Ron's clarifications over in The Roots of Sim (Response to Nar Essay) (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9542&highlight=) are very important if pastiche is to become part of The Forge lexicon.
Quote1. Non-Narrativist play which produces a story does not necessarily produce pastiche. It often does, and there are some easy-to-understand reasons why it tends that way.
2. Narrativist play, which does tend to produce stories reliably, may well produce pastiche in doing so. However, it lacks some of the reasons that other forms of play tend to produce pastiche.
The following two points. Firstly, that pastiche is both a form and a technique. The Wasteland by T S Elliott relies on pastiche heavily for effect. The whole of post-modernism, as a movement, is reliant on it. Jazz would struggle without it. Pastiche is part of the satirical tradition (though people tend to mislable the latter as parody, even if it involves no element of exaggeraton) - which is all to say that pastiche is a valid literary form and has produced some highly effective works of art.
Further, Quentin Tarantino is an exemplar of pastiche. Within the world of SF one could reference Philip Jose Farmer's retelling of Tarzen - Edgar Rice Burroughs in the style of William S. Back to pop cuture: a great deal of delight can be taken from The Simpson's use of visual pastiche.
Pastiche is a way of quoting and evoking. As a technique is can be used well or badly. As an adjective, it should be considered as value-nuetral, it's use descriptive not judgmental.
Secondly, role playing
in all modes is heavily reliant on pastiche. Let's do the GNS boogie:
G - Hackmaster is a pastiche of AD&D
N - Over the Edge is a very eclectic pastiche but the Burroughs rather leaps out
S - Vampire (1st Ed) is heavily reliant on pastiche of Anne Rice.
Further: D&D's Forgotten Realms, RoS's Weyrth, WHFRP Old World and 7th Sea's Theah all pastiche historical nations.
And the Forge Boogie: My Life with Master (Gothic Romances), Donjon (D&D), Elfs (ditto), and so on.
I would close with a sincere hope: that people refrain from using pastiche in a pejorative sense and that especially that people do not mistakenly associate pastiche with simulationism.
Hiya,
I dunno, Ian, it seems to me that you are saying one very good thing and one kind of off-base thing.
The good thing is the value-neutral part - or perhaps more accurately, keeping a jugment about pastiche personal and taking responsibility for it, rather than expecting anyone or everyone to share/accept that judgment.
E.g., when it comes to certain art forms (novels), I loathe pastiche. But in certain action movies, I like it once in a while. And in other movies, specifically romantic comedies, I vastly prefer the pastiche to the core material.
So do I make value judgments, using phrases like "merely pastiche, pish-posh" and so on? Yeah. But they are only indicators of my parameters for satisfaction, and my failing, if I did it, would be to expect my like/not-like to drive others' judgments.
Now, the off-base thing, in my view, is that you seem to be equating pastiche with "influence." If Thelonius Monk refines and extracts the features of certain blues tunes, then expresses them in the most minimalist ker-tunk playing possible ... is that pastiche? I tend not to think so; that thought is based on the idea that Monk's music is listenable without knowing its blues-roots.
(A certain form of conoisseurship does exist which demands such an in-depth knowledge, but it is, I think, so objectionable to the rest of us that I shall cruelly discount it.)
I thought that my dialogue with Jesse covered this issue, that "well then it's all pastiche unless it's 100% original" isn't a necessary conclusion.
Best,
Ron
From my limited understandings of the game, I would some that were listed wern't pastiche-dependant.
1. Hackmaster is a parody of D&D/traditional gaming. The traditionial definition of pastiche is connected to satire and parody so, yes, it being full of pastiche is ingrained in the concept.
2. Over The Edge: It definatrely has some sense of pastiche in it, yes, taking cocnepts from burroughs and presenting them to drum up those feelings in his fans. But other parts of the game are more about a burroughs-esque theme, of being an odd character in a really odd island with conspiracies tripping over each other.
3. Vampire: Very Pastiche-dependant, your call was spot on. in the Vampire book there's lots of cases where you're presented with things from an odd collections of Vampire films, and it says that you're supposed to feel a certain way about them, validating it's arguement by the feelings that were expressed in the original medium.
