Jon wrote: "I was listening to Revolutionary Characters What Made the Founders Different over lunch; specifically the chapter on Thomas Paine...."

Thomas Paine is truly one of the greatest minds of his or any other day. His writings certainly played a major influence in shaping what still remains one of the greatest civilizations of all time.


And true the original topic of the post has gotten lost but it's been an entertaining thread regardless.

Jim - I like your comparison of fantasy worlds to artist's paintings. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but it's a great idea.

Viktoria - pillows work for me! Just give me a second to take off my glasses...

Oscar wrote: "Brian wrote: "Laws are not parallel to morals and good. They define the boundries of what is considered moral and good. Existence is defined by the laws of reality, therefore the only place where t..."

I think that the entire argument is circular. A "law" is a man-made thing. It is a term that we came up with. Existence is not defined by laws that we created as we were not the first things to exist. But that is taking the terminology literally.

To not take it literally, I would still have to disagree. I would base it on several things that I think at least bend the laws of physics themselves. After studying quantum theory, I don't think I would assume any natural "law" is concrete.

Oscar, sometimes you remind me of Machiavelli. lol


Laura.. how about we both get some pillows and go at it??? *wicked grin*

Good fantasy worlds often simplify morals & situations. They get rid of a lot of the gray & give us one POV. They show us an image of our own laws & mores that's like an artists painting of a landscape. It's warped by their perception & sometimes makes points that I never would have seen in the real world because of all the clutter.

Laura, great post. I especially love the part about the teenager. Spot on!

Very nicely said, Laura...I won't even call you a "boogerhead"

Brian wrote: "Laws are not parallel to morals and good. They define the boundries of what is considered moral and good. Existence is defined by the laws of reality, therefore the only place where these laws can ..."

I believe quite the opposite. In this world, laws are much more flexible than it appears, even those of physics, which break down in singularities.
In fantasy, however, law is vital to leash the imagination into something productive.

I enjoyed this conversation though.

I apologize if my comments may have gone too far and off topic. I have been holed up in my home for several days. Nothing to do. Cabin fever. Maniacal dylerium due to prolonged bordom. trying to read 4 different books, none of which has grabbed my interest, yet. All excuses aside, what really attracts me to Fantasy is that, for the most part, you are stepping into the unknown; into totally foriegn worlds with no preconceptions as to the rules of law or nature. Meeting interesting and/or amusing characters, be they human or otherwise. Going on adventures where anything is possible, within the constraints, rules,and natural laws that define these worlds. I am always looking for the next book/story that is well written enough for me to be able to immerse myself in the story, not thinking about why the author did this or that because all my concentration is on the next sentence, the next event.

Hmmm...how about a nerf bat? Or one of those floppy frisbee things? Fewer pointy edges.

Laura wrote: "I have a feeling this is going to sound pompous and annoying, but this is too interesting and I can't resist sharing my own theory:

I think that as children our ideas of right and wrong are very c..."

Can I hit you with a plastic shovel instead?? *teasing grin*

Laura, very well said.

I have a feeling this is going to sound pompous and annoying, but this is too interesting and I can't resist sharing my own theory:

I think that as children our ideas of right and wrong are very concrete and based on what our parents tell us, i.e.: it's "wrong" to hit your brother on the head with a plastic tractor, even if he did call you a "boogerhead". Then we get a little older, and start wrestling with less concrete aspects of right and wrong, such as: "If it's wrong to lie why did everyone get upset when I told Grandma she was fat? It's the truth!"

At some point after that we reach an age when we realize that there is no great big universal Truth out there and that all these so-called rules we've been following were basically made up by our parents, which renders them (at least temporarily) meaningless: "Why should I do that just because you say so?" For the sake of argument, let's call that stage of life "being a teenager".

However, once we've tossed out our parents' ideas of right and wrong, most of us realize that we will have to start formulating our own. Making your own choices about right and wrong - in effect, making your own "rules" - is (I think) one of the most exhausting aspects of being an adult. I am just a regular person with a regular job and a regular life, but I know I run into choices every day that I have to make based simply on what I have chosen to believe is right and wrong. And it's a tiring, scary thing to do and sometimes I wish I could just stop and make someone else responsible for it all. But while I can take guidance and advice, in the end I am responsible for the choices I make and the person those choices have created.

All of which long-winded talk leads me to this point: The words "right" and "wrong" are really shorthand for the choices we make every day. If I decide that murder is "wrong", I don't have to spend time every morning wondering if it's okay to stab my annoying fellow commuter in the eye. I've already decided that would be "wrong" and I can use the time to think about something else, instead. And since most of us agree that murdering someone is not something we should do, we can agree to call it "wrong" as a community. So "right" and "wrong" only exist because we spend our lives attempting to define them. But that doesn't mean they don't exist: we create them every day.

