I have no stake in that particular debate anyway. I never watch movies, why would I watch a Youtube series about them.
I personally find some enjoyment in researching stuff that I personally have no interest in experiencing. This tendency is literally the only reason that I know anything beyond cursory information on Harry Potter
This can be me too.
Also: see how many people like the W40K lore without ever playing the war game which honestly sounds like not a lot of fun.
I spend a good chunk of my spare time listening to MTG podcasts despite not playing mtg
now that i think of it i read music reviews for albums I never listen to so I guess I do this too.
I have no stake in that particular debate anyway. I never watch movies, why would I watch a Youtube series about them.
I personally find some enjoyment in researching stuff that I personally have no interest in experiencing. This tendency is literally the only reason that I know anything beyond cursory information on Harry Potter
This can be me too.
Also: see how many people like the W40K lore without ever playing the war game which honestly sounds like not a lot of fun.
I spend a good chunk of my spare time listening to MTG podcasts despite not playing mtg
I can understand that.
Some of the lore and strategy stuff can be interesting.
Sorry for trying to shut things down. I just feared for the worst in context.
I generally like Alex's longposts, but it is true that the tenor of the forum tends to demand brevity outside of fairly specific situations. Saving one's drafts and refreshing before posting anything sufficiently in-depth, at the very least, is a must. I wind up forgetting to do that a lot even with fairly short posts, and the results can be pretty awkward, so this is personal experience talking.
Saving one's drafts and refreshing before posting anything sufficiently in-depth, at the very least, is a must. I wind up forgetting to do that a lot even with fairly short posts, and the results can be pretty awkward, so this is personal experience talking.
especially when i first got here, prolly why i never took to irc
I have no stake in that particular debate anyway. I never watch movies, why would I watch a Youtube series about them.
I personally find some enjoyment in researching stuff that I personally have no interest in experiencing. This tendency is literally the only reason that I know anything beyond cursory information on Harry Potter
This can be me too.
Also: see how many people like the W40K lore without ever playing the war game which honestly sounds like not a lot of fun.
I spend a good chunk of my spare time listening to MTG podcasts despite not playing mtg
now that i think of it i read music reviews for albums I never listen to so I guess I do this too.
Funny you should mention it: since getting into Destiny I used to almost never play the competitive multiplayer because I was crappy at it and I wasn't interested in getting embarrassed, but I started watching people play it themselves on YouTube after I stopped.
The effect it had on my playing was immediately noticeable the next time I tried. I am still a scrub, but I got gud! #blessed
I have no stake in that particular debate anyway. I never watch movies, why would I watch a Youtube series about them.
I personally find some enjoyment in researching stuff that I personally have no interest in experiencing. This tendency is literally the only reason that I know anything beyond cursory information on Harry Potter
This can be me too.
Also: see how many people like the W40K lore without ever playing the war game which honestly sounds like not a lot of fun.
I spend a good chunk of my spare time listening to MTG podcasts despite not playing mtg
now that i think of it i read music reviews for albums I never listen to so I guess I do this too.
Funny you should mention it: since get into Destiny I used to almost never play the competitive multiplayer because I was crappy at it and I wasn't interested in getting embarrassed, but I started watching people play it themselves on YouTube after I stopped.
The effect it had on my playing was immediately noticeable the next time I tried. I am still a scrub, but I got gud! #blessed
i did that with Hearthstone
which I should get back into when I have money to actually compete in it.
Also I used to buy D&D Monster Manuals long before I ever played D&D with someone.
The modern world has too few grimoires and bestiaries.
I only played a little dnd in high school but I definitely had an obscene number of dnd books
this was how i was with Pokémon
I was like this with pokemon growing up b/c I didn't have anything to play pokemon with, but once I did I took like it like a fish to water
...come to think of this, this whole "just engaging with peripherals rather than the thing itself" describes a lot of what ive been interested in over the years
i think it was some combination of the fact that the characters spoke in a way that was very familiar and comfortable to me, like hearing friends talking, and the fact that the books had a lot of very simply written, but very detailed description
it made them feel very colourful and vibrant and real to me in a way that no other books did
I can relate to that, in that I was always very into lore and reference materials but could care less about things like actual game or even books or movies in many cases. Also, I really liked stats. I still kind of do.