4. My life with Master: I'd say calling it pastiche is Waaaaaaay off. Gothic romances are usually based on similar themes, settings and situation. My Life with Master is a Gothic Romance RPG. In using the Gothic Romance genre, it by default uses the themes, settings and situations that are default to it. Because of this the game will usually produce elements that are very much similar to gothic romances, but that doesn't make it pastiche. For example, in Bram Strokers Dracula, we're not scared of Dracula because him living in a european castle reminds us of Frankenstien giving us the chills.
Hi there,
Sirogit, nice calls. I agree with your assessments in full.
Best,
Ron
I should add the caveat that some of the games mentioned, I know by reputation rather than play. Frex, the accounts of play I've come across for Hackmaster don't suggest much parody is going on, rather that the play is sincere. So I may not be 100% accurate on all counts, and opinions will of course vary on how much of each game is pastiche, how much in an original voice. For me, the minions + master set up of MLWM relied on prior understanding of motifs gothic lit/movies in order to energise those motifs in play. That there may be far more to that game than that - and that the 'far more' is original rather than pastiche - is fine.
Similarly, jazz isn't my area of expertise. I had the impression that people playing jazz sometimes 'quote' other kinds of music, then do variations on those 'quotes' - and produce tunes reliant on those quotes for effect. But if someone more knowledgable about jazz wants to say, sure they do that but not in the sense or extent that 'pastiche' would indicate, then I'll go along with that quite happily.
Which is to say, I find no specific value in any one of the examples in my post, but rather I think the argumentative force comes from the number of them. That (a) there's an awful lot of literature and music and painting that is reliant on pastiche for effect and some part of that awful lot is good literature and music and painting and that furthermore (b) role playing games feature pastiche, through all modes. Arguing that sim games tend to feature pastiche more heavily or centrally than narrativist games is, I don't know, not much of an area of concern for me.
I guess you could boil my entire first post down to - let's not use pastiche to mean the use of genre cliche - with a corollary of lets not reject pastiche when it can be so damn good used right.
I would go so far as to say the pastiche nature of RPGs is what attracts me to them. Basically, they take icons in pop culture, smelt them, and make a new monstrosity complete with character sheets for those of us who can appreciate such a thing. D&D is pastiche of various forms of fantasy, mythology, and folklore with a psychotically violent twist. However, regardless of what quirks and flaws it has, it is an honest expression of these fantasy trends that has been made into something uniquely its own. I never liked the RPGs based on some other piece of fiction. Aside from Star Wars, it doesn't seem like they usually do very well. I'd just as soon play Traveller, or play Aberrant instead of Marvel, or Vampire instead of Buffy, or Unknown Armies instead of MIB. Not that I dislike any of the other fictional sources (except Buffy--blechh), but I so much prefer helping create something completely new and original instead. Maybe it doesn't make any sense, but I prefer to meld various sources of inspiration into something new. It lets people put their own intepretation on it. I kind of like the dorky arguments I have with gamers about what Clan the Lost Boys belong to (Ravnos, btw), or whether Legolas is a Ranger or a Fighter with bow specialization. Seeing new sources that you can fit into that pastiche spark all kinds of new ideas. It takes on a life of its own instead of borrowing the life of a TV series or movie or comic book.
I definitely don't think there's any shame in relying on pastiches. It doesn't mean you're being unoriginal or ripping someone off. I think there is something to be said for how talented someone is at sticking all these things together in a coherent manner that gives the desired impression of the underlying theme.
Quote from: sirogit2. Over The Edge: It definatrely has some sense of pastiche in it, yes, taking cocnepts from burroughs and presenting them to drum up those feelings in his fans. But other parts of the game are more about a burroughs-esque theme, of being an odd character in a really odd island with conspiracies tripping over each other.
3. Vampire: Very Pastiche-dependant, your call was spot on. in the Vampire book there's lots of cases where you're presented with things from an odd collections of Vampire films, and it says that you're supposed to feel a certain way about them, validating it's arguement by the feelings that were expressed in the original medium.
You seem to be using this to promote a negative view of pastiche in opposition to Ian's original point. For example, you characterize Over the Edge's use of earlier tropes as simply trying to drum up feeling in fans of Burroughs. Ian's point was that a reference doesn't just have to be a way to weakly ride on another's coattails -- it can be a transformative expression. Satire is one example of this, but there are many others. For example, the Cut-Ups Project is a reference to the artistic movement of Dadaism. Within the game-world, the Cut-Ups are trying to change reality in the same way that the Dadaists were trying to change art. As presented in the main book, I think this isn't going to be very interesting without knowing about Dadaism. But I also think it isn't just an attempt to score points by putting in a reference.
From my own experience, I know that I ran a Star Trek game which was full of references to the original series. Like OtE, I think it used those references to reinterpret and add new meaning to the events it was referencing. In particular, I projected the view of the Federation as a democracy. It was sort of assumed in the series that the Federation was a democracy, but the series also projected the idea that the Federation had fixed ideals. In my campaign, we saw discord and political maneuvering over those ideals.
I think the same is true of Vampire: The Masquerade. While I am not fond of the mechanics or the pretentious tone, I think the game itself is still a separate artistic work which has its own meaning. I think the primary difference from OtE isn't in the backgroudn, but rather that OtE has an open-ended character generation system which allows a much broader range of PCs. For V:tM, the social structure it invents for vampires changes vastly the view of vampires in Anne Rice. I dislike the message in the categories, but it is its own work. While Rice celebrated the destructive individuality of rebels, Vampire: The Masquerade seems to take up the side of the conformists. So while I don't like it, I do think it is a transformative work of pastiche.
Hello,
John, I think you're poorly addressing Sirogit's comments. He identifies Over the Edge as being low-pastiche, very much in line with the "interpretation of influence" that you are describing.
More importantly, you interject "simply" into your paraphrase of his statement, as a judgment on his part which he, in fact, did not present.
I consider your inference of a negative judgment to be (a) not justified and (b) generally a form of argument which I as moderator am not going to permit further from anyone in discussions at the Forge.
In the future, when your point relies on "just knowing" that there "seems" to be an "implication" - without direct and clear verbiage of the meaning you're inferring in the post - please refrain from incorporating that perception (I use the term loosely) on your part into your reply.
Best,
Ron
Hi Ian,
Quote... you could boil my entire first post down to - let's not use pastiche to mean the use of genre cliche - with a corollary of lets not reject pastiche when it can be so damn good used right.
Well, let's look at this a little more. "Genre cliche" ... what does it mean when you remove the film-snob negative judgment from it?
It means what I'm saying pastiche
is: presentation of familiar tropes which convey meaning mainly due to that familiarity with specific past presentations. And that's no bad thing. It's not the same as a story which stands on its own two feet, but that doesn't mean it's (a) morally bankrupt, (b) fit only for stupid people, (c) lazy, or (d) unsophisticated.
Can that be done well? Sure! As I said before, I like romantic comedy pastiche better than I like romantic comedy - e.g. Sleepless in Seattle, which is way more enjoyable for me than most of the movies it draws from.
If you want, check back on my essay Simulationism: the Right to Dream, and I think you'll find this point in it, waiting to give you a big hug.
John, I definitely agree with you about the
transformative nature of the kind of literature/etc you're talking about. Once that phenomenon is identified, I think the work in question isn't pastiche any more at all, though. The "comment" becomes an original theme of its own.
Whether Vampire qualifies in that regard, I think we can chalk up to differences of interpretation & judgment of the work.
Best,
Ron[/quote]
Quote from: Ron EdwardsIt means what I'm saying pastiche is: presentation of familiar tropes which convey meaning mainly due to that familiarity with specific past presentations. And that's no bad thing.
...
John, I definitely agree with you about the transformative nature of the kind of literature/etc you're talking about. Once that phenomenon is identified, I think the work in question isn't pastiche any more at all, though. The "comment" becomes an original theme of its own.
Well, it is according to your definition as phrased. For example, my Star Trek game
required familiarity with the Star Trek original series. It didn't stand on its own two feet, as you put it. Someone who wasn't familiar with the original series simply wouldn't have understood what was going on. However, it also had original theme of its own -- because the same tropes were cast in a new light by the addition of other elements.
If you limit the definition of "pastiche" to be solely presentation which adds nothing to the original, then I disagree with the conclusion that it is no bad thing. It is bad. It is fundamentally less interesting than just viewing the original material over again.
Hi John,
QuoteIf you limit the definition of "pastiche" to be solely presentation which adds nothing to the original, then I disagree with the conclusion that it is no bad thing. It is bad. It is fundamentally less interesting than just viewing the original material over again.
Wow, that's a personal call, don't you think? I mean, the "bad" part?
I'm not much of a relativist, in that I usually think "Well, whatever each person thinks is the right thing for them, la-di-da," is a moronic outlook. But in this case, I'm willing to spot each person his or her own tolerance level for pastiche in their creative leisure time.
It seems to me, by your account, that your Star Trek game (I wasn't there, so I dunno for sure) went beyond pastiche or homage to a refinement or commentary of Star Trek per se. Or maybe it didn't; maybe it was the equivalent of what Sleepless in Seattle is to (um) Pretty Woman or The Wedding Singer: an especially
good pastiche (speaking personally). I'm totally willing to accept your evaluation that it was more like the former. Either way, though, isn't that ... well,
all right or not according to whatever the group really wanted it to be?
I'm sort of under the impression that Ian is aiming at a "let's not sneer at pastiche" point, and my attempted contribution is to say, "Right,
and let's not pull the wool over our eyes about what it is, either."
What's another way to put it ... ah! You've seen Forbidden Planet, I trust. Well, it's not real hard for me to see Star Trek apparently begin as a Forbidden Planet pastiche ("let's do FB as a TV show! yeah!")* ... and then, pretty much immediately, warp (heh) into something really its own, really
well, in my view (I like the old show a lot).
So influence, even extraordinarily direct influence, isn't pastiche. It may be that your Star Trek game would be more accessible to a hypothetical audience than you think, if the in-game events carried the integral power which (I have full faith) that your group brought to its
own setting/conventions/etc.
Ah! Here's another way to say it. (Ahem) Your preferred mode of role-playing, based on all your comments at the Forge, strikes me as rather intensely Narrativist (sub-set Vanilla), going by my model. I could be wrong, but just this once, bear with me. This happens to accord with my preferences, and
as a fellow artist, I agree with you about pastiche. I might enjoy it in limited doses as an audience member in some media, but I really, really don't take great pleasure in creating it.
"Hey Ron, do you like pastiche in your role-playing?"
"Verily, I doth spit upon it. Ptoo, ptoo."
But ... um ...
bad for me (or us) isn't, you know ...
bad. As I see it.
Best,
Ron
* Roddenberry-ites who are shocked by this non-fandom view of the origin of "their" show may refrain from responding. There are use-groups and chat-rooms for you to vent in.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsQuoteIf you limit the definition of "pastiche" to be solely presentation which adds nothing to the original, then I disagree with the conclusion that it is no bad thing. It is bad. It is fundamentally less interesting than just viewing the original material over again.
Wow, that's a personal call, don't you think? I mean, the "bad" part?
Well, that's sort of by definition. If it adds nothing, then yes it is bad. If it isn't bad, then it adds something.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsIt seems to me, by your account, that your Star Trek game (I wasn't there, so I dunno for sure) went beyond pastiche or homage to a refinement or commentary of Star Trek per se. Or maybe it didn't; maybe it was the equivalent of what Sleepless in Seattle is to (um) Pretty Woman or The Wedding Singer: an especially good pastiche (speaking personally).
Well, I liked "Sleepless in Seattle" as well, and I think it was so because it certainly was a commentary and refinement. The whole movie revolved around romantic images which are built up
by old romantic movies -- very specifically "An Affair To Remember", but many old romantic movies in general. This was explicit commentary, where the characters talked about love stories and how their vision of love was influenced by the movies which they watched. Part of the humor of the film is how Annie is a neurotic wreck over her idolization of the romance in old films -- but in turn Sam is equally screwed up over his refusal of that sort of cathartic release.
