical system with foundations of sand. Its also completely at odds with western civilisation, the most successful on earth.
Holy logical fallacies, Batman. Non-sequitur, gross misinterpretation, whataboutism...
>Thinking only ever in absolutes is totally fine for children.
I think the only actual child here is (you). Moral relativism is the home of intellectual failures and serial killers.
>You have to be at least 18 to post here.
Well the smal brained underage child advocating moral relativism should leave then
Moral relativism is “the spiritual poverty of our time,” Pope Francis has said. “The spirit of the world,” he cautioned, tempts us with “the deceptive light of relativism, which obscures the splendor of truth and, shaking the earth beneath our feet, pushes us toward the shifting sands of confusion and despair.”21 Apr 2015
>t. child molester quoting a child molester
You got wrecked, casually, and you lack the moral reasoning skills needed to do more than complain about it. "Absolute good" is a contradiction in terms, it's a shallow word game that only works on small minds. Moral reasoning is about identifying the values that you and another person have in common and explaining how your strategy can serve those values more effectively than the other guy's strategy.
I think its mostly people who LARP as Catholics despite being your standard godless Ganker poster who say shit like Tolkien's silly little elves are promoting "trascendent, evident virtues."
>You DO realize his world is known for its heraldry and colours, right?
I'm sorry, but this is absolute bullshit. I don't know how much Martin knows about heraldry, but if aSoIaF is anything to go by, he doesn't. The heraldry in the books is usually two colors and one device, usually an animal. This illustrates a problem with his readers and the ideas they take away: To people who have maybe seen some heraldry in passing at times the fact that he ties heraldry to noble houses looks realistic and authentic, which they'll repeat ad nauseam. Real life is complex and follows rules.
Same thing with food. I guess people ascribe food detail to him because he's fat, but it's all surface level stuff. And that's fine, but he's not all about detail. He's all about broad strokes.
Lol, you’re such a pedantic homosexual. Shut the frick up lol.
If you don't want to be proven wrong, don't be wrong.
>if the colours and symbols aren’t good enough it’s not heraldry
Lol shut the frick up.
>corporate logo's are heraldry
>sports mascots are heraldry
>gang colors are heraldry
You're getting upset at not knowing what a word means and blaming others for that fact.
If he used the term "coat of arms" rather than "heraldry" would that be more acceptable?
Ok, I think I get it now, you’re semantically pretentious!
What did you prove wrong? IRL Heraldry CAN be more complex, but two colours and a device isn't incorrect either, just simple and early. It's supposed to communicate information quickly across a distance after all, adding too many rules and details defeats the point.
>Write simple heraldry that the ley reader can easily envision.
Ah yes because describing and understanding in text pic related is as easy as House Lannister’s coat of arms.
That pic tells more of a story than lannister's coat of arms. And there's more to heraldry than the coat of arms.
why is england mixed with bohemia and sielsia?
I typed heraldry in Google and already I can tell you’re full of shit
you know that complexity and rules around heraldry vary a lot with time and location, right ?
also, why should him have used "realistic" over-complex heraldry like you propose ? what would that add to the story?
It would soothe a tiny facet of his autism
Sounds like a pretentious c**t.
>You DO realize his world is known for its heraldry and colours, right? The show did mudcore. His books did not. The tourneys are full of bright and vibrant colourful sights.
A Knight's Tale did a good job of a being a non-mudcore medieval movie. I wish vibrant and colorful depictions of medieval times would come back into mainstream culture, it was in the 90s when he wrote most of his first books.
Gurm didn't start the trend of washed out brown fantasy (in fact, I don't think the TV adaptation started it either, film in general has been doing desaturation mode for quite a while. Even LotR was kind of washed out, although it worked there because LotR had a lot of themes of this being an age of decline long after the good times ended) but he sure as hell was responsible for popularizing the idea of everyone in a fantasy setting being an butthole and the few good people getting trashed on for it.
>the few good people getting trashed on for it.
They deserve it. Basic game theory indicates that people who try to be good will always get mogged on by those who don't care, so there's no point in trying to be """good""". Only people willing to do bad things to get ahead will ever win.
>Gets punished by good people
>How could this happen
Game theory falls apart when additional players are considered, it only works in a vacuum.
>Game theory falls apart when additional players are considered,
Not really, no.
>how could this happen
It doesn't, good people aren't the ones who do the punishing, good people don't want to do the punishing.
>Define good in such a specific way that nobody fits the definition of good
>Haha being good sucks
I suppose by definition it would since nobody is good. Sentencing a man to hang doesn’t mean you aren’t a good person.
You are like little baby.
You too.
Which part of basic game theory? Usually cooperation is the best option and what almost everyone people in real tests do aside from a couple exceptions which are gaming the game rather than really exploring the idea and rely on a vacuum.
The Prisoners Dilemma has shown that altruism prevails.
>Which part of basic game theory? Usually cooperation is the best option and what almost everyone people in real tests do aside from a couple exceptions which are gaming the game rather than really exploring the idea and rely on a vacuum.
Oh, there's a much better option when one group is pathologically altruistic, literally the first group in human history to sacrifice themselves to criminals due to mental illness.
