Is Fantasy a decadent genre?

nyarlothothep

Here is my postulation. Fantasy is decadent as it engenders a return to the era of feudal serfdom/the ancient world with magic mixed in to provide an escapist reality. Sci Fi is better than Fantasy as it relies on logic for explaining the workings of its universe. It envisions the future, whether positive or negative, takes current and potential human issues and contends with them in philosophical/policial/ethical contexts. Fantasy can do this too but fantasy is more about pure escapism and a return to the past. Fantasy is similar to Fascism, as Mussolini basically wanted to create the Roman Empire again, to return to a past of oppression and slavery. Ergo fantasy=bad, sci fi=good.

Zapp Brannigan

Hmm...

nyarlothothep

I think I've raised some valid points.

mcgovern

So by taking magic, putting it in the future, and calling it something different, say, the Force, you can change a story from something inherently evil, into
something nice and good and it explains all the worlds problems?

nyarlothothep

mcgovern wrote: »

So by taking magic, putting it in the future, and calling it something different, say, the Force, you can change a story from something inherently evil, into
something nice and good and it explains all the worlds problems?

Ah but there is a scientific explanation for the force, it is the energy field generated by all living things which possess midichlorians. Furthermore this is why The Empire Strikes Back is inherently superior to LOTR. Anyone who thinks LOTR is better needs to watch Star Wars again. The line "No, I am your father!" is never going to be bettered by "the hobbits are going to Isengaard!" Such pathos, such greek epicness, imagine watching Star Wars in 1980, they didn't have CG back then. Think of how utterly mindblowing it must have been to hear that line delivered by James Earl Jones set against an epic backdrop. Nothing surpasses it yet. I recently saw the film and the effects haven't dated at all, ok some shots do look dated, but by and large it holds its own to LOTR very well, in fact the effects are better because there is more artistry and technique in them, the ship models and the lighting are incredible. The only good fantasy films which are exceptions to my rule are Conan the Barbarian (1982) which can be considered a philosophical allegory and Your Highness which wins out because its so damned funny.

ixoy

Seriously you can't really buy that nonsense of an explanation? It barely merits the idea of being science fiction - where the science is an extrapolation of current knowledge. It's closer to science fantasy.

Now that's just one media form - movies and, presumably, TV. If you look at book forms I can't agree with you that fantasy promotes fascism. In fact in those fantasy novels where oppressive reigns exist, the general answer is not acceptance but the heroes rallying against it or, if not, certainly never an admiration for it. I mean Star Wars features a despotic ruler yet you don't cry fascism there either - because they seek to disrupt that balance.

Science fiction is not always forward thinking either in its political outlook. Look at some of the older science fiction novels and they often reflect their eras: Women in more repressive roles for example, obsessed with the ideas of communism in the works of the '60s etc.

nyarlothothep

ixoy wrote: »

Seriously you can't really buy that nonsense of an explanation? It barely merits the idea of being science fiction - where the science is an extrapolation of current knowledge. It's closer to science fantasy.

Now that's just one media form - movies and, presumably, TV. If you look at book forms I can't agree with you that fantasy promotes fascism. In fact in those fantasy novels where oppressive reigns exist, the general answer is not acceptance but the heroes rallying against it or, if not, certainly never an admiration for it. I mean Star Wars features a despotic ruler yet you don't cry fascism there either - because they seek to disrupt that balance.

Science fiction is not always forward thinking either in its political outlook. Look at some of the older science fiction novels and they often reflect their eras: Women in more repressive roles for example, obsessed with the ideas of communism in the works of the '60s etc.

I meant that fantasy is essentially backwards looking, it allows one to live in an imagined past rather than an imagined future. Fascism was the same, it was all about restoring the glory of the nation, moral standards, etc in the face of uncertain times. Sci Fi is progressive, its about looking further, into the future, it doesn't have to be optimistic, it can be cautionary, but it looks forwards rather than backwards, it goes for what can be rather than what was, it is about discovery rather than tradition.

And at least they tried to come up with an explanation, which is more than I can say for fantasy, "whooosh, I've just teleported myself with my wand." "How did you do that?" "I don't need an explanation, its magic."

ArtSmart

You're kinda mad, but i get what you're saying is that
fantasy is clumsy history. SF is uncluttered science.

but that's ok. in truth there is some merit in your postulation.


the thing is , who cares? (ie, why bring this up? fantasy sells etc, so does SF. so what?)

