Author: Stef (---.mindspring.net)
Date: 04-30-2002 20:15
Only slightly though.
I'm a relative newcomer to rpg.net, reading really for only for a few months now. This set of articles has been the most compelling... and also one of the most perplexing.
When I first read the title of the column, and the setting I thought that what I would be getting were articles about where the various archetypes used in games, specifcially fantasy games, originate and that this might provide insight into why elves do what they do, etc. I found the articles well thought out and very well researched, but int the end, I felt somewhat mislead. The articles are compeling, but they aren't about archetypes. They are about interpretations.
In some places, I thought the articles hit spot on. Wizards from fantasy stories didn't use as much magic in seven novels as one D&D wizard will in a session. Paladins do come from a particular Judeo Christian ethic.
In some places I thought the articles were scattered and murky. The 4 reasons to fight, as symbolized by the tarot I thought was redundant and vauge. And yeah, the wizard article could have been shorter (thought gods bless you if you didn't echo my own musings about magic vs. miracle).
The thing that was at times infuriating, at times provacative were the conclusions, not only in content, but also in mere existance. In many cases, it went beyond presenting an archetype to drawing conclusions about the meaning behind this or that bit of fantsy, right back into archetype and presenting the interpretation as fact. One a-priori assumtion was that all of these were outcroppings of human invention and mus somehow be there to teach us about human experience. And humans are pretty loathsome in this interpretation, both explictly and implicit: We externalize our brutality and kill it. We wish knowledge without having to pay tribute to gods, seeking wisdom without heeding truth. If we do flirt with gods, we keep them in boxes or at arms reach. And in the end we are disease.
Damn. Makes -me- want to game.
The articles are thought provoking. The pictures they paint are ugly. I don't agree with all the conclusions, and some elements of these articles may find their way into games I'm involved with. I think that there should be another column, continuing the quest and pulling back the curtain, and if it continues to show the very pessemistic, if not defeatist view of human nature and what we do to entertain and educate ourselves, then there better be a bloody opinion showing what these things might be. Heck, I'd even be happy with an exploration of how these elements are presented by most gamers.
Maybe the opinion does vary more than slightly... but thanks for writing these articles and bringing your views. Don't think the opinon was missed in lace of fact.
Stef
P.S. The "...tragedy,... statistic" quote is Stalin's. Dionysus was not the god of Saytrs either. He was the god of wine, a god of theatre and held in some circles to be a god of ressureciton. Pan was the god of saytrs, and is seen by some pagans as a related archetype, as both are very nature oriented and deal with man's wild nature.
|
|