I can relate to that, in that I was always very into lore and reference materials but could care less about things like actual game or even books or movies in many cases. Also, I really liked stats. I still kind of do.
I think the only video game series whose lore I am particularly invested in is Dark Souls/Bloodborne.
I realized I was in the IRL Northern Caves fandom around the time a major youtube fan released a 30 minute video consisting entirely of discussion of the role bells play in Bloodborne.
That changes nothing. RLM fans are just fans, but the identification with social justice and activism is an array of movements. If RLM fans act like arseholes, the outcome is nearly irrelevant. The more disappointing outcome occurs when those claiming to have the moral high ground fail to behave as though they have the moral high ground. Ever heard the "It's not my job to educate you on..." line?
It is never anyone's job to educate you on anything in an online argument.
I sympathise with your frustrations, but that leads nowhere. Following that principle ensures that online disagreements must always be a collision of two opinions without supporting evidence or reasoning, so no-one is ever given incentive to modify their way of thinking. This is why the SJW movement can't tolerate ideological impurity; guided by such absolute principles, the most absolutist individuals eventually attain social authority, and therefore determine the degree of ideological adherence necessary for social inclusion.
That isn't to say that social justice or activism are wrong. Far from it. But I can't agree with means that often end up alienating individuals who might eventually come around, if only matters were explained to them well enough. That also means dealing with the burden of belligerents, and while I can easily see how draining that is, the non-explanatory position paints each dissenter with the same brush.
Which is the sort of behaviour I thought social justice movements were supposed to be against, of all things. Whenever I hear or read someone make a statement, and then their following claim is that they don't have to support it, I interpret that as denigration of the dissenter because the positions here are not even; one side is expected to explain themselves and the other is not. It's a brute force argument strategy based on condescension rather than an exchange of understandings.
I understand the frustration and anxiety of trying to explain oneself, only for that explanation to go unheeded in the face of stubbornness, and without a hint of compromise or understanding. That doesn't mean a non-explanatory approach is the constructive measure to take, though. If you want change, but refuse to engage with its mechanisms, then it won't happen.
If you want to debate formally about things, I am totally willing to when I feel up to it. But not impromptu, and certainly not here. I hope you understand.
I do understand, and I'm sorry for any distress I might have caused you. Thank you for the informative reply. I learned more about you and what is considered "the discourse", which will definitely help me interact here.
i think it was some combination of the fact that the characters spoke in a way that was very familiar and comfortable to me, like hearing friends talking, and the fact that the books had a lot of very simply written, but very detailed description
it made them feel very colourful and vibrant and real to me in a way that no other books did
I'm basically the opposite. Probably because I kind of looked comparable to Harry Potter when I was a child/most of adolescence (although I do not look like Daniel Radcliffe), and being bespectacled, many comments along those lines were made.
The books failed to grasp me, though, so I was generally internally rolling my eyes at the comparisons made. So my reaction to Harry Potter stuff is a big old shrug, because I basically couldn't escape the damn stuff when it was in full swing.
as i've mentioned before, i think the earlier ones are very effective childrens novels, and then as JK Rowling tried to "mature" the books, she kinda bungled it
There is this kind of tonal disconnect, isn't there? It makes sense in context of the original generation reading the books as they grow from late childhood/early adolescence into vague adulthood, but reading the books back-to-back as a single entity would feel very disconnected.
the die was cast when she introduced time travel in such a way that it remains a possible but unaddressed solution to any problem for the rest of the series
poorly-handled time-travel is ill-advised in sci-fi and intolerable anywhere else
the time turners were destroyed in book 5 - a cop out, perhaps, but it wasn't unaddressed
my brother has dark hair and wears glasses; he also got compared to Harry Potter a lot, and resented it
i felt there was a very perceptible change in the authorial voice between books 4 and 5, book 5 i nevertheless enjoyed very much (mainly for character reasons), books 6 and 7 definitely felt weaker
I still think the Harry Potter books will age poorly, because the "maturing" trick will only really work with the original generation that grew up along with those books.
Let me tell you about Harry Potter and the My Patronus is a Human And This Is Totally Symbolic For How Much Smarter I Am Than You Or Something Methods of Rationality.
Or let me not, and talk about how much I like Hagrid.
even with the cop-out, that's still two or three books where no one brought up the point that someone could time-travel way back and take out Voldy before he became an issue
at least address it beyond saying that 'it's dangerous to wizards', which is rather poor considering that taking out Voldy would have cancelled out a bunch of deaths, both wizard and muggle
i do feel the time travel sequence in book 3, while metaphysically weird and possibly logically inconsistent, very much fit the tone of the first 3 books
afterwards they got a bit more serious and the worldbuilding got more elaborate and the scene feels out of place in retrospect, perhaps
there was always a touch of absurdity present in the series, but this was much more the case in the first 3 books
i said they felt real to me, but really they were larger than life, exaggerated, cartoonlike almost
it was the kind of fantasy where time travel could happen and you'd just think, well of course it can happen like that
Oh, it's not the idea of the maturing thing that I mind at all, I think it was a verygood idea, I just feel like she maybe bit off more than she could chew, and no editors wanted to go at her because She's JK Rowling, and the results were eeehhhh
even with the cop-out, that's still two or three books where no one brought up the point that someone could time-travel way back and take out Voldy before he became an issue
at least address it beyond saying that 'it's dangerous to wizards', which is rather poor considering that taking out Voldy would have cancelled out a bunch of deaths, both wizard and muggle
i don't think you could do that with time travel as represented in the book, it would create a time paradox
Harry couldn't change the past, he could only cause things to happen which already had happened
Oh, it's not the idea of the maturing thing that I mind at all, I think it was a verygood idea, I just feel like she maybe bit off more than she could chew, and no editors wanted to go at her because She's JK Rowling, and the results were eeehhhh
i think this is a fair complaint, and the thing about the editors is probably accurate
i don't think she wrote older teens as convincingly as she wrote children, and in attempting to do an epic fantasy finale, she had to abandon the qualities that made the books so much fun to begin with
I do understand, and I'm sorry for any distress I might have caused you. Thank you for the informative reply. I learned more about you and what is considered "the discourse", which will definitely help me interact here.
I haven't thought about Harry Potter at length for a very long time.
I was into other novels mostly. Other than Warrior Cats and Narnia I tended to not care for series. Too often, the library would have like, the first book, the second, and the fifth, or something.
One of the things that I liked about Animorphs (and don't you even dare bring up Deboss) is that when they had the 'maturing' bit at the end of the series, they pulled out all the stops
Things got dire in Half-Blood and Hallows, I can't see Harry Potter doing the 'forced to ask help from the military' bit or 'enlisting untrained rookies en masse out of desperation' bit.
Perhaps, Tach, you're right in that the story relies on elements that can't work in the mature setting that the story takes in the last part of the series. A child being destined to slay the big bad, a stone that gives immortality, things that can work well enough in standard fantasy but not in the gritty magic wars of the last two books. Compare to Animorphs, which dabbles in the harsh stuff a bit more before the last ten books.
It was book #32 that was missing in my library. I remember because I didn't want to read the final books until I finished everything that came before them
either that series didn't mature fast enough for me, or i got into it too late: i just kinda gave up on them when i realized how rapidly new books were coming out and yet no conclusion seemed forthcoming, and then my interests moved elsewhere
Comments
Some of the lore and strategy stuff can be interesting.
especially when i first got here, prolly why i never took to irc
Funny you should mention it: since getting into Destiny I used to almost never play the competitive multiplayer because I was crappy at it and I wasn't interested in getting embarrassed, but I started watching people play it themselves on YouTube after I stopped.
The effect it had on my playing was immediately noticeable the next time I tried. I am still a scrub, but I got gud! #blessed
...come to think of this, this whole "just engaging with peripherals rather than the thing itself" describes a lot of what ive been interested in over the years
MLP for one thing
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
that's true i think this is a fair complaint, and the thing about the editors is probably accurate
Especially with Animorphs.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
no, can you elaborate on it, please?
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead