RPGWatch Feature: Book Review - The Stolen Throne

Originally Posted by zakhal
Dragonlance vs "The-drow-that-shall-not-be-named". One gritty the another not but both high fantasy. Just a thought.

DL is gritty?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first question.

The irony factor.

You have a different taste than those who like this book, apparently. You seem to be the one having difficulty accepting that.

Nope, I'm saying that some people have terrible taste. If everything is subjective, then why exactly isn't anyone saying that GUYder is just as good as Shakespeare? Such a statement would be pure delusion and the person'd have to be illiterate to make it, but hey, if everything is subjective, all the time, all the way--then someone should be able to convincingly argue that GUYder is Shakespeare incarnate, surely? There are no standards, after all.

By the way, Daikatana is the best game ever, Titanic was a feat of cinematic genius, and Britney Spears outshines Mozart/Bach/et al, don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Essaliad
The irony factor.

I still don't really get it

Nope, I'm saying that some people have terrible taste.

Not objectively, no.

In your opinion, they can have bad taste - but unfortunately your opinion is but that.

If everything is subjective, then why exactly isn't anyone saying that GUYder is just as good as Shakespeare?

It could be that no one has that opinion of his writing.

Such a statement would be pure delusion and the person'd have to be illiterate to make it, but hey, if everything is subjective, all the time, all the way--then someone should be able to convincingly argue that GUYder is Shakespeare incarnate, surely? There are no standards, after all.

Saying a person is actually Shakespeare is not really a matter of taste though, and many would consider it factually wrong. Personally, I'd have to hear arguments before deciding if those two could be one and the same, but I wouldn't necessarily rule it out

By the way, Daikatana is the best game ever and Titanic was a feat of cinematic genius, don't you agree?

I don't agree, no, but I'm sure there are some who do

Is it a problem for you if some people have those as their favorites? If so, then why do you think that is?

Originally Posted by Essaliad
Nope, I'm saying that some people have terrible taste. If everything is subjective, then why exactly isn't anyone saying that GUYder is just as good as Shakespeare? Such a statement would be pure delusion and the person'd have to be illiterate to make it, but hey, if everything is subjective, all the time, all the way--then someone should be able to convincingly argue that GUYder is Shakespeare incarnate, surely? There are no standards, after all.

You can't argue that Gaider has had an impact as great as Shakespeare, or that the level of writing has the same depth.

However, that is all completely irrelevant as far as taste goes. You can't say that someone has "terrible taste" if they enjoy Game of Thrones more than Romeo & Juliet - I certainly enjoy almost every fantasy book significantly more than Romeo & Juliet. In fact, I don't even enjoy Romeo & Juliet, as I find it exceptionally boring.

Salvatore will never achieve the same depth that Shakespeare did, but I have enjoyed every single book he has published more than I enjoyed anything Shakespeare ever wrote (despite the fact that Salvatore is mass producing books like a factory). That is because I prefer fantasy/sci-fi when reading. It is a matter of taste.

Originally Posted by Essaliad
By the way, Daikatana is the best game ever, Titanic was a feat of cinematic genius, and Britney Spears outshines Mozart/Bach/et al, don't you agree?

There's no arguing that the complexity of the music of Bach/Mozart/Grieg/etc is far greater than anything Britney Spears could ever achieve. However, you can't say that someone has terrible taste for preferring to listen to Spears over Bach. Personally, I prefer rock/hard rock/heavy metal over classical music. Nothing wrong with that. It's a matter of taste.

You can analyze most things, writing and music included, on a fairly objective level, to determine the complexity and depth. However, depth and complexity does not automatically result in more enjoyment for the viewer/reader/listener, and so taste is still independant from such analyzes.

Originally Posted by Maylander
You can't argue that Gaider has had an impact as great as Shakespeare, or that the level of writing has the same depth.

