Editorial Why no gay sex in The Witcher? @ Feministing

[The Rambling Sage]

I was mostly refering to the books not having other reason than to entertain, at best. Regardless of how well, or bad, the writer guy uses language, the books never go beyond the level of Tracy Hickman & Margaret Weiss' drivel: They have nothing to say other than the same crap some random retard in the street can come with. They lack depth, and are an example of those times we live in: Superficial, shallow. They may be easy to relate for a certain kind of people and they may offer a "Fantasy" those guys share, but there is nothing more to them.

It is not that i dislike them, even if i do dislike them. I dislike many of Umberto Eco's works, but i would never dare to say he is no writer, nor that his works are not literature. Meanwhile, Polish Writer Guy is in the same level of such individuals as Anne Rice, Stephenie Meyer, Mr.Gaider (jejeje), and so many others: They are not writers, and their works are most certainly NOT literature. They are... what? Storytellers, maybe. They are able to spin a tale that seems fun and compelling to a certain demographic, yes. But nothing more.

Yay! I actually managed to answer without going into Rambling Snob mode! :D

 

[Ravn7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writer

A writer is anyone who creates a written work, although the word usually designates those who write creatively or professionally, as well as those who have written in many different forms. The word is almost synonymous with author, although somebody who writes, for example, a laundry list, could technically be called the writer of the list, but not an author. Skilled writers are able to use language to portray ideas and images, whether fiction or non-fiction.

may offer a "Fantasy" those guys share, but there is nothing more to them.

No offense, but that seems exactly like your post.

 

[Lesifoere]

Yay! I actually managed to answer without going into Rambling Snob mode! :D

No, you really didn't.

 

[RainSong]

I was mostly refering to the books not having other reason than to entertain, at best. Regardless of how well, or bad, the writer guy uses language, the books never go beyond the level of Tracy Hickman & Margaret Weiss' drivel: They have nothing to say other than the same crap some random retard in the street can come with. They lack depth, and are an example of those times we live in: Superficial, shallow. They may be easy to relate for a certain kind of people and they may offer a "Fantasy" those guys share, but there is nothing more to them.

It is not that i dislike them, even if i do dislike them. I dislike many of Umberto Eco's works, but i would never dare to say he is no writer, nor that his works are not literature. Meanwhile, Polish Writer Guy is in the same level of such individuals as Anne Rice, Stephenie Meyer, Mr.Gaider (jejeje), and so many others: They are not writers, and their works are most certainly NOT literature. They are... what? Storytellers, maybe. They are able to spin a tale that seems fun and compelling to a certain demographic, yes. But nothing more.

that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

No offense, but that seems exactly like your post.

Maybe it is my limited English, but i really do not understand what are you trying to say with that line. That my post is some kind of "Wish Fulfilling Fantasy"? Last time i checked it was very well grounded in the real world, where i have met many individuals (writers, literature and art profesors/teachers, critics, etc) that held that view. You may or may not like it, but then i never said The Witcher's readers, or writer, were idiots or anything: I just used "Fantasy", in my post, as refering to the story being told in a given book or tale. I didn't say "Fantasy" was wrong, just that to be considered Literature there must be something more to the work that "Fantasy". I hope we can discuss diferent views on what is "literature" and what is truly a "writer" without it becoming a life-or-death duel.

And i tried really hard to not insult anyone, so i apologize if some line came of as insulting.

No, you really didn't.

Now i am a Sad Snob

that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

And i am sure you a very able to explain why you think it is so stupid, right?

 

[Lesifoere]

Maybe it is my limited English, but i really do not understand what are you trying to say with that line.

I think maybe he was trying to convey that your post contains a good deal of text but doesn't actually say anything. Dunno, am not psychic.

Not trying to hurt your feelings, but you did come off as pretentious. Moreover, what exactly separates the literary from the not-so-literary? You won't get any argument from me that Weis/Hickman and Stephenie Meyer do not write literature, but I could also point to a few books accepted as part of the western canon and question its value. Consider Jane Eyre. What is that, really? A lot of people see much in it; all I see is a trashy romance, complete with a brooding, dark aristocrat in love with a hard-up orphan of modest means. Some will insist it's a step forward in the women's movement, portraying Jane as a female of independence, but then you look at Bertha locked up in the attic--a demonized subhuman who is every stereotypically negative female trait put together--and that too becomes suspect. What's left? A trashy romance for Victorians, exactly on the same level as Danielle Steel.

