Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Is it surprising, then, that Moore and Moorcock are tight friends?
...
...yeah. I went there.
...
...what is WRONG with me
^^ And so are Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman. The point does not stand.
I'm not much of a fan of allegory either, though, so maybe I'm a bit biased here. But I also seem to have enjoyed Lord of the Flies more than most of you as well—at least, certain parts of it, like Simon's hallucinations.
^Erm, only sort of? Moore's also went on a tirade against Gaiman before (who honestly really does want to be Alan Moore so SO BAD) Besides, just because an asshole's friends with a not-asshole, doesn't mean it doesn't make friends with another asshole.
Also, only semi-related Neil Gaiman is basically the reason that Joss Whedon isn't the most overrated writer in all of nerddom.
I'm not sure how does that make my point any lesser. They've both claimed to have been plagiarized and wronged by many others in the industry while trashing many other writers by virtue of doing things they don't like that aren't even unethical or amoral. I don't see how Moore's friendship with Gaiman cancels that.
Starting The Last Wish by Andrzej Sapkowski. It's good. It's hard to read a book about a morally ambiguous sword-and-magic using wanderer albino without thinking about Elric, but it manages to weave a unique tale, mostly be emphasizing its folkloric roots whereas Moorcock tended to obfuscate them.
Also, this seems to be a far more 'grounded' fantasy story whereas Elric stuff tends to be dealing with mad gods and planes of existence and such.
Yeah, Geralt (and the other witchers) are pretty much mercenary Jedi in the Middle Ages. Their most pressing concern is always making enough money from jobs to keep on eating until they find another employer.
This description is so outside of my expectations of both witchers and Jedi, I don't even know if I should call it wrong. I mean, what. BTW can you tell me something about Moorcock's writing? I hear he's a bit of a classic, yet I haven't read anything by him. As another BTW I can answer some witcher-related questions, but I'm better versed in the Saga than in the stories. Just not at this moment, gotta sleep once in a while.
I know witchers don't have the Jedi appreciation for spiritualism as a default trait, but both at their simplest are mystics and expert swordsmen. And the Signs are pretty much the standard Force powers, like Axii pretty much being a Jedi mind trick and Aard being a push. For that matter, witchers are even credited with being able to cut arrows and quarrels out of the air, which is basically the medieval version of blocking blaster bolts.
So I'm reasonably sure that witchers draw a lot of influence from Jedi outside the confines of the fourth wall.
^^Moorcock's most famous creation is Elric and those books are probably the easiest to get. The stories are told anachronistically but are pretty easy to follow since it's basically big events surrounded by wide gaps of time for him have adventures. The best way to describe Elric is reverse Conan. He starts out to inherit the throne and ends up destroying his kingdom, he's sickly and depends on magic -particularly a vampiric sword name Stormbringer-.
A big theme of Moorcock's work is Order Vs. Chaos which whichever side being in the right depending on the story. (Generally they're both assholes) Shin Megami Tensei draws a lot of inspiration from that and you can even summon Elric's god Arioch in those games.
A lot of things of Moorcock's seem old hat, particularly the sickly albino spellcaster, but that's mostly because he invented a lot of them.
By "mystics" you say that they occasionally use limited magic? My, the word's got a lot broader meaning than I expected. But whatever. I can't say what was the inspiration for witchers - I bet the author must've at least heard of Star Wars before - but, well, it's like that Radio Yerevan joke. They don't give away cars in Moscow, but steal bikes in Leningrad. You basically say they're Jedi, only without Jedi mysticism, philosophical influences, monastic or eremite overtones, or running around with a sword in a world full of guns and starships. This way you can say that samurai are Force-insensitive feudal Jedi - you will probably give a range of reasons why this comparison is right, but chances are it will either still lead to wildly inaccurate picture, or be so different to Jedi that one wonders why call upon them at all.
Heh, I know what you mean. I read some Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories, I recall I even posted about it. Accidentally it came with a foreword by Sapkowski, he likes to discuss tropes in fantasy.
