Adventure Game Studio | Forums

Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nacho on Thu 15/01/2004 00:01:53

Title: The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Nacho on Thu 15/01/2004 00:01:53
I was navigating... And I just find this

(http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/avl/pics/lotrsw.jpeg)

It is just one more of the funny stuff you can see in the net, but it shows the lack of imagination of the writers how perfectly works the typical story of the orphan who becomes hero by killing the bad guy at the end... Don´t you think that it is time to change the basic storyline of the epic modern tales?

Notice that this can be made also changing:

Lord of the Rings; synopsis

Frodo Baggins is an orphan living with his uncle
in the remote wilderness of the shire.

He is rescued from boredom by wise, bearded Gandalf, who turns
out to be a wizard.

Gandalf reveals to Frodo that Frodo's uncle was also a ringbearer, and
was the best puzzle solver he had ever seen.

Frodo is also instructed in how not to use the Ring as he too
trains to become a ringbearer.

Frodo has many adventures in Middle-Earth and makes new friends
such as Aragorn and Arwen.

In the course of these adventures he distiguishes himself as a top...
well... he isn't really good at anything, I'll skip this part.

Frodo also sees off the threat of Sauron, who we now know
murdered millions.

In the finale, Frodo and his new friends save the world.


With some of the characters of Star wars.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: TheYak on Thu 15/01/2004 00:15:33
Due to LOTR being written in the 50's I doubt that Tolkien ripped anything off.  Star Wars was never meant to be a definitive movie or one that was terribly deep, just mean to be good, clean, space-opera-type fun.  Anyway, nice article, the resemblance between the SW and HP plotlines is uncanny (if not entirely accurate).  

If one were to try and create a new epic tale at this point, I don't think you could escape it bearing a close resemblance to one or more other stories.  If you manage to make it avoid any current epic-style stereotypes, you'd probably have written the most boring tale known to man.  
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Las Naranjas on Thu 15/01/2004 00:53:25
Well, Lucas explicitly used a formula in the construction of his plot, and most popcorn entertainment thrives on formula, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

However I can't see LOTR being written to a formula [especially since it's well known that it was just written and meandered whereever it went with a vague notion of the ending, but nothing in between].

If it was, it would have structure, and as it stands, it's one of least, or poorly structured books I've read. The fact it still evidently works for so many people makes it a curiosity.

But it's been the theme of academia for the past 4 decades that it's impossible to write something new, hell, even Tolstoy said that there are only 2 plots in the world. Creativity is stronger within confines anyway, which is made notable by the fact that Fantasy, to which there are apparently no confines, suffers far greater from the stigmas of clichés and repitition than anything that takes place in the normal world.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Ryukage on Thu 15/01/2004 01:53:39
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Thu 15/01/2004 00:53:25
If it was, it would have structure, and as it stands, it's one of least, or poorly structured books I've read. The fact it still evidently works for so many people makes it a curiosity.

That's funny, I think LOTR is one of the most structured stories I've ever read.  Every minute detail is intertwined with all the others in the most amazing web of interconnectivity I've ever seen.  Every single event in the story is the effect of several dozen events that came before and the cause of a dozen events that come after.  Furthermore, Ilu is about the only fantasy world I'm aware of that has a complete, detailed, and totally self-consistent set of natural laws.  The world of Ilu has a rigorously defined structure, and everything in the stories is ultimately rooted in that structure.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Las Naranjas on Thu 15/01/2004 03:14:07
I'm not talking development of the world, or detail or any of those things at which i agree it is strong, but simple narrative structure. Were you to pick up a How To Write style book, or go to a class, they'd most likely give you a list of rules, almost all of which LOTR would break.
Which makes it curious, because it certainly still works, it wouldn't be successful if it didn't.

But a list of perculiarities. The pacing is amazingly irregular. The episode of the Old Forest is dealt with in immense detail although it is derivative to the main plot. The first part, especially up to the council of Elrond is far more detailed and developed than the rest of the book, despite being in essence just the introduction. This is likely because it was written three times, from the beginning each time, which is another indicator that Tolkien hadn't learnt How To Write [I trust you recognise the irony in the capitalisation]. This section is written in a modern narrative style, but later in the work he trails of into mythological narrative style, so key events such as The Paths of the Dead or the emancipation of Theoden rush by in a fraction of time and that creates a inconsistency that would make orthodoxy tear it's hair out.

The dual narrative that occurs in the last two thirds was also a bizaare choice, especially when the "Books" 3 and 4 don't even cover the same time period. It becomes clear when you understand that he would continue with one narrative strand mainly because he was at a loss as to where to take the other. But what would then be done under the doctrien of How To Write would be to integrate the two, and interchange.
It becomes a tad strange when the story builds towards a climax in The Black Gate Opens, after several chapters in which dialogue and characters are shunted away by mythic tone, only to drop back to the more character centred story of Frodo and Sam before once again building up to the same climax. Orthodoxy would expect that the two strands be told concurrently to a single and presumably more powerful climax.

And then bizaarely, there is still over 100 pages and a final chapter which appears to end abruptly [although it becomes more sensical with the epilogue which was ommited for some strange reason].

