> =( 'Irony Man decisively took off the helmet of his high-tech
> battle suit and looked the black-clad master of ninjitsu squarely in
> the eye. "Ultimate Ninja, I have something important to tell you, but
> I'm pretty sure you're not going to like it. Hell, I don't like it,
> but I have to face facts and get this out in the open rather than let
> it stew. I love you. I've always loved you. I think you're the most
> awesome leader that the Legion has ever had. I worship the ground you
> walk on, and I get hard just thinking about the perfection of your body." '
> =( ' "Say nothing, Toony-san," said Ultimate Ninja, and with but a
> single deft movement removed his one-piece costume, revealing to all
> the world that he too was aroused. "The Zen perfection of this moment
> needs no words." '
> =( 'They took each other in their arms, and their mouths met in a
> passionate kiss...' )=
So it's safe to say that the LNH version of Civil War is officially
over?
> At another table entirely Senses Lass was one of only a few
> net.heroes who were looking thoughtful. She stood up with an air of
> purpose and determination about her, and around the cafeteria eyes
> turned in her direction. She was a red-head with a voluptuous figure
> and breasts that were even bigger than Power Girl's.
Oh. My. God.
I'll read the rest later. I've got work to do. :)
Martin
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: not available
>Type: multipart/alternative
>Size: 43321 bytes
>Desc: not available
>Url :
http://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/racc/attachments/20071017/63f0e061/attachment-0001.bin
This is what the post looks like in...
http://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/racc/
And in my Thunderbird newsreader it was blank...
Was able to read it using googlenews though...
As for the story...
Christ!
Double Christ! :)
Arthur "Or perhaps God/Christ..." Spitzer
> Saxon Brenton wrote:
>
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>
> Was able to read it using googlenews though...
Also available at:
http://www.eyrie.org/~thad/blip/other/lnhv23.html
> As for the story...
Saxon has revealed a hitherto unknown talent... as for whether or not
that's a good thing...
--
Jamas Enright
Blog: http://jamasenright.blogspot.com
Homepage: http://www.eyrie.org/~thad/
Blue Light Productions homepage: http://www.blue-light-productions.com/
And a spicy one, too. :-P
Saxon, I think you capture the 'feel' of slash fiction perfectly--
though, having not read any actual slash fiction, I base this on the
assumption that it lies somewhere between normal fan-fiction and bad
porn. :-)
As usual, it's the little details and extrapolations that stand out--
the fact that the Ninja calls Irony Man "Toony-San", the bit about
Squid Man. Each of these divinely silly details produced a laugh;
it's this inventiveness that makes Saxon's stories worth waiting for.
Oh, and:
> [multipart_alternative_part]
You know, I had this same problem around the time I was posting
"Speak", but with my yahoo mail account. Thanks to the suggestions of
Eagle and Jamas, I poked around a bit and switched my Yahoo mail
options to compose in plain text only, and that seemed to solve the
problem.
==Tom
On Oct 16, 10:53 pm, Saxon Brenton <saxonbren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> =( ' "Say nothing, Toony-san," said Ultimate Ninja, and with but a
> single deft movement removed his one-piece costume, revealing to all
> the world that he too was aroused. "The Zen perfection of this moment
> needs no words." '
> =( 'They took each other in their arms, and their mouths met in a
> passionate kiss...' )=
Then again, maybe not.
Wow... someone finally wrote LNH slash...
and it wasn't Martin...
> The charcoal drawings of Catalyst Lass posing for a swimsuit
> edition were borderline. But then there was a text story where Easily-
> Discovered Man and Easily-Discovered Man Lite had a Batman and Robin
> style relationship out of Frederick Wertham's most lurid fantasies.
What what WHAT???
Man... and I thought "Frank Miller's All-Star Easily-Discovered
Man and Lite" was lurid.
Never before have I envied So-Lame-Even-Saxon-Brenton
Would-Never-Include-Him-In-A-Story-Lad.
I may never feel clean again...
> John Goodberries looked somewhat abashed. "Yes, I'm afraid so.
> Not at the discomfort that it caused to the Legion," he hastened to add.
> "It's just that I've always been amazed and surprised at the Earth
> human obsession with sex. To be honest, I've always thought it would
> be better if your people had a set mating season. It would make things
> so much simpler."
We do have a set mating season.
It's called "college."
And I was too busy writing superhero stories on
the Internet to enjoy it...
> "I think I can agree we that," she said, at the same time taking
> note of his use of the phrase 'your people'. She felt comfortable with
> it, and she realised that she liked the way it made her feel like she
> was included among humans rather than as a human-shaped construct built
> to infiltrate the Legion and destroy it with sexual wiles.
We seem to have a few of those these days.
Too many villains trying to employ the
"Smurfette Principle," I suppose.
> "The problem isn't the issue of training," said John. "Well, not
> for most people who are worried about the Act. The compulsory aspect is
> causing some concern, because for every person who compares it to having
> to pass a driving test and registering to own a car, there seems to be
> someone else who cites the fact that you don't have to register to own
> a gun. The National Rifle Association is telling anyone who'll listen
> that this is nothing more than the first move in an elaborate plan to
> sneak in gun control laws."