Kurosawa samurai films were one of the biggest influences for Star Wars -- I'm pretty sure that Jedi are still referred to as "space samurai" colloquially from time to time by the crew for the original films. In fact, Lucas originally wanted an Asian actor for Obi-Wan Kenobi to make the comparison even more obvious. As far as I know, the term "Jedi" is a corrupted Japanese term, too (I think it comes from "jidai", which, as I recall, is a part of the Japanese name for the samurai film genre).
Anyway, no need to be so anal. For a monolingual English speaker, navigating witcher material is not easy or convenient, so "They're like Jedi but..." is a good place to start. Largely because there's no other kind of character in fantasy media that so obviously imitates the abilities of the Jedi.
Look, the difference is that Jedi are philosophical monks serving the greater good. Witchers are sociopathic fratboys serving for money. (Fratboys are about the closest comparison I can think of, group that keeps to themselves and is highly masculine.)
I don't think that definition holds because witchers are so diverse in outlook and personality. And yeah, that's a difference these days -- since the prequel trilogy, the new conceptualisation of Jedi has been that of clinical, whitewashed monastics. But I'm sure Malk knows what I mean because whenever I make references to Star Wars in a positive light, they're in relation to the original films. Back then, there was no inherent definition of a "Jedi" and they largely seemed like hermits and drifters with special powers, laser swords and a taste for philosophy.
"Drifter with special powers, swords and a taste for philosophy" at least describes Geralt correctly and he's not the only witcher who isn't a sociopath or a fratboy. If anything, the diversity of witchers is one of their biggest draws, and both the books and games discuss how different witchers handle their responsibilities -- or, when they don't, they at least hint at it.
This is all pretty consistent with the conceptualisation of the Jedi that came with the original Star Wars films, with the primary difference being that witchers employ their skills for money. Geralt's reflections on morality, power, politics and so on even fit into the bipartisan centrism Jedi are supposed to represent. Even Geralt goes from holding on to his neutrality to picking what he considers good. Or at least, "less evil".
I'm not saying the witcher-Jedi comparison lines up 1:1, but it's a good place to start for, well, Malk. Because he knows what I mean by "Jedi" more than anyone else here. And it should be noted that the first short stories concerning Geralt were written and published before the Star Wars prequels, which introduced a new idea of Jedi that wasn't in the original films. Originally, Star Wars didn't even imply that Jedi had an order or were bound to strict rules -- a lot of people who started with the original trilogy remember thinking that Jedi had their other "job" but just happened to operate as a Jedi within that task. Which is kind of how a fair few witchers end up, come to think of it -- doing bodyguard work or hits after breaking under the pressure of monster hunting and so on.
So yeah, they're different, but the point was never that it was an exact match, but a starting point from which to understand a witcher's skills.
This works if your summary was intended specifically for Malk, who as I understand knows what you meant, but as there was no overt declaration of that, I believe I was free to assume the need for clarification.
So from a non-Malk perspective, I repeat: "Drifter with special powers, swords and a taste for philosophy" is one thing in fantasy, but entirely different in sci-fi. In the beginning of Episode IV, we see robots and spaceships, about the only thing that strays from the standard space opera fold is the princess, but I'm pretty sure there were enough of them in sci-fi pulp. Then it turns out people there do magic and run around with laser swords. Compare that to all the space wars, alien bars, and gunslinging space smugglers. Quite a shocking swerve, ain't it?
However, let's take a look how it fits in fantasy. "Drifter with special powers, swords and a taste for philosophy". Drifter, standard questing knight fare - standard. Special powers - standard. Swords - like I need to speak of this one. About the only thing that strays from the fold is that a character with a sword also uses some magic, as opposed to pure hacking, and it's not like this one hasn't had precedents. As an another example, we can take "Drifter with special powers, swords and a taste for philosophy", cross out special powers (and frankly, I'm pretty sure you could do it and argue for it like here), and we get Conan the Barbarian.
In other words, while it can work as a shorthand among people who know well the details of the examples they use, there are catches in it that are likely to cause unnecessary complications. I can go with the starting point, but I remain convinced that this is the very specific kind of starting point, one that many people would not start with.
Well, yeah. For a more diverse audience, I'd say that witchers having Jedi influence from a fourth-wall perspective still holds true, but it's not necessarily the first point of comparison I'd make.
I don't think so, because I'm really pedantic. A lot of the pulp up to and including Star Wars that includes that kind of thing isn't really "sci-fi" in the traditional sense. "Space opera" is a term that's used often, but it's really just fantasy where the sea vessels actually travel in space and have a chrome paint job. To me, science fiction is about commentating on the progression of human technology and what social implications that has. Star Wars and the pulp it's derived from aren't interested in discussing technology's role in human social development; they just want to be fun action-adventure escapism because lasers are cool. With its look at genetic manipulation and the moral implications of such, The Witcher might actually be closer to "true" science fiction than Star Wars.
For what it's worth, The Witcher doesn't lack shades of Conan at all. Although the "swordsman" thing holds more meaning to me as well, as you know. The books have a kind of attention to detail in that respect that isn't in most fantasy works and describe something a bit different from what's in, say, the games (at least when it comes to English translations). Geralt's swordplay in the books is brutal and practical, and contradicts (or supports, from the perspective of a possible argument) his compassionate temperament. There's a lack of showiness and theatrical flair, whereas the perception of witcher swordplay popularised by the games is something different entirely.
So when I refer to a "swordsman", I specifically refer to a character that at least imitates an idea of practicality (as the Jedi did in the original Star Wars films, for instance).
Speaking of which, there's this one moment in the short stories when Geralt parries two incoming blows at once, using the full length of his sword. It's really cool, but it's also an example of why I like Geralt as a swordsman and why I consider him an actual "swordsman" rather than "a guy with a sword". Using the full length of the sword like that to parry two attacks at once has synchronicity with the concept of a Master Strike and its equivalent in non-German sword styles, using geometric practicalities to ensure success.
tl;dr pedantry
Rightio.
I nonetheless believe a dude running around with a sword in a fantasyland is a lot less unusual for the canons or audience's expectations of a genre, than a dude running around with a sword in space. Would you be so hasty to compare witchers to Swordmasters of the Ginaz? I dare say not. Even in spite of the fact that swords are perfectly normal, devoid of any symbolic value, common weapons in the sci-fi setting they come from. (edit: okay, that's poor example.)
I certainly hope it wouldn't be the first point, as I personally expect said audience to think of the Jedi as these monastic hermit types. As to influence, well, I'd prefer you speak of comparisons rather than influences unless you know what the author was after. I do not, but I guess somebody had to ask him of it on one or another convention.
I was merely stating that it does not stand that it should be obvious that Moore and Moorcock are friends. The statement just sounds a bit... I'm not sure what the word is, but it rubbed me the wrong way. Hell, the entire conversation rubbed me the wrong way.
Book was overall very good though. Especially Lightsong.
Just finished the first chapter of American Gods.
The one with Shadow or the one with Bilquis? I can't quite remember the order, but the former is just sad; the latter, on the other hand...
Heh, I had to look that character up to remember the scene you're talking about. Guess my mind did a pretty good job of blocking it out. Of course, I skipped over most of it to begin with, because seriously, what the fuck?
Reading The Secret History and wondering if I am supposed to sympathize with how deeply snobby all the main characters are.
Judging by TVT page for the Witcher cycle, there are now fan translations for every one of the books, I mention it here since I guess some of you are going to be interested. I wonder what is their quality, however, as I believe a faithful translation would require an intimate knowledge of street-level English.
While they could easily be worse than the official translations, there's also the chance that they're better. The official translations are servicable, but not particularly elegant.
The name and tentative release date of the second Stormlight Archives book have been set.
Five of the Witcher books are translated to Serbian (and the other two should be translated really soon), although I can't comment on the quality of the translation since I haven't read them. Both are Slavic languages with similar constructions, though, so the translation ought to be pretty smooth.
Yeah, they've been translated to like most European languages, save English.