And additionally there is a tendency to recount important events through dialouge after the event, instead of describing them as they happen, the most notable of these being the Sacking of Isengard.

But when you look at how the books were written, there seems very little room for structure, especially when large portions of the book are written where a character the stature and importance of Aragorn is absent, his place being taken by another Hobbit, "Trotter", who perhaps is Bilbo. How can you structure a plot when you don't know what will happen yet?

The fact that someone can write a book of that length and complexity [of detail if not of character and themes] with not genuine idea of where the narrative will go and have it be as successful as it is is extraordinary. I've barely touched on the ways it breaches the doctrine of How To Write, but it's enought to show that the plot isn't structured.



But then again Ryukage, what you meant by structure and what I meant are different things. You're were talking about the structure of the world, of Arda, and I was talking about the structure of a narrative.

So no worries.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: TheYak on Thu 15/01/2004 04:02:36
A bit of a lengthy reply to have it end in "no worries."

In either case, I'm in total agreement. Not that agreement is necessary when it's an undisputed fact.  The disorganization is one of the things I like about the series.  It's written almost whimsically, spur-of-the-moment and it's one of a handful of novels that make me think that I'm reading what the author wanted to put into words, not what his editor or publisher may've preferred.  I'm sure that if the novel were submitted in this day and age, it would be hacked and stapled together like mad.  The movies are a strong argument for this.  They left out a few events that were fairly major in the books, expanded upon some of the minor ones and, in the end, kept the narrative (more or less) to the straight and narrow.  I've watched them as movies, however, and not as translations of a series that I like, so have been able to enjoy the movies as well.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Ryukage on Thu 15/01/2004 04:16:05
I've personally never been a big believer in the Doctrine of How to Write.  Like the Doctrine of How To Draw and the Doctrine of How to Compose Music, it's mainly intended for amateurs, the Great Ones are Great because they don't follow the rules.

QuoteThe episode of the Old Forest is dealt with in immense detail although it is derivative to the main plot.

Actually, it ties in with the Ents later on.  And the encounter with Tom Bombadil is important because it demonstrates a facet of the Ring's power -- or lack thereof -- that wouldn't otherwise be discovered.

In general, the portions that don't seem particular relevant to the War of the Ring itself usually tie in to the bigger story of the Silmarillion, to which LOTR is just a footnote.

QuoteThe dual narrative that occurs in the last two thirds was also a bizaare choice, especially when the "Books" 3 and 4 don't even cover the same time period. It becomes clear when you understand that he would continue with one narrative strand mainly because he was at a loss as to where to take the other. But what would then be done under the doctrien of How To Write would be to integrate the two, and interchange.

Ah, but once again, Tolkien shows his genius by breaking the rules.  Intertwining those two stories would have produced a confusing jumpiness in the narrative, forcing the reader to repeatedly and rapidly switch gears between two totally separate storylines.  Like a movie consisting mainly of flashbacks, it'd be nearly impossible to keep track of what was going on in either story.

QuoteAnd additionally there is a tendency to recount important events through dialouge after the event, instead of describing them as they happen, the most notable of these being the Sacking of Isengard.

And you'll note that on most occasions, it's the hobbits doing the recounting.  This is because Tolkien wanted to tell the story through the eyes of the hobbits, and having them recount the events in their own voice was a good way of doing that.  Kind of like Shakespearian monologues, only less tedious.

QuoteHow can you structure a plot when you don't know what will happen yet?

When you do know what has already happened.  Tolkien wrote the Silmarillion before LOTR, and LOTR basically just wraps up a few loose ends from the real story of the Silmarillion.  Aragorn is actually a fairly minor character compared to Elrond, Galadriel, Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf, Frodo, and Ungoliant.  Those are the main title cast, Aragorn is just the guest star.

Like I said, everything that happens in LOTR is a causal effect of what went before.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Las Naranjas on Thu 15/01/2004 06:25:00
Even then, he didn't even know that what he was writing was part of his mythology. After all it's by his admission that Elrond was only in the Hobbit because he ran out of names and other references to the Silmarillion [for example the swords] were to "give the illusion of depth". And I'm evaluating the novel as a narrative on it's own, not a vignette from a universe. I'm not debating structure as a the creative element of "creating a world" but the structure of writing a plot.
But to go on more specifics

Quotentertwining those two stories would have produced a confusing jumpiness in the narrative forcing the reader to repeatedly and rapidly switch gears between two totally separate storylines
There are a plethora of novels and literature that have succeeded in intertwining plots and avoiding confusion, many of them sharing an "amazing web of interconnectivity". Considering this is the epitome of this in your estimation, there would have been little difficulty linking the "totally seperate storylines". The pressures of a different medium and commercial realities forced the film interpretation to present the stories intertwined [I'm sure even the most zealous of fans would have been disconcerted if they hadn't] and with no difficulty. There shouldn't be because the practice of telling parallel plots has been used for hundreds of years, and anyone who has been exposed to fiction in that time should have little difficulty following it.
As far as an accurate estimation of intent can go, to look at his own writings and the drafts relating to that part of the novel [as published by his son in volume 7 or so of the Histories of Middle Earth] it seems quite clear that he would pursue one narrative sheerly because he had no idea where to take the other.

But there is no need to claim genius of purpose here, because the point I'm making is the success, evident as it is, is made in spite of the lack of orthodox narrative structure. No defence of the works is necessary, because the evaluation is not necessarily judgemental.

QuoteWhen you do know what has already happened.

I must stress that we are talking about two different things here. I am evaluating LOTR as a narrative, and not as a window into the greater mythology of Arda. When I say he had no idea of what would happen, I speak about the plot of LOTR, and important events as being important events in LOTR. I am judging a narrative and not a vignette. If we were to judge the purpose of the author, he set out to write a narrative, not to extend on his mythology. Which explains why and early plot involved Bilbo visiting Britain.

The following quote might illustrate the amount of knowledge that he actually had towards the plot that was being laid out as he wrote it. (it's scanned, so parts are a tad 1337)
Quote1 met a lot of things on the way that astonished me. Tom Bombadil 1 knew already; but 1 had never been to Bree. Strider sitting in the corner at the inn was a shock, and I had no more idea who he was than had Frodo. The Mines of Moria had been a mere name; and of Lothl6rien no word had reached my mortal cars till 1 came there. Far away 1 knew there were the Horse- lords on the confines of an ancient Kingdom of Men, but Fangorn Forest was an unforeseen adventure. 1 had never heard of the House of Eorl nor of the Stewards of Gondor. Most disquieting of all, Saruman had never been revealed to me, and 1 was as mystified as Frodo at Gandaif's failure to appear on September z2. J. R. R. Tolkien, in a letter to W. H. Auden, 7 June i955


Which brings us back to The Old Forest as well, because that was one thing that was intended from the start, and was derived from earlier work [i.e the Poem "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil"], but that had no relevance to the mythology. The events there still hold no bearing on the greater plot. I vaguely understand you claim about revealing a facet of the ring, but what facet is revealed has no integral place in the plot and even then the immense amount of space given to the sequence, especially when compared to later sections can hardly be justified under How To Write.

And even then I feel the sequence with Bombadil and the ring is about the nature of the former, not the latter.


You'll also have to excuse the fact I haven't read any of this since before High School, so I'm working from memory.

But more importantly, we're evaluating seperate things. I'm not judging the work harshly in the light of it's lack of structure, I merely see it as a curiosity, and as Yak says, it carries it's own charm as a result of the extraordinarily unorthodox way with which it is written.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Nacho on Thu 15/01/2004 07:59:43
Quote from: Ryukage on Thu 15/01/2004 04:16:05
the Great Ones are Great because they don't follow the rules.

Like I said, everything that happens in LOTR is a causal effect of what went before.

It is funny that you start your post with the sentence that says that the Great don´t follow the Rules and you finish it making clear how "restricted" is the LOTR novel by the previous story ^_^

Don´t write your reply so fast!  :) It is clear that you are not talking on the same "rules"
a) Rules as tecniques for making the writing easier
b) Rules previously stablished by your own novels to go on with the plot.

But  IMHO it shows that Tolkien, as all the rest of the greats, follow rules, as the creation of such a complicated World implies a great use of the tecniques you said before. The goal of the Greats is that they follow these rules and they make it unnoticeable during the reading experience.

BTW Ryukage, in spite that this (IMHO) little incongruence in your post has been spotted by me  ;) The reading of your oppinions has been enjoyable, welcome to intelligent newbies members to the forums.

Yaksplit
"If one were to try and create a new epic tale at this point, I don't think you could escape it bearing a close resemblance to one or more other stories. If you manage to make it avoid any current epic-style stereotypes, you'd probably have written the most boring tale known to man."

Well... at least, SOME details could change! Most of the artistical fields go in circles since something new happens. I am thinking now in Indiana Jones. In the last crusade we see a film basically focused in the relationshib between Indy and his father, which would have been impossible with the "orphan" classic storyline. I am not saying that Indy will be the reference in the future, but it can be a step.

And yeah! I knew that Tolkien was previous to Star Wars, and I am aware that Lucas created a futuristic adventure deliverately inspired in the classic tale storyline! \o/
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: on Thu 15/01/2004 14:18:28
Quote from: YakSpit on Thu 15/01/2004 00:15:33
Due to LOTR being written in the 50's I doubt that Tolkien ripped anything off.  

Sorry, just had to comment on this.  It is quite blatantly based on Beowulf, which also sort of follows the structure.

Beowulf is an orphan living with his uncle in the remote wilderness of Scandanavia.

He is rescued from boredom by wise, bearded Hrothgar, who turns
out to be a King.

Hrothgar reveals to Beowulf that Beowulf's father was also a warrior, and was the King he had ever seen.

Beowulf is also instructed in how to fight Grendel as he too
trains to become a Warrior.

Beowulf has many adventures in Heorot and makes new friends
such as Unferth and Wealhtheow.