I haven't read the fat fricks books, and I don't care to, but it seems like his noble families are small as shit and that's a trend that annoys me. You shouldn't be able to wipe out a line with like 2 assassinations, shit's moronic. Where's the intermarrying succession mixing utter clusterfrick?
Also, again haven't read the books, he doesn't seem to care about making interesting battles which triggers my autism but meh practically no authors seem to want to commit the effort to giving warfare the respect it deserves.
Good != unwilling to retaliate.
If you're following Prisoner's Dilemma for more than it's worth the ideal is, cooperative, retaliatory, forgiving and non-envious.
Any normal human would view these traits as a 'good' person. So, game theory doesn't support the greedy shitters being the ideal strat. But that all depends on the rules of the game.
Oh no, shoplifters. Society is truly dying because a guy is stealing Mountain Dew from a bodega. Billions must die.
>The Prisoners Dilemma has shown that altruism prevails.
The prisoner's dilemma, strictly speaking, shows that it does not. You're thinking of the extended prisoners dilemma, in which a discrete population is subjected to an infinite series of prisoner's dilemmas, and in which the general population is assumed to take an active stance against evildoers even when it hurts them in the short term, and in which there is assumed to be no interaction between prisoners (no other avenues of influence or coercion) besides the dilemmas themselves. The basic prisoner's dilemma is highly contrived, but the extended prisoner's dilemma is exponentially more contrived.
>has shown that altruism prevails
This is your cope.
>This is your cope.
It's the result of any Prison Dilemma without a fixed length.
That is an absurdly contrived theoretical situation, and the conclusion which you've drawn isn't even necessarily true, it's true if people have an infinite amount of (UTILITY) to lose and it's true if people always learn their lessons and behave rationally.
The (UTILITY) in the original prisoner's dilemma was years added to your sentence, and in that context the extended dilemma doesn't work like you want it to, because everyone has only a finite amount of life to lose.
>That is an absurdly contrived theoretical situation
Prison. What happens when you get out of Jail. What happens when the friend you betrayed gets out of jail. What happens regardless if you wish or have no choicebut to lead a life of crime, with the reputation of a stool pigeon.
Nothing contrived about that, it's built right into the dilemma itself.
The Extended Prisoner's Dilemma allows for the principle that "Snitches get Stitches" and is thus more applicable to prison and life in general.
>"Snitches get Stitches"
This is really the crux of the issue. If the participants all share the same rec room then the biggest and/or most charismatic prisoners can demand compliance, punishing those who "snitch' on them and rewarding those who 'snitch' on their enemies, and at that point it begins to resemble normal human politics.
The prisoner's dilemma proves that if people were good, altruism would prevail, but since people are bad, it does not. The math tells each prisoner to betray their friend. The bottom line is this is the Judas dimension.
>game theory optimal leads people to defect instead of cooperate in one specific situation where people are incentivized to defect
>THEREFORE
>game theory says defect in every situation
moron.
Sorry brother but no, we are not necessarily EVIL looking out for yourself and your group is a GOOD action, abandoning a crewmate to survive yourself is a CHAOTIC action, so the person who chooses to abandon ship is a Chaotic Neutral rogue.
In real life, the prisoner's dillemma isn't two categories of "cooperate and betray". It's spectrum with equilibriums. That's why markets work.
The prisoner's dilemma shows people are basically weak minded cucks that will be subservient to the very people that hate and hurt them.
I only regret not being more of a sociopath to the likes of those who value these false neo-Puritan virtues
>society forms despite nomadic barbarians
Guess that proves you wrong moron
>but he sure as hell was responsible for popularizing the idea of everyone in a fantasy setting being an butthole and the few good people getting trashed on for it.
Except its obvious that the bad guys are going to get stomped in the end? The books are currently stuck at the bottom of the trough before the heroes triumph despite the brutal suffering they've all endured. Frick GRRM isn't exactly subtle about it, he's been using Winter as a metaphor for suffering and death since the first book and the last book is going to be called a Dream of Spring, as in a season of hope and rebirth.
He definitely beat down anyone with a moral backbone, but they're going to get back up in the end.
Except Ned. Ned stays dead.
Popularizing? D&D was based on literature with rather questionable morale having characters.
I think you quoted the wrong anon, the anon I was quoting said that, not me.
>questionable morale
*surrenders*
Old pulp fantasy had pretty clear morals in general, the heroes just could have selfish motives. Even characters who are more morally ambiguous like Conan usually do the right thing in the end, even if it isn't for virtuous reasons.
>D&D was based on literature with rather questionable morale having characters
Drizzt is the biggest Mary Sue in all of fantasy to the point of parody. He willingly submits himself to execution over the crimes of his species on multiple occasions because sad depressuhn
What a moronic take. Drizzt suffers too much in the first book alone to be a mary sue, and he never accomplishes much of anything without the assistance of others. The most mary-suish thing about him is the eye stuff.
Nta, but tragedy (and therefore suffering) is a defining trait of a Mary Sue.
