| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| NecroticBanana07-23-07, 09:17 PM | anyone brave enuf, or bored, or just geeky enuf to ty and convert and stat up the iconic characters from the harry potter series? i was sittin and thinkin on it, and i do know that Dumbledoor has to be at least lvl 55 to have that pheonix as a familiar. i wonder what Voldermort would turn out to be like. i'd imagine maybe a relativly limited amount of spells but most def. more penetrating |
| Bacon and Eggs07-23-07, 09:34 PM | The dude has like 11 hit points... that's all I know :shifty: |
| ArcTan07-23-07, 09:50 PM | The magic system and general assumptions of the Harry Potter universe are different enough that no direct statting-up is possible (unless you write a whole new d20 Harry Potter system to handle it). You could make up what you think the characters are in general terms, though. (Voldemort = Dread Necromancer, Snape = Alchemist Savant, Dumbledore = Archmage, etc.) |
| TiwazTyrsfist07-23-07, 10:20 PM | Voldemort: Now I shall show you the MEANING of POWER! AVADA KEDAVRA! *Flash* Wizard (with a Death Ward pendant on): *Whistles* Sorry, were you going to do something? Grab, *SNAP* Wizard: Oh dear, I broke your wand... Now, allow me to show You the true meaning of power. Here, I wrote it down for you. Passes a note. Voldemort: This just says "I prepared Explosive Runes Toda--" *BOOM* ... ... *Splatter* Wizard: Lesson complete. |
| ArcTan07-23-07, 10:30 PM | Voldemort: Now I shall show you the MEANING of POWER! AVADA KEDAVRA! *Flash* Wizard (with a Death Ward pendant on): *Whistles* Sorry, were you going to do something? Enh. Avada Kedavra *sounds* like finger of death but really *looks* much more like disintegrate. Grab, *SNAP* Wait, a Wizard succeeded on a Disarm check? How did that happen? |
| Tempest Stormwind07-23-07, 10:37 PM | Enh. Avada Kedavra *sounds* like finger of death but really *looks* much more like disintegrate. So it was Ray Deflection instead of Death Ward. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Wait, a Wizard succeeded on a Disarm check? How did that happen? Telekinesis. |
| TheAnthroDM07-23-07, 10:42 PM | Problem is you must remember that the Harry Potter series operates on a very different level of power than DnD, for instance, the limited ways to block a Save or Dies, the fact there is only 1 save or die. ect, ect. |
| ArcTan07-23-07, 11:04 PM | Problem is you must remember that the Harry Potter series operates on a very different level of power than DnD, for instance, the limited ways to block a Save or Dies, the fact there is only 1 save or die. ect, ect. Avada Kedavra is not a save-or-die. Avada Kedavra is ranged touch, death, no save. That, at least, is made very clear (no one *ever* survives being hit by it, no way to block it, etc.) |
| TheAnthroDM07-23-07, 11:06 PM | Avada Kedavra is not a save-or-die. Avada Kedavra is ranged touch, death, no save. That, at least, is made very clear (no one *ever* survives being hit by it, no way to block it, etc.) Whoops, sorry, still thinking in DnD language, save-or-die just came nature when thinking of the Killing Curse, however you are one, there is ONE little-known was to block it. After all, it is kinda key to the main character even existing. ^-^ |
| navar10007-24-07, 01:55 AM | Harry Potter does not fit in with D&D. Harry Potter fits in very well with Ars Magica. |
| Return of the Flumph07-24-07, 03:09 AM | I agree that without coming up with a whole new magic system, it is impossible to stat any of the characters accurately. You could make DnD versions of them, but they would be totally different due to limited spells per day and so forth. Alignment assigning might be fun, though. Who wants to help me figure out everyone's alignment? I'll start by stating my opinion that Dumbledore is chaotic good. |
| TheAnthroDM07-24-07, 03:25 AM | I agree that without coming up with a whole new magic system, it is impossible to stat any of the characters accurately. You could make DnD versions of them, but they would be totally different due to limited spells per day and so forth. Alignment assigning might be fun, though. Who wants to help me figure out everyone's alignment? I'll start by stating my opinion that Dumbledore is chaotic good. My take: More likely he's(Dumbledore) Neutral Good Harry is more Chaotic Good Voldemort is Lawful Evil for sure Ron is Chaotic Neutral(due to self tendencies) Snape is uhm. I'll tell you after I finish the last book Speaking of which... *hops off to go read* |
| shadzar07-24-07, 03:34 AM | all things considered i doubt dumbledore was any higher level than gandalf, and i think many people decide years ago gandalf was no more than about 5th level. |
| TheAnthroDM07-24-07, 03:36 AM | all things considered i doubt dumbledore was any higher level than gandalf, and i think many people decide years ago gandalf was no more than about 5th level. If what I have gathered from the Deathly Hallows(7th) book is correct, Dumbledore was at least epic. |
| shadzar07-24-07, 07:34 AM | If what I have gathered from the Deathly Hallows(7th) book is correct, Dumbledore was at least epic. well you would have to sit down and figure out every "spell" cast by each character. compare them to existing spells, find/make spell levels for non-existant spells. that would give you a basis on what level of spells could be cast. then you would have to decide what eidtion was being used to figure out some things. and more often than not the spells i saw in the movies were more or less low level, save for AK which is pretty much a Power Word: Kill. so anyone casting AK would be casting a 9th level spell no matter what edition. which puts people like Voldy, Lucious, Snape, Bellatrix at at least Wiz 17, or Sorc 18 just to be able to cast it once per day. someone care to go through and make a list of the spells cast by DD and see what level he was to see if he really was that good a wizard or just having the Elder Wand, made him that powerful? and heaven forbid trying Hagrid's level/classes or the squibs. |
| Witch07-24-07, 07:39 AM | Why would Dumbledore be epic? Everything I've seen so far in the Harry Potter series suggest different magic mechanics (particularly the lack of saves) and the fact that the magicians just aren't that good compared to what D&D people can do. |
| ratarang07-24-07, 08:57 AM | Commoner 1. Didn't you read the last book? |
| skydin07-24-07, 09:25 AM | mah gosh, there are people who havent finished the book yet? |
| Tempest Stormwind07-24-07, 10:04 AM | all things considered i doubt dumbledore was any higher level than gandalf, and i think many people decide years ago gandalf was no more than about 5th level. Gandalf is also outside the level structure. The closest D&D representation he's got is a SOLAR, with no equipment to speak of (Glamdring and Narya aren't standard solar gear) and a vow to not use his full powers while he walks Middle-Earth. (It shocks me how many people hear "wizard" and assume Gandalf's a wizard... he's nothing of the sort. Try reading the books, thanks.) mah gosh, there are people who havent finished the book yet? After my fiasco with earlier books (in which I read the first third of the first book, put it down, and accurately predicted the entire remainder of the book and a small portion of the second, and in which any book I tried to read contained precisely zero conflicts resolved without using deus ex machina), I will never read the last one. Rowling needs to learn to write first. (The only good thing to come out of Harry Potter is it got young folks reading. Reading drivel, yes, but reading. Personally, I had already read PHILLIP PULLMAN before the first Potter book came out (during that long, long wait between The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass), so perhaps I held it to a somewhat higher standard, but that's still no excuse for poor dramatic resolution EVERY FREAKING TIME...) |
| archerpwr07-24-07, 10:19 AM | Gandalf is also outside the level structure. The closest D&D representation he's got is a SOLAR, with no equipment to speak of (Glamdring and Narya aren't standard solar gear) and a vow to not use his full powers while he walks Middle-Earth. (It shocks me how many people hear "wizard" and assume Gandalf's a wizard... he's nothing of the sort. Try reading the books, thanks.) After my fiasco with earlier books (in which I read the first third of the first book, put it down, and accurately predicted the entire remainder of the book and a small portion of the second, and in which any book I tried to read contained precisely zero conflicts resolved without using deus ex machina), I will never read the last one. Rowling needs to learn to write first. (The only good thing to come out of Harry Potter is it got young folks reading. Reading drivel, yes, but reading. Personally, I had already read PHILLIP PULLMAN before the first Potter book came out (during that long, long wait between The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass), so perhaps I held it to a somewhat higher standard, but that's still no excuse for poor dramatic resolution EVERY FREAKING TIME...) I thought gandalf was more like a half angel. Gotta agree on the lack of good writing in harry potter. It's a children's book, but no where near as good as ender's game (the sequels are crap) which got me into reading. Dune OTOH is a great series; my brother refuses to read even the first chapter though. He fails at life. |
| Rexracerjr07-24-07, 10:28 AM | Check out my Thread in D20 Fantasy in the d20 design board for real stats |
| Steely_Dan07-24-07, 10:29 AM | all things considered i doubt dumbledore was any higher level than gandalf, and i think many people decide years ago gandalf was no more than about 5th level. True, even one of the main designers for 3rd edition said that Aragorn would be about 4th level in D&D terms – Fighter 1/Paladin 2/Ranger 1. …I agree. Though I might give Gandy the benefit of the doubt as a 10 HD Outsider/Celestial. |
| Tempest Stormwind07-24-07, 11:11 AM | I thought gandalf was more like a half angel. Gandalf's a maiar (his original name, Olorin, is mentioned in Lord of the Rings once, and elaborated on in the Silmarillion), which are pretty much angels in D&D terms (no, not half-angels, nothing half about them). I should also note that SAURON was also a maiar, albiet a very powerful one. Furthermore, the Istari (the wizards) in fact *do* have immense powers -- even clothed in a (semi) mortal body, Gandalf was able to match a balrog (which I've shown elsewhere is matched best in D&D with the balor). Looking at angels that can do that, we find the solar -- who even has an appropriate list of spell-like abilities. The only changes needed to change the solar into Gandalf are: 1) Cleric spellcasting -> Druid spellcasting 2) "You cannot cast your spells or use high-level spell-like abilities except when directly defending others against the servants of Sauron." 3) Remove the equipment. 4) Locked in a changed shape (human). That's it. They otherwise match up.Gotta agree on the lack of good writing in harry potter. It's a children's book, but no where near as good as ender's game (the sequels are crap) which got me into reading. Oh, it's ON NOW. Ender's Game is not a children's book. It's an easy read, but it's not a children's book. (By the way, there are two sets of sequels in the Ender Saga -- the Ender Quartet {Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind}, which I'm not too much of a fan of, and the Shadow Quartet {Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon, Shadow Puppets, Shadow of the Giant}, which are some of the finest reading I've ever found.) A better analogy would probably be the Old Kingdom Trilogy by Garth Nix {Sabriel, Lirael, Abhorsen}. These are technically classified in the YA reading bracket but can be read younger, and would appeal to a similar audience... except the world is dynamic, elegant, and magical, with the characters being deep and well-developed and the dramatic structure intact at pretty much every point (there's a few areas which could have been improved, but -- interestingly enough -- they *are* foreshadowed, and they remain consistent after they're used. You'll just miss the hints on your first readthrough). Nix is a very good author in other regards as well, except I'm pretty sure you've never heard of him. Dune OTOH is a great series; my brother refuses to read even the first chapter though. He fails at life. Well, now you're just comparing apples to aircraft carriers. Dune is legendary. (And besides, the sequels aren't for everyone; once you get into the second trilogy and all the wonderful feudalism disappears, you lose most of the readership, myself included. Mind you, I'll read Dune itself from here till Doomsday, and I can't stand Brian Herbert's... um... infidelity (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/10/15) with the series.) Besides, Dune is practically an epic in and of itself. Compare this godsend to napkin scribbles with bastardized Latin and you've pretty much got it. Dune involves plans within plans, prophecies, politics, and harsh uncaring environments. Harry Potter... well, you know how it goes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0253.html). (On a related note, this comic from 2003 (http://www.pyrocam.com/life-of-riley/comic.php?strip=374)* is still just as applicable today as it was then. That's what's sad.) Still, mad props to you for mentioning both Ender's Game and Dune in the same post. Those two books are quite possibly my favorite of all time. (Although I really think you should reconsider Ender's sequels, ESPECIALLY the Shadow Quartet. Ender's Shadow covers the same timeline that Ender's Game does, but from Bean's perspective. The two books overlap and reveal things that the other didn't -- Bean's phenominal genius insight gives Ender's Shadow a lot of information that Ender's Game didn't have, but in spite of it all, Ender is the superior leader and able to sense things that not even Bean could deduce, meaning Ender's Shadow also lacks key points that Ender's Game revealed.) *Not the original archive. The Life of Riley stopped updating for quite a while, which is a shame since it was quite good. |
| Steely_Dan07-24-07, 11:24 AM | and I can't stand Brian Herbert's... um... infidelity (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/10/15) with the series.) ...Harsh. |
| archerpwr07-24-07, 11:56 AM | Giant post. Saving server space. I bought and tried to read the Silmarillion and failed. Got incredibly bored every time. Your assessment of gandalf sounds pretty darn accurate. Ender's game is an absolute masterpiece (I call it a children's book because I read it when I was 9ish and it got me into reading). The sequels with Bean are not bad, but no where near as good as Ender's shadow or enders game. The sequels with ender I just can't read. They just bore me to tears. I'm only on book 3 of Dune right now and from other genres there are 2 things that you should see that are on that level of depth: Movie: The good shepard. A master piece. Practically a book. Anime: Elfen Lied. Perhaps the bloodiest anime I've ever seen, but a masterpiece in all areas (phenomenal art, brilliant dialogue, great character developement, enough blood to keep me happy for weeks...). Masterpiece of an anime. Only 13 episodes too. I'm really glad TG made me read Dune. |
| BlackHalfDragon07-24-07, 12:31 PM | no but i have done horatio from CSI Lt Horatio Caine Lvl 15ftr/5diviner/epic10 male human age:dessicated HP: 10,000 stats str20 dex20 con20 int26 wis26 cha 18 fort +19 ref +14 will +99 Skills : hide +99, intimidate +59, bluff +50, prof (investigator) + 15 prof (militia) +16, spot +9999, search +9999, listen +27 Feats: exotic weapon proficiency, focus and specialisation: pistol investigator toughness cheesy lines possessions: sunglasses of justice +50 to intimdate, spells prepared: solve the case x4, knowwhatcheesylinetosay x8 |
| TiwazTyrsfist07-24-07, 01:25 PM | Rowling needs to learn to write first. The fact that the series has sold so well that Rowling has gone from being on the dole (British Wellfare system) to being the Second Richest woman in the world (After, I belive, Oprah), proves you wrong. Knowing how to write, contrary to what your bitter failed english teachers will tell you, means writing things people want to read. And Rowlings HAS. Seven times out of seven tries... Not a bad record. I grew up reading Asimov, Herbert, Clarke, Tolkein, and Weis & Hickman. Is Rowling's work high art? Is it a masterpiece of subtle nuance and hidden meaning? No, probably not. A painting can be good without being 'La persistencia de Memoria' A novel can be good, without being Finnagans Wake. A Fantasy Novel can be good without being The Silmarillion. All other things aside, the Harry Potter books are the ones I reread the most. I haven't bothered to go back and reread Dune of the Foundation series since I first read them in middle school. I've read most of the Harry Potter books three times. Because they're worth it. |
| archerpwr07-24-07, 01:51 PM | The fact that the series has sold so well that Rowling has gone from being on the dole (British Wellfare system) to being the Second Richest woman in the world (After, I belive, Oprah), proves you wrong. Knowing how to write, contrary to what your bitter failed english teachers will tell you, means writing things people want to read. And Rowlings HAS. Seven times out of seven tries... Not a bad record. I grew up reading Asimov, Herbert, Clarke, Tolkein, and Weis & Hickman. Is Rowling's work high art? Is it a masterpiece of subtle nuance and hidden meaning? No, probably not. A painting can be good without being 'La persistencia de Memoria' A novel can be good, without being Finnagans Wake. A Fantasy Novel can be good without being The Silmarillion. All other things aside, the Harry Potter books are the ones I reread the most. I haven't bothered to go back and reread Dune of the Foundation series since I first read them in middle school. I've read most of the Harry Potter books three times. Because they're worth it. I'm no english teacher, but the writing just isn't very good. It isn't bad, but I've only read the books because: A) my brother has bought them B) I'm in high school, so pop culture is a required study. Dune is godiva chocolate. Harry potter is the tootsie roll you found under your bed. The plot is OK (no real surprises or fascinating depth to the characters or the world and the writing style is not bad, but it simply isn't that good. They are easy reads (or childrens books if you think like I do). |