And, as a side note, I hope Oscar does not feel I'm "attacking" him. It's an interesting discussion - if we all agreed about it, it wouldn't be interesting anymore.

And also, if I can swing this back around to the actual subject of the thread, I think that among other things, fantasy allows us to view "right" and "wrong" from new perspectives, which is why Good and Evil are such popular themes.

OK, I'm done now and I'll try not to do it again. Please don't hit me with a tractor.

Brian wrote: "Viktoria, As far as I know the laws of physics were not legally created or codified by any government that I'm aware of, but I could be mistaken. My statement that existence is defined by the laws ..."

As a criminologist, I tend to think of "law" as something that is codified in order to force society to conform to a specific mold that lawmakers have decided is good for them. My apologies for the confusion.


Regardless of our opinions and beliefs, we are all here because of one thing: fantasy. I think we can all agree on that at least :)

Viktoria, As far as I know the laws of physics were not legally created or codified by any government that I'm aware of, but I could be mistaken. My statement that existence is defined by the laws of reality is a true statement. That which exists must be real. And there can be no existence without reality. It's just that I get a little irritated when someone makes statements as fact that good and evil do not exist, and that because humankind created these ideas they should be considered preposterous, especially by someone who purports himself to be a realist. And I agree that we are way off topic.

Brian wrote: "Laws are not parallel to morals and good. They define the boundries of what is considered moral and good. Existence is defined by the laws of reality, therefore the only place where these laws can ..."

I hope the laws you are referring to are not legally created and codified laws enacted by the government. Such laws are not created for moral reasons on the whole. You could successfully are that a few are, yes; however, on the most part laws are about controlling. Laws are created so that one segment of society can hold and maintain power over another segment of society through the use of subterfuge. The powerful segment convinces the less powerful segment that the idea was theirs all along, the laws are indeed supported by moral beliefs, and that it is good to have them.

In reference to Oscar: well, I'm not sure that attacking his ideas is entirely "moral" in and of itself. Assuming that he is wrong is following your own belief system and seems to almost imperialistically try to force him to adhere to how you see the world. I don't entirely agree with him, but I do see his point of view, understand it, and appreciate its potential ideas.

The entire discussion, while fascinating to me, seems a bit off topic regardless. :)

I was listening to Revolutionary Characters What Made the Founders Different over lunch; specifically the chapter on Thomas Paine. It spurred me to peruse "Common Sense" which can be found in full via this link: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/147/147-h...

Oscar, perhaps it would be enlightening?

Laws are not parallel to morals and good. They define the boundries of what is considered moral and good. Existence is defined by the laws of reality, therefore the only place where these laws can be said to not exist is in fantasy. This leads me to conclude that the world you inhabit, if there is no right or wrong, good or evil, is a fantasy. LOL

There are no limits to judge. Right and wrong, as they are made up to order, just cannot be so simply said to exist.

Laws are not parallel to morals and good, when it exists in fantasy, though (see the dungeons and dragons 3rd edition alignment tree).

Good or evil, right or wrong, reality or fantasy. These are words that are used to define theoretical ideas based on the perceptions or experiences of individuals or groups of individuals. As I stated earlier each is fluid and changes with the point of view of these individuals or groups. It was a common belief at one time that the world was flat. That was considered a reality until the experiences of a few strong willed individuals proved it to be wrong. A fantasy. The ongoing wars between Musslims and Jews is the product of the perception that the other is evil. But the wars, the indicrimanate taking of lives by either side is evil, in my opinion, no matter the point of view. To say that good and evil do not "exist" as fact is to say that there is no right and no wrong. And yet I understand that, though these theoretical ideas change as time and perceptions change and knowlege increases, there must be some way of defining these ideas so that individuals have a way of understanding the limits of right and wrong, thus laws. And if humans are not the true arbitors of these limits, then who would be? Vulcans? ;2)

Brian, while I agree sincerely with what you say, I disagree about your suggestion that laws have a connection with right and wrong. The two concepts are not only varied by a person, but are entirely subjective, and therefore cannot be associated by what is a general compromise (i.e. the law).
And, just as a note, I do deny the existence of good and evil. The idea that in a cosmos to which humans are only a recent addition, theoretical ideas that humans created and sketchily defined can "exist" as fact is a preposterous one.

L.E. Modesitt Jr. plays with the whole dark/light & good/evil thing in his Recluse series. He starts out (in published order) with Order mages being 'Black' or 'good'. Chaos users are 'White' & evil. As the series progresses, he gets into the 'White' POV & some of them become good. He even tosses in a few 'Gray' & they turn out to be the best. It's pretty interesting, especially when you switch heroes to the other POV in the same situation.