In the course of these adventures he distiguishes himself as a top warrior in the battle against Grendel, ripping Grendel's arm off and ensuring victory for the Geats against the forces of evil.

Beowulf also sees off the threat of Grendel's Mother, who we now know murdered the people of Heorot.

In the finale, Beowulf and his new friends are given rings and armour.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: SSH on Thu 15/01/2004 15:17:31
These are all obviously rip-offs of "The Dark Cave: Adventures of Princess Marian part IV":

Princess Marian is an only child living in the remote wilderness of Scotland

She is rescued from the rain by hiding in a cave which turns out to be occupied by a dragon

The dragon reveals to Marian that he has a mobile phone in his teeth.

Marian uses the mobile to tell her husband and daughter that she is OK

In the course of her adventures, Marian distinguishes herself as a top magic-hat pilot

Marian sees of the threat of rain by waiting until it stops (which can be a long time in Scotland, believe me)

In the end Marian recieves a dragon-back ride with her family as a reward.


Bloody Tolkein, Rowling, Lucas and Scandanavian plaigarists!




Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Ryukage on Thu 15/01/2004 21:27:04
QuoteThe pressures of a different medium and commercial realities forced the film interpretation to present the stories intertwined [I'm sure even the most zealous of fans would have been disconcerted if they hadn't] and with no difficulty. There shouldn't be because the practice of telling parallel plots has been used for hundreds of years, and anyone who has been exposed to fiction in that time should have little difficulty following it.

Yes, intertwined storylines have been used extensively, but for every example of it working there are three or four examples of it becoming choppy and confusing.  I don't think it has much of anything to do with the skill of the writer, but depends mostly on the content of the story.  When it works successfully, it's usually because both storylines are doing similar things when they cut back and forth: two different fights, two different conversations, two different private meditations, etc.  In LOTR, we'd be jumping back anf forth between the action-packed combat adventure of Aragorn and the highly personal, introspective self-discovery of Frodo, which would be a much more jarring change of gears than in most examples.

The movies feature only short snippets from each storyline, and heavily rewritten to add more introspection to Aragorn's story and more action to Frodo's.  To tell the more contrasted narratives of the novels in an intertwined format might not work so well.

Tolkien could conceivably have switched back and forth more often than he did, but not by much.  He switched a total of three times between the Breaking of the Fellowship and the Final Battle, and I'd estimate that more than about five switches would have created an unacceptable level of choppiness.

So anyway, this may just be my opinion, but I think not intertwining the storylines provided a much greater sense of focus to the narrative. We can watch Frodo, Sam, and Gollum evolve without distractions from Aragorn and Gandalf, and we can watch Aragorn and Gandalf kick ass without interruptions by the more personal trials of Frodo, Sam, and Gollum.

QuoteI am evaluating LOTR as a narrative, and not as a window into the greater mythology of Arda.

I, on the other hand, cannot at this point separate LOTR from the rest of the story.  It just doesn't exist on it's own in my mind.

QuoteI vaguely understand you claim about revealing a facet of the ring, but what facet is revealed has no integral place in the plot and even then the immense amount of space given to the sequence, especially when compared to later sections can hardly be justified under How To Write.

And even then I feel the sequence with Bombadil and the ring is about the nature of the former, not the latter.

But the nature of the former reveals something about the nature of the latter.  As for being important to the plot... one of the central themes of Lord of the Rings is Hope.  The fact that there is one being in Middle Earth over whom the Ring has no power gives that first glimmer of hope that the world can in fact be saved.  If not for the encounter with Tom, Frodo might have given up: for what would it profit to destroy the Ring if the damage was already wholey irreversable?  In the whole story, Tom is the only character with full confidence that the blight of Sauron is only a passing problem.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: remixor on Fri 16/01/2004 02:56:46
Quote from: Ryukage on Thu 15/01/2004 04:16:05
I've personally never been a big believer in the Doctrine of How to Write.  Like the Doctrine of How To Draw and the Doctrine of How to Compose Music, it's mainly intended for amateurs, the Great Ones are Great because they don't follow the rules.

However, they very rarely IGNORE the rules.  If you look at the greatest of writers and the greatest of composers, they are often studied in academic circles because they DO know how to follow most of the rules, but do it well, and they know when to break them.   There's a difference between following convention and creating uninspired material.  People today seem to have the mentality that unbridled originality is automatically good, but quite often it just results in a mess.  Speaking of great composers, look at Beethoven.  He practically single-handedly revolutionized music by de-standardizing or re-standardizing many accepted forms, but he didn't do it by throwing structure or convention out the window.  He still learned all his basic rules and musical vocabulary, then went and did his thing.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: TheYak on Sat 17/01/2004 04:11:58
Might an example of your point be Pollock (The artist), Remixor?

Definately a point I agree with, unbridled originality without any structure or substance behind it isn't, by default, good.  It has more in common with mankind's depravity than it does with its creativity.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Ryukage on Sat 17/01/2004 07:45:56
Quote from: remixor on Fri 16/01/2004 02:56:46
People today seem to have the mentality that unbridled originality is automatically good, but quite often it just results in a mess.

