Re: See my comment below - Edit 1
Before modification by Fanatic-Templar at 03/04/2010 09:31:42 AM
Well, it's probably more of a general comment than anything related to this topic specifically, it just gave me an excuse to post about something that's been irritating me a lot. Too many people seem to be equating cynicism with realism. I appreciate stories set in a darker tone, but I also enjoy idealistic ones. And frankly, whenever someone accuses The Lord of the Rings of not being realistic I can only wonder if they are idiots. It is pretty obvious that it was never intended to be thus. Something cannot fail at achieving something that wasn't it's objective in the first place. Like picking up some centuries old classic and complaining that it doesn't address modern issues, or watching porn and complaining that it doesn't have deep and engaging plots. True, certainly, but why would you expect them to?
I've read of people expecting obviously idealistic stories to be more cynical. Do you know The Legend of Zelda? A popular video game, where you incarnate the silent protagonist Link who embodies the virtue of Courage as he seeks to retrieve the magical Sword of Evil's Bane that only the True Hero can wield and use it to vanquish the Dark Lord Ganondorf and save the Princess Zelda. And yes, those capitalisations were necessary, I think. Anyway, you'd expect that with such a pretty obvious core it would be quite obvious that it isn't aiming for a dark and grim mood that gets proposed as 'realistic'. And yet, I recently read someone who wrote that he felt the series needed just that (link provided). I can only wonder, why? There is no lack of games that offer this perspective to players, should it be what they desire. Why would you want to turn a game that obviously has the opposite theme and bludgeon it to fit your perspective of what a good story should be?
Furthermore, sometimes it doesn't even follow anything as clear as that. Some people just use 'realism' as a definition of anything they see fit. I remember reading such a complaint about Robert Jordan's profanity in The Wheel of Time from the Westeros forums. Things like 'mother's milk in a cup' and so forth, being 'unrealistic'. I can only wonder. I've nearly only heard popular American profanity from some of my friends who have been in the army and served in the company of English Canadians, and it isn't because I only know very well mannered people. Likewise, the profanity in common use around here could probably be written on this board with no fear of Sidious reprimanding me, I'm sure.
Even in France - same language, same religion - Québecois profanity would be more a source of amusement and curiosity than offence. And the same goes inversely, I do hear a lot of joking about French profanity - it is very anally-centred (whereas ours is sacrilegious) which raises questions about the location of the speaking Frenchman's head, that this is all he has to speak of.
So I wonder, why would expecting a significantly different culture in a fantasy world set at a different time to have identical profanity to that which is common to the reader be considered 'realistic'? I would expect it to be the other way 'round. And yet it isn't.
Well, if that were the case I wouldn't complain, in part because it might be valid criticism, and in part because I am definitely not ideally suited for arguing on such a subject.
However, I do not feel that is what the authour is about. Take the following, from the criticism of The Dragon Reborn:
He's not commenting about a flawed depiction of emotional relationships, I'm pretty sure he's just mocking Jordan for dodging his way out of saying that Mat had an erection. And the second part also shows that it isn't a criticism of the sex-to-violence descriptions, as he also considers the violence underwhelming.
Now, personally I agree with you that violence is far more easily broached than sex in the series, but from what I know about American exported media, it seems to be a prevalent trait in the United States to be prudish and enjoy violence. Not that we're significantly different here, but such a difference doesn't really surprise me from RJ.
I've read of people expecting obviously idealistic stories to be more cynical. Do you know The Legend of Zelda? A popular video game, where you incarnate the silent protagonist Link who embodies the virtue of Courage as he seeks to retrieve the magical Sword of Evil's Bane that only the True Hero can wield and use it to vanquish the Dark Lord Ganondorf and save the Princess Zelda. And yes, those capitalisations were necessary, I think. Anyway, you'd expect that with such a pretty obvious core it would be quite obvious that it isn't aiming for a dark and grim mood that gets proposed as 'realistic'. And yet, I recently read someone who wrote that he felt the series needed just that (link provided). I can only wonder, why? There is no lack of games that offer this perspective to players, should it be what they desire. Why would you want to turn a game that obviously has the opposite theme and bludgeon it to fit your perspective of what a good story should be?