Actually, I'm sure you could - it'd just be a very "interesting" argument

Personally, I think this question about tastes should be more seen as a question of complexity/simplicity.
E.g. when I was young I didn´t like Roquefort. I´m pretty sure it was because I was able to distinguish only between basic tastes like sweet, salty, etc. but since Roquefort´s taste can´t be really described by any of these, I was confused and just not able to appreciate it. My taste simply wasn´t developed enough.

I think with art it´s quite similar.
Some people just can´t process anything more than basic chord progressions and harmonies and anything more complex just won´t provoke reaction other than confusion and rejection.
It´s similar with films, paintings, books, etc.

This of course doesn´t mean that simple = bad or complex = good.
It´s just that the people who whose brain can process more layers are just able to put things into a better perspective, one could say their taste is more refined.

People who think that Britney Spears is better than Bach just have undeveloped, limited taste. I have no problem if someone equals that with terrible though.

Also, it´s much easier to develop products for people with undeveloped tastes.

Originally Posted by DeepO
Personally, I think this question about tastes should be more seen as a question of complexity/simplicity.
E.g. when I was young I didn´t like Roquefort. I´m pretty sure it was because I was able to distinguish only between basic tastes like sweet, salty, etc. but since Roquefort´s taste can´t be really described by any of these, I was confused and just not able to appreciate it. My taste simply wasn´t developed enough.

I think with art it´s quite similar.
Some people just can´t process anything more than basic chord progressions and harmonies and anything more complex just won´t provoke reaction other than confusion and rejection.
It´s similar with films, paintings, books, etc.

This of course doesn´t mean that simple = bad or complex = good.
It´s just that the people who whose brain can process more layers are just able to put things into a better perspective, one could say their taste is more refined.

People who think that Britney Spears is better than Bach just have undeveloped, limited taste. I have no problem if someone equals that with terrible though.

Also, it´s much easier to develop products for people with undeveloped tastes.

That may be the most conceited thing I've heard in a long time

You excede even myself at my best - and I think you deserve a prize of some sort.

The effect on me by reading this thread isn't encouraging at all.

To me, as someone who wants to write hgis own books and novels - fantasy novels - reading through this thread is lkike "we'll show you how many Über-Authors you'll have to battle if you'll ever be so bold as to try to publish your own stories. Let go all hopes and leave it to the Novel-Meisters !"

This is how this thread appears to me.

At least I can say that I've grown at least enough self-confidence that enables me to just go on - even if I might never publish anything commercially …

As a sidenote, no matter how bad my taste is, there is ONE fantasy novel I absolutely adore : It's "Thera's Awakening" which came with Stonekeep.

It is in fact to most of you an absolutely horrible and flat story, but I love love love and adore this book. It has a speacial place on my book-shelves where I also store similar personal "Treasures" (Like Momo, The Neverending Story, The Old Man And Mr. Smith …).

Originally Posted by DeepO
Personally, I think this question about tastes should be more seen as a question of complexity/simplicity.
E.g. when I was young I didn´t like Roquefort. I´m pretty sure it was because I was able to distinguish only between basic tastes like sweet, salty, etc. but since Roquefort´s taste can´t be really described by any of these, I was confused and just not able to appreciate it. My taste simply wasn´t developed enough.

I think with art it´s quite similar.
Some people just can´t process anything more than basic chord progressions and harmonies and anything more complex just won´t provoke reaction other than confusion and rejection.
It´s similar with films, paintings, books, etc.

This of course doesn´t mean that simple = bad or complex = good.
It´s just that the people who whose brain can process more layers are just able to put things into a better perspective, one could say their taste is more refined.

People who think that Britney Spears is better than Bach just have undeveloped, limited taste. I have no problem if someone equals that with terrible though.

Also, it´s much easier to develop products for people with undeveloped tastes.

If this was the case, it would be very easy to predict what taste people had based on their intelligence (i.e highly intelligent people all listen to classical music, such as Bach/Mozart).