Sleepy

The genre is just the setting for the theme explored.

It's possible to have feudalism in Sci-Fi (Star Wars - the Jedi being the Knight class, the Emporor etc) or democracy in Fantasy (Eland Venture's attempt to create a parliament in Mistborn).

ixoy

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Sci Fi is progressive, its about looking further, into the future, it doesn't have to be optimistic, it can be cautionary, but it looks forwards rather than backwards, it goes for what can be rather than what was, it is about discovery rather than tradition.

To a point - not all sci-fi is about discovery. There's much that's just about big ships and battles and really that's little more than any fantasy schlock you might find.

Those that push the boundaries, rarer than most, can look at big questions I'll give you that. Science fiction is better at asking the "what ifs?" - be it how would we react to aliens or if we became digital encoding. It can lend itself to Big Ideas a lot more although much of it doesn't bother.

And at least they tried to come up with an explanation, which is more than I can say for fantasy, "whooosh, I've just teleported myself with my wand." "How did you do that?" "I don't need an explanation, its magic."

I'd rather they didn't bother if the explanation is going to such bollocks really. It's not really far off saying "wizard did it!" But then I like there to be some realism in a lot of my sci-fi, reflected in those authors I do read in the genre.

Manach

Firstly decadence is a value judgment that has a tendency to change as societies do. A good sub-section of Fantasy deals with straight good v bad issues, with little scope for grey. (though this being gleeful subvert by authors such as Joe Abercrombie)
Secondly, Fantasy is a progression - the overlooked who band together to achieve a goal - ie destroying that chap in Mordor.
So fantasy shows the possible and the moral as it utilises the folklore and histories of the past to overthrow the domination of that which would destroy the values of a shared humanity.

fitz

nyarlothothep wrote: »

And at least they tried to come up with an explanation, which is more than I can say for fantasy, "whooosh, I've just teleported myself with my wand." "How did you do that?" "I don't need an explanation, its magic."

Come back after you've read the Malazan Book of the Fallen series and try to back up that over-generalisation of an entire genre.

And midichlorians are an explaination? Really?
"The Force is an energy field created by all living things."
"How do you use it?"
"Well, you reach out with your feelings, and if you have a high midichlorian count, you'll be better at it."
"Midichlorians?"
"Yeah, they are in your body. Giving you Force."
"Eh, ok."

A bad fantasy novel is just that....a bad novel, written in a fantasy setting.
As Sleepy said, it's just a setting. If the ideas, theme, characters and overall plot aren't up to snuff, it's not going to matter what the backdrop is.

Look at The Gap Cycle by Donaldson...it's based on Wagner's Ring Cycle, which was a fantasy setting. Both are great works, addressing similar themes and characters, but in different settings.

What you're railing against is not the fantasy genre, it's bad writing.

nyarlothothep

I'm not talking about the content of fantasy/sci fi, I'm discussing the form. Sci Fi lends itself by virtue of its form to big questions/unknown possibilities of existence etc. Fantasy is all about good vs evil, traditional human stories.

fitz

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Sci Fi lends itself by virtue of its form to big questions/unknown possibilities of existence etc. Fantasy is all about good vs evil, traditional human stories.

Again, that's a choice by the author. Erikson disproves your point.

nyarlothothep

fitz wrote: »

Again, that's a choice by the author. Erikson disproves your point.

You're missing my point.

Zapp Brannigan

I think you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself. You seem to be comparing your favourite Sci-Fi with trashy Fantasy novels, where other posters have offered better examples you just ignore them. So troll on I guess.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

people, you're arguing with a man who thinks half life is terrible because it doesn't have a heavy metal soundtrack

don't expect reason here

nyarlothothep

No I'm focused on form and cited Star Wars as a great film and ok-ish piece of sci fi as being inherently better than LOTR because its in the sci fi genre. The form of sci fi informs it and makes it better, even though it doesn't make all that much sense. And since when is LOTR trashy? LOTR is an average fantasy trilogy, but it did bring all the elements in fantasy together (elves, dungeons and dragons etc) and popularised it. It set a benchmark I suppose, kind of like Dracula did for the vampire genre, and Dracula is a terrible novel.

nyarlothothep

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

people, you're arguing with a man who thinks half life is terrible because it doesn't have a heavy metal soundtrack

don't expect reason here

Half Life is terrible, the only reason its popular is due to the fact that it has a geek physicist who become a military strongman giving inspiration to all the geek physicists/computer science nerds out there.

Zapp Brannigan

I'm out.

/washes hands

Andy-Pandy

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Half Life is terrible

Thats just crazy talk, next thing youll be saying goldeneye is no good as well. As someone who reads lots of fantasy and sci-fi, I can tell you that the most important components of a good book are good story line, originality and good writing. Giving an example of the star-wars movies doesnt exactly make it look like you have read much fantasy to base you dodgy conclusions on.

sipstrassi

All depends on the definition of what is fantasy and what is science fiction, doesn't it?
OP, would you consider David Gemmell's Wolf in Shadow to be fantasy or science fiction? It's set in a post apocalyptic world that resembles the old west (with magic!) so is it looking forward or back?
Similarly, would you consider Anne McCaffrey's Pern series to be fantasy or science fiction? It's a non-technological society with dragons but the planet they are on was colonised by a ship from Earth in our future and the dragons were an indigenous species genetically modified to do what they need to do. But the lives of the people are what we would see in our past rather than what we would expect from the future.
Also, some of Philip K Dicks work is not set in a future, doesn't have space ships etc. but he is always classified as science fiction (though he did say himself that 'The King of The Elves' is fantasy).

I like Rod Serling's definition "Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible." but there are many more and there are a lot of works you could put in either category. If you were bothered that is!

nyarlothothep

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Thats just crazy talk, next thing youll be saying goldeneye is no good as well. As someone who reads lots of fantasy and sci-fi, I can tell you that the most important components of a good book are good story line, originality and good writing. Giving an example of the star-wars movies doesnt exactly make it look like you have read much fantasy to base you dodgy conclusions on.

Yes I've played Goldeneye and I still don't get how its meant to be the greatest fps ever. Every single bloody level is grey, just walls of grey in samey forgettable military industrial complexes. Terrible terrible game. Doom is the best fps ever and Quake is vastyl superior to Goldeneye, it had imagination whereas Goldeneye did not. I will never understand how people's minds work, for example Skyrim is meant to be a great game, its awful, filled with fed ex quests and npcs that have no character and just serve as info resources to complete the quests. And the dragons are really annoying, its like I want to get to where I'm going to and a bloody dragon appears and its like fck off I want to play the game, stop making me deal with these repetitive chores. It was the exact same problem with the Oblivion gates in Oblivion. Basically Betsheda games suck, they're repetitive, labourious chores, more like work than actual fun. And yet...any yet...people say omg this is the best game ever. I can't understand this at all. It makes no sense, what is wrong with the world?!

Now back on topic.

sipstrassi wrote:

All depends on the definition of what is fantasy and what is science fiction, doesn't it?
OP, would you consider David Gemmell's Wolf in Shadow to be fantasy or science fiction? It's set in a post apocalyptic world that resembles the old west (with magic!) so is it looking forward or back?

Fantasy definately, it has magic in it.

sipstrassi wrote:

Similarly, would you consider Anne McCaffrey's Pern series to be fantasy or science fiction? It's a non-technological society with dragons but the planet they are on was colonised by a ship from Earth in our future and the dragons were an indigenous species genetically modified to do what they need to do. But the lives of the people are what we would see in our past rather than what we would expect from the future.

Definately sci fi, imagining regression to the past in the future, exploring this possibility through technology (planetary colonisation, genetically engineered dragons).

sipstrassi wrote:

Also, some of Philip K Dicks work is not set in a future, doesn't have space ships etc. but he is always classified as science fiction (though he did say himself that 'The King of The Elves' is fantasy).

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree you don't need spaceships to make a book or film sci fi. Philip K Dick is sci fi through and through. He wrote Total Recall.

sipstrassi

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree you don't need spaceships to make a book or film sci fi. Philip K Dick is sci fi through and through. He wrote Total Recall.

He didn't write Total Recall. He wrote 'We can remember it For You Wholesale' which Total Recall was based on. The story is far superior to the film (as with his other books adapted to film).
But Philip K Dick had stories with talking insects, malevolent washing machines and many other things you might call 'magic'.

Also, the magic in Wolf in Shadow is explained by something from space which enhances latent abilities in humans. Sounds like many a science fiction story...:)

Don't get too hung up on classification - a good book is a good book!

ixoy

But you are ignoring the points, making claims that fantasy is just good vs evil is plainly ignoring the many new writers who are altering the dynamic by making shades of grey, introducing some highly interesting moral ambiguity. Asking questions of what people would do in certain situations, how it would shape them can be very interesting and fantasy allows the writer to introduce new scenarios.

Then there's also the "new weird" element of fantasy that the likes of China Miéville are exploring which is highly imaginative.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Half Life is terrible, the only reason its popular is due to the fact that it has a geek physicist who become a military strongman giving inspiration to all the geek physicists/computer science nerds out there.

Now I can't take you seriously...

fitz

nyarlothothep wrote: »

No I'm focused on form and cited Star Wars as a great film and ok-ish piece of sci fi as being inherently better than LOTR because its in the sci fi genre. The form of sci fi informs it and makes it better, even though it doesn't make all that much sense.

Absolute rubbish.
Both Star Wars and LOTR follow EXACTLY the same form.
That of the hero journey or monomyth. The only difference is the setting.

Temptamperu

Star Wars is Just LOTR in space, I used to love it now its only a nice memory of childhood.

Also most good fantasy, especially what ive read isnt set in the past it is set on different planets or distant futures returned to fuedalism.
I think you should read more before postulating what is and what isnt good.

nyarlothothep

I've read loads of fantasy, such as LOTR, The Silmarillion, The Lost Tales, The Hobbit, The Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Beowulf (which was sh1t), The Dark Tower and so on.

Star Wars is distinguished from LOTR because its form is different, it may follow the same plot line but its sci fi, not fantasy. Morally ambiguous situations don't make fantasy better than sci fi. That can be explored in any genre context. Sci Fi explores the big questions, something fantasy cannot. Give me the fantasy equivalent to 2001 A Space Odyssey and I might reconsider all the counter arguments posted on this thread.

And anyway fantasy is about living in the old world, of horses and carts and feudal heirarchies, that seems pretty decadent to me.

ixoy

What big questions does "Star Wars" explore though? You keep referring to it but it's not much more than a farm boy again going on a quest with a sword. There just happens to be some guns and space ships but it's not exactly taxing anyone's brain or giving philosophical queries. There's nothing big about it - swap one of the (fairly poorly conceived) planets for a different land in a fantasy novel and you're still telling the same story only the action scenes are different. Nothing intellectually superior there.

Also you're not really describing decadence either. Some settings and characters, in some books, are decadent but saying the genre as a whole is, because it uses "horses and carts"... Not my understanding of the term.

nyarlothothep

ixoy wrote: »

What big questions does "Star Wars" explore though? You keep referring to it but it's not much more than a farm boy again going on a quest with a sword. There just happens to be some guns and space ships but it's not exactly taxing anyone's brain or giving philosophical queries. There's nothing big about it - swap one of the (fairly poorly conceived) planets for a different land in a fantasy novel and you're still telling the same story only the action scenes are different. Nothing intellectually superior there.

Also you're not really describing decadence either. Some settings and characters, in some books, are decadent but saying the genre as a whole is, because it uses "horses and carts"... Not my understanding of the term.

I'm just using Star Wars as an example to prove that a sci fi LOTR is better than a fantasy LOTR because its sci fi, the virtuous powers of sci fi make what is an intellectually unchallenging premise better compared to horse and carts phantasy.

Ah but it is decadent. You see it fulfills the desire of the read to go back in time to escape modernity, to a simpler agrarian way of life with some magic and escapism thrown in. But utimately wanting to return to a closer state with nature (ie riding horses) is decadent because it encompasses through association, the despotic era of feudalism and ancient world military imperialism. Yes, those societies were formally much more simplistic and could take action much more quickly. The military is a modern day equivalent. But they were undemocratic, cruel and heirarchial. So I regard that as decadent. I'm not saying its bad to read fantasy, its ok to partake in the decadence of the genre, we all yearn for simplicity, it does not make us despotic, but I am saying that sci fi is the better genre because to the future rather than the past it looks.

mcgovern

But its been pointed out that not all fantasy is in the past.
And there are a lot more decadent sci-fi novels than fantasy. So of the most famous sci-fi series could be described as decadent e.g. The Gap Series, and the Foundation Series.

nyarlothothep

mcgovern wrote: »

But its been pointed out that not all fantasy is in the past.
And there are a lot more decadent sci-fi novels than fantasy. So of the most famous sci-fi series could be described as decadent e.g. The Gap Series, and the Foundation Series.

The Gap series was basically Star Wars again with added darkness. It was the usual space opera boredom though 9 years ago it was amazing to my 17 year old self. The Foundation series is anything but decadent. Its a work of progressive art, it goes direct to what human civilisation means and plays out all the issues associated with it in a future context. The problem with future fantasy novels is that you still have magic in them.

Playboy

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I've read loads of fantasy, such as LOTR, The Silmarillion, The Lost Tales, The Hobbit, The Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Beowulf (which was sh1t), The Dark Tower and so on.

Star Wars is distinguished from LOTR because its form is different, it may follow the same plot line but its sci fi, not fantasy. Morally ambiguous situations don't make fantasy better than sci fi. That can be explored in any genre context. Sci Fi explores the big questions, something fantasy cannot. Give me the fantasy equivalent to 2001 A Space Odyssey and I might reconsider all the counter arguments posted on this thread.

And anyway fantasy is about living in the old world, of horses and carts and feudal heirarchies, that seems pretty decadent to me.

Read R Scott Bakkers 'The Prince of Nothing' series... Deals with huge questions. Probably the most philosophically heavy fantasy or sci-fi I have ever read.

mcgovern

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The Gap series was basically Star Wars again with added darkness. It was the usual space opera boredom though 9 years ago it was amazing to my 17 year old self. The Foundation series is anything but decadent. Its a work of progressive art, it goes direct to what human civilisation means and plays out all the issues associated with it in a future context. The problem with future fantasy novels is that you still have magic in them.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but the universe in Foundation is definitely decadent.

mar-z

I love how you deride fantasy for having magic in it but then use star wars as your main example which started explaining the force in the original series as a quasi-spiritual thing and later developed the explanation into a quasi-scientific thing with the absolute nonsense of midichlorians giving you the powers.

How is saying you have more midichlorians makes you better with the force any better than saying your stronger just cos. I honestly would of preferred it if they kept the more mystical/spiritual side of the force explanation intact rather than try push that nonsense.

Also, Star Wars was set 'a long long time ago' in a system where you have knights and emporers and as close to magic as you can get without calling it magic so it's not forward looking.

You might have had a better point if you chose a better sci-fi example or left out the fascism nonsense in attempt to emphasise your broad strokes approach of fantasy=bad sci-fi=good. I am a fan of both genres by the way.

al28283

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Ah but there is a scientific explanation for the force, it is the energy field generated by all living things which possess midichlorians. Furthermore this is why The Empire Strikes Back is inherently superior to LOTR. Anyone who thinks LOTR is better needs to watch Star Wars again. The line "No, I am your father!" is never going to be bettered by "the hobbits are going to Isengaard!" Such pathos, such greek epicness, imagine watching Star Wars in 1980, they didn't have CG back then. Think of how utterly mindblowing it must have been to hear that line delivered by James Earl Jones set against an epic backdrop. Nothing surpasses it yet. I recently saw the film and the effects haven't dated at all, ok some shots do look dated, but by and large it holds its own to LOTR very well, in fact the effects are better because there is more artistry and technique in them, the ship models and the lighting are incredible. The only good fantasy films which are exceptions to my rule are Conan the Barbarian (1982) which can be considered a philosophical allegory and Your Highness which wins out because its so damned funny.

Empire didn't have a scientific explanation for The Force, that didn't come about until TPM.

ixoy

al28283 wrote: »

Empire didn't have a scientific explanation for The Force, that didn't come about until TPM.

And arguably it never came at all...

al28283

ixoy wrote: »

And arguably it never came at all...

Agreed. Star Wars is more fantasy than sci-fi really

nyarlothothep

mar-z wrote: »

I love how you deride fantasy for having magic in it but then use star wars as your main example which started explaining the force in the original series as a quasi-spiritual thing and later developed the explanation into a quasi-scientific thing with the absolute nonsense of midichlorians giving you the powers.

How is saying you have more midichlorians makes you better with the force any better than saying your stronger just cos. I honestly would of preferred it if they kept the more mystical/spiritual side of the force explanation intact rather than try push that nonsense.

Also, Star Wars was set 'a long long time ago' in a system where you have knights and emporers and as close to magic as you can get without calling it magic so it's not forward looking.

You might have had a better point if you chose a better sci-fi example or left out the fascism nonsense in attempt to emphasise your broad strokes approach of fantasy=bad sci-fi=good. I am a fan of both genres by the way.