I couldn't agree more.  But that's not what I was talking about.  I was talking about people who have the skill, experience, and instinct to create something really good without having to think about the rules.  They don't follow the mechanical approach of, "Okay, now right here I can create dramatic effect by breaking this rule, but here I need to follow that rule," they just do their thing and don't worry about what the rules say, and it works because they have the experience to operate that way.  Mechanically following the rules is for amatuers, and mechanically deciding when to break them is for intermediates.  Masters need not even think about the rules, they can operate on instinct alone.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: DGMacphee on Sat 17/01/2004 16:05:03
Quote from: Ryukage on Sat 17/01/2004 07:45:56
Masters need not even think about the rules, they can operate on instinct alone.

But you forget: Most masters had to learn the rules first before they could break them.

For example:

Picasso first mastered basic rules of painting in his earlier life before breaking them in his later years -- He broke most of the rules he learnt and began painting like a child again, and some say his later masterpieces are his best work.

The Beatles started playing bubblegum pop songs before they branched out with experimental styles.

Also, The Beach Boys did the same thing before refining their techniques for Pet Sounds.

Churchill had a stutter, but refined his public speaking ability by following basic English rules -- In later years, he was able to bend such rules because people regarded him as a fluent speaker.

Woody Allen started his film career making screwball comedies, like Bananas and What's Up, Tigerlily?, before he ventured into more artistic ventures like Annie Hall and Manhattan -- He even admits that most of his filmmaking experience came from learning basic rules from his cinematograpers, such as Gordon Willis.

Even Gordon Willis had to learn the rules first: " As a youth, he worked in summer stock theater, both onstage and backstage, then served in the air force and gained experience as a cameraman. Upon his return to civilian life, he decided to pursue that career and spent a number of years filming documentaries and commercials before breaking into mainstream movies." (From Leonard Maltin's Movie Encyclopedia).

Willis later went on to creating the dark look of The Godfather movies, plus other classics such as All The President's Men, Klute, and The Parallax View.

You think Godard just atuomatically decide to become experiemental in his films? -- No way!

He learnt the basic filmmaking rules just like anyone else.

Then he took the conventional and reversed it on it's arse, thus making classics like Week End and Alphaville.

You see, you seem to think that masters need not think about rules, when the opposite is true.

Masters need to learn the rules as much as anyone and keep them constantly in mind so they know how to break them the right way.

Any master who thinks they need not be aware of rules will end up like Ed Wood (who is a master in his own right, but a master of making unintentionally shithouse films -- and who wants to be known like that?)
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: evenwolf on Sat 17/01/2004 16:56:54
Lucas' Star Wars =  Kurisawa's Hidden Fortress  :)
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: remixor on Mon 19/01/2004 05:45:41
DGM's post is exactly what I was trying to convey.  His examples speak for themselves.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Trapezoid on Mon 19/01/2004 05:55:25
What about Peter Jackson? His oeuvre seems kinda backwards.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: DGMacphee on Mon 19/01/2004 06:07:54
How do you figure?

The way I see it, he started with shlock-horror movies (granted, some well-made ones) and later branched out into more creative ventures, such as Heavenly Creatures, and big budget special-effect films, like The Frighteners.

And all this prepared him for the LOTR trilogy.

How do you see it, Trap?
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Trapezoid on Mon 19/01/2004 06:26:28
Well, his budgets kept getting bigger, for one thing. I don't know, his earlier films seemed a lot less concerned with the "rules" of film and storytelling and were wilder excersizes in cult cinema. They were sort of anti-films.
I think his progression has more to do with growing up and getting older, actually. He was probably a bad example. All of his films are really creative, just in different ways.
Anyway, I agree that education is something you need to properly express your creativity. But I also think it can kill your soul if it doesn't rub well with you. So it all depends on HOW you learn.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: DGMacphee on Mon 19/01/2004 06:49:48
I agree -- you must use education as a basic guide only and not the be all and end all.

Even academics make mistakes, though most won't admit it.

I remember when I was studying filmmaking in Uni (and this story also applies to any subject in Uni), I was like "Why are we studying all this Welles and Hitchcock stuff? Why don't we study other things?"

Then I realised you must treat Uni lessons not as gospel, but a smorgasboard of ideas -- pick the ones you like the best and incorperate them into your own ability.

Not everything they say is the truth.

I also later realised that they were teaching us Welles and Hitchcock so that we had an understanding of basic rules and thus learn how we could go in a different direction to Welles and Hitckcock.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Ryukage on Wed 21/01/2004 09:50:03
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 17/01/2004 16:05:03
Quote from: Ryukage on Sat 17/01/2004 07:45:56
Masters need not even think about the rules, they can operate on instinct alone.

But you forget: Most masters had to learn the rules first before they could break them.

You see, you seem to think that masters need not think about rules, when the opposite is true.

Masters need to learn the rules as much as anyone and keep them constantly in mind so they know how to break them the right way

No, I don't forget.  I described in my own post that mechanically choosing to break rules or not to is the intermediate step between novice and master.

Yes, masters need to learn the rules... when they're still novices.  They become masters when they don't need the rules anymore.  You yourself gave examples of people who learned the rules and then discarded them when they no longer needed them.

