243 réponses à ce sujet

[Dabrikishaw]

I don't see the point of remaking this thread. You didn't offer anything relevant to say last time.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Second verse, locked like the first.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Qistina wrote...

What unique about Star Wars narrative is the main character is not the center of the universe, the story is about the universe. Even in the movie, we cannot say who is the hero and who is the villain, because they are not the main focus, the main focus is the story.

DA despite it is claimed to be the story about Thedas, but it is not so, because the main character is a hero, there are too much of heroism element being put into the main character, such as...The Warden who unite the land against the Blight, everything is "the Warden did it" and in DA2 "Hawke who defeat the Qunari" and everything is about "Hawke did it", the difference between the two is Hawke is a failed hero

So, if DA:I following the same manner, that is heroism of the main character, the story will cliche like DA:O, or worse broken like DA2

Hero.


Villain.


Not that hard. Whoever has the red stick of death and dresses like a larp run by goths is probably a baddie.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 22 novembre 2013 - 06:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tharja wrote...

well if you don't want to save the world what the heck is the hero supposed to do?

Why should we presuppose heroism?

[Medhia Nox]

@Sylvius the Mad: Because nobody wants to read a story about an ordinary person that does nothing extraordinary.

Not a single successful story ever written has ever been about ordinary people doing ordinary things in an ordinary way.

I do not need to save the world - FAR from it - but being a sidekick to a hero? I would never play that story either. I am not the sidekick type. I don't do "follow or get out of the way".

[Fast Jimmy]

@Sylvius the Mad: Because nobody wants to read a story about an ordinary person that does nothing extraordinary.

The fact that you are using the word "nobody" is, inherently, a flawed argument. Obviously at the least, Sylvius is interested in it.

Not a single successful story ever written has ever been about ordinary people doing ordinary things in an ordinary way. 

I'm guessing you haven't read very much fiction. There are LOADS of books about people doing totally normal things, like falling in love, going to work, living their life and, all in all, not doing anything that would make them worthy of notice outside of their own frame of existence. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 novembre 2013 - 08:19 .

[MrMrPendragon]

They closed the thread because we went from "formulaic plots" to discussions about Kotor.

[Medhia Nox]

@Fast Jimmy

I bet he isn't.

If he is, I'll write a riveting tale about making a bowl of cereal and then making a bowel movement.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 novembre 2013 - 08:19 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy

I bet he isn't.

If he is, I'll write a riveting tale about making a bowl of cereal and then taking a bowl movement.

A good writer can make that an engaging short story. A great writer could make it a great one... if the bowel movement was right. 

[Medhia Nox]

@Fast Jimmy: A great writer knows what topics are pointless and should not be included in a body of work.

And no, a great writer could not.  There would be something else to the story.  Someting that would make these ordinary events extraordinary. 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 novembre 2013 - 08:22 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Fast Jimmy: A great writer knows what topics are pointless and should not be included in a body of work.

And no, a great writer could not.  There would be something else to the story.  Someting that would make these ordinary events extraordinary. 

You could have the protagonist considering the deeper meaning of life? Or lamenting a terrible mistake of the past? Or dealing with depression from losing a loved one? Or enjoying the last breakfast before his house gets foreclosed?

All of these are common events, which happen every day to many people. Yet they could be great writing. 

[Medhia Nox]

Yes, you could do that.

It has nothing at all to do with something people might do every day.

What it has to do - is "What is extraordinary for this character, at this moment."

All those things you listed, would be unique moments in that characters life that would, in the hands of a great writer, point to an illumination of the human condition.

On the most basic levels - where people would prefer entertainment - it takes the form of "heroism" and physical actions someone doesn't have to think too much about.

You're agreeing with me - you're just not agreeing with how I'm saying it.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd say I'm not. You're saying a story CANNOT be good and not, somehow, be heroic.

How heroic is it to lose a loved one? How heroic is it to have your house closed on you?

Notice, I'm not saying the character is doing this "heroically." They may be losing their house due to a heroin addiction. The loved one they lost they may have cowardly ran away from right before they died and are now racked with guilt because of it. They may just THINK they need to have a bowel movement and have nothing come out.

None of these are "heroic" nor are they "exceptional." The writer's ability to create their character in an engaging and fascinating way are what keep the reader's attention, not their acts of heroism.

[Medhia Nox]

I think I only referenced the term "hero" in my statement that I do not want to be some hero's sidekick.

Otherwise - I used the term extraordinary I believe.

Extraordinary - does not mean "good". Everything you've listed, are extraordinary events in a persons life.

The guilt - is what is extraordinary to "that character, at that time" that might "illuminate something about the human condition".

I also used "heroism" when references the most basic way to show "the extraordinary" - especially during entertainment.