A great many modern writers try very, very hard To Say Something Meaningful. They don't always succeed. The mediocre ones, and the bad ones, merely end up with a pseudo-philosophical mess that has no more depth to it than Drizzt Do'Urden's journal entries. Would you consider such writers somehow "above" the likes of Sapkowski?

 

[St. Toxic]

I'd tap it, seeing as it's Bill Bailey.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

. . .

It is pretty hard to talk such things without comming out as being pretentious, especially when the language in which you are trying to do so is one you learned by playing videogames. I believe i am not being such for the simple fact that i do not think "they" are wrong: I am discussing it from my point of view, and several times i have surrendered victory to someone, both in the Codex and in Real Life, if their arguments where better than mine. I am not discusing from a "I am right" standpoing. I just discuss for the sake of discussing and hope i get some interesting idea out of it, so i can later ponder when i am bored out of my mind.

The problem i see with Literature is the same i see with Art in general. It has, in some measure at least, become "Democratic". Art is the medium instead of the individual work: So we have bad art and good Art, but we no longer have things that share the medium with Art but are NOT Art in themselves. Also, it has become so "Superficial" like everything else: Read the lines i was answering to. The Witcher books are seen by some as a masterpiece for their use of language, and if i didn't like them it was because i was reading a translation. What? I have read both the original Paradise Lost and several translations, and while the flow and use of language was pretty much screwed in the lesser translations i never, for a moment, doubted it's quality as Art.

So we come to a point: Is a falsification Art if it is painted, for an example, as masterfully are the true works of the Artist being imitated? Is Art a "Technical" accomplishment? Is "true" literature a matter of writing nicely and having a nice flow? Back when i was a student of all things Elitist and Snobby and Pseudointellectual, the definition we used for Art was one having both, to use pretentious terms, Ethical and Aesthetical elements in unison. While "Technical Beauty" was an element it's only value was in how it served the, shall we say, "Soul" of the work. If the work had no "soul", in the sense of that old topic about the (read in a Snotty voice) "Role of Art in society, culture, and the interaction of mental structures", it was no Art. If a work had no level of understanding beyond the first, outer one (the "Fun Story and Pretty Language") it wasn't Art.

I was comming from such a viewpoint when declaring "The Witcher" was not literature. It does not have... Meaning? Something like that. While it may or may not try to touch deeper elements, it never comes as a consistent entity in and out of itself: It has no style of it's own, it has no identity, and it has not... cohesion. Things are used just because they serve the story, not because they serve the meaning of such story. I never reaches that point where it has a life of it's own. And, please forgive me if you liked the books, but while reading through those books i had the feeling of reading well written fanfic, not something that was touching the very core of the cultural construct defined as "I".

Fuck, now that was a pretty Snob paragraph.

Compare with... I don't know, since now i am trying too hard to NOT sound pretentious. To hell with me, compare with Marlowe's Faust: Every single resource and line is somewhat related to a deeper concept to which the work answers. As entertaining or pleasurable it may be in itself, this outer level isn't more than the outer seeming of deeper ones, loaded with meaning and symbolism. The work, in Art, serves the Concept, the Meaning. It's only function is to obey, represent, and express this "Soul". A work without Concept, without Meaning, without a Soul to represent and to obey is not Art. So a writen work lacking them can't be called "Literature".

That is what i was trying to convey with "Awful Literature". The Witcher, in its many incarnations, is a corny, cheesy, fun adventure romp that is easy to relate since it touches points and elements we may be familiar with and gives a sometimes original spin to cliched ideas, but there is nothing behind this. I never said it isn't good as "entertainment", even when many elements of both the books and the game marred what entertainment i could get from it when, later, i tried to analize and intelectualize the experience.

And yes, i am with you in that most "writers" today try very hard to be meaningful. The problem is that they have nothing to say, no soul to imbue it's work with. Most of them, as the world that spawned, are empty and uncaring and hollow. Their works can't be meaningful for they, the "writers", have no meaning in themselves, nor a quest for it. Their books are pretty corpses, their movies a phantasmagoria devoid of anything but illusions and mirrors. It is an industry of hollow entertainment, of meaningless "fantasy" easily relating to meaningless, lost souls.

Look at what you did. NOW i am in Rambling Snob mode

Again, sorry if i may come as chaotic or insulting. Never has been the intention.

 

[ironanno]

Alpha wolf

Now I know one achievement for the console version already. Something on the lines of Alpha Wolf or something.

 

[Gragt]

I have no problem trusting you when you say you aren't a snob but what you say is very snobbish; anyway I see dialectic as a mean to enlighten people, be it me, the other participant or those who read it; attacking ideas does not mean attacking the person who holds them. Many of the things you say do not really make sense, it's made even more confusing when you use the same word with and without a capital letter, which also appear as pretentious. For exemple you lament the fact that art has become "democratic", does it mean art should be "tyranic", "anarchic" or maybe "plutocratic"? What do you mean exactly with the word "democratic"? Same with your use of other concepts like "Soul", what exactly does it mean? What sense you should anyone give to it?

The problem with art is that is associated with high culture and this attracts people who try to appear as authority on the subject, and claim what it is and it's purpose. That's why we regularly read bullshit like "art is truth", "art is political", that art has to deliver a message with some high purpose, or other PoMo fantasies like all creation is equally good. The truth about art is that it is first about entertainment; that many artistic authority figures are incapable to see that a story can be said with no other purpose than escapism, without trying to have some deeper meaning, tells a lot about the current state of academia.

So how do you tell good from great from bad from serviceable art? Use objective arguments, see if the story is believable, the characters merely clichés or archetypes, in case of litterature if the writing is clear and inventive, etc. Do not believe that only great art can touch people, even bad art can do it in some surprising way, because emotions can't be commanded. But I belive that only great art can enlighten mostly because it can touch on some very memorable, alive, archetypes that transcend time.

Jane Eyre

Wouldn't go as far to call it trashy but yes, it's only romance and overrated.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

Well... I do not think Art is, in it's core, Entertainment. I have nothing against Art and Entertainment, or about Entertainment being an important Element of Art, since it would be being dishonest for me to say otherwise. But i do think Art is not Entertainment alone. Or maybe it is a problem with Culture, and thus Entertainment, becoming hollower, at least in its most popular incarnations, as we get closer to the present? By hollow i do not mean to say it has no message i like, but not deeper message at all. There is modern Entertainment that try to have something to say but is so basic and obvious in both "message" and presentation, lacking so much in subtlety and style, that it is hard to go and qualify it as Art. The entirety of "modern" Entertainment reminds me somewhat of Liberace, flashy and showy but lacking any kind of substance.

I used "Democratic" to describe modern culture and Art as in it being a blender where you throw a big enough amount of random crap and hope for something barely edible to come out, and then the one time we do not get carried to the local hospital's emergency ward with great urgency and barely alive we are so bloody happy we come out screaming "Art! It's Art!". Basicly the same that happens when Democracy and Politics are in the same phrase, but let's leave that aside.

On the other side, modern use of language is, also, "Democratic", so i have a pretty bad time trying to express myself in my mother language without being considered the weird guy who talks in a strange way, much more then in English, a language i can read pretty well but can write only barely, when at all. I used concepts as "Soul" in trying to express... more or less exactly that, it lacks a "Soul" in the sense i understand, by my own cultural context, a "Soul". Let's just say it lacks an "idea", not in the sense of it lacking "a thought" but in the one of it lacking an ideal, abstract, pseudo-individual entity of which the writen, or otherwise, work is nothing but the physical, objective level of. I guess a more precise term would be "Spirit" but then in most languages, as used today, both words have come to mean the same thing, so i am lacking words, never better said.

True Art has an identity and an existence of it's own, regardless of medium. To follow the example i used on my previous post, so as to no one saying i am using this discussion to showcase my exalted tastes beyond the bare basics i need to exemplify my points, Marlowe's Faust is Marlowe's Faust in more ways than the obvious one. There is nothing else like it: It has a "spirit", a complex ideal structure given to it in part by it's author, in part by it's many readers, and in part by it's own resonance with both. This goes beyond it's writing, pacing, and use of language. It's beyond being simply called "good" or "bad". It's an entity, not just a work.

You can't go from good to bad to serviceable Art. To be Art is like being Moral: You can't be "Slightly Moral" in any Moral system that isn't a bad joke. You are either "Moral" or something else that is not Moral, in the same way something is True or False or, never better said, Alive or Dead. A work being Art is an State, not an arbitrary qualification.

On the other side Art can't be created with the intention of being Art, as we are shown once and again through history. Art is not created in order to have a great message, to contain a greater truth, or to move ourselves in meaningful, life-changing ways. Art is something that happens all by itself: Call it inspiration, call it Divine Will, call it resonance, or call it a very complex system whose variables we haven't the slightest chance to understand. The result is the same: Something that not even the Artist knows how the fuck he did to create. There are many factors we do not understand about that. Maybe an incomplete worldview, maybe not. Who knows?

There is a point where the "technical" analisis of something like Art just doesn't cut it. Or maybe this is one pretty good example of the good old castes and the Truth is in the point where my metaphysical ramblings and your more objective, and so much clearer, analysis met. Or maybe not. My point got lost somewhere around here, but i am sure i had one when i began. I just get carried away by the stream and... ummm... always forget what i was originally trying to say.

I envy you methodical types, i just see the big forest and forget there are trees and plants and undergrowth and all that. Sucks to be me, i guess.

 

[mondblut]

So many Caps.

 

[denizsi]

No Cap In My Ass

 

[Morbus]

"And another thing: in the game, you as the male protagonist can choose whether or not to have sex with the women, but they cannot choose not to have sex with you--you will never hear a "no." They may not suggest sex unless you do/say/buy/pay "the right thing", but you won't hear a rejection."

This is actually valid criticism, unlike the rest of the article. Why not just quote this?

I don't remember seeing a rejection in the books either... It's not valid, specially considering the lack of decent men, the (non)historical time it's set in and all that.

And she uses the word "male-centered," which suggests that she's subliterate. The term is phallocentric. Idiot.

Amen to that brother. Still, anyone who calls The Witcher anything near chauvinistic is subliterate.

Penis envy.

I'd think it's the exact opposite: penis-hate...

"And another thing: in the game, you as the male protagonist can choose whether or not to have sex with the women, but they cannot choose not to have sex with you--you will never hear a "no." They may not suggest sex unless you do/say/buy/pay "the right thing", but you won't hear a rejection."

So, they should suggest sex but then reject you when you accept? :mindfuck:

It's the modern way of begging to be rapped. They love to be looked at with lust only to send men in their way. I hate that kind of women. Luckily for me, I see them a mile away and stay the fuck away from them.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

It's the modern way of begging to be rapped.

I really hope that was just a bad choice of words.

 

[Biges]

I believe that in the game the possibility to have sex with a woman is always given in the situation that she is considered "willing", i.e. Geralt had already won her "yes" by some deeds. Everyone who had finished the game knows that.

And as for feminists. As all voters of Democrats are not the same, so not all feminists are the same. Actually the ideological battles between various fractions between the feminist movement are pretty harsh (verbally)

 

[Lesifoere]

It's the modern way of begging to be rapped.

I really hope that was just a bad choice of words.

Yeah, I hope the same. But if he truly believes that, we could always castrate him and feed him his own dick. Fried.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

Yeah, I hope the same. But if he truly believes that, we could always castrate him and feed him his own dick. Fried.

Sounds like a plan to me. :wink:

 

[OSK]

He said rapped, not raped! He doesn't want to force sex on women, he only wants to hit them.

Jeeze.

 

[Dorf]

We are debating fucking art?

Jesus on a fucking po-go stick....

As one person already said before, art is entertainment, or more specific an emotion. Period. End of discussion. Some people are entertained by statues, or paintings... Me? I like music and movies. Some like to watch sports, or athletic competition, because in some ways what the people train their bodies to do can be considered a form of art.

IT'S FUCKING SUBJECTIVE. There is no real definition. There is no "bad" art, if it has no real function. Ergo, one could say a Japanese sword maker is an artist, but his art has a function and therefore can be judged as to how well it performs this function. That is, there are measurements and gauges that can be used to scientifically judge the sword. Even then though some hack can come along and on purpose make a shitty sword and if some a-hole wants to hang it on his wall because he calls it art, then SO BE IT.

I get so sick and tired or people saying this is "good art" or this is "bad art" when they have no real reason to claim such a thing. For instance, I HATE abstract art. I fucking despise it. It’s insipid and childish and I truly believe a 5 year old with a can of paint can do just as good, but do I claim it not to be art? Do I denounce it as "bad art"? No. I just don't like it. Me. Just me. That doesn't mean someone else could not fucking gush orgasms over a watercolor of circles and squares. Good. Great! Hurrah for them. I will let them enjoy it.

And that's my point, some people like "The Witcher" books and think they are great pieces of fictional literature, while others think they are insipid, immature, drivel not worth the ink they are printed in. In the world of art, they can, and mostly are, both right.

Fuck.