In the U.S., it's a state-by-state matter.
In Massachusetts, where I spent most of my life, guns are
very strictly regulated, if not registered. In California,
where I now live, it's much less so -- though cities like
San Francisco have tried to change this. In the South,
they're more or less given away with Happy Meals...
(Well, not really. But when buildings have to post
signs saying you can't carry a concealed handgun into
them, you realize you're living in a scary, scary
world).
> On the way back to the LNH-HQ Senses Lass got to fight supervillains.
Sounds like Senses working overtime...
> "Now listen to me," Senses Lass said to Nick. "Snap yourself out
> of your funk and try to act responsibly. It took us a lot of effort to
> track you down, and not everyone knows the identity of the 'telepathic
> supervillain who narrates slash fiction into people's heads'."
The 'Slash Marauder'?
A well-written, funny-as-hell story that will
doubtlessly cost me years of therapy.
--Easily-Discovered Man Lite
--Has discovered a whole new meaning
to 'Just Imagine Saxon Brenton's..."
But spicy stories, like spicy food, may not necessarily be
to everyone's taste :-)
> Saxon, I think you capture the 'feel' of slash fiction perfectly--
> though, having not read any actual slash fiction, I base this on the
> assumption that it lies somewhere between normal fan-fiction and
> bad porn. :-)
Pretty much. In fact, I strongly suspect that the combination of the
bad 'amateur writing style' of a lot of fanfiction and the bad 'porn
needs no plot except as the contrivance to get to the sex scene' of
a lot of porn means that slashfic suffers even more badly under
Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") than most other
amateur fiction.
[...]
>> [multipart_alternative_part]
>
> You know, I had this same problem around the time I was posting
> "Speak", but with my yahoo mail account. Thanks to the suggestions of
> Eagle and Jamas, I poked around a bit and switched my Yahoo mail
> options to compose in plain text only, and that seemed to solve the
> problem.
I shall bear that in mind. I've already done some poking around,
and it seemed to post okay for the September End of Month Reviews.
---
Saxon Brenton
saxon....@uts.edu.au saxonb...@hotmail.com
This is very true. And such timid souls should veer far away from
<promo> the new series in the Eightfold Family of Romance Titles,
KINKY ROMANCE. It's the more cheerful-- and certainly spicier--
counterpart to WEIRD ROMANCE and DOOMED ROMANCE, and it's coming soon
to a newsgroup near you.</promo> Ahem.
> > Saxon, I think you capture the 'feel' of slash fiction perfectly--
> > though, having not read any actual slash fiction, I base this on the
> > assumption that it lies somewhere between normal fan-fiction and
> > bad porn. :-)
>
> Pretty much. In fact, I strongly suspect that the combination of the
> bad 'amateur writing style' of a lot of fanfiction and the bad 'porn
> needs no plot except as the contrivance to get to the sex scene' of
> a lot of porn means that slashfic suffers even more badly under
> Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") than most other
> amateur fiction.
I certainly don't want to get into a discussion here-in on the merits
of out-and-out pornography, nor am I advocating one viewpoint or
another, but I wonder if the "porn needs no plot except as the
contrivance to get to the sex scene" trope is _necessarily_ a bad
thing. It's kind of like musical comedies not having a plot except as
the contrivance to get to the singing and dancing; the singing and
dancing are what musicals are all about. Of course it has to be
fluff, a mere clothesline on which to hang what's actually important;
no one wants to watch, for example, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers
debate the policies of the New Deal or learn to deal with the demons
of their past. They want to see the singing and the dancing and the
witty one-liners, and that's fine because that's what they're about.
I think pornography, erotica, what-have-you, is a "feel-good" genre.
At best they'd _have_ to be light comedies. Can you imagine a
pornographic film about a man dying of cancer, or someone dealing with
substance abuse, or someone driven to suicide by mind-numbing
poverty? It would be terrible, and it would defeat the whole purpose
of it-- few people can be simultaneously aroused and depressed.
Granted, this is assuming that a "good" plot is serious, realistic to
a point, and has something at stake. I'm not saying that an uplifting
story is inherently less "good" or even less satisfactory-- again,
Astaire and Rogers are pure uplift and all the better for it-- but
these plots do tend to rely more on contrivances and if they existed
in a vacuum-- if just the story was related with none of the
spectacle-- they would crumble to pieces. It's the spectacle-- the
singing, the dancing, and, in this case, the sex-- that redeems the
"shabby" plotting.
That being said, the same logic should apply to big noisy action
films, but I find myself to be much less forgiving of bad plotting in
those situations. This is most likely because singing, dancing, and,
yes, that other thing, require a degree of technical mastery, grace,
and personal expression, while blowing stuff up only requires
explosives (or, more depressingly, computers). And that's probably
why musical comedies and porn are more identified with their
performers and certain key performances, rather than plots, directors,
what-have-you.