No, a defining trait of a mary sue is that everybody likes them, and if anybody doesn't like them, the whole world turns against that person and great overtures are made to the Mary Sue to ensure they know that criticism is undeserved. The criticism is also usually inaccurate. Mary Sues sometimes have tragic backstories, but this is more commonly associated with edgy characters(Which Drizzt certainly is). Either way, Drizzt suffers plenty actively and on the page, and people who make him suffer often are never punished, and any acceptance he's ever gotten from any community has been hard-earned, so it's simply not the case that the world turns against anybody who mistreats him.
Your premise is flawed. We agree on a definition having multiple defining traits (check the reply chain for usage of "a/the defining trait"). Therefore my argument "you need x to make it y" can't possibly be countered by you saying "you need z to make it y". Both can be true at the same time.
That would be true if I didn't deny the idea that tragedy, in and of itself, is a defining trait of a mary sue. I don't believe that's true at all, and I described the qualifiers that make it more true in my mind. The idea that Drizzt is a mary-sue because he suffers is wrong, because Mary-Sues don't suffer during their story, they only suffer in their backstory.
If you write somebody as perfect as superman, but they do nothing except fail and suffer throughout the entire story, you haven't written a mary sue. It might not be a very good story, but it isn't a mary sue.
The original Mary Sue dies. Tragically. In the fricking ur-example.
You're thinking of a power fantasy.
>inb4 that doesn't mean shit
Inb4 all you like, I'm right. There's a lot wrong with this as a counterargument.
Firstly- Dying is not suffering. Dying is the cessation of suffering. At best, you might die slowly and agonizingly, but dying in an explosion to save the ones you love is not suffering.
Secondarily- I don't think every single event which occurred in a story is therefore evidential descriptive proof of what the pop-culture concept of a Mary Sue is, even if that story and its events used the term 'Mary Sue'. This is a poor argument for the idea that Mary Sues are defined by facing tragedy in their stories, in the same way any appeal to authority is.
Thirdly- Things have to come in thirds. If this is a defining trait of a mary sue, then too many characters are disqualified because they don't die tragically in their tales despite meeting all other criteria. If a definition fails to include necessary examples, it's a bad definition.
You're correct that these are all elements of a bad power fantasy. Mary Sues are an example of a power fantasy.
>Things have to come in thirds.
y?
Three is a very compelling number for humans because narratives require a beginning, a middle, and an end. By placing things in threes, humans feel as if some sort of arc has been crested or loop satisfied in reading your post, hearing your story, or listening to your sentence.
>a square has
> A) 4 right angles and
> B) 4 sides of equal length
>this is a bad definition because there is no third criterion
Sorry, dude. Couldn't resist.
>C) A square is a two-dimensional figure
Neither could I.
>D) it is a closed figure
No that's four that's Not Pleasant
...and thus not a real definition.
I don't really ever remember saying that definitions needed to have three parts, but I think we can all agree they'd be more aesthetically pleasing to Humans if they were.
I concur.
C) A square is a polygon.
You're a polygon, homosexual. I bet you look like PS1 Lara Croft's breasts.
Ned dies in the first book but he never stops being the main character.
>a Dream of Spring, as in a season of hope and rebirth
But it's only a dream of spring, meaning it hasn't come yet. I think what you're saying is plausible, but it's definitely not certain that it will end happily for the realm or the majority of the characters.
>Except its obvious that the bad guys are going to get stomped in the end?
That requires there to BE an end.
>fantasy is wondrous and vibrant
>just you know, not my fantasy
>but someone's is
Obsessed moron
>> We read fantasy to find the colors again, I think. To taste strong spices and hear the songs the sirens sang. There is something old and true in fantasy that speaks to something deep within us, to the child who dreamt that one day he would hunt the forests of the night, and feast beneath the hollow hills, and find a love to last forever somewhere south of Oz and north of Shangri-La.
His personal story is so ironic. His success came when he was an obese old man who care barely waddle around and hasn't seen his dick in 30 years. While the $ is surely nice, it would've been a hell of a lot nicer as a young man. I think this is behind a good chunk of his obvious mental illness regarding the inability to finish GoT.
He has always been a Tolkien lover. When he said "but what about Aragorn's tax policy" that wasn't supposed to be a dig at Tolkien, that was him explaining the differences between his story and LOTR.
Because he was TRYING to make something DIFFERENT. That was the whole point.
>Reality is the strip malls of Burbank, the smokestacks of Cleveland, a parking garage in Newark. Fantasy is the towers of Minas Tirith, the ancient stones of Gormenghast, the halls of Camelot. Fantasy flies on the wings of Icarus, reality on Southwest Airlines.
living in the US must be hell
Always has been.
It is. Although it would be more accurate to say "Modern cities and suburbs are hell" because having lived on four continents, it's not just America.
It’s very surreal to live for decades in a part of England that strongly resembles the shire and overtime have American style suburbs pop up in places, at least most of it is still beautiful to walk through and the communities here are made up of nice people, even most of the city slickers are nice once they come out here for a while
His point isn’t that bad things happening to good people is a bad narrative device, his point is that the people who share that image are morons who don’t know anything about Martin, who’s not a great writer but his “moral sense” isn’t the issue, he has quite a strong moral sense in his writing, it’s a bit modern for my taste but the “durr he fink everyfing is shades of grey” is false. These people probably don’t know much about Tolkien either, I have a suspicion that most of the people who get really defensive about the purity and greatness of Tolkien’s writing on the internet have not read LotR because they frequently say incorrect things like “in the books legolas was just an archer, not a ninja like in the movies” when in the books legolas walks on snowdrifts, climbs trees like a squirrel and runs across single strand ropes like a cat (in that he does it quickly in a way that is extremely acrobatic and basically impossible for a human, he doesn’t get on all fours)
>he doesn’t get on all fours
Wasted opportunity
Did he also put the groomer spacing after the meme arrows, or was that you?