Now, I gather from context you're not one for romantic films in general. Probably you just watched it and thought "Oh, it throws together a bunch of tropes from other movies, but I kinda like it" without much analysis. And I would say that a good film doesn't require intellectual analysis of the themes and usage. You watch it and you think "Gee, that was cool" -- but what makes it cool is the many layers of meaning which go on underneath the surface. It doesn't just refer to "An Affair to Remember"; it uses it for its own themes.
In my opinion, the same is true of any other good pastiche.
A parallel example comes to mind from my Star Trek campaign. There was a point where they talked to a Klingon prisoner about propaganda. He pointed to a popular novel within that universe -- which was a parallel to Tom Clancy novels, but it also projected the swaggering, patriotic image of Kirk in certain original series episodes. This was part of the
fiction of the world. By comparing it with Klingon propaganda, the prisoner called into question how free thought really was in a supposedly 'free' society.
Hello,
Cheese and rice, John, is it possible to have a discussion with you without constantly being wary for your constant trivialization of the other's position?
Assume that I'm familiar with An Affair to Remember, and a multitude of other movies that influenced Sleepless in Seattle. Likewise assume that I employ at least moderately competent skills in appreciating its themes. You might not agree with my conclusion ("Sleepless in Seattle" is enjoyable pastiche), but you don't have to, for purposes of the discussion. You are required, at the Forge, to assume that the other person - every person you choose to reply to - is not a snap-judgment, superficial yipyapper.
For instance, it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree that this movie, specifically, represents classy pastiche or a sophisticated re-vamp re-tooling with its own legs ... what we're discussing is the former category. Pick your own example, if you must, and keep it in your own head, for purposes of the discussion. Quibbling about my example as a primary point is a digression from our shared attempt at mutual respect and understanding.
Clearly there's no real point in continuing when my questions (e.g. the Narrativist stuff) are ignored and the pointed trivializing tactics begin. Here's my last thought on this issue: You are of course free to consider pastiche (as I've defined it, which to my knowledge is nothing special or different from the ordinary definition of the word) a "bad" thing. I don't, although I dislike doing it, personally. We disagree. That's all right.
A recommendation for you: when the other person says something reasonable, say so. If it is apparently or evidently wrong, say so with respect, which is a great deal more important than mere courtesy. "Ron, that makes sense about Star Trek." Or, "Ron, I see what you're saying about Star Trek, but I disagree because of X." Or, "Ron, I don't understand you: your point about Star Trek seems nonsensical because of X. Can you explain it better?" Or finally, "Ron, that is demonstrably false because X can't work, as follows." (I chose the Star Trek example because you said nothing about my point.)
There is fog, composed of empty courtesy and well-constructed sentences, often hiding attempts to harm the other person's image and to elide the points they're making. Then there is respect, which cannot be faked and is absolutely required here.
Best,
Ron
I would first like to say that the dependance of pastiche, while having a heavy effect on the substance of medium and therefore a heavy effect on the medium's quality, is not correlatable to good/bad. I happen to like the style of MlwM which is pastiche-free and dislike the style of vampire which I find pastiche-heavy.
Though I agree with what was said about Over the Edge's pastiche having a transformative quality, I personally appreciate it's pastiche content as is, even though I don't think it's nessecary at all for the game in it's default settings. I loved Naked Lunch, The Early Routines, and other works by Burroughs, and I dig running into something in OtE that reminds me of it and gives me that sort of jolt. Infact, before I got into the indie roleplaying scene, someone recommended me OtE calling it "The William Burroughs RPG", and I thought, wow, cool, and today I have pretty much the same opinion.
Strangely enough, one of the few action films I've enjoyed was Con Air, and I've never seen Die Hard so it really can't remind me of anything from it. However, I've seen quite a few action films so I think it's possible that the Pastiches consistantly burrowed from Die Hard in action movies can make some sort of collective expiereince identical to actually viewing the original expiereince. I've felt like a similar process with reading alot of sub-standard fantasy books that involved pastiche from Elric eventually giving the pastiche a certain evocation.
Okay, this is clearly getting personal all around. I'm going to make a stab at clarification:
Quote from: Ron, in the Nar essay,It's not the "new-ness" of the Premise or theme, it's its presence and power in the particular story. Pastiche has no such presence or power, just reminders of them in other stories through common motifs. Many romantic comedies are indeed pastiche (some of them quite clever), but a certain number of them are not - and whether they say the same thing as, say, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes or The Devil and Miss Jones is irrelevant. The point is whether they as self-contained stories actually do say it, or anything at all.
What I thought Ian was saying at the outset of this thread was that pastiche can have its own "presence and power," dependent to a considerable degree on reference to other texts; I note his mention of postmodernism, and I think he means what's sometimes called the "depthless" character of postmodern texts. As I understand it, Ron's defined pastiche such that it cannot have this "presence and power," and it is this that I think Ian and John dispute.
Quote from: John KimIf you limit the definition of "pastiche" to be solely presentation which adds nothing to the original, then I disagree with the conclusion that it is no bad thing. It is bad. It is fundamentally less interesting than just viewing the original material over again.
If indeed the definition of pastiche amounts to pure rehash, without any possibility for "presence and power," even if it is something that the players in question enjoy, then I can see why John thinks this is a negative judgment.
If I understand correctly, John would like to expand the definition of pastiche such that it requires
(1) Extensive reference to specific exterior material, without which the pastiche would be incomprehensible and pointless; and
(2) Reworking and indeed rehashing of stock themes from that material.[/list:u]At the same time, John suggests that one can do all this and still have a partly original and dynamic game, novel, etc. That is, the limitations imposed by this definition need not be complete.
Questions:- If the definition were so expanded, would it collapse what Ron is doing with "pastiche," as a term and category, in the Nar. essay?
- If the definition cannot be so expanded, is it unreasonable to see pastiche as fundamentally a lesser category of product?
- Is this more limited structure in fact how Ron defines pastiche?
- Is this more expanded structure in fact how John would like to re-define pastiche?[/list:u]Frankly, I don't think anybody is trying to trivialize anyone else's points here, and I'm not sure why this has all gone so ugly so fast.
Chris Lehrich
Hello,
One thing my notions about role-playing cannot do is answer Great Big Ultimate Questions for anyone.
Chris, those questions about pastiche are Really Big Lit Questions. My take on them is logged, and so is John's. You've outlined those takes nicely.
But I think that debate stops there - if the discussion of role-playing brings the medium into the same realm of the discussion of (say) literature and film, to discover that the Same Big Questions exist for it, I call that a net gain.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: ChrisWhat I thought Ian was saying at the outset of this thread was that pastiche can have its own "presence and power," dependent to a considerable degree on reference to other texts; I note his mention of postmodernism, and I think he means what's sometimes called the "depthless" character of postmodern texts. As I understand it, Ron's defined pastiche such that it cannot have this "presence and power," and it is this that I think Ian and John dispute.
And pretty much nails my point. As long as there is general agreement that thematic freshness doesn't preclude pastiche as a technique - and that neither does pastiche preclude thematic freshness - I think we're all on the same page. Pynchon's Mason and Dixon is purist pastiche right from "Snowballs had flown their arcs - starr'd the sides of outbuildings" onwards. Every beautiful line of it. It's also startling fresh in the new use to which it puts the old style. None of its freshness precludes it from being a pastiche; none of its pastichery precludes it from being fresh.
But I think everyone gets that - which is why the thread has become a little choked by side issues.
I still don't understand what the heck pastiche is.
Quote from: Dictionary.com[list=1]- A dramatic, literary, or musical piece openly imitating the previous works of other artists, often with satirical intent.
- A pasticcio of incongruous parts; a hodgepodge: "In... a city of splendid Victorian architecture... there is a rather pointless pastiche of Dickensian London down on the waterfront" (Economist). [/list:o][/size]Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. [list=1]- a musical composition consisting of a series of songs or other musical pieces from various sources [syn: medley, potpourri]
- a work of art that imitates the style of some previous work[/list:o][/size]Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Now, if I understand correctly here, pastiche is somehow copying another work. Some example might be the bit in
Airplane! where the husband orders another cup of coffee and the wife thinks "Hmmm.. he never has a second cup at home" imitating a well-know coffee commercial from the time. (note how this joke hasn't aged well since a whole generation has since grown up who is unfamiliar with it)
The Simpsons was mentioned, and they often do this, playing a scene lifted straight from a popular movie, such as Homer yelling "Marge! Marge" in the Streetcar Named Desire episode. or the scene where Homer became annoyingly friendly with Flanders and he cases their car nearly exactly like a scene in Terminator 2.
To be honest, I don't get the Die Hard vs Passenger 57 example in the essay. The only one of the Die Hard knock-offs I had seen and recall is Under Siege, so I'll use that. THere's precious little these two movies have in common that they don't have with any other action movies. The similarities tended to come from the word-of-mouth over the film which described it as "Die Hard on a boat." And there is a similar deal of the lone hero in the wrong place at the right time in a confinded space. But this aside, Under Siege has little in common with Die Hard. Is this as much pastiche as the scenes so obviously stolen from other films in the Dungeons & Dragons movie?
Quote from: Jack Spencer JrNow, if I understand correctly here, pastiche is somehow copying another work. Some example might be the bit in Airplane! where the husband orders another cup of coffee and the wife thinks "Hmmm.. he never has a second cup at home" imitating a well-know coffee commercial from the time.
...
But this aside, Under Siege has little in common with Die Hard. Is this as much pastiche as the scenes so obviously stolen from other films in the Dungeons & Dragons movie?
I agree with your definition. Thus, for example, "Sleepless in Seattle" is a pastiche because (among other things) of how it openly has the romantic meeting at the top of the Empire State Building from "An Affair to Remember". I would agree that just being similar to another movie isn't pastiche. Pastiche is when you can see the direct borrowing (i.e. X from this movie, Y from that movie, etc.).
My general point is that, in a broad sense, what makes a good pastiche are the same things which make any other story good. Obviously there are special techniques which may apply to pastiche, but the same thing is true of any other category of art.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsYou might not agree with my conclusion ("Sleepless in Seattle" is enjoyable pastiche), but you don't have to, for purposes of the discussion. You are required, at the Forge, to assume that the other person - every person you choose to reply to - is not a snap-judgment, superficial yipyapper.
For instance, it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree that this movie, specifically, represents classy pastiche or a sophisticated re-vamp re-tooling with its own legs ... what we're discussing is the former category.
Ron, the problem is that I don't agree with your distinction. I'm not just quibbling over the example -- I'm saying that the example shows the general principle. In my opinion, those two categories are the same thing. A sophisticated re-vamp re-tooling
is a classy pastiche. Conversely, a classy, enjoyable pastiche is a classy, enjoyable story. Dissect it, take it apart, and under the hood you'll find the same things which make any other story good. It takes talent to create, and what makes it enjoyable is emotional connection to the material. It just uses the technique of taking recognizable elements to make its story work.
Jack
Pastiche allows both open imitation in the sense recontextualised quotes, and also open stylistic imitation.
To go all musical for a moment - both Singing in the Rain and Moulin Rouge are both pastiches because all of the songs in each one are drawn from other sources. The one "original" song in Moulin Rouge was originally written for another movie, although not actually used for it.
And for the stylistic side, I'll draw attention back to Mason and Dixon: it is pastiche because of the prose style, which specificly mimics the prose style of the period in which the events happen (i.e. Mason and Dixon surveying the eponymous line).
Hello,
John, I see your point, and it's one of those questions that various authorities on the topics can't seem to agree about either. I don't see any particular reason why (or how) it could be established here for role-playing.
Going back to my essay, as long as people are pretty comfortable (i.e. able to agree) with most identifications as pastiche and most as non-pastiche, that's good enough for my points there.
As I understand your position, and Ian's too, you're taking a post-modern enough position such that there really is no boundary between pastiche and non-pastiche at all among any stories - everything's been influenced, everything's a collection of previous work, and so on. Your stated distinction then becomes a matter how direct the influence is, which is pretty much the only variable such an outlook can identify. As I say, that's my understanding of the argument so far.