==Tom
> I think pornography, erotica, what-have-you, is a "feel-good" genre.
> At best they'd _have_ to be light comedies. Can you imagine a
> pornographic film about a man dying of cancer, or someone dealing with
> substance abuse, or someone driven to suicide by mind-numbing
> poverty? It would be terrible, and it would defeat the whole purpose
> of it-- few people can be simultaneously aroused and depressed.
I was once taking an English course an a psychology course at the same
time and I once saw the same argument made from both points of view:
"Literary genre is a function of the emotional context." It follows
that there are exactly as many genres as their are human emotions. To
test this theory, imagine any human emotion and then imagine a story
that would make you feel that way.
Fear <--> Horror / Suspense
Love <--> Romance
Passion / Lust <--> Porn (includes soft and hard core)
Wonder --> Sci-Fi / Fantasy
Hate / Anger <--> Action (with the emotion directed at the villain)
Joy <--> Comedy / Musical
Sadness <--> Drama
Curiosity <--> Documentary
Satisfaction / Excitement <--> Anything really as long as it's good
By extension, all literature is equally legitimate. The plot of a
porn film merely exists to connect sex scenes? The plot of a horror /
suspense movie exists merely to connect scenes of viloence. The plot
of a romance exists merely to connect scenes of couples kissing. The
plot of a sci fi or fantasy movie exists merely to connect scenes
involving impressive special effects. The plot of comedy exists
merely to connect jokes. The plot of a musical exists merely to
connect scenes in which people are singing and dancing. The plot of a
drama merely exists to connect scenes of emotional turmoil.
Documentaries don't have plots, per se, but they do have a narrative
which functions to clarify one idea presented before moving on to the
next.
My English teacher was surprised when I told him that I had heard
pretty much the same argument in my psychology class. I got an A in
my English class, btw.
Martin
What about ennui? :-)
> By extension, all literature is equally legitimate.
If by legitimate you mean that all literature is able to be called
literature, then, yes, I agree. Whether or not its good literature is
another matter entirely. :-)
> The plot of a
> porn film merely exists to connect sex scenes? The plot of a horror /
> suspense movie exists merely to connect scenes of viloence. The plot
> of a romance exists merely to connect scenes of couples kissing. The
> plot of a sci fi or fantasy movie exists merely to connect scenes
> involving impressive special effects. The plot of comedy exists
> merely to connect jokes. The plot of a musical exists merely to
> connect scenes in which people are singing and dancing. The plot of a
> drama merely exists to connect scenes of emotional turmoil.
I see your general point in theory, but I disagree with it in
practice. I think most other genres occupy a different space than
porn and musicals.
The distinction I'm making here is that a musical and a porno are both
pieces of performance art. While it's possible that the plot of a
comedy can exist only to connect the gags (see: W. C. Fields), serving
in the capacity of a clothesline to hang them on, more often than not
the comedy is built from the context-- from the ebb and flow of the
storytelling, from the build and the structure, from the characters
themselves.
Musicals and porno don't _need_ characterization because no one cares
what anyone is thinking while Fred and Ginger are dancing-- they just
want to see them dancing. That's why a compilation film like That's
Entertainment, which has no story at all, was so darn popular-- and
that's probably why most pornography is available in comp-reel form.
You can't really do that with, say, a drama. Scenes of confrontation,
scenes of laughter, scenes of discomfort-- without a real context to
ground them, they can be confusing at best and hackneyed at worse.
The end of Yasujiro's film Late Spring is absolutely heart-breaking.
But it's just a shot of a man peeling an apple. Presented by itself,
or in tandem with scenes from other films, it loses its power
considerably.
Musical numbers, sex scenes, and, to a degree, fight scenes/action set
pieces, can exist in a vacuum, divorced from their original context
and still be exciting, entertaining, and thrilling. You can take the
best scenes out of films from those respective genres and still
entertain your audience. Again, these are performance pieces. But
try to do that with, say, most science fiction and fantasy, and you'll
fall horribly flat. Disconnecting HAL has no power if we haven't seen
the hour-and-a-half of film before it; the confrontation on Mount Doom
in LOTR would have no power without the journey before it.
So, context is very important, and plot in many cases cannot be said
to exist "merely" to connect different emotional moments or to tie
them together, nor can different stories or genres exist "merely" to
evoke those feelings.
I also think a story that exists merely to evoke emotions and push
buttons isn't really worth telling. Art is about more than Pavlov's
dog.
Like the great Ray Carney once said about film, and I feel this
applies to all forms of art:
"You can give viewers new eyes and ears. You can change their states
of awareness so that they see, hear, care, and feel differently. Your
work exists to express things too delicate, too fluttering, too
multivalent to be said in any other way. You're doing something much
more radical than telling a story. You're rewiring people's nervous
systems. You're doing brain surgery. Art gives us more than new
facts and ideas; it gives us new powers of perception."
==Tom
Most genres are _not_ a function of emotion, but rather of trope.