>groomer spacing
That's a new one
>Fantasy tastes of habaneros and honey, cinnamon and cloves, rare red meat and wines as sweet as summer.
Imagine being so fat you can taste a literary genre.
These were good posts
>low iq spacing
anyone that doesn't have the spine to ensure accurate depictions of their work is a spineless homosexual, there is nothing special about this fetish vailer he's just the neckbeard that got lucky, I bet your a Gankerermin like him too
Nta. You know paragraph are used in books, right? You have read a book, right?
>Popular thing bad
Aside from 's point, GRUM (while it's true that he is a fat lazy pervert) takes very heavy inspiration from medieval history and uses his works to explore the immense flaws of feudalism and fantasy through the perspective of flawed people. He doesn't do edgeslop, edgeslop implies that he tries to make his books edgy, he's simply explaining why some people commit the atrocities they do. The Lannisters aren't bad guys, they're just pragmatic. The only people who truly suck in ASOIAF are the Ironborn, and even they suck because they're starving cultists. You aren't really making any points, you're just saying a popular guy is le bad because it makes you feel esoteric and like a "better" fantasy fan.
Also, if you don't like GRUM, there are millions of writers who aren't GRUM and don't write like him. You could easily avoid him just by sticking to subgenres he has no overlap with. I'd suggest Hopepunk, it's a genre entirely built on being as anti-edgeslop as possible.
>Reddit spacing
stopped reading. also go back.
>stopped reading
Maybe you should stop breathing, too.
>also go back.
Rich coming from the election tourist.
is that way
Also, this bait is almost as old as you are, OP
Yeah D&D (the directors) for taking a high fantasy world at the nadir of its magic prominance and turning it into mainstream mudcore shitshow that got popular.
George is only complicit in letting his work be made into that out of greed.
I can't hate this guy ever since I found out he wrote Sandkings. That was my favorite episode of Outer Limits and I always wanted a tank of those little bastards to play with.
Is that the one with the different colored giant space ants? I remember that, it was quite nice.
Yep! I always pictured them as a sort of cross between an ant and a spider. In this comic, they're a bit more like crabs.
I just watched two of his Twilight Zone episodes, and they were honestly pretty boring.
Twilight Zone was old and dusty.
Outer Limits was the one with breasts and carnage.
>Has any other man done more to damage fantasy as a genre?
yeah
His work as an author or his publishing company? Elaborate.
>Has any other man done more to damage fantasy as a genre?
Robert Jordan, I would say.
Muh forshadowing
>FAT MAN BAD
>FAT MAN BAD
Fat people always are. Being fat is a symptom of moral degeneracy. You cannot be in good shape and still be a bad person.
>You cannot be in good shape and still be a bad person
Now, being fat is obviously gross, but this? You don't unironically think a Black person that robs and kills is a good lad because he is ripped and goes to the gym, I hope?
It's probably satire, he probably doesn't actually believe that obesity is a symptom of moral degeneracy.
Obesity IS a sign of moral degeneracy, but of course it's complicated, and many great people have shown signs of moral degeneracy.
Not a single man, but I would argue Blizzard did more damage overall. Fantasy armor design in particular will likely never recover from wow.
Blizzard force raped the “humanity frick yeah” mindset (the kind seen in 40k but 10x worse) where humans are so ebin cool and awesome and only THEY can save the motherfricking UNIVERSE, holy shit.
>Fantasy armor design in particular will likely never recover from wow.
Mindbroken
So with the interest of actual discussion instead of an anonymous who's who of pseudo-intellectual one-upsmanship:
What is mudcore? What works adhere to its tenets, and under what conceit have they become popular? I know it's rude to ask for spoonfeeding, but subjects this fine-grated are often quite difficult to just look up.
Google it, you content farming, mouth-breathing moron. It's not difficult at all.
So it doesn't have a solid definition? Damn, I thought I was going to get to talk about tabletop games here.
It does, but expecting /tg/ to spoonfeed you when you have the collective of all human knowledge at your fingertips is a lazy and entitled mindset.
>damage fantasy as a genre?
>different thing bad
Historical fantasy existed before GRRM, you are complaining that a pendulum moved when someone put a heavier weight on one side.
>90% of it is edgeslop/mudcore thanks to this fat donkey
not even close, maybe 20% if we being generous
>Has any other man done more to damage fantasy as a genre?
Gygax, easily.
>90% of it is edgeslop/mudcore thanks to this fat donkey
Foolish
Warhammer Fantasy, Berserk and Dark Souls were a thing before him and are more influentional in RPG than a low magic setting like Game of Thrones.
>Dark Souls were a thing before him
dipshit
Alright yeah, I deserve to be called moronic over that blunder, but I don't remember people saying "OMG SO INFLUENTIONAL" and the numerous copies of him before it got popular due to the show.
>but I don't remember people saying "OMG SO INFLUENTIONAL" and the numerous copies of him
That's because you're a zoomer and aren't old enough to remember, but the people writing the things you grew up were influenced by him even if you're not aware of it.
saying asoiaf only got popular with the show is like saying lotr only got popular with the jackson movies, they had a fraction of popularity with normalgays prior, but everyone who spends money on ttrpgs was familiar with them
same with harry potter, the movies made it “mainstream” but the books were already so popular before them that they literally made a bestseller list for children’s books just to get it off the bestsellers list because it took up multiple rankings non stop for years
the only way you would know about them is being a moronic zoomer or not reading, ever
>Everyone was familiar with them
Are you kidding? I avoided that shit like the plague because it wasn't done yet.
If you're avoiding something you're familiar with it you fricking moron
overplayed it with dark souls, was believable otherwise
This is your brain on FROMslop.
The really funny thing is the only game those nips have produced with anything resembling a coherent plot or consistent world was written by GRRM
So ASOIAF is not Sword and Sorcery? I always thought it was
As soon as you enter Essos it is. If you assume sword & sorcery means sand, more sand and sand people.
Magic is a fading force in the world until the dragons are reborn. It left its mark on the world, with great wonders like the Wall. rumored horrors and monstrosities of flesh magic in steaming jungles to the south and the the numerous mentioned but never seen mysteries in eastern Essos, but the magic users in the setting are at this point few and capable of mere parlor tricks. They're stuck in decaying palaces and shadowy far away cities that are often spoken of but never visited while they dream of their past glories. But once Dany brings the dragons back their powers get a boost and they start crawling out of the fricking woodwork
And they proceed to make everything worse because frick sorcerers.
Imagine confusing cause and effect on such a grand scale as this. You don't hate GRRM, you hate other people, and you would hate them just as much even if they didn't like Game of Thrones.
wow a few simple colors and some animals how can GRRM ever imagine anything this complex
Wow, you're so moronic you disprove your own point. Because that is indeed more complex than anything in the series.
sorry that three lions was overwhelming to you, will you accept a single lion?
>take the arms of England
>call it Lannister
>truly a master of heraldry!
Like I said, he's a basic b***h when it comes to this shit. And that's fine, but saying he's particularly known for it is top shelf bullshit. Sorry you and the other sycophants can't process that simple fact.
Nobody cares, please return to pissing and shitting yourself
>Has any other man done more to damage fantasy as a genre?
Tolkien. He's even worse than GRRM. The fantasy genre wouldn't exist if JRRT hadn't functionally invented it, and that means that Tolkien is personally responsible for everything that came after. We'd be far better off of he'd died at the Somme.
>The fantasy genre wouldn't exist if JRRT hadn't functionally invented it
What the frick are you on about Black person
What does a confederate fricking martians have to do with fantasy?
They're barely fantasy books. Outside of Dani/Jon chapters there's nothing fantastical
Fantasy was previously under the yoke of Tolkien, and a setting where the main wizard didn't cast anything greater than basic cantrips and refused to actually help at the greatest battles of the age.
I'm no GRRM fanboy but at least he's not Tolkien.
have a nice day
>they hated him because he told them the truth
>a setting where the main wizard didn't cast anything greater than basic cantrips
He was throwing around fireballs though
No he wasn’t moron
No, GRRM has had an influential but honestly niche impact on fantasy. The show can't really have said to have had much of an impact on the genre since it was mostly geared towards trying to net in non-fantasy fans.
The most major damage to fantasy currently has been from video games like World of Warcraft, and modern Dungeons and Dragons reinforcing that damage.
Not even a huge GRRM fan but excessively hating on him would more likely indicate that one has barely any grasp of the fantasy genre at all and is struggling to find targets or articulate a position.
>The show can't really have said to have had much of an impact on the genre since it was mostly geared towards trying to net in non-fantasy fans.
Right, yea, sort of like how 3eD&D had a niche impact on tabletop games, because it was mostly geared towards trying to net non-tabletop-gamers. moron.
>The most major damage to fantasy currently has been from video games
lmao
Tolkien is anti-ethical to D&D. Gygaxian levelocracy, where a villager can rise to become a baron or a “Conan type”, is fundamentally incompatible with the European fantasy typified by Lord of the Rings, in which no fellowship can alter the fact that Sam is by birth a servant, Frodo a gentleman, Strider a king, and Gandalf a wizard.
But Sam, Frodo and Gandalf all gained levels as the story progressed. Aragorn maybe didn't but he powerleveled when he was younger. And nobody gets to level up into being an elf (though you can maybe have a nice day and get reincarnated as one depending on the edition).
That said, I do think these narrative devices all sit on a basic spectrum of self-determination vs predetermination, and modern fantasy has generally moved left on that spectrum, to the point where "+2 strength, -2 intelligence" is actually offensive to some people.
Merry & Pippin end up as soldiers.
>90% of it is edgeslop/mudcore thanks to this fat donkey
That would make him a savior of fantasy genre
ENTER
Has any other man done more to damage fantasy as a genre?
90% of it is edgeslop/mudcore thanks to this fat donkey
Once you read Elric you start seeing that shit everywhere. OP's pic was clearly inspired by him, but also D&D, Warhammer, Elder Scrolls, pre-2000's fantasy anime, if something uses something from Tolkien it'll probably use something from Moorwiener too.
The Elric saga is certainly edgy but FAR from mudcore.
Moorwiener is the most ripped-off fantasy author after Tolkien, no contest.
>Moorwiener is the most ripped-off fantasy author after Tolkien
I'm pretty sure the first one is Lord Dunsany since Tolkien, Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard, all started worldbuilding with their own fake alternate historical events and made up mythologies to copy The Gods of Pegana.
Also honestly the Gods of Pegana is still better than 99,99% of every fantasy setting made after it, it's just so clever in so many ways.
I quite liked GRRM's books. Never did watch the TV series. Hope he finishes the books before he dies of being fat, but I doubt it happens.
fellas why can't I find any fantasy literature that seems like it's worth reading? I occasionally browse the fantasy book section and cringe when reading the titles and synopsis
Because there is no fantasy literature worth reading. The entire genre is a gigantic waste of time and effort.
>Because there is no fantasy literature worth reading. The entire genre is a gigantic waste of time and effort.
*immediately basedfaces when Alex Jones releases new fiction*
Read Vance, Read LeGuin, read Morcook, read Tolkien if you haven't already, if you like at least one of those guys then we can probably recommend something similar, and if you don't like any of those guys then you truly do not like English fantasy literature.
Read older books, I recommend the classics like Elric of Melniboné.
Stephenie Meyer of Twilight fame. Ruined urban fantasy into paranormal wank fantasy .
Stephanie meyer is just worse anne rice without the gay.
She really is a successor to Rice, and it really is the worst kind of succession, because Anne Rice was a conflicted self-aware sometimes-Christian who drew deep inspiration from Christianity, while Meyer is just an unironic conformist Christian plagued by fetishes that she doesn't understand. And Meyer was inspired by Rice without even knowing it. Meyer is to vampires what Neo Genesis Evangellion is to christianity.
Completely different things, NGE is just horny rule of cool science fantasy story, Twilight was just wank turned hit by some thirsty teenagers.
I wouldn't compare them in terms of quality, I think NGE is better. Nevertheless, NGE is also just wank turned hit by some thirsty teenagers, and Twilight is also just horny rule of cool science fantasy.
> Sparkling vampires.
> Rule of cool...
Anon, there are cool vampires with superpowers that appeal to both sexes verse twilight trash, have you ever read Trinity Blood for example? That's a rule of cool vampire series.
>rule of cool
Yes. This is the part where I count on you to understand the fact that different things are cool to different people. Twilight is trash, I'm not implying otherwise, but she did whatever she thought was cool BECAUSE it was cool (with utter disregard for previously established themes and conventions, which is the true mark of rule-of-cool), and apparently she wasn't the only one who thought that shit was cool.
>Trinity Blood
And this is the part where you try to convince me that the novels are better than the anime. I'm not likely to believe you but you can try. FYI, I haven't yet read Earthsea or Dying Earth or Grey Mouser or Elric, so getting onto my reading list is going to be hard.
I've only read 1-and-a-half books by Anne Rice, but I'm glad I did, she has her own style and it was refreshing.
What Twilight is basically doing is just "rule of hot gawk at that male body" vs rule of cool which is about fun shit that's not sex.
>NGE
>fun shit that's not sex
o.k. gay.
"Not sex" is a scruple, and I insist that "rule of cool" is defined at least in part by its lack of scruples. You may contest this claim in general, and I welcome you to do so, but in terms of NGE specifically I don't think that you can.
Rule of Hot: Sex Glare marketing tactics.
Rule of Cool: Everything not sex related.
And let's just say it like this with rule of cool you can hint at characters having sex and whatever, when it becomes just lewd action it becomes porn thus rule of hot.
Also, Trinity Blood Manga, not the novels or anime did pretty well depicting the series.
Anne Rice? What about Anne Beans?
OP specified man, also if you include women Rowling was probably worse
other than anime and Disney shows for pre teenagers she didn't really change anything
Rowling inspired an entire generation to read a single book, and they do not shut up about it. I've heard so many Voldemort comparisons that I have learned to despise the entire series.
At least she hates troons I guess.
It's not him, it's normies devouring any slop execs give them. The books are ok, they're more grounded than most fantasy (of which 90% is trash).
But the books are literally only famous because of the TV show and the TV show is literally only fmapis because of all the breasts.
/thread
ASOIAF will never be finished, GOT sucks dick. Why do we even pretend to care about this guy anymore?
WoW as well, the fantasy esthetic has been tarnished since the release.
GRRM is suing chatGPT because people are using it to write since he won't
https://apnews.com/article/openai-lawsuit-authors-grisham-george-rr-martin-37f9073ab67ab25b7e6b2975b2a63bfe
What are you talking about? 90% of fantasy is zoomers playing troony tieflings with jeans on. Fantasy is in the fricking toilet
Look, his fiction sucks but he's never jannied me nor insinuated he's happy about jannies.
So he's doing better than most of you
I enjoyed the Wheel of Time books.
I guess they're ruining them with a TV show now?
Yes, badly. "Strong empowered woman" doesn't even begin to cover it. From moronic casting choices to cut content, they comically miss the point of the series.
>cut content
the fact that you're likening writing to "content" tells me all I need to know regarding you
>Can't refute.
>Can't dispute.
>Must make personal attack.
I accept your surrender.
hey guys, I've got some great cut content from the Lord of the Rings, its called the Silmarillion.
moron
>Can't refute.
>Can't dispute.
>Must make personal attack.
I accept your surrender.
In the 00's everyone constantly whined about how predictable media was.
Since the early 10's readers/watchers have a sense of wonder and fear for the characters in stories again. Some people don't even watch trailers for fear of being spoiled.
You're welcome.
He's a cultureless and incompetent hack and everyone defending him is a cuckold moron.
My evidence is that he isn't going to finish his books, not because he is lazy but because his homosexual modern ideology can't tell true or beautiful stories. The only thematic possibilities I can see:
1: Winter triumphs and everyone dies because the Lannisters didn't cut carbon emissions or something.
2: Danaerys conquers the seven kingdoms and white girls the world over get to pretend that sacrificing other peoples' stuff on the alter of brown people makes them heroic.
There was a time when Martin had options, years ago, but he cucked on those options and doubled down on rubbing shit into the wounds of his story, and now it is infected and poisoned and cannot function, what exactly is the plot now? Euron Greyjoy is summoning Ctulhu and now a mercenary army under another targ is coming with elephants, we are no fricking closer to answers now than we were 15 years ago. There has been ZERO addition to the fantasy canon as a result, any conversation about AGOIAF must be prefaced with "The show sucked and the series is never going to finish" and will in perpetuity, which renders anything Martin has, could, or will ever say about the subject asterisked.
>the only possibilities I can see are the bad guys win and that makes me mad
>what about the show, where the good guys win?
>no that sucks, I want the bad guys to win so I can be mad
The show's ending was a uniformly agreed upon catastrophe precisely because it tried to break free of the direction the series was headed and have good triumph over evil etc etc, when that isn't what the point of the story has been so far. They essentially chose one of the bad endings, and then pulled a gotcha at the end with Jon stabbing dragon Azula and then getting exiled.
Everyone agrees that it sucked. I'm just saying that the ending sucked because the trajectory of the series has ALWAYS been towards a shitty ending. It's got all of the problems that Wheel of Time had except that it's got even worse direction because the structure and themes of the story are incompatible with the kind of heroic epic that the base components of the story necessitate that it be.
I mean I guess there's an easy way to prove me wrong, we'll just wait another 20 years until Winds comes out and then another 20 years before Brandon Sanderson finishes the series and then you can show me how well it ends.
>Everyone agrees that it sucked. I'm just saying that the ending sucked because the trajectory of the series has ALWAYS been towards a shitty ending. It's got all of the problems that Wheel of Time had except that it's got even worse direction because the structure and themes of the story are incompatible with the kind of heroic epic that the base components of the story necessitate that it be.
>I mean I guess there's an easy way to prove me wrong, we'll just wait another 20 years until Winds comes out and then another 20 years before Brandon Sanderson finishes the series and then you can show me how well it ends.
We all know that he going to fricking die before he can finish it.
You are literally moronic.
First of all GRRM told D&D how it will all end back when they started the series. So neither of your uber-dumb culture ware bs endings will happen. The events of the episodes will play out in the books only with more fluff.
And secondly do you seriously not understand how themes work? The series (books and TV) has a "be careful what you wish for" subtheme. Jon Snow will end up banished to the Wall because he wished to take the vow back in the first book. Dany will save the seven kingdoms and break the wheel only she has to go full mad queen and die in order to galvanize the lords into doing proto-democracy.
Stand aside as I prepare this hot take.
Stephen King's The Dark Tower series was amazing and Jake is the cutest.
I have not seen the movie, nor do I ever plan to.
You may commence with the screeching.
Nah. Knew the series was hyped, read the first book, was okayish, no interest to read any of the other books.
Fair enough. I was hooked by the first book. For what it's worth, his writing definitely improves along the way. I'm glad he decided to finish them before he died.
I'll grant you that I like the idea of a mythical gunslinger with some knowledge of the arcane. I just found it all way too cumbersome for what it was...
Was the world more fleshed out later? Maybe I'll read a fan wiki about it.
>Was the world more fleshed out later?
Yes, very much so. The first book only set the tone. The second book, The Drawing of the Three, introduces the other main characters that form Roland's party. By this point King has improved a lot as an author, and the rest of the story features some pretty rich world-building and character development, as well as Roland's backstory.
Okay, that sounds kinda good. Could be worth pirating the audio books.
>Could be worth pirating the audio books.
You definitely should.
So what was his tax policy anyway?
Ooh, he a cute.
Doors to be held upon threat of fine or imprisonment.
>If your fantasy setting doesn't have humans, dwarves, elves, and hobbits with evil orcs it's not real fantasy!
This frick has done more damage to the Fantasy genre than anyone else because everyone tries to copy him instead of making something original, fresh, or unique.