This is just not the case however. Taste differs, regardless of intellect. I have met some upper class, pompous people that seemed to think taste somehow made them more intelligent (one of them actually reminded me of Hyacinth Bucket, oh sorry, Bouquet), but in most cases it just makes them look silly.

There are many factors involved in what people prefer - culture, religion, childhood, various influences from parents/friends/school. No single factor can explain why someone likes or dislikes particular music, food, books, etc, and there's certainly no such thing as "right" or "wrong" taste. It's arrogant to believe that ones taste is somehow more correct, more refined or more developed than others.

That being said - I do believe that some things have a higher minimum requirement to be understood and appreciated (Bach vs The Beatles), but being able to understand something doesn't mean you enjoy it.

It's also that tastes are acquired. You like what you learn to like, and you can learn to like other things, after which the things you used to like might seem like trite, boring, simple, maudlin, or whatever. I think it's this kind of evolution that makes it very tempting to say that people who like Bruckner have more refined tastes than people who like ABBA (and people who like Scriabin have more refined tastes than people who like Bruckner).

Perhaps it's even true, from a certain point of view.

Originally Posted by Maylander
If this was the case, it would be very easy to predict what taste people had based on their intelligence (i.e highly intelligent people all listen to classical music, such as Bach/Mozart).

This is just not the case however. Taste differs, regardless of intellect. I have met some upper class, pompous people that seemed to think taste somehow made them more intelligent (one of them actually reminded me of Hyacinth Bucket, oh sorry, Bouquet), but in most cases it just makes them look silly.

There are many factors involved in what people prefer - culture, religion, childhood, various influences from parents/friends/school. No single factor can explain why someone likes or dislikes particular music, food, books, etc, and there's certainly no such thing as "right" or "wrong" taste. It's arrogant to believe that ones taste is somehow more correct, more refined or more developed than others.

That being said - I do believe that some things have a higher minimum requirement to be understood and appreciated (Bach vs The Beatles), but being able to understand something doesn't mean you enjoy it.

Well, if you want my view of DeepO's rather "interesting" argument, it has little or nothing to do with an overall "level of understanding" or complex reading necessarily having higher "requirements" than what the average human being can manage. Average as in being able to read and understand the words used in the text.

It has to do with personal preference, obviously, but that's typically based on your level and specifically nature of… here it comes…. INTEREST.

Some people are more interested in gaming/reading/wine/food/movies than others - and some people enjoy "simple" examples of their passions, even if they're the most gifted people in the world.

One way of completely nullifying this theory DeepO has, for instance, is that there are people (quite a lot of them, probably) who enjoy BOTH "simple" reading like The Stolen Throne AND "complex/deep" reading like Shakespeare. What's more, they enjoy it at the same level - just in different ways. Just like food or sex can sometimes be best when it's the most basic and simple versions

Now, how could that be if your ability to appreciate "complex/deep" entertainment/pleasures was directly related to your capacity for such things. Why would you enjoy simple things that should be beneath you.

It's a childish point of view that, to me, indicates a profound lack of understanding of human nature.

I, personally, tend to enjoy "deep/complex" games a lot more than simple ones, but that has nothing (or very little) to do with my intellect. It has to do with me being an enthusiast gamer who has spent endless years conditioning myself to a certain kind of experience and developing a very specific taste in games.

By that same token, I can enjoy "simple" and "unsophisticated" reading material or even movies - because I don't have the same requirements. It doesn't mean I'm stupid or that I have a lower capacity. Note that while I haven't read much in recent years, I've watched MANY MANY movies - but guess what, my interest level is lower and different than my interest level in games. I have some things that I require in movies - but it doesn't have to do with "complexity" or "depth". More like plausibility and "true" art.

It's very basic human psychology, and it really CAN be summed up by having different tastes or preferences.

It's not quite as simple as all that of course, but that's the gist of it. I won't get into the prestige aspect - where my theory is that some people actually enjoy "sophisticated" food/wine/games/reading/whatever more simply because they believe there's some kind of prestige in that, and for some reason that enhances their sense of pleasure in a way that is indistinguishable from "actual" enjoyment. It probably IS actual enjoyment. I wouldn't know - it's just not something I can relate to.

I'm willing to bet that most of the people in this thread - even the ones with complex, refined tastes - don't spend most of their time listening to Bach. Most probably listen to something more contemporary on a regular basis - be it metal, rock, pop, blues or whatever. So, I think we've proven almost everyone here - even the highbrow refined ones - have bad taste.

And since that's clearly a stupid conclusion, the answer must be that taste is subjective and not simply bound to one's intelligence.

Intelligence is a many-splendored thing. I'm fairly certain that some people have an inherently greater and deeper capacity for music-appreciation than others. My father, for example, is passionate about music in a way that I'm not -- he can be moved or transported by a piece of music in ways that I just… can't. IMO it wouldn't be unfair to say that he has greater music intelligence than I do. He's also more talented mathematically than I am, which I think may not be a coincidence.

Oh, and he hardly listens to any "light" music at all; there are a few singer-songwriters he doesn't actually despise (mostly because of the poetry), and he doesn't object to Cuban music -- Omara Portuondo, Ibrahim Ferrer etc. -- but he almost never puts on even those. When he listens to music -- which is a lot -- it's almost always classical.

(Oh, and, it's plain as day to him that people who (also) like Metallica have terribly bad taste. When it comes to light music, his reaction is simply a disbelieving "But… this… is… STUPID!" Me, for example. He still hasn't lost hope, though, and is treating me and my wife to a performance of Wagner's Parsifal in Dresden next spring, so I'm not complaining…)

Originally Posted by Dhruin
And since that's clearly a stupid conclusion, the answer must be that taste is subjective and not simply bound to one's intelligence.

Thank you DH.

I was wondering if I should of checked to see if I was even allowed on this forum.

I like you guys, but come on, some of us don't like the "refined" things in life. Give me a good game, maybe some beer every now and then, my cat, my girlfriend and I'm a happy man. Does that make my tastes bad? No, I don't believe so.

Some of us like tacky things, some like B horror movies, some like Bach, some like the Rolling Stones, some love the ballet, some love the theatre. Who am I or others to judge which is in bad taste and which is the best?

Yeah, it was getting pretty ridiculous for a minute there.




Excuse me while I swap my Metallica CDs….

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Intelligence is a many-splendored thing. I'm fairly certain that some people have an inherently greater and deeper capacity for music-appreciation than others. My father, for example, is passionate about music in a way that I'm not -- he can be moved or transported by a piece of music in ways that I just… can't. IMO it wouldn't be unfair to say that he has greater music intelligence than I do. He's also more talented mathematically than I am, which I think may not be a coincidence.

Oh, and he hardly listens to any "light" music at all; there are a few singer-songwriters he doesn't actually despise (mostly because of the poetry), and he doesn't object to Cuban music -- Omara Portuondo, Ibrahim Ferrer etc. -- but he almost never puts on even those. When he listens to music -- which is a lot -- it's almost always classical.

(Oh, and, it's plain as day to him that people who (also) like Metallica have terribly bad taste. When it comes to light music, his reaction is simply a disbelieving "But… this… is… STUPID!" Me, for example. He still hasn't lost hope, though, and is treating me and my wife to a performance of Wagner's Parsifal in Dresden next spring, so I'm not complaining…)

Could it not be that his interest in music is simply greater and different as well?

Why do you insist it's about any kind of intelligence?

I guess if what you say is true, there must be some kind of "gaming" intelligence. If I ever have children, I suppose I would appear "gamingly superior" to them if they couldn't handle System Shock.

Music has changed, and some people like this change others don't. You can call it "devolution" if you wish, but I'm not so sure.