What makes science fiction science fiction is the element of science,
whether it's hyper-futuristic or taking place in the present day; what
makes fantasy fantasy is the fantastical setting. Porno is not
determined by what feelings (both emotional and pysiological) it
inspires in you, but rather by the presence of sex; musicals are
determined by the presence of singing and dancing, _not_ by the desire
to feel-good.
And some genres, frankly, do not evoke any overriding emotion at all.
What emotion is postmodern work like Ulysses in key with? What about
bildungsroman? Epistolary? Stream-of-consciousness? Robinsonade?
Psychological Realism?
What is the Western a function of? Anger, justice, elegy, discovery?
None of these.
A Western is a function of _setting_.
So, while I understand the basic gist of the idea, in actuality it's
bullocks and it's somewhat frightening that an English teacher who
presumably takes literature seriously would also take that theory
seriously. It's about as bad as those people in the seventies who
said there were no such things as authors or even works, but rather
products of prevaling socio-economic conditions.
==Tom
It's a good way to identify "pure" genres rather than mixed genres
like romantic comedies.
> Most genres are _not_ a function of emotion, but rather of trope.
> What makes science fiction science fiction is the element of science,
> whether it's hyper-futuristic or taking place in the present day; what
> makes fantasy fantasy is the fantastical setting. Porno is not
> determined by what feelings (both emotional and pysiological) it
> inspires in you, but rather by the presence of sex; musicals are
> determined by the presence of singing and dancing, _not_ by the desire
> to feel-good.
It's a simplistic argument that happens to work very well. All movies
have music but not all movies are musicals. And pornography really is
a function of what one individually finds pornographic or arousing or
disgusting as the case may be. If a couple were having sex and, at
the same time, having a meaningful conversation then it could arguably
be described as a drama with the sex providing little more than
setting. You yourself told Saxon not long ago that porn can never be
sad or it wouldn't be porn. What makes something pornographic is not
the images themselves but the feelings they envoke. (In addition to
passion and lust, I should add disgust. The feelings of passion, lust
and disgust identify different genres of porn with some people
apparently only capable of responding to images that would simply
disgust most people.)
> And some genres, frankly, do not evoke any overriding emotion at all.
> What emotion is postmodern work like Ulysses in key with? What about
> bildungsroman? Epistolary? Stream-of-consciousness? Robinsonade?
> Psychological Realism?
How do they make you feel? It really is a valid way to distinguish
one pure genre from another.
> What is the Western a function of? Anger, justice, elegy, discovery?
> None of these.
>
> A Western is a function of _setting_.
A Western is a type of action movie. Science fiction, likewise, is a
recent invention of the past hundred years that grew out of the need
for more realistic fantasy. I realise that "realistic fantasy" sounds
like an oxymoron but all stories do need to be capable of suspending
disbelief.
> So, while I understand the basic gist of the idea, in actuality it's
> bullocks and it's somewhat frightening that an English teacher who
> presumably takes literature seriously would also take that theory
> seriously. It's about as bad as those people in the seventies who
> said there were no such things as authors or even works, but rather
> products of prevaling socio-economic conditions.
Well, Tom, I've had enough years of experience to identity bull and I
frankly don't see it coming from me.
Martin
Feh. Who cares about ennui? :)
> > By extension, all literature is equally legitimate.
>
> If by legitimate you mean that all literature is able to be called
> literature, then, yes, I agree. Whether or not its good literature is
> another matter entirely. :-)
>
> > The plot of a
> > porn film merely exists to connect sex scenes? The plot of a horror /
> > suspense movie exists merely to connect scenes of viloence. The plot
> > of a romance exists merely to connect scenes of couples kissing. The
> > plot of a sci fi or fantasy movie exists merely to connect scenes
> > involving impressive special effects. The plot of comedy exists
> > merely to connect jokes. The plot of a musical exists merely to
> > connect scenes in which people are singing and dancing. The plot of a
> > drama merely exists to connect scenes of emotional turmoil.
>
> I see your general point in theory, but I disagree with it in
> practice. I think most other genres occupy a different space than
> porn and musicals.
<snip>
The mistake may be trying to pigeonhole everything into genres. A
tragedy which has comic relief does not suddenly become a comedy. A
trajedy can be accurately described as a kind of story that makes us
feel sad, specifically one in which the hero meets his end as a result
of his own folly. Really, the argument is incomplete unless you keep
in mind that stories have both major climaxes and minor climaxes: if a
story ends with the hero climactically dying as a result of his own
folly then it was a trajedy; if the story ends with the hero getting a
cream pie thrown in his face then one would assume it was a comedy.
It's a Wonderful LIfe is a good example: it starts as a drama, become
a Twilight-Zonesque fantasy and ends with everything alright and
everybody singing and laughing. So what was it?
The present story is another good example: it contains pornographic
scenes and the story arguably exists to string them together but it
was ultimately a superhero story, in this case a mixture of fantasy
and comedy genres.
Martin
> > By extension, all literature is equally legitimate.
