Brecht Article up on RPGnet

[Jonathan Walton]

Hey folks,

This is a public service announcement.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/fineart.html

The new article is called "...But with Innovations!" and talks about the dramatic theories of Bertolt Brecht and how they apply to roleplaying that goes beyond hedonism and pure entertainment.  In Forge-language, I think it leads into discussions of Narrativism vs. Sim/Gamism (the later being the bulk of what the hobby seems to be composed of).  What Brecht is calling "epic" theater in many ways resembles theater with a premise.  It's just that Brecht tends to challenge his audience with the premise, making them question their own feelings on a subject, but roleplaying lacks an audience outside the participants, so things get more complicated.

Anyway, it was a fun piece to write, though it's a bit short and doesn't fully address all the implications.  If you want to discuss the GNS-related implications of the article, why don't we do it in this thread, since it might be a little arcane for the standard RPGnet audience.

[Callan S.]

Is the article suggesting that instead of 'here's some conclusions I've made about some issues, buried in this story. This is my message.', is this Brecht style supposed to be 'here's some issues presented in such a way that YOU have to make some conclusions about it. My message is that you need to make conclusions about X, Y and Z'

Just getting my bearings on this...

[Jonathan Walton]

Very much #2.  Brecht of course was a pretty solid Marxist, so he figured that confronting people with the horrors of poverty would make them change their feelings towards the urban poor.  Didn't really happen.  People loved watching the prostitutes and beggers of Threepenny Opera, but didn't really feel inclined to do anything to improve the situation of the real prostitutes and beggers in their community.

I'm definitely NOT suggesting that players should try to indoctrinate each other with hidden messages.  That would be silly.

[Callan S.]

I wasn't suggesting you were. I was suggesting the former example is what most mainstream stories consist of - hansel and gretel = "Don't go near something that seems too good to be true", spider man = "With great power comes great reve...cough...responsiblity", die hard = "Don't take off your shoes"

All mainstream stories have messages and morals in them. I think that's why we like stories. It's because were a species that really likes learning.

The latter example is where your left to your own devices rather than being given a message. Confronting on various levels, but particularly as it destroys escapism somewhat by its method...being left to our own devices is what we do in reality as well. I think we enter stories mentally because they have a structure 'oh, this happened because this happened' 'oh, this happened because it was forshadowed'. Some blatent examples are character who you know are going to die...they do something mean, like ogling a womans breasts, then get killed. We just can't tolerate a straight death, it seems. It has to be 'because of this, this happened'.

Just some stray thoughts, not really contesting anything here.

[Halzebier]

(a) As you correctly point out, Brecht's conception aims for the opposite of immersion: distance. Immersion is a problematic term around here, but I do think that it is - in one form or another - a goal for many players (even narrativist and gamist ones).

(b) Brecht's conception is neat in theory, but arguably he did not adhere to it in practice. Some key scenes which are traditionally considered powerful - such as the death of Kattrin at the end of "Mother Courage and her children" - work precisely because Brecht lets the audience strongly identify with the characters.

(c) One of Brecht's main tools in creating distance is creating awareness of the play as a play. Regarding RPGs, this would translate - among other things - to constant reminders that the characters are just constructs, a collection of numbers, sheets of paper, not real or even realistic etc.

I wonder whether this makes a case for the oft-overlooked or denied audience stance... (The fact notwithstanding that author stance is most appropriate to achieve Brecht's aims. In fact, I find it rather intriguing that RPGs lend themselves better to Brecht's goals in this regard than theatre.)

Regards,

Hal

[xiombarg]

I'm just pleased the Besial Acts link I posted was useful to you...

[Valamir]

Hey Jonathan, just had time to read the Brecht Article today.

I get a kick out of reading the comments at the bottom...like little children grousing because some bully kicked down their sand castle...its a riot.

My only disappointment was exactly what you pointed out in the first post in this thread.  It seemed unfinished.  The set up was phenomenal.  I was getting all excited watching you build up to the point of giving Escapist Immersionism a thorough thrashing, and already starting to enjoy the firestorm it would have kicked up....but then it felt like you ran out of room and had to wrap it all up in just 200 more words.  It ended kind of flat for me.  

Gun drawn, bullet chambered, hammer cocked, barrel leveled, target sighted in...then you put the gun down and walked away.  Made me sad

Perhaps you were self editing to not alienate your audience?  If so, I'd love to read the double barrel uncensored version.

[Jonathan Walton]

Hey Ralph,

Thanks for the comments.

The "rushed" feeling of the ending is partially just that I ran out of time.  I wrote the entire article on a Thursday, right before it was supposed to go up on Friday.  Spent too much time on getting the setup right and then didn't have time to nail it home.  

You're also right that the responses to the last article made me get a bit defensive.  Part of it is that I don't have time to spend a hour in the forums everyday, straightening people out on what I do and don't mean.  I really understand Ron's frustration on GNS now.  When you say something that you want to strongly support, sometimes you find it's hard to find enough time to support it against attacks.

So I would have enjoyed thrashing Escapism a bunch, but then I would have had to deal with everyone and his brother (plus John Kim, that counter-revolutionary...).  Would it be worth it?  Maybe.

Also, I'm trying not to turn the column into a description of "what Jonathan thinks roleplaying should be, based on his interests," which isn't nearly as helpful to the average person as "here's some interesting new ways to think about roleplaying."  I'm often in an anti-Escapism mode nowadays, but, then again, I'm running Continuum (twice!) at OberCon this weekend, and that's concentrated Escapism in a can, often.

All in all, though.  I think you're right.  I think the overall point wasn't made as strongly as I wanted to make it.  I think I put too much into trying to please the audience, when RPGnet's average forum troll isn't close to being my target audience anyway.