| TheAnthroDM07-24-07, 01:51 PM | The Silmarillion. I disdain books that make me fall asleep in boredom. Books ment for entertainment purposes should generally..... entertain. But maybe I'm just asking too much... no that can't be it, because I have low standards. I mean, I thought Star Wars 1-3 were good. Oh well, I guess I'm doomed to be a non-picky unbitter person, how will I ever live with myself. :D |
| TheAnthroDM07-24-07, 01:56 PM | I'm no english teacher, but the writing just isn't very good. It isn't bad, but I've only read the books because: A) my brother has bought them B) I'm in high school, so pop culture is a required study. I am all together unsurprised with the results. But I would like to give you a cookie for being just so darn adorable. If you don't think something is good writing, then try and write something better, if you can't. Well I guess you don't really have the authority to call them bad now do you. Or perhaps I'm asking too much of society.... yeah probably. :D |
| archerpwr07-24-07, 02:02 PM | I am all together unsurprised with the results. But I would like to give you a cookie for being just so darn adorable. If you don't think something is good writing, then try and write something better, if you can't. Well I guess you don't really have the authority to call them bad now do you. Or perhaps I'm asking too much of society.... yeah probably. :D Note that I'm not saying the writing is bad. I'm saying it simply isn't good. I'm saying "Why is everyone so in love with this book? It isn't nearly as good as much of what is out there? Why do so many people buy it?" Had my brother not bought the books, I wouldn't have read past the first one. |
| TheAnthroDM07-24-07, 02:04 PM | Note that I'm not saying the writing is bad. I'm saying it simply isn't good. I'm saying "Why is everyone so in love with this book? It isn't nearly as good as much of what is out there? Why do so many people buy it?" Had my brother not bought the books, I wouldn't have read past the first one. It couldn't be that you have bad taste. No no no. The majority of people have to be wrong, that makes perfect sense. Are you by any chance in favor of the war in Iraq? Just wondering. |
| Tempest Stormwind07-24-07, 02:08 PM | I bought and tried to read the Silmarillion and failed. Got incredibly bored every time. Your assessment of gandalf sounds pretty darn accurate. It's a hard read. I hate having to go through it, but I love the lore associated with Middle-Earth. Ender's game is an absolute masterpiece (I call it a children's book because I read it when I was 9ish and it got me into reading). I picked it up when I was 7. That doesn't mean it's a children's book. It just means it's easy to read at a superficial level. (And at least Card admits that the story he imagined isn't what Ender's Game is. It's what you remember after having read the words on the page. And that varies from person to person. Take THAT, English teachers!) I'm only on book 3 of Dune right now... It takes a HUGE turn in book 4, so much that it may as well be a different series. TG likes the second trilogy more than the first, but that isn't the case with me (I'm a fan of the feudalism and political intrigue; those are mostly missing from the second trilogy in favor of philosophy). The fact that the series has sold so well that Rowling has gone from being on the dole (British Wellfare system) to being the Second Richest woman in the world (After, I belive, Oprah), proves you wrong. No, it just means she's wealthy. Talent and wealth are not equated, unless you'd say that Paris Hilton is talented. I compare it to shounen manga, actually. A lot of it is drivel written pretty much because children will buy it right up. HP is no better. Knowing how to write, contrary to what your bitter failed english teachers will tell you, means writing things people want to read. And Rowlings HAS. Seven times out of seven tries... Not a bad record. Doesn't mean what's been written is any good. It just means the masses don't know better. I grew up reading Asimov, Herbert, Clarke, Tolkein, and Weis & Hickman. Is Rowling's work high art? Is it a masterpiece of subtle nuance and hidden meaning? No, probably not. A painting can be good without being 'La persistencia de Memoria' A novel can be good, without being Finnagans Wake. A Fantasy Novel can be good without being The Silmarillion. Then you know full well my meaning when I say that a painting can be just random slop on a page (lots of "modern art"), a novel can be drivel written to make a few fast bucks (paraphrased quote from a harlequin romance author!), and a fantasy novel could be the worst swill churned out of a printing press ... and none of those would impede how well it sold. How many people saw the Shrek series? Proof. (Yes, they were crap that pandered to the masses with blatant pop-culture references rather than actually standing on their own virtues. Using a slightly more universal but slightly less applicable example, how many people saw The Matrix: Revolutions? Or the Star Wars prequels?) (Besides, the Silmarillion's a bad example of a good fantasy novel since it isn't a novel so much as a history. Unless you'd consider the Bible a novel, I can't see the connection.) It *is* possible to write books in a mass-produced fashion and have them be both good and successful -- Terry Pratchett is a spectacular example of this done right, for instance. Sadly, all the HP books do is manage to cater to the lowest common denominator of prepubescent lads and lasses who have yet to learn better. This compares favorably to Pokemon, Pogs, Yu Gi Oh, or whatever else is being passed to youths as a craze only because it doesn't demand multiple purchases to keep up with. All other things aside, the Harry Potter books are the ones I reread the most. I haven't bothered to go back and reread Dune of the Foundation series since I first read them in middle school. I've read most of the Harry Potter books three times. Because they're worth it. I have never met anyone older than nine who has said this with a straight face before, provided they have actually read other works (as you have). Congratulations. |
| TheAnthroDM07-24-07, 02:14 PM | Okay, that's it, I fear that if I stay any longer in this thread I'll begin accumulating depravity points. Good day to you all, Ladies, Gentlemen, Munchkins(Are they here? I can't find 'em) |
| Holy_Beholder07-24-07, 02:22 PM | My take: More likely he's(Dumbledore) Neutral Good Harry is more Chaotic Good Voldemort is Lawful Evil for sure Ron is Chaotic Neutral(due to self tendencies) Snape is uhm. I'll tell you after I finish the last book Speaking of which... *hops off to go read* Snape is probably good or neutral. If you haven't read the last book, don't look at the explanation Dumbledore was going to die anyways because he tried to wear a horcrux, so Snape only made him die a little sooner, and was sabotaging Voldemort the entire time. In the Epilogue, Harry says he is the bravest person he knew. And no, the writing isn't really good, but the story is fairly interesting. There is much better, for instance A Song of Ice and Fire. Also, in the d20fantasy(or videogames) section, right above modern people are working on Harry Potter. |
| Einvaldurinn_mikli07-24-07, 02:40 PM | No, it just means she's wealthy. Talent and wealth are not equated, unless you'd say that Paris Hilton is talented. Difference is that Hilton didn't actually earn her money, whereas Rowling did. Making a lot of money does in fact mean that you are talented, if just talented at making money. I compare it to shounen manga, actually. A lot of it is drivel written pretty much because children will buy it right up. HP is no better. God forbid that children actually pick up a book and read, I mean, that would be horrible. Right? Seriously Tempest, you seem to have an irrational dislike of the books, why is that? I mean, they aren't all that well written(blown away by any number of books mentioned in this thread) but they are entertaining and have succeded in something that pretty much no other series of books has in modern times. Getting children to read. I'd hardly compare them to something like Pokemon or Dragonball Z. |
| Tempest Stormwind07-24-07, 04:06 PM | Difference is that Hilton didn't actually earn her money, whereas Rowling did. Making a lot of money does in fact mean that you are talented, if just talented at making money. Which I've never disputed. I argued against her writing. God forbid that children actually pick up a book and read, I mean, that would be horrible. Right? I never argued against kids reading. My argument is against them reading HP and saying it's good, when it clearly isn't. If it's the only thing they've read that they've enjoyed, fine, I can accept that; now pick up a REAL book by a talented author and speak to me again about Rowling. Seriously Tempest, you seem to have an irrational dislike of the books, why is that? I mean, they aren't all that well written(blown away by any number of books mentioned in this thread) but they are entertaining and have succeded in something that pretty much no other series of books has in modern times. Getting children to read. And what of those of us who were already on, say, Phillip Pullman, Terry Pratchett, and J.R.R.Tolkien when the first HP came out? It seemed like cheap drivel then to me. It still does. It's just drivel the masses have consumed like wildfire. Which is fine, so long as you don't forget they're drivel in the first place. I have no issues at all with HP being read. I have every issue with it being read, deemed "good", and then people not reading anything else. We'll see if these Potterites move on to true fantasy stories afterward, and if they do, what they come to think of Rowling. I'd hardly compare them to something like Pokemon or Dragonball Z. And why not? None of those are objectively decent, all are aimed at getting children whipped up into a frenzy (either of consumerism or of fanboyism or both), and all are incredible fonts of wealth. This is exactly why I compared HP to shounen manga earlier (DBZ is just the best-known example of that). To me, seeing someone read HP and claim it's well-written is akin to claiming that Vegeta is a deep, realistic character. I should mention that roughly 60% of my complaints about HP would have disappeared if Rowling had learned how to resolve dilemmas without resorting to deus ex machina in the first, oh, FOUR of the seven books. Every one of those has every significant problem resolved by deus ex machina, which I consider the worst possible slap to the face an author can deliver to their readers. And when it becomes practically formulaic? Well, it shifts from a slap to the face to a kick to the nuts. |
| ArcTan07-24-07, 04:13 PM | Why would Dumbledore be epic? Everything I've seen so far in the Harry Potter series suggest different magic mechanics (particularly the lack of saves) and the fact that the magicians just aren't that good compared to what D&D people can do. Oh, I don't know. Being able to zap people with a you-die-no-save spell an unlimited number of times per day is a *lot* better than anything D&D people can do. Seriously, Wizards may theoretically be able to do very powerful things, but the fact that they have to go lie down for the rest of the day after doing them is pretty lame. |
| ArcTan07-24-07, 04:22 PM | The fact that the series has sold so well that Rowling has gone from being on the dole (British Wellfare system) to being the Second Richest woman in the world (After, I belive, Oprah), proves you wrong. Rowling is the second richest *female entertainer* in the world. There are several women who have a lot of money but didn't earn it doing things that get you in the public eye who are quite a bit richer. (I don't know about the lists of males/females, but Rowling is only the 136th richest person in the world and only the 13th richest person in Britain.) Knowing how to write, contrary to what your bitter failed english teachers will tell you, means writing things people want to read. And Rowlings HAS. Seven times out of seven tries... Not a bad record. It's also foolish to assume that everything people read they read because they've carefully and rationally picked it out of everything there is to read. Time and chance happeneth to them all, as they say. (This is particularly true given the "Harry Potter gets kids to read" argument, i.e. people reading Harry Potter out of peer pressure who normally don't read anything at all.) I grew up reading Asimov, Herbert, Clarke, Tolkein, and Weis & Hickman. Is Rowling's work high art? Is it a masterpiece of subtle nuance and hidden meaning? No, probably not. A painting can be good without being 'La persistencia de Memoria' A novel can be good, without being Finnagans Wake. A Fantasy Novel can be good without being The Silmarillion. I don't hate the Harry Potter novels. As someone who cares about shared cultural experiences, I like them *because* they're popular and they give me something to talk about with young people who normally don't read fantasy. But Rowling is far from even the best "easy read" young-adult children's fantasy writer I know. It does frustrate me that Rowling has achieved this immense worldwide popularity while folks like Terry Pratchett and Diana Wynne Jones have yet to catch on, at least in the States. All other things aside, the Harry Potter books are the ones I reread the most. I haven't bothered to go back and reread Dune of the Foundation series since I first read them in middle school. I've read most of the Harry Potter books three times. Because they're worth it. If you read the Dune series in middle school, you almost certainly didn't get it. |
| archerpwr07-24-07, 04:23 PM | 'nother big post I really agree with everything in that post. Glad I got to see inside your head a bit Tempest. |
| ArcTan07-24-07, 04:25 PM | I picked it up when I was 7. That doesn't mean it's a children's book. It just means it's easy to read at a superficial level. (And at least Card admits that the story he imagined isn't what Ender's Game is. It's what you remember after having read the words on the page. And that varies from person to person. Take THAT, English teachers!) Er, that, in a nutshell, is what all the jargon of poststructuralist/deconstructionist literary criticism means (the "death of the author" and all that) -- essentially, "It matters more what the reader takes away than what the author puts in". That *is* what English teachers and English lit college profs say. It's kind of funny that Orson Scott Card seems to understand that on a basic level and yet still insists on racking up points with his genre audience by bashing "English teachers" every chance he gets. |
| TiwazTyrsfist07-24-07, 04:37 PM | [QUOTE=Einvaldurinn_mikli;13176162] Making a lot of money does in fact mean that you are talented, if just talented at making money.[QUOTE] Which I've never disputed. I argued against her writing. You are entitled to your opinion, however I disagree. If you manage, through some particular action, to move from a state of abject poverty to being listed on the "Worlds Richest _______" list, that proves, IMO, that you are good at it. Success in a give field PROVES that you are good at it. Best seller after best seller after best seller... |
| IRememberCecil07-24-07, 04:45 PM | Success in a give field PROVES that you are good at it. This doesn't apply to every field (really, it only applies to physical activities, otherwise it's either politics or luck). From what it looks like, Rowling just had an interesting idea but didn't exactly do an excellent job at implementing it. It's the idea that's so popular. This was just luck. Stupid J.K. Rowling. With all her luck. I wish I was lucky. /bitterness |
| ArcTan07-24-07, 04:50 PM | This doesn't apply to every field (really, it only applies to physical activities, otherwise it's either politics or luck). From what it looks like, Rowling just had an interesting idea but didn't exactly do an excellent job at implementing it. It's the idea that's so popular. This was just luck. Stupid J.K. Rowling. With all her luck. I wish I was lucky. /bitterness Even Jo Rowling doesn't agree that she's super-rich because she's the Best Writer in the World. She herself talks all the time about getting lucky, and how the next thing she writes almost certainly won't be nearly as popular ("Lightning doesn't strike twice"). |
| archerpwr07-24-07, 04:54 PM | [QUOTE=Tempest Stormwind;13177128] [QUOTE=Einvaldurinn_mikli;13176162]Success in a give field PROVES that you are good at it. I disagree. Ever see napolian dynamyte? People love that movie. South Park? Financial success does not equate to talent. |
| IRememberCecil07-24-07, 04:56 PM | I disagree. Ever see napolian dynamyte? People love that movie. South Park? Financial success does not equate to talent. Wrong person. Einvaldurinn_mikli never said that. EDIT: Napoleon Dynamite is good entertainment, though. I, for one, love all the weirdness. |
| Novem07-24-07, 04:56 PM | I, for one, have read Phillip Pullman, as well as J.K. Rowling and Tolkien. Before I read any of them, I read Narnia. And do you know what I have decided: I like Rowling the best. True, I think Pullman was better- I love the "God is the Bad Guy" theme, and Tolkien was more epic- but Rowling, ultimately, has appeal none have. Tolkien was a bigot (read the preface to the Silmarillion, he talks about how white people are better than everyone else, etc., etc., and his villains are always black- not that that alone is bigoted) and his work was far too... Christian for me. Same goes for C.S. Lewis. Pullman had a trilogy, and it ended. You know, with "the end" kind of end. Congratulations, God is Dead, let's all go back to living our lives and dealing with the changes that come. Even now, however, the door is open for Rowling to return. I personally don't think she will soon, but 10-15 years from now, I think she'll find Harry coming a-knocking. As for the point of the thread, I think you would have to redo the magic system to find his stats- in fact, I think a power points or TOB style might be better. But his ability scores, alignment, etc., could all be guessed at. I'm thinking high Dex (He's a Seeker), mediocre INT and WIS, and average stats otherwise. His alignment would have to be LG or CG- but he is certainly a pinnacle of good (read book 7!). |