>
> If by legitimate you mean that all literature is able to be called
> literature, then, yes, I agree. Whether or not its good literature is
> another matter entirely. :-)
"Good" and "bad" are subjective. You can, however, gauge emotional
reactions and ask how effective something was.
Martin
Feh. Who cares about ennui? :)
> > By extension, all literature is equally legitimate.
>
> If by legitimate you mean that all literature is able to be called
> literature, then, yes, I agree. Whether or not its good literature is
> another matter entirely. :-)
>
> > The plot of a
> > porn film merely exists to connect sex scenes? The plot of a horror /
> > suspense movie exists merely to connect scenes of viloence. The plot
> > of a romance exists merely to connect scenes of couples kissing. The
> > plot of a sci fi or fantasy movie exists merely to connect scenes
> > involving impressive special effects. The plot of comedy exists
> > merely to connect jokes. The plot of a musical exists merely to
> > connect scenes in which people are singing and dancing. The plot of a
> > drama merely exists to connect scenes of emotional turmoil.
>
> I see your general point in theory, but I disagree with it in
> practice. I think most other genres occupy a different space than
> porn and musicals.
<snip>
> > Porno is not
> > determined by what feelings (both emotional and pysiological) it
> > inspires in you, but rather by the presence of sex; musicals are
> > determined by the presence of singing and dancing, _not_ by the desire
> > to feel-good.
>
> It's a simplistic argument that happens to work very well. All movies
> have music but not all movies are musicals.
That's why I said that musicals are defined by the presence of singing
and dancing, not by music. :-)
> And pornography really is
> a function of what one individually finds pornographic or arousing or
> disgusting as the case may be. If a couple were having sex and, at
> the same time, having a meaningful conversation then it could arguably
> be described as a drama with the sex providing little more than
> setting. You yourself told Saxon not long ago that porn can never be
> sad or it wouldn't be porn.
Actually, what I said was that it would be "terrible". It would be
"bad" porn. But it would still be porn, I think, as a genre. Though
it's true that the presence of sex doesn't necessarily make something
porn; it's when the emphasis is on the sexual performance that it
makes it porn.
You could have a movie where a character sings and dances, but only
for a brief moment-- Christopher Walken does it quite often-- and I
suppose that doesn't make it a musical.
So my definition of pornography is perhaps a bit inexact, but at the
same time depressing and bad porn is still porn, which means the "feel-
good" aspect wouldn't necessarily be a good litmus test either.
I guess we just know it when we see it. :-)
> > And some genres, frankly, do not evoke any overriding emotion at all.
> > What emotion is postmodern work like Ulysses in key with? What about
> > bildungsroman? Epistolary? Stream-of-consciousness? Robinsonade?
> > Psychological Realism?
>
> How do they make you feel? It really is a valid way to distinguish
> one pure genre from another.
I've never heard of a "pure" genre before.
The whole point of those examples is that they are genres _defined_ by
either external formal devices (epistolary, for example) or by a basic
plot structure (Robinsonade).
And, to answer your question at least in part-- postmodern work
generally makes me confused and bored. I'm not sure if that's what
makes it a genre, though. :-)
> > What is the Western a function of? Anger, justice, elegy, discovery?
> > None of these.
>
> > A Western is a function of _setting_.
>
> A Western is a type of action movie.
That would discount the Ox-Bow Incident, wouldn't it? Not to mention
Brokeback Mountain. Both two very prominent westerns without much
action.
Well, not the sort of action you mean, anyway. ;-)
Anyway, I still stand behind my belief that a Western is defined by
its setting.
> Science fiction, likewise, is a
> recent invention of the past hundred years that grew out of the need
> for more realistic fantasy. I realise that "realistic fantasy" sounds
> like an oxymoron but all stories do need to be capable of suspending
> disbelief.
It doesn't sound like an oxymoron at all. It's a very good point.
But Sci-Fi isn't always about wonder. It can be, certainly. But it
can also be about the relationship between people and technology (an
intellectual idea, not an emotion per se), or about fear (aliens
attacking, et cetera), or even about how much life sucks (cyberpunk).
Just because a sci-fi story isn't filed with wonder doesn't make it
any less "pure" or any less "science-fiction". I feel a subgenre is
just as pure as a genre-genre. After all, aren't all genre-genres
just sub-genres of tragedy (story ends badly) and comedy (story ends
good)?
> > So, while I understand the basic gist of the idea, in actuality it's
> > bullocks and it's somewhat frightening that an English teacher who
> > presumably takes literature seriously would also take that theory
> > seriously. It's about as bad as those people in the seventies who
> > said there were no such things as authors or even works, but rather
> > products of prevaling socio-economic conditions.
>
> Well, Tom, I've had enough years of experience to identity bull and I
> frankly don't see it coming from me.
I'm not attacking you personally, Martin, and I wasn't saying that
_you_ persoanlly were _behind_ a theory that I personally disagree
with very strongly. If someone were to espouse the other theory I
mentioned-- there are no authors, Shakespeare wasn't a genius but
rather a product of his times-- I would still call it bollocks without
meaning in any way to disrespect hte person saying it.