To put it in more metaphoric terms, the rules are training wheels, you don't need them anymore once you learn to balance the bicycle on your own.  The bicycle still needs to be balanced, of course, but it can be done without the crutches once you reach a certain level of proficiency.  The other side of this metaphor is that once you take the training wheels off, it becomes perfectly natural to do things that the training wheels would have gotten in the way of, like leaning into turns and popping up and down curbs.  Some people never reach the point where they can take off the training wheels without wiping out, but those that do are what I consider Masters.

QuoteI agree -- you must use education as a basic guide only and not the be all and end all.

Considering that this is exactly the point I've been trying to make, our disagreement is clearly stemming from some kind of misunderstanding.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: DGMacphee on Wed 21/01/2004 10:33:34
QuoteYes, masters need to learn the rules... when they're still novices. They become masters when they don't need the rules anymore. You yourself gave examples of people who learned the rules and then discarded them when they no longer needed them.

But they don't discard them -- that's my point.

A master keeps these rules in mind so they can achieve what hasn't been achieved.

You seem to think that once you master something, you can easily shrug off thew rules and do your own thing.

I'm saying that's not true -- masters still need the basics as much as a novice.

A master needs the rules when they are both a master and novice.

They just use the rules in different ways.

It's essentially a small difference in our argument, but it's still a difference.

Besides, would you can Ed Wood a true master, as he ignored most rules of filmmaking? (even though he made essentially crap movies)

That's what separates Ed Wood from, say, Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola.

Also, I'm not one for metaphors about bicycles and such -- Usually they cloud real facts. (No offense, mind you -- It's just I prefer actual examples of masters who "ignore" the rules completely)

But to also put it in metaphorical terms, yes you wouldn't need the training wheels -- But you'd need to keep in mind the most important (and most basic) rule: If you pedal in one direction, you'll go forward.

And the breaks make you stop -- that's second-most important rule that master bicycle riders never forget.  :)
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Nacho on Wed 21/01/2004 11:03:42
Michael Chrichton said once that when he was younger he believed that he was the best writer ever. Nowadays he thinks that he is just average, and everyday he learn something new, even he sees a lot of mistakes when he reads again his first books.

And that´s true. There are two ways to learn, by commiting mistakes and redoing, or by learning the basis from a very start (and adding something new after, if you´re talented enough).

I attempted to write something when I was in high school, my literature teacher was quite happy about the result, but he gave some tips... When he finished, I realised that all was bad, the paragraph were too big, I took no attention to the rythim, and I went too fast to the action without giving deep to the plot and character to the characters.

I finally rewrote the narration and I won a quite important local literature contest.

Breaking rules is cool when they are old fashioned and restrict the creativity of the new generations of creators, but we can´t confuss this with making bad creations. DG and Ryu can be both right, as they can be talking of "different" rules, IMO.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Ryukage on Wed 21/01/2004 11:17:13
Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 21/01/2004 10:33:34
You seem to think that once you master something, you can easily shrug off thew rules and do your own thing.

No, what I'm saying is that for example a master writer doesn't need to have the Chicago Manual of Style open on their lap for constant reference, nor do they even need to consciously think about the rules, they can simply trust their skill and instinct and write.

QuoteI'm saying that's not true -- masters still need the basics as much as a novice.

A master needs the rules when they are both a master and novice.

They just use the rules in different ways.

It's essentially a small difference in our argument, but it's still a difference.

Yes, the master needs the basics, but the rules are not the basics.  Understanding the rules leads to an understanding of the basics, but the rules are not themselves the basics.

There are savants who can become masters with no formal training at all; they have an intuitive notion of how to work their medium, and produce results that have the appearance of following the rules even though the creator never even knew what the rules were.

That's what I'm saying, that the novice consciously follows every rule to the letter, the intermediate consciously decides where to follow rules and where not to, and the master puts the rulebook away and works from their intuitive understanding of the deeper truths that the rules were derived from to begin with.  The master needs the deeper truths that underlie the rules, the true basics; but they don't need the rules themselves, which are actually a complication.

Quote
Besides, would you can Ed Wood a true master, as he ignored most rules of filmmaking even though he made essentially crap movies?

Well, I have no idea who he is, but based on your descriptions I'm guessing he's one of those people who took off the training wheels off before he was ready.

I'm not saying that throwing the rules away makes someone a master; I'm saying that developing an intuitive understanding of why the rules exist makes someone a master.  Once you understand what's behind the rules, the rules themselves are no longer needed.

In grade school arithmetic, they teach us to always subtract the smaller number from the larger number.  That's a rule.  A rule that becomes obsolete and needlessly restrictive once you understand the concept of negative numbers (which in my case was about five minutes after being told to always subtract the smaller from the larger).  A very similar effect occurs with the rules for good art: once you understand why a rule was given, the rule itself becomes obsolete and even needlessly restrictive.  But that understanding can't be taught, so they teach the rules and hope the students can come to true understanding on their own.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Peter Thomas on Wed 21/01/2004 13:06:55
As interesting as this thread be, and as out of place as this post might seem, I feel compelled to type it anyway.