I personally think we have musical artists today that are just as gifted as Mozart or whomever - they just make different music, and you're not less intelligent because you appreciate modern music more.

That's my take, anyway.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Could it not be that his interest in music is simply greater and different as well?

Why do you insist it's about any kind of intelligence?

From his explanation of how he discovered music. He comes from a working-class background where tastes were not "refined" at all. He tells me that he was about twelve or thirteen when he first heard classical music, and he says that that experience was something that was profoundly transformational; he speaks of it in almost religious terms. I have simply never gotten that kind of kick out of any kind of music, and I have great trouble appreciating complex music without a fairly lengthy period of "acclimatizing" myself to it. IOW, I get a strong impression that we're not talking (only) about interest and experience, but also about some innate capacity or talent -- "intelligence" if you will.

I guess if what you say is true, there must be some kind of "gaming" intelligence. If I ever have children, I suppose I would appear "gamingly superior" to them if they couldn't handle System Shock.

Sure, why not?

Music has changed, and some people like this change others don't. You can call it "devolution" if you wish, but I'm not so sure.

Heh, *he* does, for sure. He just used that exact term in a rather heated conversation last summer. My theory is simpler -- over time, the bad stuff tends to get forgotten while the good stuff tends to stick around, so if a 300-year-old piece of music is still being played, the simple fact of its survival indicates that it's likelier to be good than a random piece composed today.

I personally think we have musical artists today that are just as gifted as Mozart or whomever - they just make different music, and you're not less intelligent because you appreciate modern music more.

That's my take, anyway.

Probably. I wouldn't know, since I don't have the capability to tell -- I'm just not smart that way.

Well, I agree with almost everything that has been said above, seems like my post was a bit misunderstood, probably due to my highly unrefined writing .
I was basically just trying to address this question:

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Is it a problem for you if some people have those as their favorites? If so, then why do you think that is?

However,

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
One way of completely nullifying this theory DeepO has, for instance, is that there are people (quite a lot of them, probably) who enjoy BOTH "simple" reading like The Stolen Throne AND "complex/deep" reading like Shakespeare. What's more, they enjoy it at the same level - just in different ways. Just like food or sex can sometimes be best when it's the most basic and simple versions

Where did this come from?
In my post I even said "This of course doesn´t mean that simple = bad or complex = good. "

Basically, I´m just of opinion that people with more "developed" tastes have probably more diverse portfolio to enjoy, well, at least if they don´t loose the ability to enjoy more simple things in the process.
Janáček and Iron Maiden ftw.

Also, I never connoted levels of "taste refinement" to levels of intelligence.
If anything, interest is much more important factor, and maybe, eh, emotional responsiveness.

DeepO likes his Epicureanism I think.

I like Bach and Mozart, but I also like Iron Maiden, Metallica, Rush, Queensryche, Boston, etc. I think my guilty pleasure is 80's pop music. I love it to death.

When it comes to books, I enjoy my high-minded reading (Locke, Hobbes, etc) but sometimes I just want to read a novel where some guy shoots a bunch of zombies.

Originally Posted by Essaliad
DL is gritty?

No I meant the other one. DL was the "not gritty one".

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Intelligence is a many-splendored thing. I'm fairly certain that some people have an inherently greater and deeper capacity for music-appreciation than others. My father, for example, is passionate about music in a way that I'm not -- he can be moved or transported by a piece of music in ways that I just… can't. IMO it wouldn't be unfair to say that he has greater music intelligence than I do. He's also more talented mathematically than I am, which I think may not be a coincidence.

Unlike in my younger days I dont listen music at all nowadays - havent for like 5-6 years. Its not that I dont get "moved" by it but more like the fact that I dont want to get "moved".

I do enjoy music mixed with i.e games or movies but alone its just boring and unnecessery. Silence ftw!

As for math skills I did study math in university allthough Im not particulary skilled in it. Also I have absolutely no musical talent. I wasnt able to play flute even in primary school.