Also - the original use of the word heroism had little to do with being a good person. Though I will concede that the modern use of it often does.

Anyway - you disagree, I suppose - that's totally cool.

[Fast Jimmy]

@Medhia

I was basing the "heroism" line based on the fact that you had responded to Sylvius' question of "why should we presuppose heroism" that started this whole tangent.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Sylvius the Mad: Because nobody wants to read a story about an ordinary person that does nothing extraordinary.

How are those the only two options?  A character can be exceptional and ambitious and successful without being heroic.  Villains are an excellent example.

I , personally, don't find RPGs as interesting if my character is presupposed to be exceptional.  I'd much rather play an unexceptional character, who then goes on to do exceptional things.  That would be far more triumphant.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 novembre 2013 - 10:13 .

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Sylvius the Mad: Because nobody wants to read a story about an ordinary person that does nothing extraordinary.

How are those the only two options?  A character can be exceptional and ambitious and successful without being heroic.  Villains are an excellent example.

Villians are very heroic to those that follow them.  If you had a game with a Villian as the lead and companions and any kind of following he would in fact be a hero.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

Villians are very heroic to those that follow them.  If you had a game with a Villian as the lead and companions and any kind of following he would in fact be a hero.

Everyone is the hero of his own story.

But if we approach the issue like that, then we've just rendered the word meaningless.

[Medhia Nox]

@Sylvius the Mad: I did not say they were the only two options.

But, I do not feel that being a hero's sidekick is a middle ground.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Sylvius the Mad: I did not say they were the only two options.

But, I do not feel that being a hero's sidekick is a middle ground.

Why does there need to be a hero in the story at all?

There arguably needs to be a protagonist, but a protagonist need not be heroic.

[Medhia Nox]

I agree, but the protagonist can never be completely ordinary.

I stated, that while the protagonist need not be "heroic" - he must be, in some fashion, extraordinary.

There will never be a successful story - of an ordinary man... doing an ordinary task... in an ordinary way.

The man, the task, or the way - one of them, must be extraordinary.

If you believe you can provide, or write, a successful story writing about an ordinary man, doing an ordinary task, in an ordinary way... by all means, do so.

I'm not talking about a "How To" book either.

[David7204]

Stories are, by their very definition, the unlikely, the unexpected, the uncanny, the unanticipated, the unique. So they've got to either have extraordinary characters or extraordinary events involving them.

So sure, you can have a story about a heroin addict. Or a guy about to lose his house. But your story can't just leave things at that. There needs to be something happening. We've got to go beyond just a heroin addict. Beyond just a broke guy. And it might be something quiet and generally invisible, like the guy losing his house thinking about his life and coming to some powerful conclusion or whatever. But it's still something extraordinary. How many days do we have revelations like that in our lives?

This is only for stories in general, of course. For BioWare games, it's beyond question. Heroism is absolutely necessity.

Modifié par David7204, 22 novembre 2013 - 10:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I agree, but the protagonist can never be completely ordinary.

I stated, that while the protagonist need not be "heroic" - he must be, in some fashion, extraordinary.

There will never be a successful story - of an ordinary man... doing an ordinary task... in an ordinary way.

The man, the task, or the way - one of them, must be extraordinary.

If you believe you can provide, or write, a successful story writing about an ordinary man, doing an ordinary task, in an ordinary way... by all means, do so.

I actually think that describes a fair amount of post-modern fiction, but I hate post-modern fiction, so I'm certainly not advocating that.

How about Jane Austen?

As you point out, something is typically exceptional about the protagonist, even if just the choices he makes.  But some stories emphasise the ordinariness.  Catcher in the Rye.  Death of a Salesman.

[Bugsie]

David7204 wrote...

Stories are, by their very definition, the unlikely, the unexpected, the uncanny, the unanticipated, the unique. So they've got to either have extraordinary characters or extraordinary events involving them.
.

No sorry, you're wrong. The true definition of story is a retelling of a sequence of events, or a narrative, none of which has to be 'the unlikely, the unexpected, the uncanny, the unanticipated, the unique.' You can retell a story of something pretty ordinary, everyday, and there is a lot of fiction that touches on the ordinariness of our lives where nothing extraordinary happens. And wow, surprise, it can even be interesting!

It looks to me like a lot of you don't read much, or if you do, you don't read very widely.

[David7204]

No. You do not have stories where Average Joe goes to his boring job, works, goes home, watches TV, and goes to sleep with nothing else happening. You do not have stories of people being stuck in traffic. Or using the bathroom. Or filing documents. There's always something else. Always.

The resolution of conflict is the basis of all narrative. If there is no conflict, there is no story. Very short stories can get away with proportionally very small conflicts, but there's always at least a trickle of something out-of-the-ordinary. 

Modifié par David7204, 22 novembre 2013 - 11:24 .