It's not a theory you came up with; it's a theory that's quite popular
in the academic world, like the importance of decoder-ring symbolism.
I think even if you disagree with my opinion, you'll concede that you
at least understand where I'm coming from, just as I disagree with the
genre-defined-by-emotion theory but I understand where you're coming
from.
And, really, this is a case where no one can be 100% right. We're
talking about abstracts. You point out flaws in my argument, I point
out flaws in yours, and so on-- and hopefully others will join us in
this invigorating game of What Makes a Genre a Genre?
> Martin
==Tom
> The mistake may be trying to pigeonhole everything into genres. A
> tragedy which has comic relief does not suddenly become a comedy. A
> trajedy can be accurately described as a kind of story that makes us
> feel sad, specifically one in which the hero meets his end as a result
> of his own folly. Really, the argument is incomplete unless you keep
> in mind that stories have both major climaxes and minor climaxes: if a
> story ends with the hero climactically dying as a result of his own
> folly then it was a trajedy; if the story ends with the hero getting a
> cream pie thrown in his face then one would assume it was a comedy.
Those are actually all very good points. I still stand by my main
argument, as you still stand by yours, but the fact that genre is
usually somewhat fluid does account nicely for errors in both of our
arguments. :- )
>
> It's a Wonderful LIfe is a good example: it starts as a drama, become
> a Twilight-Zonesque fantasy and ends with everything alright and
> everybody singing and laughing. So what was it?
Magical realism?
> The present story is another good example: it contains pornographic
> scenes and the story arguably exists to string them together but it
> was ultimately a superhero story, in this case a mixture of fantasy
> and comedy genres.
Which brings us to the more pressing question: What makes a superhero
story a superhero story? I'd argue it's the presence of superheroes,
and not any emotion it might arouse-- as it can arouse literally any
emotion.
==Tom
> > How do they make you feel? It really is a valid way to distinguish
> > one pure genre from another.
>
> I've never heard of a "pure" genre before.
You haven't? You've never seen movies described using hyphens?
Romantic-comedy? Action-suspense? Musical-drama? (The last one is
usually just called "opera" :))
> > > What is the Western a function of? Anger, justice, elegy, discovery?
> > > None of these.
>
> > > A Western is a function of _setting_.
>
> > A Western is a type of action movie.
>
> That would discount the Ox-Bow Incident, wouldn't it? Not to mention
> Brokeback Mountain. Both two very prominent westerns without much
> action.
>
> Well, not the sort of action you mean, anyway. ;-)
>
> Anyway, I still stand behind my belief that a Western is defined by
> its setting.
If Western is merely a setting then it isn't a genre. Blazing Saddles
was a comedy that had a Western setting. When people say "I like
Westerns" they don't mean "I like movies with mountains in the
background", they are talking about a kind of action movie involving
guys on horseback shooting guns at each other. A Western setting
doesn't make a movie a Western.
I've heard the same argument before vis-a-vis science fiction. If I
take a drama and set it in the year 2020, it does not automatically
become science fiction. If I have Jason Voorhees killing teenagers on
a space station, the setting alone does not make it science fiction.
Look at it this way: writing exists for only two reasons, either to
impart information or to envoke an emotional reaction. In the case of
fiction, obviously it doesn't exist solely to impart information
because most of it simply isn't even true: it must therefore exist at
least in part for the purpose of envoking emotion. The obvious thing
to do is to classify writing in terms of the emotional reaction that
it is intended to envoke. Frankly, when we classify stories as
"horror", "suspense", "comedy", "drama", etc. we are already doing
that.
Martin
So what's a "superhero"? If Superman is drinking coffee and talking
to Lois is he being a superhero in that story? If not then his
presence doesn't make it a superhero genre story. Frankly, superhero
stories are a subgenre of fantasy, one that sometimes overlaps with
science fiction but usually doesn't.
Martin
> > I've never heard of a "pure" genre before.
>
> You haven't? You've never seen movies described using hyphens?
> Romantic-comedy? Action-suspense? Musical-drama? (The last one is
> usually just called "opera" :))
I have seen hyphenated genres, of course; I just don't see them as
being in anyway "impure".
> A Western setting
> doesn't make a movie a Western.
Let's just agree to disagree here.
>
> I've heard the same argument before vis-a-vis science fiction. If I
> take a drama and set it in the year 2020, it does not automatically
> become science fiction. If I have Jason Voorhees killing teenagers on
> a space station, the setting alone does not make it science fiction.
But JASON X _was_ a science-fiction film. And a slasher film. Kind
of like ALIEN.
Okay, a _lot_ like ALIEN.
> Look at it this way: writing exists for only two reasons, either to
> impart information or to envoke an emotional reaction.
It might be more precise to say that a writer tries to engage a
reader, whether intellectually or emotionally. In the latter case,
one is not neccessarily trying to evoke a particular and definable
emotion; the best writing doesn't make everyone feel the same way, nor
is it orchestrated to do that. It might be a nittling point, and if
it is, I'm sorry-- I just feel it's an important enough distinction to
make. The best art I've ever experienced does something to me, but I
can't put it into words. It doesn't make me sad or happy or
whatever. It's an experience and when i come out on the other end of
it, I've changed. And I think my earlier Carney quote provides a
third reason for writing to exist.
==Tom
'Musical' isn't really any more of a genre than 'novel' or 'movie',
though most people do tend to ignore the fact that musicals are
capable of presenting multiple genres much the same way that people
tend to associate video games with violence. (Damn it, Reader Rabbit,
why do you teach our children to kill??) Both are perfectly able to
present comedies, fantasies, dramas, and whatever else would float
your boat.
Having said that, however, perhaps media could be looked at in a
similar 'emotion-inspired' argument; there are exceptionally few
action musicals since people who enjoy large explosives rarely also
enjoy singing and dancing, no matter what they're singing and dancing
about. Bookshops have entire walls full of fantasy novels, though my
local video store has less than half a shelf. It would be interesting
to conduct a survey and have people mark what media and what genres
they're interested in; romantic video games would be far less common
than comedic movies, I should think (pornographic games would probably
stand a depressingly higher chance).
Sorry to disrupt the flow of conversation there, but I found the
continuous referral to musicals as a genre to be a bit unsettling. =)
~Mitchell.
I'm with Tarq on this one. I'd add that Sci-Fi isn't a genre either, and
then we could extend the list with super-heroes, westerns, war stories,
and probably more.
I guess more useful would be to describe works in a multi-dimensional
way. Something like:
Story genre: drama, horror, mystery, action, humour, etc
Narrative/setting devices: sci-fi, magic, western, war, super-hero, etc
Medium focus: acting, music, dance, martial arts, what I call "non-human
performance" (car chase, aircraft or spacecraft dogfights or piloting
stunts, etc), imagery, and why not, sex
And of course, on any of those dimensions, one given work may "tick" on
more than one choice. In fact, the best sci-fi (in my opinion) always
does that; to go with easy examples, B5 uses sci-fi and war story
devices, while Serenity uses sci-fi and western.
best,
Lalo Martins
--
So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
then they seem improbable, and then, when we
summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
-----
http://lalomartins.info/
GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/
I can see your general point, Lalo (and yours, too, Mitchell), but I'm
going to have to disagree here. I interpet the term "genre", which
means a type of, kind of, or sort of something, much more broadly--
that is, I interpet it to be any criteria used to categorize anyhting
as a type of, kind of, or sort of.
Within each genre there are genres, and I suppose one could use your
organizing system to arrange them into a sort of hierarchy. But I
wouldn't use that system to say that "science fiction" isn't a genre.
Two examples to prove my point:
People who are sci-fi nuts seek out science-fiction books, movies,
whatever, _especially_. The fact that there are things that make it
science fiction-- largely a matter of setting but also a matter of the
use of speculation and the reocurrence of certain themes-- things that
appeal to these people, makes it by definition a genre. It's a "type
of" story that they like.
Secondly, even with such an organizational hierarchy in place, it
doesn't make a sub-genre or sub-sub-genre any less of a genre: a
dinosaur is an animal, and a dove is a type of dinosaur, and a pigeon
a type of dove, and a parlor roller a type of pigeon. But all of them
are still animals. A parlor roller is still an animal, and, indeed, a
Champion Parlor Roller is still an animal.
And so, say, while the psycho-biddy genre, defined by the presence of
two or more older women trying to kill/drive one or the other insane,
also fits within the thriller and grand guignol and horror genres,
it's still a genre in its own right-- in my opinion.
>
> And of course, on any of those dimensions, one given work may "tick" on
> more than one choice. In fact, the best sci-fi (in my opinion) always
> does that; to go with easy examples, B5 uses sci-fi and war story
> devices, while Serenity uses sci-fi and western.
Well, there's no such thing as a horror story that's only horror and
nothing else, or sci-fi that's only sci-fi and nothing else. All art
is ambiguous and subject to interpetation. Genres are useful when
describing certain things and identifying what about them appeals to
us, but at the same time one cannot say with certainty that something
is one thing and not another. The Lord of the Rings is just as much
an action novel and a war novel and a romance and a coming-of-age
story and a horror story as it is a fantasy. It's classified as
fantasy (or High Fantasy) because the things that make fantasy a
specific genre-- the presence of magic and of mythical creatures--
take precedence.
==Tom
I would define 'genre' as a category of story that can be told in any
variety of media. I *would* include sci-fi as a genre, simply because
it has elements unique to it that, while they can certainly be
implemented in other genres and crossed over in sub-genres, define the
genre as science fiction. Most superhero stories, for example, fit
under sci-fi; how did Spider-Man get his powers? Wolverine? Batman?
Superman?
The difference -- what I see as a very clear distinction -- between
science fiction and musicals is that you can tell any sort of story in
a musical, but not any sort in sci-fi. Sure, you can *adapt* a text so
that's sci-fi, but that's a radically different sort of adaptation
then the one that goes from, say, novel to musical.
> Within each genre there are genres, and I suppose one could use your
> organizing system to arrange them into a sort of hierarchy. But I
> wouldn't use that system to say that "science fiction" isn't a genre.
> Two examples to prove my point:
>
> People who are sci-fi nuts seek out science-fiction books, movies,
> whatever, _especially_. The fact that there are things that make it
> science fiction-- largely a matter of setting but also a matter of the
> use of speculation and the reocurrence of certain themes-- things that
> appeal to these people, makes it by definition a genre. It's a "type
> of" story that they like.
I concur.
> Secondly, even with such an organizational hierarchy in place, it
> doesn't make a sub-genre or sub-sub-genre any less of a genre: a
> dinosaur is an animal, and a dove is a type of dinosaur, and a pigeon
> a type of dove, and a parlor roller a type of pigeon. But all of them
> are still animals. A parlor roller is still an animal, and, indeed, a
> Champion Parlor Roller is still an animal.
Some might argue that doves aren't dinosaurs, but I know what you mean
(I was a heavy dinosaur nut until I was about ten; my sole goal in
life was to be a paleontologist). Just saying that that might not be
the best example to use if you were to present the same argument to
the broader public. =)
> And so, say, while the psycho-biddy genre, defined by the presence of
> two or more older women trying to kill/drive one or the other insane,
> also fits within the thriller and grand guignol and horror genres,
> it's still a genre in its own right-- in my opinion.
And what a hell of a genre it is.
> > And of course, on any of those dimensions, one given work may "tick" on
> > more than one choice. In fact, the best sci-fi (in my opinion) always
> > does that; to go with easy examples, B5 uses sci-fi and war story
> > devices, while Serenity uses sci-fi and western.
>
> Well, there's no such thing as a horror story that's only horror and
> nothing else, or sci-fi that's only sci-fi and nothing else.
Yeah -- what's Star Wars without the Force and Luke kissing his
sister?
> ==Tom
~Mitchell
There are two popular sci-fi settings: the future and space. Jason X
_looks_ like a sci-fi movie but it's really about teenagers screaming
because Jason is coming to kill them.
> Medium focus: acting, music, dance, martial arts, what I call "non-human
> performance" (car chase, aircraft or spacecraft dogfights or piloting
> stunts, etc), imagery, and why not, sex
I apologize to Tarq for describing musicals as a genre (especially as
it seemed to "disturb" him). I had forgotten how some musicals can
make people cry. So an opera is a drama told through music.
Interesting. It makes sense too because you could never have a
"musical novel". Really all genres should be able to translate to
different media.
I know what you mean when you about martial arts and sex being media.
Bollywood producers claim that they don't need sex in movies because
they have music and dance and they can just as easily show a couple
falling in love that way as between the sheets. I think that's a good
example of what you mean.
Of course, martial arts is also a genre: it's a kind of action movie.
Movies with Jean Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal or Chuck Norris are/
were all martial arts movies with (usually) a Western setting as
opposed to an Eastern one. Writer / director Kurt Wimmer even made
the argument that "gunkata" is a martial art through movies like
Equilibrium and Ultraviolet. Certainly swordplay is considered a
martial art. I guess technically all action movies that involve
fighting are technically martial art movies! As you point out there
are also action movies that don't involve human fighting but rather
car chases, aircraft or spacecraft dogfights, piloting stunts, etc.
> And of course, on any of those dimensions, one given work may "tick" on
> more than one choice. In fact, the best sci-fi (in my opinion) always
> does that; to go with easy examples, B5 uses sci-fi and war story
> devices, while Serenity uses sci-fi and western.
You're right, we've been thinking one dimensionally whereas these
three considerations (genre, setting and medium) are separate. A good
example is animation: in the West, people think of cartoons as a genre
whereas Japanese cartoons can be any genre. The same is true of comic
books: there have been Western, romance, horror, sci-fi and funny
animal comic books, not just superhero comics. More often than not
the medium simply isn't the message. :)
Martin
> There are two popular sci-fi settings: the future and space. Jason X
> _looks_ like a sci-fi movie but it's really about teenagers screaming
> because Jason is coming to kill them.
And the presence of androids, nanites, and the rebuilding of Jason as
a cyborg are _not_ science-fiction? ;-)
> Interesting. It makes sense too because you could never have a
> "musical novel". Really all genres should be able to translate to
> different media.
I disagree; a "first-person shooter" can never really be translated to
prose or the stage, but it's still a genre of game. Country music is
still a genre of music, but you can't really translate that to a
novel.
==Tom
It's an old debate. Whereas most people would classify Star Wars as
science fiction because it has space ships and ray guns a lot of
people would argue that it is essentially a fairy tale in a science
fiction setting. Some people would even go so far as to say that Star
Trek with it's humanoid aliens who speak English is more allegorical
fantasy than realistic science fiction. Then there are the real life
forensic experts who will watch CSI, see them solve crimes in an hour,
laugh and say "Now THAT is science fiction!" :)
Martin
But if you did then it would be a Western. :)
Martin