P.S. Walt Whitman is fucking overrated. Snoooore.

 

[Elwro]

But if you don't believe in secret Zionist propaganda, it's hard to explain, then, why certain works of abstract art are insanely valuable (=get sold at huge prices), while other aren't.

 

[Gragt]

Well... I do not think Art is, in it's core, Entertainment.

Yet it is. Why do we pursue art? We do not need art and can perfectly live without it, yet we still seek it. Those who that art is a necessity are sorely mistaken, the need imply dependence, just like we need basic necessities like food or air to survive. Granted we can try to have better, more tasty, food but in the end something will still do it. Art on the other end is a purely gratuitous occupation that we can pursue only in our free time and only if we desire it. Yup, we do not need it, we desire it. And why do we desire art? Because it's fun. Again the academic view on this is that fun is something trivial that should be avoided.

Or maybe it is a problem with Culture, and thus Entertainment, becoming hollower, at least in its most popular incarnations, as we get closer to the present?

This isn't new at all, every period had its share of bad or mediocre arists. Do you think we remember every work of art ever produced, regardless of its qualities?

You keep talking of deeper message but again that's a red herring. Art will appeal to people because it can present vivid archetypes they can relate to. At a serviceable level, it will be a good distraction, at a good or great level it will distract and make you think. Most great works explore themes the author did not even place consciously, but it is so rich that people can see it from different angles.

Art is something that happens all by itself: Call it inspiration, call it Divine Will, call it resonance, or call it a very complex system whose variables we haven't the slightest chance to understand.

Another red herring: art happens only because an artist makes it happen, it does not take inspiration and certainly not Divine Will, but work and a vision. That's the illusion of genius, there are no people with innate capabilities to create great art but people who decide to work hard, very very hard, to create art; they push the limits already established, wish to get better and reach technical excellence. And then you have the difference between the functional and the visionary, between those who merely make it work and those who have further insight into things.

As one person already said before, art is entertainment, or more specific an emotion. Period. End of discussion. Some people are entertained by statues, or paintings... Me? I like music and movies. Some like to watch sports, or athletic competition, because in some ways what the people train their bodies to do can be considered a form of art.

But emotions are so variable, so ethereal, that you can't rely on them. As you said, what is true for you might not be true for me so you can't say that art is an emotion because it's impossible to evoke a precise emotion in someone as we will all react differently to it. As for sportsmen being artists, I'll ask you this: who do we remember, artists or sportsmen?

IT'S FUCKING SUBJECTIVE.

It is if you only consider it in a subjective way, yet art has objective values and criticism should be done only on that level. Absolute objectivity is of course impossible, and that's why we can have fun debating of art quality, but trying to be objective beats talking only in a subjective way.

I will let them enjoy it.

That's the beauty of it, anyone is free to like or dislike anything they want, regardless of quality, because "like" is subjective. Excellence, however, should be approached only in an objective way.

 

[Morbus]

He said rapped, not raped! He doesn't want to force sex on women, he only wants to hit them.

Jeeze.

 

[Maia]

The Witcher books are seen by some as a masterpiece for their use of language, and if i didn't like them it was because i was reading a translation. What? I have read both the original Paradise Lost and several translations, and while the flow and use of language was pretty much screwed in the lesser translations i never, for a moment, doubted it's quality as Art.

Because you are easily impressed by literary criticism, perhaps? I haven't read the Witcher novels, but I have seen many, many books which I consider great in their original language being utterly butchered by translations.

It applies doubly and trebly to fantasy works. I know on good authority that a few years ago in Germany people who translated a fantasy volume were payed much less than what would be offered for a more "serious" book and were expected to carry it out in a couple of months.
And naturally, it shows, all the stronger if the original is actually brilliantly written and writing is one of it's major strengths.

English translations aren't much better in that respect either.

 

[Elwro]

I know on good authority that a few years ago in Germany people who translated a fantasy volume were payed much less than what would be offered for a more "serious" book and were expected to carry it out in a couple of months.
And naturally, it shows, all the stronger if the original is actually brilliantly written and writing is one of it's major strengths.

It's like this in Poland now. It's a shame when it happens to well-written books, like the dickensian-style steampunk novels by Ian MacLeod. The horribly butchered translation of "The Light Ages" (otherwise being a pretty, hardcover edition with top quality paper) is what finally made me give up on buying new translations. I discovered sometimes it's even cheaper to import the originals, using sites like Abe Books etc.