Subtle Fantasy

[DusterBoy]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

Actually, Gandalf, Saruman and Sauron are Maiar. Both are divine, but the Maiar are of lesser power than the Valar. It's the same kind of relationship as the Aesir and the Vanir.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

Whoah there! "As Asar and Vaner to the Alfar" I could buy. Frej, a Vaner, was considered one of the three most powerful gods next to Tor and Oden.

[Markdoc]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

Yeah, the whole Æsir/Vanir thing is kind of messed up, because the fragments of the legends we have left totally contradict each other. For example, in the Poetic Edda, the first man is supposed to have been Bor (or Bur or Buri) - his sons were Odin, Vili and Vé. In this version, the Æsir were the sons of the first man. But in another legend, the three of them make the first humans out of two trees - the man Ask and the woman Embla. But just to confuse things, in the introduction the Völusp‘a, (where the above legend is related) the listeners (ie: human audience) are referred to as "the sons of Heimdallr"! - and he's thought to have been one of the Vanir. If that's not enough the Vanir and the Æsir make a man (Kvasir) together.

 

So there you have it: the gods are the sons of men - or made men - or both.

 

The only thing we can be clear on is that the Æsir and Vanir were about the same level of power - the Vanir breached the walls of Asgard and rampaged around Odin's house before agreeing to a peace treaty, even before you go into that whole marrying thing.

 

cheers, Mark

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

I generally prefer low-to-mid fantasy; I have to admit that I am a bit of a power gamer, in the sense that I like to make a good tactical 'build' with whatever game system is at hand, and like being able to choose races for bonuses, etc. Even though, as far as character concept, I dislike that method (and hence prefer the "no racial bonuses" of HERO.) In D20, I always play Human... for the extra feat. In HERO, I always play human... because everyone else wants to be an Elf, or Dwarf, or Half-Ogre (or Half-Dragon Half-Drow Vampire ) Of course, I have played Fantasy HERO much less than I would like

 

But for fiction, I hate the "magic can do whatever the author thinks of" type fantasy. I hate it when every challenge is END OF THE WORLD level events, or whatever.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

I enjoy reading all sorts of fantasy, but for RPGs I prefer a low-end fantasy because too much magic tends to send things spiraling out of control.

 

I think high fantasy is harder to run properly too because when magic can do anything, why not use it for everything? I don't mean the character's in particular (though this can be a problem). If you are king and want a new castle, do you hire an army of masons or a wizard with a stone-shaping spell? Why grow crops if magic can supply food? The speed and power of calvary is nothing compared to a fleet of magic carpets or a wizard with a AoE Windwalking spell. When magic reaches this level it fundamentally changes the society. And if it isn't used like that, there better be a good reason why.

 

This was my biggest problem with the Harry Potter books. Why the heck were the Weasley's always harping about how poor they were when they could have just used magic to do whatever they needed? Who needs a house elf when you can wave a wand to accomplish the same task only faster? Maybe J.K. Rowling had some logical magic structure in her head, but to me it seemed pretty random in the books.

[Old Man]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

I guarantee you it didn't start out logical, but I was impressed with her ability to sort of hold it together and tie it up at the end as the series progressed. For the Weasleys specifically, I don't seem to remember magic giving the ability to create or even fix fine items, and counterfeiting would have been inadvisable what with the goblins and all.

[Darbor]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

The impression I got is that there was Muggle wealth and Wizard wealth. The Weasleys could probably have been Muggle wealthy but it wasn't their world; it was just a curiosity.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

Oh, don't get me wrong, Rowling is a gifted author and I certainly enjoyed her books (mostly). But because she never really defined how magic worked I was always left wondering why more problems couldn't be solved with magic.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

And I was always surprised at why more problems couldn't be solved by technology, seeing as how police officers would be at least equal to fighting most wizards seen in the books and movies. Let alone military forces.

 

But, that would have gotten in the way of the story. *Shrug* C'est la vie.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

And I was always surprised at why more problems couldn't be solved by technology, seeing as how police officers would be at least equal to fighting most wizards seen in the books and movies. Let alone military forces.

 

But, that would have gotten in the way of the story. *Shrug* C'est la vie.

 

You make a good point. But I have a much better grasp on what technology can and can't do and why. If you don't understand how things work, those questions come up; I answer them for my kids all the time. But Rowling wasn't available to ask how magic was supposed to work, so I am left in the dark.

 

To be fair, a treatise on magic theory would have been difficult if not impossible to work into the story thread, but I suspect it was never as well-defined as the books' plots, even in Rowling's head.

[Darbor]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

To be fair' date=' a treatise on magic theory would have been difficult if not impossible to work into the story thread, but I suspect it was never as well-defined as the books' plots, even in Rowling's head.[/quote']

That is a really good point. A friend of mine was lucky enough to have a college class on sci-fi/fantasy literature taught by Ursula K. Le Guin. He told me that she talked about her preparation for the Earthsea novels. She told them that she had done a huge amount of research and writing; more or less creating her world in detail before writing the novels. IMO, that depth shows in the novels and is part of why they are so good. There is a feeling that she is writing about an actual world that she has been fortunate enough to visit.

 

I get the feeling that Rowling put that effort into her characters and Hogwarts but not so much into her magic world in general.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

A class taught by Ursula K. Le Guin? I don't put much stock in celebrity, but that would have been awesome. The Wizard of Earthsea was the very first fantasy novel I ever read; it set a pretty high bar.

[Darbor]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

Yeah, at the time he told me all this I hadn't read her books yet. After I did read her books I was very jealous. I agree about the high bar. These were not there very first fantasy novels I read but pretty close and it set my expectations for good fantasy.

[Old Man]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

And I was always surprised at why more problems couldn't be solved by technology' date=' seeing as how police officers would be at least equal to fighting most wizards seen in the books and movies. Let alone military forces.[/quote']

 

Yes, I have pointed out in other threads that magic is inferior to a Glock. "Expelliarm--" BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM

 

I sort of reconciled it by assuming that the physics worked differently in each dimension, such that the Glock might not even go off in Hogwarts. Shrug.

[Old Man]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

A class taught by Ursula K. Le Guin? I don't put much stock in celebrity' date=' but that would have been awesome. The Wizard of Earthsea was the very first fantasy novel I ever read; it set a pretty high bar.[/quote']

 

Yes, Hogwarts can't hold a candle to the college on Roke Island. Sorry, Ms. Rowling. (Ms. Rowling bursts into tears and rushes off to find solace in her Scrooge McDuck vault full of billions of pounds)

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Subtle Fantasy

 

Books can be divided in much the same ways as food.

 

There's "rich" books such as A Tale of Two Cities or Moby Dick which most people wouldn't eat, the same way most people wouldn't eat Caviar (Fish eggs on rotten sheep guts, I'm told) or fried snails, but which could be a unique cultural experience.

 

There's "restaurant" books which most people are willing to at least try, such as The Caves of Steel or Conan.

 

And then there's "fast food" - It's cheap, plentiful, tasty candy. Sure, its quality varies (a lot), and which is to whom's taste varies (a lot) but you can read them on a weekday after a hard day of work on the average person's "TV-Brain" budget and there's almost always something for everyone (Harry Potter...And Twilight).

 

What it comes down to is most people read slowly and have to devote more resources to reading. And, in the pie chart - Light reading simply comes off as more relaxing for them. If your reading clocks at minutes per page, you're probably going to pass on "restaurant" most of the time, never mind "rich".