Now you're beginnng to sound like an anarchist. The definition of right and wrong is fundamental to the establishment of a moral society. Yet these boundries are fluid and change with the perception of each individual. What might be considered right for one is wrong for another. Yet the delineation of these precepts must be established for the framework of a true society, where the rights of individuals are defined so as to allow for the "greater good" of all. To deny the basic tenets of right and wrong is to deny the existence of good and evil which is inherent in the makeup of all individuals.

And attempting to define the parameters of right and wrong doesn't make them exist.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Laura - refusing to acknowledge the existence of good and evil doesn't cause them to cease to exist.

And I like how you put it Bradley - pockets of light - that is great!

I believe our world is dark with pockets of light. =)

http://quizilla.com/users/orcishdreams/q...

Dark also shares connotations with the occult, which is not always "evil", but very rarely "good".

Dark and light do pertain directly with evil and good. These terms relating to good and evil come from the natural human fears related to night and day.

No, however normally evil an dark are associated. I don't believe in either. Some might call me a cynic or cruel, in that I don't romanticize morals or emotions, however consider this: when you refer to the extremes of cruelty and kindness, those two principles are simply labels for basic primal emotions, and therefore cannot be accurately quantified as extremes.
I like to think of myself as realist.

It is an interesting perspective, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you, Oscar. (Does that mean you will label me as "evil" or "dark"?) In any case, I think that refusing to see the extremes of cruelty and/or kindness of which humans are capable is a lot like wearing a pair of glasses that restricts your peripheral vision. You may not run into walls if you can only see straight ahead, but you will miss a lot of what makes up the world.

It is an interesting topic though, and this is only my opinion. :)

No. Dark and light are terms made up by those who wish to label people they disagree with. Good and Evil are the realms of ignorance and stupidity respectively.

No dark or light. I guess you live in the grey areas.

This topic makes me think of a line Terry Pratchett uses in his novels to describe his fantasy creation, the Discworld: "it is a world and a mirror of worlds".

I think most of the fantasy I really enjoy acts as a mirror for part of the "real" world and no matter how distorted the reflection is, it can change the way I see things. And there is such a large variety of fantasy that almost anything can be mirrored in it. Everything from the largest perspective (war) to the smallest (coping with personal feelings). Sometimes seeing things from a new direction helps me to see them in a completely new way.

I don't believe in dark/light in our world. In fantasy, i do.

I'm just curious Oscar, you don't think our world is dark? Seems to me a world where humans are still sold into slavery, where a whole continent is largely poplulated by child soldiers, where the likes of Hitlers and Sadaams and Bin Ladins and much more exist might be considered dark.
Just my opinion...

I devote all my spare time to fantasy, and here's why:
1.) Fantasy magnifies the world, and as a result acts like a microscope, allowing us to better examine the human psyche.
2.) It, besides non fiction, is also the most realistic genre. The worlds of fantasy (or at least high fantasy) are realms of thought and of dreams, meaning that "supernatural" occurrences are natural, and that huge, distinct emotions are equivalent to the flighty thoughts we humans experience. This makes it more realistic than, say, a romance novel or a historical fiction.
3.) Fantasy not only magnifies our world, but distorts it. Ideas fit in which don't gel with our world, primarily altruism and unconditional malice, but also an underlying sense of the epic.
4.) Fantasy worlds are all dark, even those which are designed for young children. This tells us ow our world would be if there truly was a "greater good" – the precise opposite.

No Viktoria, it wasnt Tolkien who influenced me to read fantasy, but rather a friend who kept reading fantasy novels. It got me curious as to why so decided to read them myself. I actually havent yet read much fantasy, but what i have i enjoyed because of the adventurous side to the stories. Its just a new world for me to explore.

I like fantasy primarily because besides media tie ins of super hero fiction, it is the most reliable narrative genre in which to find stories about people with powers. I came to narrative reading from super hero comic books, and so it's natural for me to look for the super hero in narratives. Sci Fi often has characters with amazing powers but not as reliably as fantasy of course because of the prevalence of magic users in fantasy.

JJ wrote: "I thought it would be interesting to hear the various reasons why our members enjoy the fantasy genre so much more than the other genres, or maybe you only prefer fantasy on a occassional basis.

..."

Where's your answer JJ? *teasing grin*

I read in some places that Tolkien was a big influence for you, but surely he's not the only reason you stuck with fantasy, eh?

Laurel wrote: "I think that I like the strong sense of ethics and moral code often found in fantasy. Even the characters who fit into a moral grey area, when it comes down to the hard choices, they often will ma..."

Very good observation. I think I can relate to the moral choices that the characters faced. I grew up in the inner city in a "ghetto" and often made choices that I thought would left me sleep at night, despite the painful consequences I knew would come. I never regretted what I did, only that it had such horrible aftermaths lol.

Maybe that has something to do with the attraction....

oh Laurel, i'm with you on the code of honor front. that holds a really strong appeal for me. also, in fantasy the writer isn't bound at all by the natural order of things - logic doesn't necessarily have a place in the world the writer creates. i like that.

another strong draw for me is the quest. questing = adventure and i like that

I read alot of different genres. I feel like with fantasy it mixes different elements like the romance of chivalry and honor, action with epic battles and such, and descriptive writing telling about worlds and cultures. Plus there are some mysteries thrown in to boot.

I think that I like the strong sense of ethics and moral code often found in fantasy. Even the characters who fit into a moral grey area, when it comes down to the hard choices, they often will make the right choices, no matter the cost. Plus, many of the characters in fantasy do not start out where they would make these choices. They have to improve themselves, lose their negative beliefs, become more than they were, etc. I'm drawn to this part of the story, as much as the fantastical elements. Perhaps even more.

Fantasy has always been a big interest to me, but I'll read just about anything. I grew up in a smaller town, once the rather small fantasy sci/fi section in the library was tapped out, my reading habit had to be fed by other sections. Spent a large chunk of early adolescence reading whatever I could find in the local used book store(which happened to be the garage owned by a lady from mom's church), meaning mostly "trashy" romance...hey, it kept me going. But I always came back to fantasy. Because it can include anything - magic, other cultures, almost always a dash of romance, serious or comedic or both, action, adventure, any time period...on and on...

Not sure why I started. I don't even recall what I grew up reading.

I know that right now, in criminology I hear/read/study so many horrible things. I go into prisons on a somewhat regular basis. I have to analyze serial murder and other such things. The last thing I want is to read a book with that sort of storyline. Fantasy is now far more uplifting. There is usually a clear line between good and evil. Not many shades of grey. My biggest problem with the Night Angel series is that it had a lot of dark subtext to it. I nearly stopped in the first book because it reminded me too much of something I had just discussed with colleagues at uni the day before. I'm glad I didn't stop in the end, but it came close...

Total escapism.

For me as a writer, getting the hard science and technical details right for a sci-fi novel has always seemed very daunting because my background is in the biological sciences and not engineering, physics or computers. I have just never had the inclination nor the time to do the copious amount of research I'd have to do. Fantasy allows me much greater flexibility with my world-building.

As a reader, I enjoy both fantasy and science fiction, though I tend to gravitate to "soft" or "sociological" sci-fi, rather than "hard" sci-fi. Fantasy has a definite edge, though, because I love getting immersed in worlds that are pre-industrial and where magic really works. Plus, I love elves. Always have.

I've read a variety of books from Historical Fiction, such as The Kent Family Chronicals, to Straight Fiction such as Clive Cusslers Dirk Pitt series, Science fiction, Horror and Fantasy. Fantasy is my favorite because of the myriad types of characters and worlds that can spark and invigorate the imagination. I believe Fantasy allows one's own mind to create the images of these characters and worlds and makes the story different for everyone who reads them because everyone is going to "see" them individually. It allows me to do some of the creating right along with the author, because although the author might discribe the character or world it is my own imagination that has to create the pictures. That also partially explains why I'm sometimes disappointed in movies or tv shows made from fantasy books I've read. I've already developed my own idea of what or how a character will look and act like and someone else's interpretation clashes with my own.

I think we all enjoy the escapism of fantasy. Its funny for me to say because I HATE romance books (really did not like Twilight) but I like the "romance" of fantasy - fromt the standpoint of the "time". I like swords and heroes and magicians and civilary. Two of my favorite movies are Robin Hood (with Cosner) and Princess Bride.

I also read fantasy for the escapism it provides. When reality is not to my liking, it's always nice to go to another world for a while. I also think it's the one genre I can get the most enjoyment out of, compared to all the other genres.

I really enjoy fantasy because I can feel absorbed into another world, whether it is something "extra" that is set on Earth, or a completely different place. It takes me away from the world surrounding me.

Fantasy isn't nearly as strict on the laws of physics and science. There is much more room for imagination, mystery, and magic. This makes it easier to escape and get lost in these worlds. Tolkien showed us is that we didn't have to 'grow up', that we could still lose ourselves in our imaginations, and those of our guide (the writer).

Or more simply, fantasy kicks butt....