![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
I've found something strange that keeps happening when I try to argue points on the Internet. I know, I know. The Internet is for mindless shouting, not reasoned arguments! Bear with me on this one. I'm trying to make sense of it.
I have some rather unpopular opinions in the circles I tend to interact with on the subject of heroes, happy endings, uplifting themes, religion, and a whole banquet of other topics. This doesn't mean that I can't compromise. I pretty much HAVE to in order to have played CRPGs over the past few years. But I expect when asked for my opinion, I'm free not to have to constantly couch everything as far as my willing concessions are. It's like haggling - you don't start your haggling at where you think a fair compromise is, you start at where you feel you would truly win and go from there.
But not only do people not look at it this way, they assume what you say is the compromise, and then people will make assumptions about where your FINAL position is, which is almost always a ridiculously extreme extension on what you say, and attack you on THAT instead. At this point, any arguments that this is 'not what I meant' is viewed as a concession of defeat or somehow being evasive, when it's really just a correction of poor assumptions. If I believe (and I do) that monotheistic religions are too often portrayed as universally evil institutions in fantasy books, and that fantasy authors have recently tended to paint all members of those religions as deluded fools or maniacally, power hungry sadist, this DOES NOT mean that I want the direct opposite: that such a church be populated only with saints. If I believe that the veneration of heroes are an important part of any society, and therefore play an important part in literature, and that the recent over-emphasis on 'anti-heroes' and people who do the right thing only because it's convenient or forced upon them do not have the same sort of appeal or fulfill the same role, this DOES NOT mean that I think the hero cannot have flaws or must be a character-less perfect ideal. If I believe that women in skimpy bikini armor look fundamentally silly, and have trouble taking any character thus portrayed in any way seriously, this does not mean I insist that all games remove such imagery post-haste. If I believe that certain games are unhealthy and fundamentally based on very disturbing tendencies, it does not mean I want them all removed from the shelves and believe anyone playing them is or soon will be a mass murderer.
As touched upon in my 'no politics' post, there seems to be some fundamental desire to expect the worst possible motives from anyone who disagrees with you, even by degrees. I wish I knew where this came from.
The end result is that I am often forced into trying to defend positions I don't truly believe in, because it is framed as an all or nothing sort of thing. If I can't argue for the banning of certain games, then I can't find them offensive and hurtful. If I can't argue for the perfect ideal hero, then I can't argue against the so-deeply-flawed-as-to-be-indistinguisha
I don't claim to be immune to this either. Ive found myself thinking it sometimes, and arguing it on occasion. Still doesn't give me any insight as to why it happens. I just know that when I'm on the receiving end, it is quite vexing.
Wa have a fantastic library system in our area. There's a page you can log into and do a complete library search. Yes, yes, I know that's not new, but the really cool thing is that with the click of a button, you can request a book, and they put you in a queue if needed, transfer between libraries in the system to the library most convenient for you, and send you a polite little email letting you know when you can come pick it up. And they have a great selection, since there's half a dozen different libraries pooling their books in the county. It gives me a lot of freedom to look into all kinds of genres I've been leery of.
For instance, I was rather surprised to find I enjoy urban fantasy so much. I've always preferred the 'pure' fairy tale based fantasy, so didn't expect to like the genre. And sure, there have been a couple of authors where I've started reading about their angst-ridden, snarling, fatalistic characters, rolled my eyes, and took it back to the library the next day. But I like spunky heroes, and there's lots of them to be had. Authors like Patricia Briggs, Jim Butcher, Carrie Vaughn, Charlaine Harris, Phaedra Weldon, C.E. Murphy, and a handful of others are fun to read, even if the settings are a bit dark for my taste at time, specifically because the heroes are...well..heroes. I don't particularly care for anti-heroes personally, because the intent to help others is a big part of what makes a hero a hero in my mind. But these authors make main characters I like and want to root for, and that's a big part of why I enjoy reading stories.
I've also picked up a few fantasy and sci-fi authors, though my voracious reading habits in those areas had pretty much covered even the great selection these libraries have. Unfortunately for me, my keen insistence on a main character that I can follow and root for has eliminated some of the bigger names in 'pure' fantasy recently. Too bad, really, but it's too important a part of my enjoyment for me to just forget about it. I tried most them out anyway. Not to speak ill of the dead, of course, but Jordan's books, for instance, was such a mass of characters that I found it difficult to tell one from another, let alone start really rooting for any particular guy. And just when I would, the point of view would change, and I might not see that character again for 200-300 pages. And now, of course, the whole series is left without a resolution. Eddings has fun romps, and usually have the benefit of few pov changes, but the characters STILL all blur together eventually, especially in his later works. Martin's books I haven't even checked out of the library, sadly. I just don't think I could get into a bok where not only is the PoV changing all the time, but (judging from people who have read it), the characters who serve as point of view characters are frequently pretty unlikeable and/or die off.
Regardless, one of the things I plan to going into more are these authors and their stories, and what I thought about them. I've already spent more time talking about them than I planned in this post, really. However, up front I wanted to praise the library system for their role. I buy the authors I like, to support them, but I tried them in the first place because the library allowed me to so easily.
- Mood:
contemplative
Perhaps it's part of my fire dousing, but one of the first things I thought of is what I'm not going to post about. Sadly, one of them is going to be politics. That's not because I think it's unimportant, or I don't think it should ever be discussed, but for two reasons.
1. There's already lots and lots of political discussion everywhere you go anymore. This election season has gone non-stop since the last election, and frankly it's getting real tiresome.
2. I'm not sure whether it's because people are cranky from number 1 or not, but there are a lot of people who tend to jump to conclusions about other people based on their policy preferences. I'll use, for an example, puppies.
That's right. Puppies. Safe topic. I hope. The thought process for these things goes like this:
Someone says to themselves, "You know, there are unhappy puppies in this world."
Then: "I like puppies! I don't want them to be unhappy!"
Next, they say to themselves, "I think giving every puppy a monthly rawhide bone would solve the puppy unhappiness problem of the world!"
Now they run into another person who says, "Monthly rawhide? I don't think that's a good idea."
Now, you'd think a rational person would, at this point, ask why. Perhaps the other person thinks squeaky toys are better. Perhaps they have a grand scheme for daily scoops of puppy chow. Unfortunately, way too often in our political atmosphere, the very first thought is equivalent to, "No rawhides?! You must hate puppies! You bastage!!!"
That's right. I said that political discussion has come down to nothing but screaming puppy laced profanities. And really - who wants that? Not me. So - no politics.
- Mood:
annoyed
There isn't a fire. And that's the problem. I'd be happy with some smoldering ashes, to be honest.
Well, that's a perky image to start a blog, isn't it?
I'll give some background then. The last few years have seen a lot of closing doors in my life. Most of it, like usual, is out of my hands. Some, however, are due to conscious choices based on prioritizing thing sin my life. So, I took a particular dream of mine that I determined could never be, and dumped Ye Olde Icey Firebucket of Reality on it. OF course, it took a lot of douse-rinse-repeat, and a few determined stomps to put it out, but I was finally successful. Huzzah! Said dream will no longer bother me!
Sadly, I seemed to have been a little overzealous in my dousing. Now I find it difficult to get particularly interested in, well, anything at all. This is a very irritating state of being, and not at all an acceptable turn of events.
"So think, Lady Shayna!" says the little cricket in my head (the Jiminy kind - not a horrible cell phone incident). "Surely there is something you can do to spark some life! If nothing seems interesting NOW, what did you USED to do that was interesting?"
- Mood: contemplative