How many times do I have to keep saying that star wars isn't my main example, I'm not using any primary or secondary examples, just examples for different contexts. I said this yesterday and now I'm having to say it again, I don't like having to repeat myself because people have a preconceived idea in their heads about what I'm saying and cherrypick what they want to understand and discard. Its an example I used to demonstrate how the formal conventions of sci fi make a barely sci fi movie better than LOTR which is fantasy. That's all I was stating, sheesh.

al28283

nyarlothothep wrote: »

How many times do I have to keep saying that star wars isn't my main example, I'm not using any primary or secondary examples, just examples for different contexts. I said this yesterday and now I'm having to say it again, I don't like having to repeat myself because people have a preconceived idea in their heads about what I'm saying and cherrypick what they want to understand and discard. Its an example I used to demonstrate how the formal conventions of sci fi make a barely sci fi movie better than LOTR which is fantasy. That's all I was stating, sheesh.

Yea but it's a terrible example, which I think was the point

nyarlothothep

al28283 wrote: »

Yea but it's a terrible example, which I think was the point

No, that's called your opinion. Its a great example, its the perfect example, you people are missing the point.

al28283

nyarlothothep wrote: »

No, that's called your opinion. Its a great example, its the perfect example, you people are missing the point.

In your opinion. I think maybe you are not explaining yourself very well

nyarlothothep

al28283 wrote: »

In your opinion. I think maybe you are not explaining yourself very well

Oh my explanations are highly eloquent, no one listened to Socrates when he was explaining either.

al28283

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Oh my explanations are highly eloquent, no one listened to Socrates when he was explaining either.

I think your efforts in eloquence might be the problem. When trying to get a point across you should tone the language down a bit, use simple words and not try to show off as much, perhaps people might understand exactly what you trying to say and the discussion might flow a little better. Just a suggestion.

ixoy

nyarlothothep wrote: »

No, that's called your opinion. Its a great example, its the perfect example, you people are missing the point.

It's not though because you haven't really explained how the medium of sci-fi makes that a better movie than "Lord of the Rings" when the space opera elements are essentially just trappings on a thin story.

'2001' is a much better example to argue your point as it actually does deal with greater philosophical questions and has a far sounder scientific basis. Ditto for something like 'Gattaca' or 'Moon' which are introspective movies and deal with questions of the human condition.
In terms of literature I've found Greg Egan poses some very interesting questions through the medium of science fiction, some which would be harder to posit in fantasy.

How much modern fantasy have you read out of curiosity?

nyarlothothep

al28283 wrote: »

I think your efforts in eloquence might be the problem. When trying to get a point across you should tone the language down a bit, use simple words and not try to show off as much, perhaps people might understand exactly what you trying to say and the discussion might flow a little better. Just a suggestion.

I don't bargain or negotiate with my words, I just release them.

nyarlothothep

ixoy wrote: »

It's not though because you haven't really explained how the medium of sci-fi makes that a better movie than "Lord of the Rings" when the space opera elements are essentially just trappings on a thin story.

'2001' is a much better example to argue your point as it actually does deal with greater philosophical questions and has a far sounder scientific basis. Ditto for something like 'Gattaca' or 'Moon' which are introspective movies and deal with questions of the human condition.
In terms of literature I've found Greg Egan poses some very interesting questions through the medium of science fiction, some which would be harder to posit in fantasy.

How much modern fantasy have you read out of curiosity?

Tolkien's books, I've played fantasy games too.

al28283

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't bargain or negotiate with my words, I just release them.

:rolleyes: ok Socrates, just be sure you are using them correctly

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

....
wtf

this is even more incredible than the doom thread

al28283

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

....
wtf

this is even more incredible than the doom thread

Ha, that was a great one. Doom + Heavy Metal = better than everything. FACT!

Temptamperu

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Tolkien's books, I've played fantasy games too.

Well you see Tolkien was amazing as he really gave birth to the fantasy books you see now but it has progressed and evovled to a point where I cant even read them anymore, keep in mind I read those books every year until I start reading, Robert Jordan, George R.R. Martin and David Eddings these guys create new worlds not just go back to a simpler time infact Robert Jordans books are actually thosands of years into whats hinted as Earths far future after great wars destroyed a peacful world where people didnt have a word for war . You really should pick up more than Tolkien though if you want to argue this point with people on here even I am a rough beginner compared to some of the guys on here so I cant pull a lot of names out but with my minimum knowledge I can blow your theory of decadence out of the water.