Furthermore, sometimes it doesn't even follow anything as clear as that. Some people just use 'realism' as a definition of anything they see fit. I remember reading such a complaint about Robert Jordan's profanity in The Wheel of Time from the Westeros forums. Things like 'mother's milk in a cup' and so forth, being 'unrealistic'. I can only wonder. I've nearly only heard popular American profanity from some of my friends who have been in the army and served in the company of English Canadians, and it isn't because I only know very well mannered people. Likewise, the profanity in common use around here could probably be written on this board with no fear of Sidious reprimanding me, I'm sure.
Even in France - same language, same religion - Québecois profanity would be more a source of amusement and curiosity than offence. And the same goes inversely, I do hear a lot of joking about French profanity - it is very anally-centred (whereas ours is sacrilegious) which raises questions about the location of the speaking Frenchman's head, that this is all he has to speak of.
So I wonder, why would expecting a significantly different culture in a fantasy world set at a different time to have identical profanity to that which is common to the reader be considered 'realistic'? I would expect it to be the other way 'round. And yet it isn't.
But yes, that is kinda funny 
For me, having read two of the author's works, there isn't graphic sex in them, but in the places where it appears, the scenes fit with the overall mood/tone of the story. I think an argument (a very debatable one, though) could be made that the depictions of violence and sex are a bit skewed in this series. One doesn't need to say "Oh, Elayne, I'm going to fuck you in the cornhole until you scream 'Let the Dragon ride again!' baby!" to have intimate scenes that correlate better with the depictions of fireballs, explosions, and limbs being blown apart. Perhaps just a depiction that's closer to how young adults experience emotional relationships rather than an odd, stilted viewpoint on emotional/sexual relationships?
For me, having read two of the author's works, there isn't graphic sex in them, but in the places where it appears, the scenes fit with the overall mood/tone of the story. I think an argument (a very debatable one, though) could be made that the depictions of violence and sex are a bit skewed in this series. One doesn't need to say "Oh, Elayne, I'm going to fuck you in the cornhole until you scream 'Let the Dragon ride again!' baby!" to have intimate scenes that correlate better with the depictions of fireballs, explosions, and limbs being blown apart. Perhaps just a depiction that's closer to how young adults experience emotional relationships rather than an odd, stilted viewpoint on emotional/sexual relationships?Well, if that were the case I wouldn't complain, in part because it might be valid criticism, and in part because I am definitely not ideally suited for arguing on such a subject.
However, I do not feel that is what the authour is about. Take the following, from the criticism of The Dragon Reborn:
So, for instance, The Dragon Reborn remains coy on the subject of sex. In one chapter Mat is visited in his bedroom by the evil Selene ('so beautiful he almost forgot to breathe'
which causes the young lad 'tingle and pain' [227] as well it might; but nothing more explicit is stated. (Then again, chapter 42 is called 'Easing the Badger', which may well become my new favourite onanistic euphemism). There's spits and spots of violence, but this all feels been-there-done-that tired -- already! and we're only in vol. 3!
which causes the young lad 'tingle and pain' [227] as well it might; but nothing more explicit is stated. (Then again, chapter 42 is called 'Easing the Badger', which may well become my new favourite onanistic euphemism). There's spits and spots of violence, but this all feels been-there-done-that tired -- already! and we're only in vol. 3!He's not commenting about a flawed depiction of emotional relationships, I'm pretty sure he's just mocking Jordan for dodging his way out of saying that Mat had an erection. And the second part also shows that it isn't a criticism of the sex-to-violence descriptions, as he also considers the violence underwhelming.
Now, personally I agree with you that violence is far more easily broached than sex in the series, but from what I know about American exported media, it seems to be a prevalent trait in the United States to be prudish and enjoy violence. Not that we're significantly different here, but such a difference doesn't really surprise me from RJ.