In any case, I do really want to return to these issues in a later article.  Maybe once we get to the summer I can do a two-part recap of everything we've discussed, and show how all the issues fit together into a new understanding of roleplaying.  "Jonathan's Revolutionary Aesthetic Manifesto" in other words...

[clehrich]

"Jonathan's Revolutionary Aesthetic Manifesto" in other words...

Now that I want to read!  

I still need to think through your article, Jonathan, but I'm finding what you're doing much more interesting than (I admit) I expected.  When you started on performance early on, I kind of dreaded the follow-up, but when you get into stuff like Brecht my little ears start to wiggle.  Have you looked into Artaud much?  An RPG of Cruelty sounds like a good time to me.

Good stuff!  Keep it up!  You'll see me there soon, I promise (although that may be read as a threat...).

Chris Lehrich

[John Kim]

So I would have enjoyed thrashing Escapism a bunch, but then I would have had to deal with everyone and his brother (plus John Kim, that counter-revolutionary...).  Would it be worth it?  Maybe.  

I'm not a counter-revolutionary so much as a peace-keeper amidst revolution.  The thing is, if someone else were to try to give non-escapist Brechtian RPGs a "thrashing", I would be just as vehement in this.  The same thing happened to me years ago on rgfa.  At first when people attacked diceless, I defended it and wrote the diceless FAQ (for example).  However, when David Berkman tried to rip into dice-using gaming, I immediately turned on him.  

In my opinion, the fault doesn't lie with escapist RPGs -- they're fine.  The problem is with the lack of the alternative.  In other words, it's your own damn fault.  Trying to give escapist RPGs a "thrashing" for not being what you want is pointless.

[Mike Holmes]

In my opinion, the fault doesn't lie with escapist RPGs -- they're fine.  The problem is with the lack of the alternative.  In other words, it's your own damn fault.  Trying to give escapist RPGs a "thrashing" for not being what you want is pointless.

Hear hear. If you want a revolution, then make the revolutionary game yourself and lead the way. Don't be a Marxist, be a Lenninist.

Mike

[Jonathan Walton]

Hear hear. If you want a revolution, then make the revolutionary game yourself and lead the way. Don't be a Marxist, be a Lenninist.

Patience, boys, patience.  I'm working on it...

[clehrich]

Jonathan,

Finally had a minute to read through carefully.  Interesting stuff, though as you and Ralph have noticed, it never really concludes strongly.  I think this may be the reason for this remark:

In my opinion, the fault doesn't lie with escapist RPGs -- they're fine.  The problem is with the lack of the alternative.  In other words, it's your own damn fault.  Trying to give escapist RPGs a "thrashing" for not being what you want is pointless.

with which Mike agreed.

I personally don't agree at all --- I think a purely theoretical revolution does not stand or fall by the ability of the revolutionary to put it into practice fully --- but it is true that this article leaves me unclear on what it is you want to achieve.  Do you see yourself as primarily working in theory, pushing others to see new avenues for development?  Do you see yourself as personally working toward some specific goal?  Because I think neither of these fully succeeds, precisely because you never quite finish up (because of time, I gather).

But at this stage, it looks to me like you're proposing conceptions from others' aesthetic work, suggesting means of application.  For that, it does seem as though concrete results would be necessary, which may be what John and Mike are getting at.

Here's a few suggestions from the peanut gallery; feel free to ignore it all.

1. Ignore all those remarks about postmodernism and other nonsense.  Brecht was a modernist -- almost an archetypal one.  He's driving for depth, for meaning, for a kind of truth.  All of which is precisely what postmodernism is not about, or rather, what postmodernism is deliberately trying not to be about.  People throwing around the term "postmodernism" in this context -- unless perhaps as a sharp contrast against -- are trying to sound clever and failing miserably.  On a related note, do me a favor and don't use "deconstruct" unless you really mean it, which in this article anyway you don't.  That mostly came from the comments, but it's sort of a pet peeve of mine.

2. Decide what it is you mean by "meaning."  Is it social relevance, as it was for Brecht (at least in a broad sense)?  If so, consciousness and self-awareness is the obvious goal to strive for.  My sense was that Brecht was seeking this with his "distance" thing.  But "meaning" can have lots of, well, meanings.  Is it founded in anything real?  Is there any truth in all this?  If not, I don't think you and Brecht are ever really going to get along.

3. The Brechtian-modernist distance is not, I think, opposed to immersion.  On the contrary, it's an attempt to shift the grounds of immersion, sort of the flip side of the same coin.  The idea is not to get immersed in the art as entertainment, but to see the art as immersed in life itself, and thus see life reflected in the horrors of which one becomes aware on stage.  Thus shattering the fourth wall attempts to shatter the easy distance between us and the theater, by making us stand back from ourselves -- see ourselves as pawns on the stage at a distance, recognizing our own sick society playing out in the play.  When we leave the theater and find we haven't left the play, we are forced to act.

4. If you're going to work at such shattering in RPG's, you need to work out where you think the fourth wall is.  I've made a stab at this with the liminal model (in the Ritual essay), postulating Separation and Integration as the walls.  From a Marxist perspective, these are in RPG's so naturalized that we don't even see them as walls that can be broken.  Of course, the thinking goes, there is a difference between the game and reality.  And we're often rather wary of bending that, because of stuff like Mazes and Monsters.  But you see, it's precisely that danger, that potential for violence, that would make shattering the wall worth doing.  Assuming you're into revolution, of course.

5. You really might want to read Artaud's The Theater of Cruelty, which also aimed to shatter bourgeois consciousness but with rather different social aims.  Artaud does have the advantage, I think, of being a much better theorist than a playwright, where I've always found Brecht the other way around (although I don't know Brecht as well as I probably ought to).

6. