|
|
|
Wag
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:46 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,522
|
|
nesciomancer (1/14/2007)
Can you explain what the difference is?
Oh - I don't know if I'm using the same definition as Wen Jian, but I meant to put a note in when I defined 'Epic' and quoted the dictionary definitions (the link doesn't seem to work in my post, but works in your quote of my post?) - but there seems to be a clear distinction between "epic" the noun (high-language narration or derivative of) and "epic" the adjective (big/heroic/greater than level 30).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:05 AM
Posts: 623,
Visits: 2,511
|
|
Marios (1/14/2007)
[quote]Oh - I don't know if I'm using the same definition as Wen Jian, but I meant to put a note in when I defined 'Epic' and quoted the dictionary definitions (the link doesn't seem to work in my post, but works in your quote of my post?) - but there seems to be a clear distinction between "epic" the noun (high-language narration or derivative of) and "epic" the adjective (big/heroic/greater than level 30). All I saw was one word with at least two possible meanings. For the purposes of this discussion, do you want to pretend that Epic means "high-language narration" and epic means "big and heroic"? Like with Catholic/catholic, or Conservative/conservative.
WARNING: the information above may have been subjected to dangerously high levels of ignorance.
OOC (and on Pagga): Carrie
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:46 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,522
|
|
nesciomancer (1/14/2007)
All I saw was one word with at least two possible meanings. For the purposes of this discussion, do you want to pretend that Epic means "high-language narration" and epic means "big and heroic"? Like with Catholic/catholic, or Conservative/conservative.
When I look at this dictionary link (see if that works) - it all seems to break into three groups - used as a generic noun (long narrative poem telling of a hero's deeds) - used as an adjective (imposing or impressive) - used as a part of a proper noun/acronym (irrelevant).
Originally, I was just copying Wen Jian's use of epic and capitalising it to create a future retreat in case of someone knew anything about english literature entering the conversation and pointing out that small-e epic meant something else. Ditto Novel really (I don't know what the technical definition of 'novel' stipulates, but Wen Jian's use of it described something I could grasp in a manner I thought useful in this context).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:46 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,522
|
|
Sorry - the link button doesn't work (I thought it was doing something invisibly but I was wrong):
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:epic&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:46 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,522
|
|
nesciomancer (1/14/2007)
I keep expecting someone else to jump on this one, since I'm making so many sweeping statements about a topic I know so little about.
I watched a programme on BBC4 (not "saw a show" - that's for ITV and other plebeian-focused distributor-networks) with Armando Ianucci. He likes pushing the idea that no one really knows what they are doing - that everyone is largely faking it and hoping that no one sees through the facade of superificial competence. By that measure, you're a complete failure, but at least you're in company.
nesciomancer (1/14/2007)
Unless the author has written a long foreword/essay, how do you know that they were aiming for a novel rather than an epic?
Um - big-E Epics are either in explicitly in the epic tradition or obviously derivative of the epic tradition. How do you know that safety signs on the walls in the london underground are simply regulations and not cutting-edge media-subversion tools?
As for novel - like I said, I'm using Wen Jian's definition - I think it would be hard to come up with something more solid than 'focusing more on character development/relations between characters than a related series of events/morality play' and I don't think it's really necessary. In this context, you're picking up what you would assume to be a fantasy novel . It's in the local library fantasy section - it seems reasonable to assume that it's going to offer what novel's normally offer. Criticism on flaws virtues does depend on what sort of genre the book is aiming for - slagging off a fantasy book because it's poor science fiction is a bit of a waste of time (hence the annoyance of libraries which mix the two genres together). Complaining that it was hard to read and full of pointless rhyming is a needless criticism if it's a book of poetry that's been misshelved.
Obviously, the fine detail blurs, but it's generally clear when someone is using a specific traditional format - be it tone poetry, prose written without any punctuation, writing in epic tradition - as opposed to writing a - for the want of a better phrase - 'standard novel' which happens to include an annoying amount of alliteration, inconsistent use. of, commas; and punctation, heavily handed Just Soisms.
nesciomancer (1/14/2007)
Why do I need to worry about doing a disservice to deliberate attempts to write epics, but not to deliberate attempts to write novels? Is there something virtuous aboutattempting to write an epic, rather than anything else?
Any criticism of media - beyond "I liked it/I didn't like it" - relies on being able to grasp (or at least, make a guess) some sense of what the media was intended to portray. Granted that's not going to be foolproof, but all the epics quoted by Wen Jian struck me as things I would note as more or less obviously in the epic tradition. I don't consider the lack of deep characterisation or the heavy didactic feel of the greek myths as flaws of the work so much as common features of myths/epics (I realise conflating epics and myths is jumbling a lot of stuff together - but I think they have reasonable commonality in this case and I lack the deep background in the classics to properly clarify the distinctions). Those same criticisms laid on Harry Potter could not - in my opinion - be waved away simply by saying "Oh, well, the Harry Potter books/the Drizzt Do'Urden series are written in the epic tradition". I don't think that's a reasonable defence and I think it's a disservice to the epic tradition (or, more pragmatically, to people who would benefit from the dross fantasy tradition being separated from the epic tradition - obviously, all literary delineations are constructs, but I think it's fair to separate {"greek myths and legends", "the epic gilgamesh", "paradise lost", "the Lord of the Rings"} and {"Harry Potter series", "Drizzt Do'Urden series"}. Clearly there's overlap with the Lord of the Rings and literarily educated people would no doubt laugh at such cumbersome and clumsy grouping but it seems both reasonable and useful.
nesciomancer (1/14/2007)
Is there such a thing asa storywhich is definitively epic even though virtually everyone who reads it thinks it's shit?
Probably - I'll admit, I read the various world-wide myths and legends in translation when I was very young and I think it was as much the interesting style of writing that entertained me as much as the quality of the writings or the underlying narrative. Equally, put something to opera and I'll generally lap it up, because I enjoy the format (cf Jerry Springer: The Opera).
Generally, in operas, you don't expect individual words to be clearly annunciated. It's a failing I'll forgive in operas because of the format and because it's deliberate since it's more about mood (and vocal excess). If I was watching something which I didn't believe to be opera, but I couldn't make out what the characters were saying because they mumbled or there was too much noise in the background - I don't think it would be reasonable to defend the programme from criticism on the grounds that perhaps it was in the operatic tradition (unless they all started singing).
nesciomancer (1/14/2007)
I note that many (but not all) of those definitions mention that epics are written in 'high language'- does this mean that if you translate an epic into 'low' language, it stops being an epic? Say if Beowulf's reaction to hacking Grendel's arm off is "fuck, it's all gross and slimy".
That's why I've been saying (inconsistently, I agree) Epic+Mock-Epic (also, I don't know enough to say precisely what is included within the epic tradition, but if you include mock-epics deliberately written 'in the style of' then I think that broadens the definition enough to include low-language epics, as mentioned in Wen Jian's little list.
Speaking of Beowulf - it's possible to produce narratives derived from Epics/narratives explicitly in the epic tradition/epic poems - for instance Beowulf and Grendel:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402057/
Very distinct approach (also fun for anthropologists - Neandertals in Norway?).
nesciomancer (1/14/2007)
Marios (1/14/2007)
Well, I've previously ranted at great length about my hatred of authors who instruct you on which characters are Right and which are Wrong (ooh Sheri S Tepper ...) Right, this is getting somewhere. I'm not sure that I'd consider Tepper's work to be epic, if only because in regurgitated criticism I've heard from you, not much seems to happen in her books. If her books were about characters who had to go on long and difficult journeys in order to find the bad men/lesbians and teach them all the error of their ways, then maybe.
My mistake - I'm not trying to say that Sheri S Tepper stuff is Epic/Mock Epic/'in the epic tradition', merely that it exemplifies, for me, precisely that sort of didactic/instructed moralism.
The point I was - hamfistedly - trying to make was that it doesn't seem to be Epics/Mock Epics that offend you so much as didactic moralism coming from an author who you perceive as sufficiently similar to you that it triggers your memetic immune system. Horus worship is sufficiently alien that one can happily read the Egyptian myths without the need to insert a mental dam, Margaret Atwood is close enough to 'home' that Wrong-thought needs to carefully filtered out of Right-thought.
nesciomancer (1/14/2007)
Well done- you've successfully achieved (been lowered to?) a state of quoting obscure anthropological theory in public! Biscuit!
Well, I've resisted the temptation to differentiate between emic and etic terms (only jargon that I'm not privvy to is snobbish and unnecessary).
nesciomancer (1/13/2007)
You will die slowly and mostly inside-out.
There's nothing inside and, as Homer says - in an episode of The Simpsons which _you_ won't have seen yet "We're all slowly dying.". And that's the best bit - so it's ruined for you now.
nesciomancer (1/13/2007)
Maybe the ultimate message is that Seth's attempts to present himself as an ok bloke who doesn't necessarily have to die are exactly the reason why we need totake adeep breathand kill him- he's trying to trick us into being sympathetic, when he's still the embodiment of chaos, destruction and peasants not doing what they're told.
We are now, officially, so far out of our depth that sunlight remains as a sort slightly lighter disk occasionally occluded by passing shoals of supposition.
With that caveat, the reason I've been saying Epic/Myth is that I think there's a bit of a divide between contemporary theology - evolving towards very Manichean narratives (this guy is Evil that guy is Good - end of story) - and archaic theology (where it's all a bit more blurry/pragmatic).
It's tricky to make a proper distinction - Paradise Lost and Lord of the Rings are Manichean (Sauron and Satan are both supposed to be bad-bads, as I understand it, regardless of how it reads (cf Mitchell and Webb "horrible greasy orc-food. I mean, I know some people like it, but to me it just tastes like entrails ..." government-by-jewelry sketch)) whereas the Greek myths and the Beowulf saga always read (to me) as more pragmatic. We're killing these people because we're angry with them and because of a trickle-down conflict between some of the gods (sort of opposed by some other gods). Beowulf seems to absorb the basic - if people kill your relatives/allies, you'll probably have to kill them back, in which case their relatives will probably feel a similar duty to kill you - dilemma of Nordic feuds. Or, if you prefer, Even Monsters Have Mothers!
A number of them do boil down to "You might not like killing people simply because they are bit different, but it's probably a good plan to do your sentimentalising after they are dead".
Talk of epics/epic tradition here is very biased by my limited reading - it's a lot easier to talk about Manichean narratives - orcs are Evil, elves and humans have free will - than to try to generalise over all Epics/Myths/Legends and translations thereof - I think it's enough (barely) to allow criticism of the Harry Potter series to be valid, while not equally applying to Lord of the Rings, Die Nibelung and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Edging further from that - reasonably unambitious position - does invoke severe risk of descent into a 'semantic twat-orgy' (which, I suppose, is at least one step up from a syntactic twat-orgy).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Devil's Advocate
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:35 PM
Posts: 1,142,
Visits: 1,400
|
|
Nobody really believes Cthulu exists. They just think that they might get goth chicks to engage in sordid acts of considerable depravity if they pretend it will raise Shubb-Niggurath. As for the success of these tactics...well, I guess Sturrock would be the man to ask.
That crazy RPG hating chritsian guy believes they are real...
And as for LOTR, Tart, me old skim-reader, well, sharing traits with something and being that thing are quite distinct.
Not according to Matt Pennington - Apparently they are Epics because Tolkien said they were.
Personnally I think this is cock. And one of the many reasons I cite for Tolkien not being a great author: ie the "but it's an EPIC!" argument doesn't wash with me.
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing.
|
|
|
|