Unironically Peter Jackson.
You zoomies are too young to remember, but from 2001 onwards everyone and their mother tried to emulate Lotr in some form and the legions of Legoli and Aragons haunt the collective conscious to this day.
Gav Thorpe is a better writer than him.
Do you think George R R Martin would have been a more interesting writer if he had been born in the Deep South instead of New Jersey? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-35W_FWCT9Q
>Most society and religions don't consider self-defense immoral. Anybody with a rudimentary education on ethics knows the justification to that.
So I gave you an example that (by your admission anybody knows) for why I think
>Our lives are not black and white.
and that's basically it. Real life has corner cases and idiosyncracies. A story featuring dilemmas or "muddy" moral questions could (at least in theory) be more compelling than "good guy does good things and must never make a value judgement."
>and that's basically it.
This is what I mean by "thought terminating cliché". You don't care anymore.
>A story featuring dilemmas or "muddy" moral questions could (at least in theory) be more compelling than "good guy does good things and must never make a value judgement."
And I gave a theoretical version of Fist of the North Star where the bad guys keep calling Ken-Shiro a hypocrite for killing rapists and slavers. Is that suddenly better?
Let's say I go to Atlanta and put up a big sign that says "Sherman should have finished the job" featuring General Sherman lighting a bunch of school children on fire that are all made to look like dumb hayseed bumblefricks with missing teeth and rat tail haircuts and mullets, then I start cussing out passersby and asking them how flammable their children are.
Someone inevitably punches me in the face So I put 6 rounds in their chest. That isn't self-defense. That is fricking instigating. I put myself in a situation where the fight was inevitable with the express intention of killing people. Now you know the difference.
nice b8
Do you have any evidence of Kyle Rittenhouse instigating violence in the way you described, or are you just making shit up for fun?
Enough evidence was presented in court, but Rittenhouse managed to sob his way out of it on the stand while his mom screeched "MAH BAHBY DIDT DO NUFFIN." He got his pussypass. Like I said, the law isn't set up to handle instigating well. Even hockey has better rules for it.
The people he killed were all convicted criminals dude.
No, I don't care about your fanfiction. Post evidence from the court hearing or quit whining. I'll go out on a limb and say I don't believe the court presented a single piece of evidence proving that Kyle Rittenhouse instigated conflict of any kind. Feel free to prove me wrong with evidence to the contrary from the court hearing.
That IS self-defense, Sherman SHOULD have finished the job, and you should do this IRL.
>
Stopping somebody from burning down a building isn't instigating a fight, you weirdo
The first person to make unconsented physical contact is considered the instigator in a conflict. By his own testimony, Rittenhouse made first physical contact.
Fair interpretation of how our law works. That said there needs to be serious blowback for instigation that results in a death and there isn't. That is broadly my point.
I think George Rail Road Martin is truly based as he makes the annoying guys who are into Tolkien to virtue signal mad.
Oh, and to follow up on this, this same issue is ALSO the reason why George Zimmerman was also acquitted. He was involved in a physical conflict with Trayvon Martin. However, Martin was the one who escalated the conflict from fisticuffs (ie, a nonlethal level of force) to beating Zimmerman's head against the pavement (which was determined after the fact by the legal system to constitute an escalation to the lethal level of force). Once that escalation happened, Zimmerman was legally clear to employ lethal force of his own to defend his life, and did so using a firearm.
I get why people are mad at these things, but the law is actually fairly consistent when it comes to this. Starting a fight does not necessarily mean you cannot respond to an escalation to lethal force and become the"defender", even if you were the instigator. People have trouble wrapping their brains around that fact.
I think the problem people have is that the instigators are not being charged for starting the fight. Like if I go and start a fight in a bar that just ends as a bar fight, I get charged with assault.
Apparently, though, if I start a fight in a bar, the other people goes a little extra and I decide to shoot him in the face, I get charged with nothing and go free. Someone died and I get less of a punishment for starting the fight than I would have if they had lived.
>Somebody reaches for your gun while yelling that they're going to kill you
>You push them away from you and run away
>Ergo, you technically instigated this conflict
Hilarious. It's wild that one anon seriously compared this situation to going down the street threatening to genocide people.
As morally reprehensible as I find that Rittenhouse debacle I think your summary is correct. Yes, he probably went there explicitly to shoot some Black folk. Yes, he could and should have done things differently in the moments leading up to the conflict. Yes, he felt his life was in danger and therefore legally speaking it was self-defense.
But not a failure in finding him not guilty of murder, which is what that poster was describing.
Oh, and frankly speaking, I doubt you'd get him on an assault charge for pushing away a person reaching for his gun.
I agree it's a reasonable defense. That defense should have come up in his defense against the accompanying assault charges for the initial fisticuffs in which he was involved, and which never happened because the prosecutors went solely for the home run murder charges which anyone familiar with self-defense laws could have predicted would crash and burn.
>Has any other man done more to damage fantasy as a genre?
Yes. Terry Goodkind, Brandon Sanderson, Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, David Eddings and R.A. Salvatore just to name a few. Martin can actually fricking write, which you'd think would be quite an important quality in an author.
N
I
C