| Tempest Stormwind07-24-07, 04:59 PM | Er, that, in a nutshell, is what all the jargon of poststructuralist/deconstructionist literary criticism means (the "death of the author" and all that) -- essentially, "It matters more what the reader takes away than what the author puts in". That *is* what English teachers and English lit college profs say. It's kind of funny that Orson Scott Card seems to understand that on a basic level and yet still insists on racking up points with his genre audience by bashing "English teachers" every chance he gets. I would like to say before I begin, ArcTan, that what you have said in this thread so far succinctly says everything I could have said and more. (And I'd been told I must read Diana Wynne Jones before, although I hadn't gotten around to it. Your recommendation forces me to re-evaluate that.) I do have to say that my English teachers and my single English prof (I only had to take introductory English; it still annoys me that I did, since I gained nothing from that course and the English majors never needed to take a math course...) have not said anything of the sort. In fact, I actually had to argue with my school superintendent at one point involving a dispute with one particularly vengeful English teacher. I insisted that a particular poem said nothing but the words that were on the page (which was all I got out of it). The teacher insisted that this was wrong, and that there was far more to it. Disputes of this sort showed up CONSTANTLY in English (I continue to hold that if the author was "trying to say" something, they should have written about it, instead of approaching the problem obtusely. Then again, I'm a physicist, so I'm used to cutting the crap out of all my writing and focusing on clearly conveying my ideas in the simplest possible form), at least as I took it. I have never once, NOT ONCE, met an English teacher or professor who has accepted that "what was written and nothing more" is a valid interpretation of any piece of literature, poetry, or prose. Not once. Even if that is literally all I ever take out of a book. Maybe your English educational exposure was superior to mine, but I've never found such discussion in any of mine. I actually had to do three things to get that one vengeful teacher to accept that I might not be dead wrong: First, I mentioned Card. Second, I found a local author who I knew the teacher had read; this author revealed that a particular sequence (sunlight streaming through a stained-glass window) wasn't anything more than description (instead of, say, a statement on the fractured nature of the artistic psyche or of the moderation between man and God or some other random BS that this teacher was prone to spitting out). Third, I wrote a poem that won me university scholarships for its depth... except it literally said nothing but was on the page, had no structure to think of (I had The Last Saskatchewan Pirate playing while I typed random sentences into the computer and hit RETURN whenever another line in the song started), and had no particular theme at all, just evocative imagery. She eventually admitted that "I might not be wrong" and stayed out of my way for the rest of the year. If you manage, through some particular action, to move from a state of abject poverty to being listed on the "Worlds Richest _______" list, that proves, IMO, that you are good at it. Success in a give field PROVES that you are good at it. Best seller after best seller after best seller... Wrong again. Money does not equate to talent. It equates to profits. That's pretty much it. It just means her work is profitable. It does not mean she's good at it. Once again, I cite shounen manga. Just because it sells doesn't mean it's a good story. (There *can* be good stories in shounen manga, don't get me wrong; I'm just saying sales do not imply the story's good.) |
| Serge_P07-24-07, 05:23 PM | Easy: Harry Potter LvL 1 human wizard. Lawful Stupid. St 4, con 5, dex 11, int 12, wis 9, cha 1. hp: 3 Owl Familiar. Spellbook: all cantrips, 3 lvl1 spells. Warhammer magic is so much cooler. DnD Super Wizard: I throw my mightiest spell, a meta-magically enchanted high cl fireball! (Bounces of Kroak) Kroak(alive): Loq.( Means Die in his language) (Lift his finger, a mountain sized chunk of the ground, with the wizard standing on it, flies up into outer space, and two planets flies toward the wizard and crushes him in between on impact.) |
| ArcTan07-24-07, 05:49 PM | I do have to say that my English teachers and my single English prof (I only had to take introductory English; it still annoys me that I did, since I gained nothing from that course and the English majors never needed to take a math course...) have not said anything of the sort. In fact, I actually had to argue with my school superintendent at one point involving a dispute with one particularly vengeful English teacher. I insisted that a particular poem said nothing but the words that were on the page (which was all I got out of it). The teacher insisted that this was wrong, and that there was far more to it. *Readers*, plural, not reader, singular. It matters what *people* who read a text get out of it. My boildown of poststructuralism to equal the death of the author wasn't meant to imply that it therefore means it's okay to toss aside something you don't get and say "I don't get it". If anything, it means that what *anyone* gets out of a work -- your teacher, you, your little sister -- is worth considering. The main thing I'm criticizing is the idea that someone who sees something in a work can and should be immediately smacked down because "Orson Scott Card said that's not what he meant". No one completely gets any written work, including the guy who happened to write it. Disputes of this sort showed up CONSTANTLY in English (I continue to hold that if the author was "trying to say" something, they should have written about it, instead of approaching the problem obtusely. Then again, I'm a physicist, so I'm used to cutting the crap out of all my writing and focusing on clearly conveying my ideas in the simplest possible form), at least as I took it. A work can say something that the author wasn't trying to say. This is, in some cases, very obvious -- people give away all kinds of unsavory things about themselves without meaning to -- and in some cases more subtle. (An author can, for instance, write an amazing story about cruelty and alienation that *he* thought was just a story about how dumb workplace regulations are, because *I* can see that workplace regulations *are* an example of cruelty and alienation even if he himself didn't.) The key is understanding that people, all the time and constantly, say things without trying to say them. It's inevitable and it's impossible not to. People who try to "clearly convey their ideas in the simplest possible form" still can't avoid implying things they didn't mean to imply and creating connections they didn't see when they were writing. A *good* writer tries to be aware of all these unexpected consequences and relaxes and goes with the flow rather than trying to fight it. (At least, I think so.) I have never once, NOT ONCE, met an English teacher or professor who has accepted that "what was written and nothing more" is a valid interpretation of any piece of literature, poetry, or prose. Not once. Even if that is literally all I ever take out of a book. Well, yes. If you read what I actually said, that's *my* point. If *I* am capable of taking more out of a piece than "what was written", then that means that it's *actually there*, whether you think so or not, and whether the author thinks so or not. The other important piece of deconstructionist/poststructuralist thought is that "Nothing ever really means what it says, because everything says something different to different people". "What was written and nothing more" isn't even a meaningful statement, because there isn't any single definition of "what was written". (If you don't believe me, look at how many different interpretations -- *honest* interpretations, I'll add, by people who all consider themselves to be honest people -- there are of a document as dry and functional and free of poetry as the US Constitution, or indeed of any statutory law.) Maybe your English educational exposure was superior to mine, but I've never found such discussion in any of mine. Of course not. If we actually ever agreed to say "Well, the text only means what it says, and nothing more", the discussion would be instantly over. More to the point, if we all said that, we would still all walk away thinking the text said *different things*, and we wouldn't actually be in agreement at all -- we'd just have papered over our disagreement. I actually had to do three things to get that one vengeful teacher to accept that I might not be dead wrong: First, I mentioned Card. Second, I found a local author who I knew the teacher had read; this author revealed that a particular sequence (sunlight streaming through a stained-glass window) wasn't anything more than description (instead of, say, a statement on the fractured nature of the artistic psyche or of the moderation between man and God or some other random BS that this teacher was prone to spitting out). Third, I wrote a poem that won me university scholarships for its depth... except it literally said nothing but was on the page, had no structure to think of (I had The Last Saskatchewan Pirate playing while I typed random sentences into the computer and hit RETURN whenever another line in the song started), and had no particular theme at all, just evocative imagery. She eventually admitted that "I might not be wrong" and stayed out of my way for the rest of the year. I would say that you were wrong. And that your story just proves my point -- whether it was Card, the local writer, or you, none of you fully understood what you wrote. This isn't a particular stab at Card, the local writer, or you. I don't fully understand everything I write. Shakespeare didn't fully understand what he wrote. Fully understanding anything anyone writes -- or anything at all -- is by nature impossible. The only time you're doing something wrong is when you *claim* to fully understand something. (You can claim that the teacher was merely "reading into" the work if you like. It doesn't change my point. It's not possible to read something without "reading into". It's not possible to read something written in English without calling on one's own knowledge of the English language, not possible to understand the definitions of the words without calling on one's experience of language and words, and not possible to understand what those definitions imply without calling on one's own life experience. To say that a word "really" means one thing and not another is to say that one person's internal language is better than someone else's, and modern lit crit is all about the idea that privileging one person above another in that way or any other way is BS and stupid and only narrows the mind. That *includes* the guy who wrote the work as opposed to the guy who reads it.) |
| Tempest Stormwind07-24-07, 06:06 PM | I don't have a lot of time to reply to all of this now, but I'll try to find time later, as that deserves a better response. In summary, I meant that in my experience, my English teachers attempted to teach us that all interpretations of a work are important. I presented my "interpretation" which was "the words on the page, nothing more", and was promptly attacked as being "wrong" (or an appropriate synonym). Many of my teachers continued to say that any interpretation was valid, but not a single one ever accepted the interpretation of "just the words on the page", instead insisting that it had to mean more than that, or else I was just plain wrong. I consider this hypocritical. And I do dispute the "If *I* am capable of taking more out of a piece than "what was written", then that means that it's *actually there*, whether you think so or not, and whether the author thinks so or not" claim. A simple counterexample: My lab partner actually had an exam question tossed at him that asked him what the author of a particular 17th-century sonnet was saying about the Industrial Revolution with the sonnet. Since the Industrial Revolution happened long after the sonnet was written, the sonnet logically cannot say anything about the Industrial Revolution, lest it violate causality. Instead, whatever it does say (about whatever it's about) might be applicable to the Industrial Revolution if you, the reader, choose to interpret it in that context, but heaven forbid any English teacher ever say it that way (every last one of them I have asked about this has instead said that it must have said something about the Industrial Revolution, as if it were some universal truth. Forgive me for assuming that effect follows cause in this universe.). This is more of a "What does this sonnet make you think about in the context of the Industrial Revolution?" question. I don't know why they don't just upright say that when they ask it. |
| shadzar07-24-07, 06:29 PM | I never argued against kids reading. My argument is against them reading HP and saying it's good, when it clearly isn't. If it's the only thing they've read that they've enjoyed, fine, I can accept that; now pick up a REAL book by a talented author and speak to me again about Rowling. yes, thank god they didn't pick up some trash like shakesperean garbage that is forcefed in schools, or something like gone with the wind or that type of trash. you know garbage from people like john grisham, dean koontz, tom clancy and their crappy writing. |
| ArcTan07-24-07, 07:06 PM | I don't have a lot of time to reply to all of this now, but I'll try to find time later, as that deserves a better response. In summary, I meant that in my experience, my English teachers attempted to teach us that all interpretations of a work are important. I presented my "interpretation" which was "the words on the page, nothing more", and was promptly attacked as being "wrong" (or an appropriate synonym). Many of my teachers continued to say that any interpretation was valid, but not a single one ever accepted the interpretation of "just the words on the page", instead insisting that it had to mean more than that, or else I was just plain wrong. I consider this hypocritical. "Just the words on the page and nothing more" is not an interpretation. It is, by definition, a refusal to interpret, which is to say a refusal to actually read. It's just as obtuse as saying "This poem is an arrangement of dark-colored pigment on a pressed sheet of tree fibers". And I do dispute the "If *I* am capable of taking more out of a piece than "what was written", then that means that it's *actually there*, whether you think so or not, and whether the author thinks so or not" claim. A simple counterexample: My lab partner actually had an exam question tossed at him that asked him what the author of a particular 17th-century sonnet was saying about the Industrial Revolution with the sonnet. Since the Industrial Revolution happened long after the sonnet was written, the sonnet logically cannot say anything about the Industrial Revolution, lest it violate causality. No. The *author* cannot have logically *intended* to say something about the Industrial Revolution. *That* would be a causality violation. To say that something written down a long time before a particular historical event is nonetheless relevant to that historical event is merely par for the course. It is, in fact, the main and only reason we read ancient literature at all, unless we are historians. Ultimately the only reason to laugh and cry and get emotional when watching a Shakespeare play is that it *is* about one's own life in some way, even though Shakespeare died centuries ago and even if he hadn't would have no idea who I was. Instead, whatever it does say (about whatever it's about) might be applicable to the Industrial Revolution if you, the reader, choose to interpret it in that context, but heaven forbid any English teacher ever say it that way (every last one of them I have asked about this has instead said that it must have said something about the Industrial Revolution, as if it were some universal truth. Forgive me for assuming that effect follows cause in this universe.). Things being "about" other things is not a casual relation. You're still thinking based on the intentional fallacy -- that a poem is "really about" what the author decided it should be about, which couldn't be further from the truth. This is more of a "What does this sonnet make you think about in the context of the Industrial Revolution?" question. I don't know why they don't just upright say that when they ask it. Because it's the same thing. That's what I've been saying. A sonnet can't "really" "objectively" be about anything. A sonnet is "really" "objectively" only a pattern of ink spilled onto a sheet of pressed tree fibers. The meaning only comes about when you read meaning into it. Which means *you* are responsible for the meaning you take out of the text, not the author "putting meaning into it", which authors don't really do. If you "don't get anything out of it" that's because *you* didn't *take* anything out of it, not because the author never put anything into it. And teaching you to take things out of texts instead of passively wait for the author to feed them to you is precisely the point of having English classes at all. The reason they don't phrase it the way you want them to phrase it is that the number one and single most important and basically central thing an English class is about -- at least an English class taught from a postmodern lit-crit perspective -- is striking dead, forever, the prejudice that there's a difference between "what this poem makes me think of" and "what this poem is about", and that the objective, essential "what this poem is about" trumps "what this poem makes me think of" and renders the latter irrelevant. Because it's that prejudice that keeps rearing its ugly head in conversations about literature and kills any interesting discussion -- the man who waves his hand in the air and shouts "All this is stupid! That's not what it's *really* about at all! The author told me so himself!" Which is BS, and an attitude that deserves to die. (Which is why PoMo types use such drastic, violent language like "the death of the author" to describe the way they read, which is in its way a declaration of war as strong as Nietzsche's "God is dead!") |