I don't especially agree with that position, but I also don't see why a disagreement has to be an issue. As I say, it doesn't threaten the basic points of that section of my essay.
What I'm interested in, from Ian especially, is whether my position has been articulated well enough so that it, too, may be understood as an available outlook on the topic.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron EdwardsWhat I'm interested in, from Ian especially, is whether my position has been articulated well enough so that it, too, may be understood as an available outlook on the topic.
Best,
Ron
I realize I'm not Ian, but there is one part of your position that I know I don't understand. I apologize, as I think I've become more confused the more I've read.
I understand the definition (I think) and its relationships to things such as satire, collage, and postmodernism. What I'm less sure about is where it attaches to GNS. Are you saying that Pastiche is a form of nar, that pastiche is not nar because it has story without story now, or that pastiche can happen in G, N, or S? Reading your article, I thought it was the first, but now I think it may be the third. I know this isn't the deepest question, but you asked if your position was clear, and few things are ever clear to me :)
Hi Nick,
Easy answer, I hope: I think that pastiche is a potential outcome of making stories.
That means that any story-making process may turn up pastiche. (And no, I don't know if any specific such process literally must or literally cannot. Big Mystery.)
For role-playing, remember, I suggest that the transcript of play may be a story no matter which mode is being employed.
So that means any mode of play may produce story, and any story may turn out to be pastiche.
I suggest that Narrativist play has a mighty high likelihood of turning up a story and also that there's no inherent properties of this mode that favor pastiche.
I suggest that Simulationist play has either a very low or a very high likelihood of turning up a story (depending on what's being primarily Explored), and that if it does so, this mode has features that tend to favor pastiche.
And finally, Gamism is a bit up for grabs in this regard, but I suspect that pastiche may be common in Gamist-generated stories for a couple of reasons, not the least because it's easier to use components of pastiche for agreed-upon contexts for Challenge.
So my answer to you is, "the third." I think that if you re-read the Narrativist essay, you'll see that the same answer is present there.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron EdwardsWhat I'm interested in, from Ian especially, is whether my position has been articulated well enough so that it, too, may be understood as an available outlook on the topic.
I'm also not Ian, but if I understand correctly you're using the term pastiche where most people in roleplaying terms use the word genre. i.e. someone says "fantasy genre" they usually mean RPG fantasy or D&D fantasy which is a pastiche of various fantasy novels and the like.
Not that I'm criticizing the change in terms per se. Terms tend to be a, damned if you do damned if you don't, sort of mess.
thank you for clarifying that. The transcription of play was very helpful as well.
Hello,
Nick: You're welcome!
Jack: Nah, I think "genre" doesn't have to be pastiche. Part of that is because I think "genre" is a horrid term, as you know, and part of it is because people are always presenting audiences with non-pastiche in what looks like a worn-out genre.
Best,
Ron
Yeah, Ron, absolutely, I think that this is shaking out as a matter of taste and preference in terms of how much one likes pastiche and how valuable pastiche is. I also agree that there are, inherant in sim, elements that could make pastiche more likely.
So, your position on pastiche is understandable and valid, but it just happens to differ from my position. And I agree that the differences here probably transcend our opinions on rpgs and extend into broader appreciation of art territory.
(On that topic, and as an aside, I do think there is a difference between pastiche and non-pastiche, and I have to confess, for the purpose of the thread, to having been quoting examples of pastiche I think highly of to the exclusion of exaples of pastiche that I think poorly of)
Quote from: Jack Spencer Jr
I'm also not Ian, but if I understand correctly you're using the term pastiche where most people in roleplaying terms use the word genre. i.e. someone says "fantasy genre" they usually mean RPG fantasy or D&D fantasy which is a pastiche of various fantasy novels and the like.
This is what Johns Clute & Grant call 'genre fantasy' in
The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, which I can't recommend highly enough.
Hi there,
I'm pretty sure that the basic issues of the thread topic have been worked out, and I see that "genre" and (in a moment) "fantasy" are going to become topics of their own.
So, pending any final points about the pastiche thing, let's call this thread closed and start new threads for issues like the one Jack raised and similar.
Best,
Ron