I think this whole 'Hey! This author stole That Idea' concept needs to be dropped. I mean, sure, it was funny reading that Luke/Harry thing, but it's getting so hard to come up with NEW plots these days.

Even authors who convince themselves that their latest book is original find out two months later that it's being compared to a similar book written 50 years beforehand. I mean, I'm writing a novel at the moment which I think is one of my best efforts yet (not perfect, of course :'(), but if I wanted to, I could list about 20 other stories which I could have ripped off.

And as 'shocking' as these similarities are, I don't recall ONE person walking out of the cinema (after watching H.P) saying "I should have just watched Starwars again!" Because really, the minor plot details are varied enough to keep you from dwelling on the larger similarities. Someone please give me a GENERAL storyline (as these examples have been) that is COMPLETELY original, and I will revoke every single word of this thread.

Oh, and Bill Gates munching on Michael Jackson's balls after losing a poker game to a field mouse does NOT count as plot. Sorry.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Nacho on Wed 21/01/2004 14:06:10
That´s your oppinion, and we can go on the discussion with that... But I don´t see it as a "definitive" reply.

The questions are clear: Why orphans? I think that since the Grimm bross compiled their tales everybody is killing some (Or both) of the parents of the hero... Poor hero! Relationship between heroes and their parents are a world to explore, IMO (I.E. Indy 3)

There are some other examples... the wise old master who teaches the hero is becoming old fashioned, in fact, I think it was in the first low Middle Age revisiting of King Arthur´s history when that character was born in the shape of Merlin (and yes, I know that the first mentions of Merlin were made in VIth century by Gildas, but Merlin was not mentioned till the "Y Goddodin" in the XIIth century, ok? :P) This character could be changed, or even avoided, don´t you think so?

I am not talking of inventing totally new histories... but some sort of. Do you remember "Die Hard"? It was about a man facing terrorists in a big skycrapper... Well, let´s change the skycrapper for a warship, a plane, an airport, a bus... And you have material for doing films during the next 10 years. When the material is over... think in something else.

That´s what  I was talking about. the classical modern adventure tale is close to its end, I think.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Las Naranjas on Wed 21/01/2004 21:54:19
Well, for a why Orpahns's comment, I can easily anser that in the context of LOTR. For a looong period of writing, the character of Frodo was actually taken over by one called Bingo, who was Bilbo's son. However, it just didn't reconcile in the mind oif the author that Bilbo would have a child. An heir, and child by proxy was still required [else the whole shebang fails to click], so a nephew was developed whose status as a somewhat foster child could be allowed by a lack of genuine parents.

So in this case at least, it is internal rather than external dynamics that created the orphan element.

And you can note how, unlike Harry Potter and Star Wars, it was not made crucial plot and character element. An element of convenience rather than necssity. After all, the fate's of Harry's and Luke's parents [true or aledged] make up a large portion of their character and motivation. The same can't be said for Frodo.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Peter Thomas on Wed 21/01/2004 22:23:15
To farlander: Absolutely. I agree with just about everything you said. That whole 'master teaches follower' concept is very old, although I would maybe disagree that it is TOO repetitive. Did you read H.P and think "Bah! Humbug! Harry is just sooooooo completely Luke with a scar on his head!"? Probably not, because although the BROAD concept is old, the finer points make it less noticable.

I mean, there's a big difference between being taught by a true master of the force, and a wizard that breaks all the rules, and doesn't even KNOW all the rules to begin with, and has pet dragons and three-headed dogs. But some will insist that it's plagarism. And I suppose that's okay, as long as they don't try to downplay the ingenuity of the book (movie... blah blah) while doing so.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Nacho on Wed 21/01/2004 23:23:21
No, Peter, I won´t never accuse genious like Lucas and Ron Gilbert of plagiarism, of course...  :)

(And I said Ron Gilbert because Monkey Island has some of the main shoots of the modern epic tale storyline, IMO... ;))

But some of the main arguments are similar... The goal is that they introduce little changes that give deep to the chartacter and make them totally different.

Frodo could have been Bilbo´s son... his orphanity (sp?) has not a lot to see with the history. The death of Luke´s aunts is crucial in his history, and the past of his father will be revealed as a VERY IMPORTANT fact :), Harry Potter has been trated awfully by his aunts... They´re variations of the same concept..., they´re orphans who have grown with his aunts.

I just wanted to express my admiration for this creators, and point the similarities, I never intended to say "They suck!!11! They´re making the same history again and again...!!1!"  :)
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: DGMacphee on Wed 21/01/2004 23:27:15
Quote from: Ryukage on Wed 21/01/2004 11:17:13
No, what I'm saying is that for example a master writer doesn't need to have the Chicago Manual of Style open on their lap for constant reference, nor do they even need to consciously think about the rules, they can simply trust their skill and instinct and write.

I've heard a lot of master writers still use style manuals.

QuoteYes, the master needs the basics, but the rules are not the basics.  Understanding the rules leads to an understanding of the basics, but the rules are not themselves the basics.

I disagree with this -- I think that "the basics" are rules.

QuoteThere are savants who can become masters with no formal training at all; they have an intuitive notion of how to work their medium, and produce results that have the appearance of following the rules even though the creator never even knew what the rules were.

But this is an extremely rare thing.

And even then, such savants are no always highly regarded.

QuoteThat's what I'm saying, that the novice consciously follows every rule to the letter, the intermediate consciously decides where to follow rules and where not to, and the master puts the rulebook away and works from their intuitive understanding of the deeper truths that the rules were derived from to begin with.  The master needs the deeper truths that underlie the rules, the true basics; but they don't need the rules themselves, which are actually a complication.

But, by that logic, I could throw away the all the rule books right of writing right now (including style mannuals and dictionaries, etc) and become a master.

Here we go:

teh qucki bowrn fex jumeopd ovre teah lazie deog

There -- I've purposely broken all the rules of writing, grammar and spelling.

And I don't make a great deal of sense.

QuoteWell, I have no idea who he is, but based on your descriptions I'm guessing he's one of those people who took off the training wheels off before he was ready.

He was the one who directed Plan Nine From Outer Space, considered the worst film in history.

And he'd already directed several films before that.

And he directed several films after that.

Every one was a stinker.

His life was made into a film by Tim Burton called "Ed Wood" and starred Johnny Depp.

QuoteI'm not saying that throwing the rules away makes someone a master; I'm saying that developing an intuitive understanding of why the rules exist makes someone a master.  Once you understand what's behind the rules, the rules themselves are no longer needed.

I only half agree here.

Yes, it's important that you understand why rules exist -- I think that's vital.

But I don't think you should turn your back on rules.

QuoteIn grade school arithmetic, they teach us to always subtract the smaller number from the larger number.  That's a rule.  A rule that becomes obsolete and needlessly restrictive once you understand the concept of negative numbers (which in my case was about five minutes after being told to always subtract the smaller from the larger).  A very similar effect occurs with the rules for good art: once you understand why a rule was given, the rule itself becomes obsolete and even needlessly restrictive.  But that understanding can't be taught, so they teach the rules and hope the students can come to true understanding on their own.

But such rules aren't exactly obsolete -- they're just modification of rules.

I look at rules as not seperate entities, but as play-doh -- I can mold them the way I want to.

And people can always go back to those obsolete "grade school" rules and still succeed.

For example, read what I wrote about Picasso in my first post.


Quote from: Peter Thomas on Wed 21/01/2004 13:06:55
Someone please give me a GENERAL storyline (as these examples have been) that is COMPLETELY original, and I will revoke every single word of this thread.

How about: a bunch of American army medical officers pull a bunch of crazy pranks to survive the horrors the Korean War.

I don't think I've read any other story that's the same, unless someone else can provide one?
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Peter Thomas on Thu 22/01/2004 03:31:02
How about: a bunch of American army medical officers pull a bunch of crazy pranks to survive the horrors the Korean War.

Damn... I wonder what you could call that book??

Maybe M*U*S*H?


teh qucki bowrn fex jumeopd ovre teah lazie deog

LMFAO! Sometimes I love DG... other times I love him more...
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: DGMacphee on Thu 22/01/2004 04:16:35
QuoteHow about: a bunch of American army medical officers pull a bunch of crazy pranks to survive the horrors the Korean War.

Damn... I wonder what you could call that book??

Maybe M*U*S*H?

Yeap, now name another book with the same general storyline as M*A*S*H.

And no, you can't say Catch 22, cause it follows a different narrative structure and the themes are way different.

Quoteteh qucki bowrn fex jumeopd ovre teah lazie deog

LMFAO! Sometimes I love DG... other times I love him more...

Thank you for your love!  :D
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Goldmund on Thu 22/01/2004 05:16:09
Frodo MUST be an orphan.
The protagonist of a magical tale has to be put in a special situation, has to be touched by something that makes him stand outside the society.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Las Naranjas on Thu 22/01/2004 06:43:00
Couldn't he have been touched by a dirty old guy instead?
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Goldmund on Thu 22/01/2004 11:10:09
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Thu 22/01/2004 06:43:00
Couldn't he have been touched by a dirty old guy instead?

Bah, of course he could!
But, as a result, you'd get one of Socrates' dialogues, not an epic tale storyline.
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: DGMacphee on Thu 22/01/2004 11:21:22
Then again, think about why they called it "Lord of the Rings".  ;)
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Fuzzpilz on Thu 22/01/2004 16:20:04
Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 22/01/2004 11:21:22
Then again, think about why they called it "Lord of the Rings".  ;)

Well... (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/metech.htm)
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: DGMacphee on Fri 23/01/2004 00:47:58
I prefered the gay subtext.  ;D
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: Las Naranjas on Fri 23/01/2004 01:52:51
yeah
(http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/film/samfrodo.jpg)
Title: Re:The basic modern epic tale storyline
Post by: DGMacphee on Fri 23/01/2004 02:04:15
"Let me finger your ring, Master Frodo! Allow me to lift the heavy burden from you! *wink wink*"