| J.Augustus Rose II07-24-07, 07:14 PM | I continue to hold that if the author was "trying to say" something, they should have written about it, instead of approaching the problem obtusely. Did you ever think, even for a second, that the problem is you? I've never read such mind-shackled, obtuse (to use your own word) view of creative writing in all my life. Just because you don't get anything out of it doesn't mean nothing is there. It just means, gods forbid, that you might not get it. If you need your writing to be spoon fed, what's the point of reading at all? Elitism? |
| Vharuck07-24-07, 07:19 PM | Harry Potter was a great, entertaining series for me with a different approach to the almost obligatory moral lesson in a children's/young adult's book; instead of good versus bad it's right versus easy. I'm not saying it changed my philosophy. Nor did it rouse me to rebel or question. But it was fun. I know that's purely subjective. And many authors with "messages" could do with a lesson in writing entertaining novels. The Fountainhead was one of the worst books I ever touched. |
| ArcTan07-24-07, 07:20 PM | See, the thing is, I hated the message in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, but still found the novels entertaining. Maybe that's just me. |
| Tempest Stormwind07-24-07, 07:42 PM | ArcTan: I guess that just means that 100% of my English exposure so far has not been postmodernist, which includes my educators' chosen approaches. Oddly enough, with a postmodernist philosophy adopted, you can't assign objective grades to any English project at all, as literally everything becomes subjective -- and yet English continues to be graded on a numerical scale which is implicitly objective. As a physicist, I favor objectivity over subjectivity in any possible circumstance (along with clarity, efficiency, simplicity and accuracy), so I can't find myself ever agreeing with a postmodernist viewpoint even after you explained it so well. I guess we'll just have to settle on disagreement on that point. J.Augustus Rose II: No, not at all. In fact, I view "hidden meaning" as a failure of the author to communicate their ideas clearly. If they had intended to make a statement about something, they should have said it clearer -- if their target audience for their statement doesn't get it, then they have failed to communicate. (This is independent from entertainment, which is its own goal.) I'm a firm believer in the functionalist approach: everything must serve a purpose or else it is purposeless, and things that are purposeless are a waste of time. In serving its purpose, it is ideal to do so clearly, efficiently, simply, accurately, and objectively, or again, you are just wasting time (respectively by being obtuse, directly wasting time, being needlessly complex, spreading misinformation, or relying too much on non-universal communication). Failure to do these does not necessarily mean you fail outright, merely that revisions are necessary. When I read, I don't bother thinking about what the author "might have meant" or what the writing "says about something" that isn't actually said by the text. I bother thinking about what was actually written. This puts me at odds with countless English students and professors, but this mentality is also a benefit in any scientific discipline. This same style of approach often leads me into ideological wars with artists who insist what they do serves a purpose (note that with the exception of "entertainment", I've yet to meet one who is actually able to provide such a "purpose"...), so it isn't aimed directly at literature or anything. Spoon-fed? Hardly. To borrow your analogy, it is merely the choice between using a fork to eat simple food that covers all the required nutrients regardless of taste or presentation as compared to using a Rube Goldberg machine to eat extremely fancy but ultimately nutritionally poor food. This may seem odd to people who value the arts, but I assure you, it is not odd to people who don't. |
| d2447866707-24-07, 07:50 PM | I didn't like J.K. Rowling. I enjoy Terry Pratchett, Diana Wynn Jones, Orson Scott Card, Issac Asimov, and Garth Nix regularly and C.S. Lewis and J.R.R Tolkien irregularly. I agree with Tempest Stormwind on several counts. I was told I wrote a deep poem about me hating school when that's all it was; I saw no other layers, and couldn't see how comparing school to hell was deep. Now, the reason I don't like J.K. Rowling, is it's kinda dull*. When I read it, I had read other stuff before hand (just about all the above authors), and it didn't seem like fantasy*. To me, it lacked the fantasy element. And while some things seem creative, they're really just reiterations of mythology. For example: Fluffy guards the sorceror's stone. Cerebus guards Hades. Both are giant three-headed black dogs. *This is only my opinion. **I would also like to remark that I am not an English major, nor I have I gone to college. I start attending high school next year. I am in no way professionally trained, so please, point out any and all holes in my post. |
| Karish07-24-07, 07:59 PM | I never really liked Harry Potter, but that's primarily because I never read them when I was younger like my other friends when it all started out. I saw the book and felt impossibly childish and dull reading it, because I could basically see the entire plot of the second book before I finished the first. Upon being told the general plot of the second, my results were fairly accurate, given the circumstance of never even TOUCHING any book past the first. -_-; I just don't like the writing style of Rowling, or the world Harry Potter took place in. But I'd stat him as a level 1 human abjurer because I'm a bit of an *******. |
| aotrscommander07-24-07, 08:27 PM | How many people saw the Shrek series? Proof. (Yes, they were crap that pandered to the masses with blatant pop-culture references rather than actually standing on their own virtues. Using a slightly more universal but slightly less applicable example, how many people saw The Matrix: Revolutions? Or the Star Wars prequels?) Okay Tempest, I am going uncharacteristicly and totally disagree with you. I very much enjoy Harry Potter, thank you very much. I have reread them almost as much as Lord of the Rings and the Belgariad or Timothy Zhan's Thrawn books or Discworld. And I found Shrek funny, and I throughally enjoyed the Star Wars prequels - especially the last one when the Jedi got their much deserved ass-kicking. Just because it's not your style doesn't mean it's crap. I mean, come Tempest, you of all people, should know better, man! And why not? None of those are objectively decent, With all my usual respect, Tempest, bullcrap. They might not be your style, but that doesn't make them objectively bad, it make them subjectively bad. I happen to really like Pokemon, thank you (and Naruto for that matter). Heck, even Yu-Gi-Oh has it's place (albeit fodder from Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged...) A lot of things you might find entertaining I suspect I would consider to be soul-slayingly awful. Different tastes is all. And quality in literature in particular is decidedly a subjective thing, since I personally find most of the 'greats' to be utterly insipid. I never read a book in English literature at any level that didn't make me want remove internal organs from boredom. Again. (I give Shakespeare the same amount of respect as Gary Gygax. Yes, he created some memorable words and phrases, and was, like Pratchett it now, technically clever and without his work out lives would be poorer (he made up craploads of words you know, not to mention his parody-ability), but thanks, I'll stick to the evolution, not the beginnings. Same applies to Chaucer.) Don't make me paraphrase the Jell_Moo Principle and/or C S Lewis twice in one day, dude! I swear to Death Despoil, I'll do it, man!! I've got a quote button and I'm not afraid to use it!!! I have never met anyone older than nine who has said this with a straight face before, provided they have actually read other works (as you have). Congratulations. You're totally getting surprised twice today, then. Y'know, if you count "read on a message board" as "met"... |
| ArcTan07-24-07, 08:29 PM | ArcTan: I guess that just means that 100% of my English exposure so far has not been postmodernist, which includes my educators' chosen approaches. Oddly enough, with a postmodernist philosophy adopted, you can't assign objective grades to any English project at all, as literally everything becomes subjective -- and yet English continues to be graded on a numerical scale which is implicitly objective. Enh. Literary criticism is, in its own way, an art and a craft. While I don't like letter grades on general principle, a letter grade in English lit is not a grade for finding the "right answer", any more than a letter grade in art class is for painting the "right painting" or in an acting class is for acting "the right way". It's for being good at explaining the interpretations you find in a way that makes sense to others and helps them enjoy the work and see the connections in a clearer, more interesting way than they did before. As with any of the arts and humanities, what they're grading you on isn't finding the right answer, or on what answer you found. It's on what you *said* about your answer -- how well you presented it, how interesting it would be to read a book review you wrote or to just sit down over coffee and talk with you about books. And, of course, "There's nothing there but the words on the page!" is as uninteresting and unhelpful as one can possibly get. (I'm willing to bet that you *didn't* actually *just* say that -- you probably gave an interpretation of something, like "Well, it's obvious, this is just a story about the poet being mad at his wife" and then *defended* it with "But that's just what the words on the page say!", which is the worst kind of logical fallacy -- namely, an attempted tautology.) As a physicist, I favor objectivity over subjectivity in any possible circumstance (along with clarity, efficiency, simplicity and accuracy), so I can't find myself ever agreeing with a postmodernist viewpoint even after you explained it so well. I guess we'll just have to settle on disagreement on that point. I tend to favor objectivity over subjectivity in every possible circumstance, too. Literature is not a possible circumstance. It is *not possible* to objectively tell me what Romeo and Juliet is. Well, I suppose it is, but the "objective answer" is, like I said, "squiggles of ink on pressed tree fibers". It isn't possible for any interesting human answer to be objective, though. (I can tell you from experience that the *least* objective person when it comes to things I myself have written is me. At least, my own training in the arts makes me very painfully aware that when I try to explain what something I wrote "means", I am very consciously coming up against interpretations that I reject and dismiss because I don't like what they say about me, and am trying to earnestly pretend that the crap I'm saying right now has any relationship to what I was thinking when I wrote it, when in reality I usually wasn't thinking anything consciously at all.) J.Augustus Rose II: No, not at all. In fact, I view "hidden meaning" as a failure of the author to communicate their ideas clearly. If they had intended to make a statement about something, they should have said it clearer -- if their target audience for their statement doesn't get it, then they have failed to communicate. ...Which is silly, because a written work is not composed solely of the author's "ideas". At least, not their conscious ones. Read many famous writers' autobiographies and you realize that a lot of what goes through their heads when they're writing is mainly "I've got to get this damn thing done or I don't get paid". People who actually have something very specific they want to tell the world usually tell the world through some other means than writing stories or plays or poems. If they do try to do so by writing stories and plays and poems, what they write tends to suck and be boring. If the point of writing poetry was to have a one-line message, like "Sometimes people are just too cruel", and then to communicate it as clearly as possible, then I just would never write poems. In fact, I would never write *anything*, because the sentence "Sometimes people are just too cruel" has been written many times before and doesn't need to be written again. But that's not the reason I write, nor do I really think it's anyone's reason for writing. I'm a firm believer in the functionalist approach: everything must serve a purpose or else it is purposeless, and things that are purposeless are a waste of time. In serving its purpose, it is ideal to do so clearly, efficiently, simply, accurately, and objectively, or again, you are just wasting time (respectively by being obtuse, directly wasting time, being needlessly complex, spreading misinformation, or relying too much on non-universal communication). Failure to do these does not necessarily mean you fail outright, merely that revisions are necessary. Well, my goal when I read literature is to have fun and to think about things and to see clearer connections between the text and the world I live in (the world of perceptions, not necessarily material reality). Even though I've only dipped my toe into the world of literary criticism, I've found that if you become conversant with the way lit profs think and read and talk, and if you don't take the whole business too bloody seriously, it vastly increases the amount of enjoyment I can get out of both reading a book and talking about it with people over coffee afterwards. Hell, I could even get enjoyment (albeit limited) out of writing a paper for course credit about a book, if I cared about it. On the other hand, if I truly believed that a book consisted of nothing more than "the words on the page" (whatever the hell that means), then reading books would be a frustrating and boring experience and I wouldn't do it very much, since in many books the "words on the page" contain nothing I should be directly interested in. (This attitude in its purest form is represented by my uncle, who once ranted to me about how the Lord of the Rings films were a colossal waste of time because "nothing that happens in them is real".) So in that sense, literature *does* have a function that it performs quite well, which is making my life better. However, I have as yet come across not a single reproducible, falsifiable theory that works that attempts to explain what it is about literature that makes my life better, or how to write a computer program that can sort the good literature from the bad, so I myself tend to regard any attempts to come up with "objective" ways to analyze literature as a big honking waste of time, compared to the subjective and murky but -- I'll come right out and say it -- *fun* process of sipping coffee and being a pretentious lit-crit snob (who reads Harry Potter). When I read, I don't bother thinking about what the author "might have meant" or what the writing "says about something" that isn't actually said by the text. I bother thinking about what was actually written. This puts me at odds with countless English students and professors, but this mentality is also a benefit in any scientific discipline. This same style of approach often leads me into ideological wars with artists who insist what they do serves a purpose (note that with the exception of "entertainment", I've yet to meet one who is actually able to provide such a "purpose"...), so it isn't aimed directly at literature or anything. Spoon-fed? Hardly. To borrow your analogy, it is merely the choice between using a fork to eat simple food that covers all the required nutrients regardless of taste or presentation as compared to using a Rube Goldberg machine to eat extremely fancy but ultimately nutritionally poor food. This may seem odd to people who value the arts, but I assure you, it is not odd to people who don't. *shrug* Suit yourself. The thing is that "wasteful" is still the wrong adjective to use for people who value other things than you do. If all you want to know from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is "Well, who killed the guy?" then you're better off reading a history book, and you've missed the point. If you think the purpose of food is ingesting enough nutrition to keep yourself alive, you've also missed the point, at least if you attack fancy restaurants and haute cuisine as "wasteful". Good literature is *not* wasteful -- indeed, it is a highly efficient, keenly honed instrument. The definition of *good* as opposed to bad literature -- the only definition that can mean anything in the long run -- is literature that gives people *something to think about* and that makes them think about things they think are relevant and interesting. The fact that a fine meal costs more than the equivalent mass of flour, protein powder and multivitamin pills does not make the fine meal inefficient at carrying out its *intended function*, which is tasting good. And in carrying out the function of *tasting good* it is frequently *very* efficient. (Expensive restaurants actually run very, very narrow profit margins, which is why they are aghast at the idea of wasting food.) You aren't being smart and identifying something as inefficient and in need of optimization -- you're being obtuse and perversely misidentifying the function of something as being other than what it is. You're like the person who looks at a jigsaw puzzle and says it's "inefficient" because you can buy an identical painting that *isn't* cut up into pieces and therefore easier to look at. Or the kid who wonders why round-trip airline tickets cost more than one-way tickets, since they just take you back to where you started. Perversely misidentifying the function of something is *not* the same as cleverly figuring out that something is inefficiently carrying out its true function, and too often the two get foolishly confused. If it's true that the true function of something is irrelevant to you -- if you have no sense of taste and get no pleasure from eating and therefore don't think of eating as anything but fuel for your stomach -- then sure, no one's calling you a bad human being for it (though it makes you an unpleasant person to go to a restaurant with). But it doesn't make you smarter or better or more correct. Indeed, it's actually a reason to feel kind of bad for you, because it's a kind of pleasure you simply can't experience. |
| ArcTan07-24-07, 08:44 PM | Also, of course, I find it annoying (but not really surprising) that the intentional fallacy is being cited as a "scientific" or "objective" way to view a work, because it isn't. It's a kind of animism, in fact. A scientist should know that any object -- be it a blueprint for an airplane, a piece of sheet music, or a sonnet -- gains its properties not from the *intention* of the person who created it, but from what it *is*. Separating intention from reality is the essence of separating magical from scientific thinking. (After all, no one *intends* the book they write to suck and be savaged by critics and only sell a dozen copies, but it happens all the time.) Structuralists -- the thing poststructuralism is post - -- actually had a (pseudo-)scientific rationale for what they believed about books. They believed that a text could be boiled down into what it "really said" -- that the *structure* of the text could be boiled down and compared to the *structure* of other texts, and that once you got this structure you had the one thing about the text that was objectively real and could be used to define it. And this structure, again, would have no necessary connection to the author's intentions. It would be something that was there or not there, just like an airplane wing either generates enough lift to stay airborne or doesn't, regardless of what the designer *intended* when he sketched it out. This is, in a way, the most "scientific" literary criticism ever was. It bears much more of a resemblance to science than the old criticism that *did* depend on the intentional fallacy and thought that the only way to "understand" a text was to obsessively study the author's life and psychoanalyze the author and figure out why exactly she wrote it, which is like studying the Theory of Relativity by trying to figure out what made Albert Einstein so smart. Of course, the reason structuralism gave way to poststructuralism is that it *was* only pseudo-scientific, that no "structure" you discover in a text can truly be *the* objective and only way to define that text's structure, and that the things you think are important the guy two desks down from you is sure are only window dressing, and vice versa. Tons of people try to say that Romeo and Juliet is the archetypal "Tragic Forbidden Love" story, but, well, it's *not* -- it has all this other crap, like Tybalt's death and Mercutio's death and the character of Friar Lawrence in all his contradictions and complexity and then that whole deal with the bizarre situation at the end with the poison which is the most poignant part of the play even though it has nothing to do with why their love is tragic or forbidden as such. I wouldn't want to cut that out and say that Tragic Forbidden Love *is* Romeo and Juliet and therefore Romeo and Juliet *is* identical to Pyramus and Thisbe or West Side Story. I would agree that there is something there that makes Romeo and Juliet and Pyramus and Thisbe and West Side Story all "about" the same thing, but in the absence of an actual about-o-meter that you can hook up to the story and objectively tell everyone what it means, you can never prove me correct -- and this is why structuralist argument ends up becoming only a subset of what most lit-crit folks argue about (just like, to force this thread firmly on-topic again for these boards, the game balance of the D&D ruleset is not, itself, really the reason people like D&D). |
| ArcTan07-24-07, 08:48 PM | (I give Shakespeare the same amount of respect as Gary Gygax. Yes, he created some memorable words and phrases, and was, like Pratchett it now, technically clever and without his work out lives would be poorer (he made up craploads of words you know, not to mention his parody-ability), but thanks, I'll stick to the evolution, not the beginnings. Same applies to Chaucer.) Hey, no one who really loves Shakespeare is ashamed to admit that Shakespeare was, all said and done, a hack. That's why Shakespeare is the way Shakespeare is -- like all of the great hacks, he did his best work while under stress and trying to churn stuff out to meet a deadline. The genius comes out in the *moment*, in the fine detail, not in the broad scope and structure of the project (over which he had little or no control). I always compare him to Joss Whedon. Write out an outline of Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 4 in sketch form and it seems disjointed, clumsy, and dumb, with half the plots recycled or stolen -- and that's because it *is*, because it's *television*, and what do you expect? But it has bits and pieces in there that stick with you forever after you hear them and that you can't help but quote in your head whenever you come up against an even vaguely similar situation in another work, because the words just ring true. It's that way with Shakespeare. Like Terry Pratchett, he's a much better writer to quote than to read in full, and that's the advantage of seeing his plays in play form (unlike with a book, it's easier to just tune out through the boring parts). But there are just some quotes from Shakespeare that you can't imagine being written any other way (though you look at the plays he stole his plots from and you see that they *can* be written in *many* other ways, and vastly inferior ones, too). |
| aotrscommander07-24-07, 09:34 PM | I always feel a bit sorry for Shakespeare, actually, having his works be so 'good' they're 'worthy' of dissecting in minute detail and destroying the flavour and intention (i.e. a thing people were supposed to watch and enjoy) with analysis. (I can totally hear him saying "Foresooth! Whateth. The. Fornication. Art thou doingst to my play, fellow?! It is, akin, thoroughly not like the freezing breath of winter!") I sometimes wonder if in a few thousand years when the literary bias against fantasy has fianlly elapsed whether generations of children will be forced to disect Guards! Guards! in the same manner... |
| d2447866707-24-07, 09:37 PM | I sometimes wonder if in a few thousand years when the literary bias against fantasy has fianlly elapsed whether generations of children will be forced to disect Guards! Guards! in the same manner... :rofl: . I can just imagine that. "But, clearly, Vimes is a metaphor for the common man's crisis in a corrupt system, and his inability to act against the dragon and therefore fear of it, is the fear of losing a job, or such." |
| CryoSilver07-24-07, 09:46 PM | Just because something is popular does not make it good. McDonalds is popular: it is not good. Cigarettes are popular: they are not good. War is popular: it is not good. The Democratic party is popular: it is not good. Harry Potter may or may not be good; I have never read the books. Harry Potter can't really be accurately represented in D&D terms, since the setting tends to assume that either you're a wizard or you're a normal schmoe off the street, which D&D doesn't do well (see the cat vs commoner thread). |
| IRememberCecil07-24-07, 09:57 PM | War is popular: it is not good. Lolwhut? |
| Leo07-24-07, 09:59 PM | Just because something is popular does not make it good. McDonalds is popular: it is not good. Cigarettes are popular: they are not good. War is popular: it is not good. The Democratic party is popular: it is not good. Harry Potter may or may not be good; I have never read the books. Harry Potter can't really be accurately represented in D&D terms, since the setting tends to assume that either you're a wizard or you're a normal schmoe off the street, which D&D doesn't do well (see the cat vs commoner thread). First, I must coment untill today, I have yet to hear about anyone dying due to the harry potter books. Second, Jk Rowllings alone put the children reading and revived the phantasy writing genre. Honestly, before Harry Potter, Tolkien-medieval-european fantasy was almost dead. Kids almost didn't read anything at all. But thanks to these 7 books, children have started reading again. And nobody is dying or having chronicle sickness if they buy and read the books, unlike war or Mc Donalds. The benefits greatly outcome the penalties. Thus, JK Rowling did a great work in the end. Unless some fallaccy was created while I was away that states that geting good results is bad. |
| CryoSilver07-24-07, 10:05 PM | Kids weren't "barely reading" before Harry Potter. They just weren't all reading the same book. And aren't you aware that for every Harry Potter book printed, 7 Chinese children have to die? I thought everyone knew that. |
| archerpwr07-24-07, 10:16 PM | Kids weren't "barely reading" before Harry Potter. They just weren't all reading the same book. And aren't you aware that for every Harry Potter book printed, 7 Chinese children have to die? I thought everyone knew that. +1 |
| IRememberCecil07-24-07, 10:28 PM | Unless some fallaccy was created while I was away that states that geting good results is bad. "Fallacy" means "error". And thinking that getting good results is bad is erroneous (except if the good results for them are bad ones for you; let's assume the results are objectively good), meaning that this fallacy does exist. Also, fallacies aren't created. /jackassery |
| WizO_Cat07-24-07, 10:44 PM | Ok, just a reminder: let's keep the discussion to the topic of the thread. If you don't wish to discuss the topic, then don't. Thanks in advance. |
| IRememberCecil07-24-07, 11:50 PM | Okay, so anyways, the magic system in the Harry Potter universe is so crazy broken that they had to balance it with societal consequences ("If u kil wit teh magicz u will get perma-b& from society!"). That's no way to balance a system. |
| J.Augustus Rose II07-25-07, 01:38 AM | J.Augustus Rose II: No, not at all. In fact, I view "hidden meaning" as a failure of the author to communicate their ideas clearly. If they had intended to make a statement about something, they should have said it clearer -- if their target audience for their statement doesn't get it, then they have failed to communicate. (This is independent from entertainment, which is its own goal.) I'm a firm believer in the functionalist approach: everything must serve a purpose or else it is purposeless, and things that are purposeless are a waste of time. In serving its purpose, it is ideal to do so clearly, efficiently, simply, accurately, and objectively, or again, you are just wasting time (respectively by being obtuse, directly wasting time, being needlessly complex, spreading misinformation, or relying too much on non-universal communication). Failure to do these does not necessarily mean you fail outright, merely that revisions are necessary. When I read, I don't bother thinking about what the author "might have meant" or what the writing "says about something" that isn't actually said by the text. I bother thinking about what was actually written. This puts me at odds with countless English students and professors, but this mentality is also a benefit in any scientific discipline. This same style of approach often leads me into ideological wars with artists who insist what they do serves a purpose (note that with the exception of "entertainment", I've yet to meet one who is actually able to provide such a "purpose"...), so it isn't aimed directly at literature or anything. Spoon-fed? Hardly. To borrow your analogy, it is merely the choice between using a fork to eat simple food that covers all the required nutrients regardless of taste or presentation as compared to using a Rube Goldberg machine to eat extremely fancy but ultimately nutritionally poor food. This may seem odd to people who value the arts, but I assure you, it is not odd to people who don't. I'll probably get slapped by a mod for saying this but I feel it has to be said: This is the most insane line of "thinking" I have ever read in my life. Spoon-fed is exactly right. You're asking the author/artist/what have you to do every single little bit of thinking for you. The line doesn't always go straight from A to B, nor should it. Art is not science. It doesn't follow a formula. That should not have to be explained to you. And obviously, you do not value the arts at all which negates any criticism you have of any works of art. The problem isn't the author or artist, friend. It's you. |
| TheAnthroDM07-25-07, 02:11 AM | ("If u kil wit teh magicz u will get perma-b& from society!"). Wow... how unrealistic! As well all know going around and shooting people doesn't get you sent to jail at all. Ah dammit! I read more stupidity and failed my will save, great, this thread has officially infected me with depravity! Freaking natural 1s. |
| IRememberCecil07-25-07, 02:39 AM | Wow... how unrealistic! As well all know going around and shooting people doesn't get you sent to jail at all. Ah dammit! I read more stupidity and failed my will save, great, this thread has officially infected me with depravity! Freaking natural 1s. Did you notice where I said that it was a poor way to balance a system, not that it was unrealistic? And you dare accuse me of stupidity... While I'm mindlessly attacking you, I must rampage through your other posts in this thread: I am all together unsurprised with the results. But I would like to give you a cookie for being just so darn adorable. You're one to talk. You haven't been providing a whole lot of intelligent discussion to this thread, now have you? If you don't think something is good writing, then try and write something better, if you can't. Well I guess you don't really have the authority to call them bad now do you. Or perhaps I'm asking too much of society.... yeah probably. :D Again with the arrogance. You assume that you have the authority to dictate whether someone is in the position to make judgement calls. Let's look at that reasoning a bit: Can you make a better judgement call than I can about archerpwr's ability to make judgements about the quality of a piece of work? I don't know whether you can, and you can't conclusively prove that you're a better judge of abilities than I am, so you yourself are in no position to judge others. Fail. It couldn't be that you have bad taste. No no no. The majority of people have to be wrong, that makes perfect sense. Are you by any chance in favor of the war in Iraq? Just wondering. Completely and utterly illogical, rude and just plain idiotic. When something is a matter of opinion, majority does not dictate who's right and who has good or bad tastes. This also applies to things that are not matters of opinion (such as the shape of the Earth). And the comment on Iraq. In poor taste, patronizing and a ****tarded assumption. I had to get it off my chest. |
| navar10007-25-07, 02:49 AM | I agree that without coming up with a whole new magic system, it is impossible to stat any of the characters accurately. You could make DnD versions of them, but they would be totally different due to limited spells per day and so forth. Alignment assigning might be fun, though. Who wants to help me figure out everyone's alignment? I'll start by stating my opinion that Dumbledore is chaotic good. Harry: Neutral Good Ron: Chaotic Good Hermione: Lawful Good Dumbledore: Neutral Good McGonagall: Lawful Good Hagrid: Neutral Good Snape: Lawful Evil Voldermort: Chaotic Evil Dolores Umbridge: Lawful Evil Weasely Twins: Chaotic Neutral Mrs. Weasely: Lawful Good Mr. Weasely: Neutral Good Percy Weasely: Lawful Neutral Ginny Weasely: Neutral Good Fudge: Lawful Neutral Mr. Dursely: Lawful Evil Mrs. Dursely: Lawful Evil Dudley Dursely: Neutral Evil Sirius Black: Chaotic Good Remus Lupin: Neutral Good Mad-Eye Moony: Lawful Good Draco Malfoy: Neutral Evil Lucius Malfoy: Lawful Evil Crabbe and Goyle: Neutral Evil Oliver Wood: Neutral Mudungus: Chaotic Neutral Flitwick: Lawful Good Sprout: Lawful Good Quirrel: Neutral Evil Gilderoy Lockhart: Chaotic Neutral Madam Pomphrey: Neutral Good Filch: Lawful Evil Neville Longbottom: Lawful Good Cedric Diggory: Lawful Good Cho Chang: Neutral Good Peeves: Chaotic Neutral Nearly-Headless Nick: Neutral Good Moaning Myrtle: Neutral Bellatrix Lestrange: Neutral Evil Luna Lovegood: Neutral Good Peter Pettigrew: Neutral Evil Dobby: Chaotic Good Kreacher: Lawful Neutral |
| TheAnthroDM07-25-07, 02:51 AM | Snape: Lawful Evil Snape is more likely good or neutral. |
| ArcTan07-25-07, 03:55 AM | Okay, so anyways, the magic system in the Harry Potter universe is so crazy broken that they had to balance it with societal consequences ("If u kil wit teh magicz u will get perma-b& from society!"). That's no way to balance a system. ...For a game, maybe. That is how things work in real life. (Technology's power to kill is limited mainly by society's control over it, not by convenient safety mechanisms carefully built into the laws of nature by the gods to keep people from getting "too powerful".) Also, HP magic is clearly designed so that while it's crazy-powerful over people who can't use it (Muggles) there are plenty of built-in defenses within the world of magic itself. Wizards who learn to "duel" learn all the various tricks for countering, blocking and dodging spells. Various potions and devices render the effects of various spells null (and are "balanced" by the fact that being potions rather than spells you have to brew and drink them ahead of time). Various natural magical beasts have the natural equivalent of Spell Resistance (spell sparks bouncing off of the "thick hide" of Giants, Dragons, Blast-Ended Skrewts, etc.) To be honest, it's all stuff that sounds suspiciously similar to how D&D balance works. The primary difference is that there's no stupid D&D crap about "preparing" spells, which is, indeed, a *stupid* way to balance magic that bears no resemblance to 99% of traditional depictions of magic and is guaranteed to make a story boring. |
| ArcTan07-25-07, 03:57 AM | Did you notice where I said that it was a poor way to balance a system, not that it was unrealistic? ...And J.K. Rowling isn't trying to write an RPG but a series of novels. What's your point? |
| ArcTan07-25-07, 03:59 AM | I will say this: While J.K. Rowling's merits compared to the Fantasy Canon of folks like J.R.R. Tolkien and Ursula K. Le Guin and China Mieville may, indeed, be questionable, Harry Potter is *so* much better than *any* of the D&D tie-in novels I've ever seen that it almost physically hurts to have to make a comparison between the two. |
| Return of the Flumph07-25-07, 06:56 AM | I will say this: While J.K. Rowling's merits compared to the Fantasy Canon of folks like J.R.R. Tolkien and Ursula K. Le Guin and China Mieville may, indeed, be questionable, Harry Potter is *so* much better than *any* of the D&D tie-in novels I've ever seen that it almost physically hurts to have to make a comparison between the two. Amen. |
| shadzar07-25-07, 07:23 AM | Voldermort: Lawful Evil he believed in laws and them being followed. but they should be his laws rather than someone elses. how many people did he kill in their sleep. he prefered to face down his opponent for several reason, one being he could see the look on their face, two so they could see who was going to kill them, and three he did have some honor as twisted and demented as it was. |
| zeratulcraft07-25-07, 07:26 AM | Aye, towards the end battle shows he has some honour left. |
| Leo07-25-07, 07:59 AM | Did anyone notice that in Harry Potter magic almost never drains the strenght of the user and everybody just goes around spaming their best spells? |
| Anaxander07-25-07, 09:54 AM | Did anyone notice that in Harry Potter magic almost never drains the strenght of the user and everybody just goes around spaming their best spells? That's because they're a bunch of warlocks :cool: Oh, and 'literature' and 'art' as separate cultural spheres are products of modernity. |
| archerpwr07-25-07, 09:55 AM | Did anyone notice that in Harry Potter magic almost never drains the strenght of the user and everybody just goes around spaming their best spells? Yeah. Warlock much? I haven't been saying the writing of HP is bad. I've been saying it isn't good and I wonder why people love it so much. HP is anything but deep and with "hidden meaning". It is predictable and full of "oops. forgot to resolve a conflict. Everything is solved by backstories." |
| Sim_antix07-25-07, 11:10 AM | If you don't think something is good writing, then try and write something better, if you can't. Well I guess you don't really have the authority to call them bad now do you. Or perhaps I'm asking too much of society.... yeah probably. :D Shenanigans! I may not be able to make a great work of art, but I know crap when I see it. I may not be able to do any better, but I know a bad football player when I see one. I may not be able to write a better book, but I know that the Potter series is subpar, at best. |
| Sim_antix07-25-07, 11:13 AM | Just because something is popular does not make it good. QFT |
| _Jayne_Cobb_07-25-07, 12:19 PM | I thought gandalf was more like a half angel. Gotta agree on the lack of good writing in harry potter. It's a children's book, but no where near as good as ender's game (the sequels are crap) which got me into reading. Dune OTOH is a great series; my brother refuses to read even the first chapter though. He fails at life. The Harry Potter series is quite good and Rowling is a decent writer (though she's better at ideas than technique). Ender's Game was six kinds of awful. Dune was a very good book but not quite deserving of the quasi-religious reverence it currently enjoys. I've never quite understood this "I knew what was gonna happen o the book/movie/TV show sucks" attitude. Surprising the reader is the least indicator of quality, not the greatest one. For most of human history the stories one heard were ones they already knew, what mattered most was the skill of the storyteller and how they made it their own. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_07-25-07, 12:20 PM | Just because something is popular does not make it good. Just cos something is popular does not make it bad. |
| Leo07-25-07, 12:52 PM | Shenanigans! I may not be able to make a great work of art, but I know crap when I see it. I may not be able to do any better, but I know a bad football player when I see one. I may not be able to write a better book, but I know that the Potter series is subpar, at best. You realize that lot of masterwork pieces in history were only recognized much time after they were created? Like Van Gogh who died whitout being able to sell a single painting, yet his works are worth hundreds of thousand dollars nowadays? Talk about common people being able to recognize good stuff when they see it. But now, to the Harry Potter series: -Very popular among a wide segment of the population. -Easy reading. Maybe too easy. -As far as I see, doesn't incentive people to ethically wrong behaviors and isn't hazardous to health. -Suports moral valors like love, frienship, help others, treat everyone with equality and respect, don't be obsessed with power and richness, etc, etc. -Managed to make kids able to read books over 500 pages, thus pushing them nearby to reading other fat books, wich normally are labeled as boring. Conclusion:It may not be a masterpiece, but it's undoubtly good work because it made good results. Oh, and I hadn't had drawn the connection between Harry Potter magic and warlocks. Now that's kinda disturbing. |
| archerpwr07-25-07, 12:56 PM | stuff What didnt you like about enders game? Ever read A Great and Secret Show by Clive Barker? It's not as epic as Dune, but a great book and has great "behind reality" undertone. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_07-25-07, 01:07 PM | What didnt you like about enders game? Everything. There was not a single thing I enjoyed about that book. Don't know why, it just didn't jibe with me at all. |
| aotrscommander07-25-07, 01:08 PM | Just cos something is popular does not make it bad. I considered pointing that out myself, but elected against it! True though. I've never quite understood this "I knew what was gonna happen o the book/movie/TV show sucks" attitude. Surprising the reader is the least indicator of quality, not the greatest one. For most of human history the stories one heard were ones they already knew, what mattered most was the skill of the storyteller and how they made it their own. For me, I personally first time I watch/read something, I want it it all to be a surprise and to be fresh and new, not to know what's coming around the next metaphorical corner. Virgin turf as it were; that's part of the enjoyment for me, seeing the events unfold on the blank page of my mind as it were. I find if I know what's coming, I end up trying to fit it to when it will happen and it takes the edge off. I also, as you may have gathered by now, am something of an obtuse individual who likes variety for the sake of variety. Cliches and formulaic plots tweak me a little. It's also a sort of game in and of itself, trying to guess what will happen next and awarding myself smug points if I get it right. (Obviously, when you know what's going to happen, it kind of kills that off!) This is also part of my mental hyperactivity problem. My mind never actually ever shuts off, ever (often not even when I'm asleep) so I can't not do it; it's automatic. Which is why I personally value people who can take me by surprise. After all, a shocking plot twist isn't very shocking if you expect it! (What bugs me the most, though, is stuff so badly telegraphed that you know it's going to happen miles in advance because of the metacliche and the characters are stuck on some sort of amazingly stupid course of action. That's one of the reasons I like Whedon. He'll do that right up until the point he'll metaphorically hit the cliche over the head with an iron bar; which is something I've always wanted to do.) All that said, it's not the thing I look for first in my entertainment (that I suspect would be at least two out of the three of good plot, Stuff Blowing Other Stuff Up With Pyrotechnics and/or humour first, with other stuff following behind and People Shouting At Each Other and/or Being Angsty being a massive negative factor) but it's icing on the cake. |
| _Jayne_Cobb_07-25-07, 01:09 PM | I may not be able to write a better book, but I know that the Potter series is subpar, at best. Clearly not. (What bugs me the most, though, is stuff so badly telegraphed that you know it's going to happen miles in advance Which is, in answer to archerpwr's earlier question, one of the things I despised about the Wheel of Time. I have never read and author before or since who telegraphs his punches so much as does Jordan. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn;t act like the things he telegraphs are meant to be surprises. He's a like a boxer standing there yelling "I'm gonna throw a left. Here comes my left. Are you ready for my left? Boy, this is gonna be a helluva left! Here comes my great big left!" >tap< "Wow! Bet you didn't see that left coming!!!" Must stop now, getting angry. |
| aotrscommander07-25-07, 01:13 PM | But now, to the Harry Potter series: -Very popular among a wide segment of the population. -Easy reading. Maybe too easy. -As far as I see, doesn't incentive people to ethically wrong behaviors and isn't hazardous to health. -Suports moral valors like love, frienship, help others, treat everyone with equality and respect, don't be obsessed with power and richness, etc, etc. -Managed to make kids able to read books over 500 pages, thus pushing them nearby to reading other fat books, wich normally are labeled as boring. You forgot Stuff Blowing Other Stuff Up With Pyrotechnics... |
| LCD2YOU07-25-07, 01:27 PM | Who's this Harry Potter? Will there be a splat book for these characters/areas? |
| archerpwr07-25-07, 01:48 PM | Everything. There was not a single thing I enjoyed about that book. Don't know why, it just didn't jibe with me at all. Hmm. You even finish it? I find it odd that EG just didnt jibe with anyone, but I guess to each his own. BTW, try the great and secret show; lots of twists, but a clear progression of the plot. |
| aotrscommander07-25-07, 01:57 PM | Which is, in answer to archerpwr's earlier question, one of the things I despised about the Wheel of Time. I have never read and author before or since who telegraphs his punches so much as does Jordan. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn;t act like the things he telegraphs are meant to be surprises. He's a like a boxer standing there yelling "I'm gonna throw a left. Here comes my left. Are you ready for my left? Boy, this is gonna be a helluva left! Here comes my great big left!" >tap< "Wow! Bet you didn't see that left coming!!!" Must stop now, getting angry. I think the worst example I can think of off the top of my head was (surprisingly) an episode of Stargate SG-1 in the ninth season I think it was. You just knew that the Prometheus was going to get the crap kicked out of it, it was so formulaicly "we should have no problems destroying this thingy, this is going to be a piece of cake" for the first half of the bloody episode; absolutely text-book, it was. That was about the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen; I think i remember it especially since SG-1 is usually so much Awesome in a can. And now, for something passingly on topic, were I to model Harry Potter-type magic in D&D, I would suggest the following. All the spells would be Invocations (neat point) or Incantations (from UE/SRD if your unfamiliar; a bit like ritual spells), but all requiring a focus (a la a cleric or druid's Divine Focus, not an arcane one) with Verbal components and occasionally some Material ones. I'd argueably say primarily Int-based casting, but maybe with feats that allowed to to substitute Cha or maybe Wis (sort of a Charisma Finesse, if you will). You'd have to compile a list of invocations; you could probably pull most of them from current spells, but with changed levels Avada Kedavra could be maybe Finger of Death, but as a top-level invocation, Imperio as Dominate Monster but with a longer duration etc. Maybe consider having the invocations learned like wizard spells (or maybe Erudite powers); seeing as everybody would pretty much have to be a caster or they'd be at a stupidly big disadvantage1, the internal balance wouldn't matter. 1On the other hand, if a Fighter with Improved Sunder could survive long enough to get in, he'd have a field day! You might actually have to ban Improved Sunder! (I can see it now, on the ficticious HP D20 boards: "OMG Fighters are so broken!1!1 Casters stand no chance against fighters at high levels! Casters don't get nice things!1!") |
| Sim_antix07-25-07, 02:47 PM | You realize that lot of masterwork pieces in history were only recognized much time after they were created? Like Van Gogh who died whitout being able to sell a single painting, yet his works are worth hundreds of thousand dollars nowadays? Talk about common people being able to recognize good stuff when they see it. Michelangelo Da Vinci Mozart Rembrandt Shakespear Beethoven You can't name one example and think your point is proven. There are plenty of other artists who are recognized during their times as the artists they are. Clearly not. Clearly not what? |
| CryoSilver07-25-07, 03:09 PM | Just cos something is popular does not make it bad. True, and I never said that, either. In fact, I mentioned that since I have never read more than the book jackets and the Wikipedia articles, I can make no statement on the quality of Harry Potter books. My statement was that just because a particular thing is popular does not also make it good. |
| Sim_antix07-25-07, 03:20 PM | True, and I never said that, either. In fact, I mentioned that since I have never read more than the book jackets and the Wikipedia articles, I can make no statement on the quality of Harry Potter books. My statement was that just because a particular thing is popular does not also make it good. I agree. Not everything that is popular is good, but certainly some of it is. The point CryoSilver was trying to make (I believe) was that popularity is not an accurate measurement of how good something is. Teletubbies Pirates of the Caribbean movies (especially the sequel and the last one) Barney Americas next top model Melrose Place Days of Our Lives The Pet Rock Professional Wrestling I think you get the point... |
| Leo07-25-07, 03:28 PM | Michelangelo Da Vinci Mozart Rembrandt Shakespear Beethoven You can't name one example and think your point is proven. There are plenty of other artists who are recognized during their times as the artists they are. Clearly not what? Funny you mentioned some of those. Mozart died poor, since he was never paid what he was really worth. He ended up literally working to death trying to keep up with his bills(ok, he also had a very unhealty life style, but still he wasn't paid anything too special for that time) Da vinci was considered half mad and heretic for his toughts on flying machines and other bizzarre stuff, too advanced for his era. He actually wrote most of his plans backwards in order to people don't easily discover them. Bethoven's funeral had just an handfull of people on it, and it was not necessarly for the lack of space. Those were recognized as good artists, but almost nobody of their times expexted them to become living legends of their respective art fields. And Shapkespeare, even tough it's good enough to be school material, most people doesn't really apreciate it. |
| shadzar07-25-07, 03:32 PM | And Shapkespeare, even tough it's good enough to be school material, most people doesn't really appreciate like it. just fixing something here. |
| Sim_antix07-25-07, 03:34 PM | Funny you mentioned some of those. Mozart died poor, since he was never paid what he was really worth. He ended up literally working to death trying to keep up with his bills(ok, he also had a very unhealty life style, but still he wasn't paid anything too special for that time) But he was paid and recognized as a great artist. Da vinci was considered half mad and heretic for his toughts on flying machines and other bizzarre stuff, too advanced for his era. He actually wrote most of his plans backwards in order to people don't easily discover them. Again, I am not saying they were fully appreciated, just that they were recognized for being great. Bethoven's funeral had just an handfull of people on it, and it was not necessarly for the lack of space. Beethoven wrote for kings and queens, who attended his funeral is irrelevant. Those were recognized as good artists, but almost nobody of their times expexted them to become living legends of their respective art fields. And again, we are not discussing if everyone knew they would become legends, only whether the "common man" could recognize their talent. Which clearly they could. And Shapkespeare, even tough it's good enough to be school material, most people {don't} really apreciate it. Perhaps not, but again, he wrote plays for royalty, ergo he was recognized as being great in his time. So yeah your theory has been shredded unless you have another rebuttal... |
| rudie07-25-07, 03:34 PM | My friend made a harry potter campaign that lasted for about a week. He made us choose a house and depending on that house you could choose certain schools and spells. it was really in depth and cool. He even made quidich rules. the only problem with it was that he was the only one who was really into harry potter. |
| Corpus07-25-07, 06:17 PM | It couldn't be that you have bad taste. No no no. The majority of people have to be wrong, that makes perfect sense. Are you by any chance in favor of the war in Iraq? Just wondering. There's no such thing as objectively bad taste. Well, except for being a furry. |
| IRememberCecil07-25-07, 06:18 PM | There's no such thing as objectively bad taste. Well, except for being a furry. Srsly, this post made my day (though it came a little late; it's 10 PM where I'm located). |
| ArcTan07-25-07, 06:24 PM | Funny you mentioned some of those. Mozart died poor, since he was never paid what he was really worth. He ended up literally working to death trying to keep up with his bills(ok, he also had a very unhealty life style, but still he wasn't paid anything too special for that time) Da vinci was considered half mad and heretic for his toughts on flying machines and other bizzarre stuff, too advanced for his era. He actually wrote most of his plans backwards in order to people don't easily discover them. Bethoven's funeral had just an handfull of people on it, and it was not necessarly for the lack of space. Those were recognized as good artists, but almost nobody of their times expexted them to become living legends of their respective art fields. Nonsense. Mozart, Da Vinci *and* Beethoven were *all* "living legends", by any reasonable standard of fame, in their own lifetimes. All you've proven is that these people weren't *rich* and that a lot of people didn't like them (which is not the same as not being famous -- indeed, it comes with the territory). Mozart was not wealthy by the standards of an artist *today*, but that's because *all* artists weren't wealthy by those standards back then. The royalty system as we know it didn't exist. There was no system by which Mozart could sell millions of records with his compositions on them and garner a percentage on each one. *No* artist could've possibly become the kind of multimillionaire we think of artists as becoming today -- indeed, it was simply impossible to be a super-rich multimillionaire unless you *were* a noble. A lot of this crap about how "genius is never discovered in its own time" is just that -- crap. People exaggerate the degree to which people used to be downtrodden or disliked in order to make their success stories seem more successful. And Shapkespeare, even tough it's good enough to be school material, most people doesn't really apreciate it. Shakespeare was very popular back then. Plays, disreputable though they were, were nonetheless *extremely* popular entertainment, and a good playwright's name would be on everyone's lips. (It is, in fact, in many ways the equivalent of television today.) The reason Shakespeare has survived, after all, is that shortly after his death his friends thought they could make a big profit by publishing his plays in written form. (If it were really true that "no one thought the plays were worth reading" then the plays would not currently exist. It's harder than some people think for things to survive in recorded form down the centuries.) There are a lot more examples of people who were very popular for their time who faded into the mists of history than examples of people who were unpopular for their time but suddenly "discovered" by later generations. Discovering things isn't easy -- in fact, it's almost impossible to discover something that people didn't like at some point in time, because people don't leave records of things they don't like. |
| Witch07-25-07, 06:26 PM | There's no such thing as objectively bad taste. There is. At least, in so far as objectivity can be said to exist. |
| ArcTan07-25-07, 06:33 PM | You realize that lot of masterwork pieces in history were only recognized much time after they were created? Like Van Gogh who died whitout being able to sell a single painting, yet his works are worth hundreds of thousand dollars nowadays? What are you talking about? Van Gogh had a lot of problems -- many of which had more to do with his personal life than the popularity of his art -- but he was quite famous in his lifetime, friends with many well-known art critics and artists (including his best friend, Paul Gauguin) and the peak of his fame was only delayed until the end of his life (in his last two years, everyone was snapping up Van Goghs), not long after. After his death they had memorials to him in several major cities. Yes, when Van Gogh started out, no one thought he was very good, but that's because he wasn't very good -- and he was a lot harder on himself than anyone else was. A lot of the paintings he never sold were because he never attempted to sell them and instead destroyed them in embarrassment. Talk about common people being able to recognize good stuff when they see it. I don't think quality is really ultimately dependent on counting the number of people who like something (whether you're going with the populist theory that a high number is better or the snob theory that a low number is better). But I don't like to see history distorted to bolster the idea that "genius is always discovered generations later". (I mean, it's not as though the next generation's mob really is any smarter than the last generation's mob. Even if that were true, it might just mean that generations are fickle -- maybe the things our grandchildren will like that we don't appreciate really *are* garbage. Those damn kids, etc.) But now, to the Harry Potter series: -Very popular among a wide segment of the population. -Easy reading. Maybe too easy. -As far as I see, doesn't incentive people to ethically wrong behaviors and isn't hazardous to health. -Suports moral valors like love, frienship, help others, treat everyone with equality and respect, don't be obsessed with power and richness, etc, etc. -Managed to make kids able to read books over 500 pages, thus pushing them nearby to reading other fat books, wich normally are labeled as boring. Conclusion:It may not be a masterpiece, but it's undoubtly good work because it made good results. Oh, and I hadn't had drawn the connection between Harry Potter magic and warlocks. Now that's kinda disturbing. The connection only exists because D&D realized that some people were just sick of magic as a limited set of things you have to count down per day, but realized that they couldn't balance the system they had with magic as something you can just do whenever you feel like it without making the whenever-you-feel-like-it magic suck. So they made a magic system that kind of sucked (Warlocks and their eldritch blasts) and then tried to spice it up by making them called Warlocks and be creepy and demonic. |
| ArcTan07-25-07, 06:34 PM | There is. At least, in so far as objectivity can be said to exist. You can come up with a standard of taste that things can be objectively compared to, but you'll have a hell of a time convincing everybody to accept it. |
| Corpus07-25-07, 06:38 PM | There is. At least, in so far as objectivity can be said to exist. Taste is taste. Different maybe, but "bad"? How could that even be? |
| Witch07-25-07, 06:41 PM | You can come up with a standard of taste that things can be objectively compared to, but you'll have a hell of a time convincing everybody to accept it. Taste is taste. Different maybe, but "bad"? How could that even be? Oh, I could claim a lot of things about taste, and opinions rather vary. Kant and Hume had interesting things to say about it, for one. But though tastes may vary and be equal in producing pleasant feelings, good taste is that taste which acknowledges works of genuine art. Someone who says Britney Spears is better than Beethoven has bad taste - simply put. If you're going to ask "but why", go read On the Standard of Taste by David Hume. I find myself largely agreeing by what's in it. |
| archerpwr07-25-07, 06:59 PM | There is. At least, in so far as objectivity can be said to exist. Thank You. I love logical people. |
| Corpus07-25-07, 07:04 PM | Oh, I could claim a lot of things about taste, and opinions rather vary. Kant and Hume had interesting things to say about it, for one. But though tastes may vary and be equal in producing pleasant feelings, good taste is that taste which acknowledges works of genuine art. Someone who says Britney Spears is better than Beethoven has bad taste - simply put. If you're going to ask "but why", go read On the Standard of Taste by David Hume. I find myself largely agreeing by what's in it. Well, that depends on how you define "better." I'm not much of a musician or even a music connoisseur, so I can't meaningfully discuss it. But what is "genuine art", for that matter? Art that takes more work? Art that provokes deeper feelings in more people? And again, why would enjoying "genuine art," whatever that is, indicate "better" taste? Is it really better at all? By the way, if you want to read something by a real philosopher, I'd suggest Friedrich Nietzsche. |
| Corpus07-25-07, 07:04 PM | Well, that depends on how you define "better." I'm not much of a musician or even a music connoisseur, so I can't meaningfully discuss it. But what is "genuine art", for that matter? Art that takes more work? Art that provokes deeper feelings in more people? And again, why would enjoying "genuine art," whatever that is, indicate "better" taste? Is it really better at all? By the way, if you want to read something by a real philosopher, I'd suggest Friedrich Nietzsche. P.S. Objectivity can't exist. |
| Sim_antix07-25-07, 07:07 PM | P.S. Objectivity can't exist. There is an edit feature for when you wish to add something to a post. Please use it so as not to spam the thread. |
| Witch07-25-07, 07:09 PM | Well, that depends on how you define "better." I'm not much of a musician or even a music connoisseur, so I can't meaningfully discuss it. But what is "genuine art", for that matter? Art that takes more work? Art that provokes deeper feelings in more people? And again, why would enjoying "genuine art," whatever that is, indicate "better" taste? Is it really better at all? By the way, if you want to read something by a real philosopher, I'd suggest Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche is considered more of a poet than a philosopher. The man continually contradicts himself, uses blatant ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion rather than reason in a lot of cases. He has its merits, but calling him a "real philosopher" over David Hume is blatantly picturing the situation badly. It's also fairly amusing that Nietzsche did call one taste regarding music and tragedy better than the other, and that you disagree with it. P.S. Objectivity can't exist. I've said "in so far as it can be said to exist", which I believe is reached by the scientific method in most cases, or something akin to that in art. What the majority of the experts agree on, and has solid foundation (if not perfect), is what we can call objectivity. If you wish objectivity to be more than that, then you're wielding pointless absolutes which humanity simply has no access to. |
| Corpus07-25-07, 07:09 PM | There is an edit feature for when you wish to add something to a post. Please use it so as not to spam the thread. I thought I did. |
| Asgetrion07-25-07, 08:05 PM | No, it just means she's wealthy. Talent and wealth are not equated, unless you'd say that Paris Hilton is talented. Actually, Rowlins was a poor single mom who had to work hard for her money. No matter what you think about the series, you have to admit that she *is* a very talented and creative person. Paris Hilton was born into a very wealthy family and never had to work for a single dollar in her life (or show any creativity or talent, for that matter), since practically all her money came from her multimillionaire dad. |
| ArcTan07-25-07, 08:26 PM | Oh, I could claim a lot of things about taste, and opinions rather vary. Kant and Hume had interesting things to say about it, for one. But though tastes may vary and be equal in producing pleasant feelings, good taste is that taste which acknowledges works of genuine art. Someone who says Britney Spears is better than Beethoven has bad taste - simply put. If you're going to ask "but why", go read On the Standard of Taste by David Hume. I find myself largely agreeing by what's in it. In what way does this contradict "you'll have a hell of a time convincing everybody to accept it"? |
| Witch07-25-07, 08:30 PM | It doesn't - but then again, we also have a hell of a time convincing everyone that the earth is round (or close to it) rather than flat. |
| Edymnion07-25-07, 08:38 PM | Back to the OP topic, I would use Truenaming, make the assotiated skillcheck into Spellcraft, and change the flavor. |
| IRememberCecil07-25-07, 09:18 PM | Back to the OP topic, I would use Truenaming, make the assotiated skillcheck into Spellcraft, and change the flavor. That, IMO, is one of the best ideas I've heard so far. |
| Vharuck07-26-07, 02:54 AM | Nietzsche is considered more of a poet than a philosopher. The man continually contradicts himself, uses blatant ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion rather than reason in a lot of cases. He has its merits, but calling him a "real philosopher" over David Hume is blatantly picturing the situation badly. It's also fairly amusing that Nietzsche did call one taste regarding music and tragedy better than the other, and that you disagree with it. I must say, it was after I read one of Hume's books and utterly despised the man and all things he mentioned, until enough time had passed that I came to understand and accept them, that I realized what it was to read from a good philosopher. But I do love Nietzche's point that the greatest leader may be despised by all for acting in the best way. But I've gone off-topic. The warlock is nice for Harry Potter, but I'd think a system that included spell failure chance based on experience and skill (not armor) would help balance it. Sure, you could attempt Avada Kedavra (spelling?) every round, but if you only have a 60% chance of success (to cast, you might still miss) you'd be better off using lower-level, more assured spells. |
| Leo07-26-07, 04:25 AM | The warlock is nice for Harry Potter, but I'd think a system that included spell failure chance based on experience and skill (not armor) would help balance it. Sure, you could attempt Avada Kedavra (spelling?) every round, but if you only have a 60% chance of success (to cast, you might still miss) you'd be better off using lower-level, more assured spells. Yet, it seems Harry managed to cast the unforgivable curses crucio and imperio in his first atempts both times. Whitout any kind of training or studying whatsoever, just sheer willpower(unless Harry has been practising uber dark magic whitout any of us noticing). It almost seems like a D&D warlock who just leveled up and starts using his latest toy. |
| ArcTan07-26-07, 04:48 AM | Yet, it seems Harry managed to cast the unforgivable curses crucio and imperio in his first atempts both times. Whitout any kind of training or studying whatsoever, just sheer willpower(unless Harry has been practising uber dark magic whitout any of us noticing). It almost seems like a D&D warlock who just leveled up and starts using his latest toy. Crucio didn't work the first time he tried it, because he didn't have the right frame of mind, remember? |
| Leo07-26-07, 05:04 AM | Crucio didn't work the first time he tried it, because he didn't have the right frame of mind, remember? It worked, it just didn't worked at 100%, but it was enough to tackle Bellatrix for some seconds. And I would hardly qualify "Hating someone with all your guts" as something that demands great skill and carefull training. |
| skydin07-26-07, 06:54 AM | he did see the unforgivable curses preformed several times before that, by the fake mad-eye and then by voldemort a couple times. and the thing about crucio, you have not just to hate them, but to want to cause them as much pain as you possibly can, and you probably have to like it. harry was just really, really angry. |
| CryoSilver07-26-07, 11:48 AM | A big problem with D&D representing Harry Potter is that it assumes that you are heroic and larger than life. Harry Potter and pals are not; they'd be level 3, 4, tops. The killing curse thing would work because everyone would have the low saves typical of levels 3-4 and low point buy. Harry knows some spells, but if you shot him, he'd die. His most dangerous spell is a short range, mood-dependent single target save or die, which, it seems, is the most powerful atatck in his world. If you shot a mid-level warblade, he'd put a Band-Aid on it before he hacked you apart after smashing down a concrete wall with his wang using an unarmed Mountain Hammer strike. Then he'd eat a grenade as a snack. |
| Osedox07-26-07, 05:36 PM | After having said that Harry Potter is bad writing, what contemporary fantasy novels would you recommend? -R.A. Salvatore (and any other novelist working for WotC for that matter) make me wanna projectile vomit all over their books, just so i dont have to look at them anymore. -Philip Pullman was good, as I always enjoy anti-religious fervor, but was a bit wonky especially at the beginning and end. -Tolkien is epic, but is as dry as toast (The Silmarillion was his best work IMHO, and I have enjoyed it on several occasions while listening to Blind Guardian). -I couldn't stomach Ursula K LeGain for the life of me, it was just so ................boring I guess is the right word. -Herbert was interesting, although I would hesitate to call his work fantasy, it was more Sci-Fi; and i also felt that he blew his load on the first 2-3 books and after that flailed about impotently for the next several novels. -Lovecraft is fun, but the type of thing that is fairly repetitive. -I haven't had the opportunity to read either China Mieville nor Terry Pratchett although I always hear glowing reviews in their name. In response to all this blither about literature being bad or good, I say, "WTF? Something is only as good as what you get out of it. If some little kid can read Goosebumps and feel like he got some value out of it, then good for him. Even if I cant stand the crap. Saying that Harry Potter is bad literature is the most foolish thing I have ever heard. If you dont like it then dont read it, but dont presume to think that no one else is capable of getting anything positive out of reading it." |
| shadzar07-26-07, 06:27 PM | In response to all this blither about literature being bad or good, I say, "WTF? Something is only as good as what you get out of it. If some little kid can read Goosebumps and feel like he got some value out of it, then good for him. Even if I cant stand the crap. Saying that Harry Potter is bad literature is the most foolish thing I have ever heard. If you dont like it then dont read it, but dont presume to think that no one else is capable of getting anything positive out of reading it." i would like to add that not all writing have things to be learned in it, or should be evident at first glance. some things are written just to be fun to read. do we play D&D to learn anything, or do we play it for fun? and anyone that says D&D doesn't tell a story is wrong, because that is all it really is is a method of telling a story with your friends, where one starts and you go around the room adding to the story. |
| moscatabaco7607-26-07, 06:46 PM | Returning to the topic at hand... First, it's OBVIOUS Harry Potter can't be directly, 100% translated to D&D. It goes without saying, this thread is clearly just for fun. Having said that... Howarts is clearly a school for SORCERERS. No one in the HP universe can learn magic by brains alone; handling your emotions is much more important (in books 6 and 7 there are two examples of witches that cound't handle their own magic due to trauma and inwardiness). Also you require magic blood in your veins: so all of them are sorcerers (yeah, Hermione has clearly high int and is better, but no, I don't think she's a wizard. Nobody said this was going to be a perfect adaptation) Harry, Ron, Hagrid and even Dumbledore (and most of the order of the phoenix, as well as James potter and Sirius Black) strike me as CG. Dumbledore (despite his flaws), McGonahal and Kingsley are LG. Remus strike me as NG. Most of the Ministry of Magic (including Percy Weasley and Scrimgor) are LN. Rita Skitter and the Dursleys are True Neutral. Ludo Bagman and Lockhart feel CN. Voldemort, the Malfoys and Umbridge are LE, as are most Death Eaters. Wormtail is clearly NE. Grindewalt seems to have been CE. Severus Snape, alone among all the characters, has enough depht and complexity to defy aligtment association. Read book 7 and see by yourself. Actually one of the wonderful things about that book is that many characters on the "good" side show some evil colors, and some of the evil ones show their good side. |
| ArcTan07-26-07, 07:33 PM | It worked, it just didn't worked at 100%, but it was enough to tackle Bellatrix for some seconds. And I would hardly qualify "Hating someone with all your guts" as something that demands great skill and carefull training. If it's a state of mind you're trying to call forth at will, and it's not something natural to your personality, then yeah, it would take some training (though not training resembling book-learning, which is what we've been trained to think when we think "learning magic"). Look at what actors do to themselves to try to get good at summoning up mental states at will. It's not easy, not everyone can do it, and people who can do it have to get better at it through training and practice. |
| Heros_Backpack07-26-07, 07:49 PM | After having said that Harry Potter is bad writing, what contemporary fantasy novels would you recommend? Some good fantasy authors you may/may not have heard of: Garth Nix Tamora Pierce Katherine Roberts Susan Cooper Joanne Bertin Kristain Britain Piers Anthony (provided you enjoy puns) |
| Leo07-26-07, 08:24 PM | Some good fantasy authors you may/may not have heard of: Garth Nix Tamora Pierce Katherine Roberts Susan Cooper Joanne Bertin Kristain Britain Piers Anthony (provided you enjoy puns) Since we're talking about it, what exactly qualifies as "good" in fantasy literature? Those authors have all good solid works, yet none of them wrote anything that satisfied so much diferent people around the world. |
| ArcTan07-26-07, 08:40 PM | Piers Anthony (provided you enjoy puns) ...And a creepy obsession with various sexual fetishes involving animals and children that, no matter what the book is supposed to be about, pop out of nowhere and take up half of it. Honestly? I would take R.A. Salvatore over Piers Anthony any day of the week. Give me stilted, cliched violence-swordfighting porn vs. stilted, cliched creepy-sex porn any day of the week. |
| archerpwr07-26-07, 10:50 PM | After having said that Harry Potter is bad writing, what contemporary fantasy novels would you recommend? Clive Barker (check the horror section; its that imaginative) L.E. Modesitt jr (phenomenal world building) Piers Anthony (only cuz its so darn punny) James Clavell (such incredibly real characters and settings) The single piece "A Modest Proposal" (I love that satire; even centuries old) Edgar Rice Burroughs (easy, but well written ~ enders game) |
| ArcTan07-26-07, 11:48 PM | James Clavell (such incredibly real characters and settings) ...James Clavell isn't fantasy. It's historical fiction. The single piece "A Modest Proposal" (I love that satire; even centuries old) It's cute and funny, but it's also not fantasy, or even really fiction. |
| monkeybone07-26-07, 11:57 PM | I just luv the Harry Potter game!! I played Gandalf and killed all the muggleheads. Weeeeee!!! |
| Holy_Beholder07-27-07, 12:00 AM | After having said that Harry Potter is bad writing, what contemporary fantasy novels would you recommend? -R.A. Salvatore (and any other novelist working for WotC for that matter) make me wanna projectile vomit all over their books, just so i dont have to look at them anymore. -Philip Pullman was good, as I always enjoy anti-religious fervor, but was a bit wonky especially at the beginning and end. -Tolkien is epic, but is as dry as toast (The Silmarillion was his best work IMHO, and I have enjoyed it on several occasions while listening to Blind Guardian). -I couldn't stomach Ursula K LeGain for the life of me, it was just so ................boring I guess is the right word. -Herbert was interesting, although I would hesitate to call his work fantasy, it was more Sci-Fi; and i also felt that he blew his load on the first 2-3 books and after that flailed about impotently for the next several novels. -Lovecraft is fun, but the type of thing that is fairly repetitive. -I haven't had the opportunity to read either China Mieville nor Terry Pratchett although I always hear glowing reviews in their name. Try Alan Dean Foster and George R. R. Martin. I like them both, though they are very different(and Martin is much harder, but it isn't really that hard) There is always the off chance you would like Christopher Paolini too, but I some how doubt it. Still, its worth a shot. |
| Rude07-27-07, 02:24 AM | Neil Gaiman is great. I find Moorcocks earlier stuff good, but that Elric thing got way to "Star Trek" with all the multi universes and time travel. China Mieville's King Rat was great, but only because it was so very close to a Gaiman novel. Perdido Street Station was so boring I stopped reading it, and was very very much like Moorcocks later stuff. I don't know, as long as a sci-fi/fantasy book is passable enough to hold my attention and kill a few hours, it's good enough. I think Rowling might not be the best author but she's pretty imaginative for someone with no fantasy background. She must be doing something right, considering the near Star Trek/Star Wars like following her books and movies have generated. If she wanted to really rake in the bucks, she'd just let other authors continue the story in the HP universe much like any Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance or Star Wars novel. The buzz about new books would die but she seems to be done with Harry anyway. |
| ArcTan07-27-07, 03:09 AM | Neil Gaiman is great. I find Moorcocks earlier stuff good, but that Elric thing got way to "Star Trek" with all the multi universes and time travel. China Mieville's King Rat was great, but only because it was so very close to a Gaiman novel. Perdido Street Station was so boring I stopped reading it, and was very very much like Moorcocks later stuff. Which goes to show that there's no accounting for taste, since I frankly don't give a damn about early Elric stories (just more damn Conan with angst piled on top) but am a huge fan of Moorcock's later work with the Eternal Champion stuff -- fantasy that's about *ideas*, not killing things with swords. And Perdido Street Station is the best thing ever. I don't know, as long as a sci-fi/fantasy book is passable enough to hold my attention and kill a few hours, it's good enough. I think Rowling might not be the best author but she's pretty imaginative for someone with no fantasy background. She must be doing something right, considering the near Star Trek/Star Wars like following her books and movies have generated. If she wanted to really rake in the bucks, she'd just let other authors continue the story in the HP universe much like any Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance or Star Wars novel. The buzz about new books would die but she seems to be done with Harry anyway. The fact that she's adamantly opposed to allowing Harry Potter tie-ins of this sort shows that she at least does care about something besides money. Frankly, I'm not even close to as rich as Rowling is and I'm pretty sure I'd never let them turn a book I wrote into the next Dragonlance. No amount of money would be worth unleashing such a torrent of crap onto the world. |
| skydin07-27-07, 03:11 AM | ...And a creepy obsession with various sexual fetishes involving animals and children that, no matter what the book is supposed to be about, pop out of nowhere and take up half of it. Honestly? I would take R.A. Salvatore over Piers Anthony any day of the week. Give me stilted, cliched violence-swordfighting porn vs. stilted, cliched creepy-sex porn any day of the week. now i hate you. |
| archerpwr07-27-07, 09:20 AM | ...James Clavell isn't fantasy. It's historical fiction. It's cute and funny, but it's also not fantasy, or even really fiction. Oh right. Just asking for good fantasy. James Clavell has such good writing that I don't withdraw my suggestion though. Same with A Modest Proposal (So much funny). |
| alder_zeal07-27-07, 09:39 AM | Dumbledore is hardly nuetral, he manipulates everyone, especially Harry, who was 11 when it began. He Wanted more popularity, and power. He possessed some the worlds most powerful items. He was good through out. The way did everything makes me believe he is Chaotic Good. Snape actions are all chaotic too, some of them were good some of them bad. Therefore Snape is Chaotic Nuetral. |
| nightwyrm07-27-07, 11:16 AM | Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series is pretty good, though they're more of an erotic fantasy subgenre. David Eddings' books are light, fluffy reads and are pretty decent for when you want to turn your brain off. Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy and its sequel trilogy is good. Terry Goodkind's SoT series is ok for the first few books if you can get pass his libertarian preaching. Some other authors I liked include: Tad Williams David Drake Robert Jordan (his earlier books are much better than the later crap he churns out) GRR Martin |
| Osedox07-27-07, 12:17 PM | Wow where to begin. First of all, thanks to everyone with suggestions! ...James Clavell isn't fantasy. It's historical fiction.Secondly, Clavell is awesome, Shogun is like one of my top 3 favorite books of all time, even if it isn't very fantasy like. Try Alan Dean Foster and George R. R. Martin. I like them both, though they are very different(and Martin is much harder, but it isn't really that hard) There is always the off chance you would like Christopher Paolini too, but I some how doubt it. Still, its worth a shot.Paolini whilst entertaining is defiantly the epitome of terrible writing. Thats not to say that I didn't read and mildly enjoy both of his books. They just both left me with a bad taste in my mouth because of the terrible character development and blatant plagarism. Some good fantasy authors you may/may not have heard of: Garth Nix Tamora Pierce Katherine Roberts Susan Cooper Joanne Bertin Kristain Britain Piers Anthony (provided you enjoy puns)Your absolutely right I havent heard of any of these authors, with the exception of (I think) Tamora Pierce; didn't she do the books with the druidy girl? Finally, if we are just sharing good authors at this point regardless of genre then I would like to nominate Neal Stephenson as the best author ever. His works are mostly Sci-Fi but with a hefty bit of Eco-terrorism and Historical fiction thrown in. |
| Mindolin07-27-07, 01:48 PM | Well, the best thing to do if you want a by-the-book Harry Potter game you would be suited to do it through the D20 Modern rules. Just change the Mage class around a bit, so that anyone can take it without prereqs, or create a new skill that lets them use spells, as the truenaming idea to let them learn spells. On another point, they do manage to include a magic item in the last book. It's either a Headband of Intelect or a Headband of Wisdom. |
| Morits07-28-07, 12:05 PM | The Sextet are all Good. Harry is Chaotic (rules-breaker), Luna also is certainly Chaotic (wierd), but there is a Druidic vibe if you need her to make her NG, Hermione is Lawful (rules-keeper except when provoked), Ron, Ginny and Neville would fit NG. Dumbledore was Good in Books 1-6, in Book 7 his meticulous and manipulative cunning plans prove him to be Lawful, but I am now unsure about his morality. Snape is Evil, always was, always shall be. I did not believe the Prince's Tale when I read it and I don't believe it now. Voldie is NE. He can't be LE, having a tizzy fit, shooting the messenger and the person standing next to the messenger and anyone else in the room gets in the way of acquiring enough information to conceive a DD-style cunning plan. Malfoys are LG by right of being aristocrats. Marauders were Chaotic (pranks and mischief). MacGonnagal LG, Tonx CG DnD and Potterverse magic systems are completely different: no spells per day limit, cast any spell you know, always use a wand. Try d20. |
| Edymnion07-28-07, 12:18 PM | DnD and Potterverse magic systems are completely different: no spells per day limit, cast any spell you know, always use a wand. Try d20.Which is why I say Truenaming for a base. Cast anything you want, as frequently as you want, as long as you can make the skill check for it. And we see multiple times in the potter books where someone fails to cast a spell because they didn't say it right, or didn't wave their wand right. Sounds like a skillcheck based system to me. I'd say its probably a Charisma based check. Hermione's charisma isn't as high as Harry's, but she likely has Skill Focus in the skill to make up for it (her extreme dedication to learning to be a spellcaster), while Harry gets by on natural talent. So, closest D&D has would likely be a Preform check, not unlike a Bard. |
| ArcTan07-28-07, 02:14 PM | Dumbledore was Good in Books 1-6, in Book 7 his meticulous and manipulative cunning plans prove him to be Lawful, but I am now unsure about his morality. His story didn't change anything about him *now*. Present-day Dumbledore is very, very definitely Good. (I disagree that being "manipulative" makes you Lawful; I would say that Dumbledore's Neutral Good.) Teenager Dumbledore may have been Evil, but I frankly think he was Neutral, at worst. He was selfish and shortsighted, but when he saw actual full-blown Evil -- when Grindelwald turned on his sister -- he was shocked back to reality. Snape is Evil, always was, always shall be. I did not believe the Prince's Tale when I read it and I don't believe it now. Oh, please. It's in the book. The author clearly doesn't mean it to be a lie or a deception. It's canon. Voldie is NE. He can't be LE, having a tizzy fit, shooting the messenger and the person standing next to the messenger and anyone else in the room gets in the way of acquiring enough information to conceive a DD-style cunning plan. I honestly think he's just CE. He doesn't care about anything except his own psychotic plans and won't even *see* anything outside of them. Malfoys are LG by right of being aristocrats. You're kidding, right? |
| Witch07-28-07, 02:19 PM | I was about to reply to his comments until I saw the aristocrat thing, which made me think it was one giant joke post. |
| Osedox07-28-07, 03:42 PM | I was about to reply to his comments until I saw the aristocrat thing, which made me think it was one giant joke post.Seriously Aristocrats are more like LE if anything. |
| shadzar07-28-07, 04:01 PM | DnD and Potterverse magic systems are completely different: no spells per day limit, cast any spell you know, always use a wand. Try d20. nope. sorry but the Potterverse does have wandless magic. Remember that many children exhibit the use of magic and are invited to Hogwarts. somsone is watching potential witches/wizards to see if they actually do show signs of using untrained magic. |
| ArcTan07-28-07, 04:45 PM | nope. sorry but the Potterverse does have wandless magic. Remember that many children exhibit the use of magic and are invited to Hogwarts. somsone is watching potential witches/wizards to see if they actually do show signs of using untrained magic. Trying to cast a spell without speaking the verbal component aloud adds +10 to the skill DC. Trying to cast it without using the wand doubles it. |
| Barron07-28-07, 07:29 PM | If you were to run a world like this, than also you should come up with rules governing magic item creation. There are plenty of cheesy ways to get a ridiculous skill modifyier. |
| stargate52507-28-07, 07:40 PM | [hooray for jumping in at page 6] Or you could run it as a secondary BAB progression instead of a skill. It's harder to bump that up than it is a skill. |
| Holy_Beholder07-28-07, 10:57 PM | Maybe each type of magic is a skill, Hermione is better because she has enough skill points to cover it. There would be dark arts, defense against the dark arts, potions, transmutation, charms, etc. It is a cha based skill, but having high int lets you take more of them, so both help. |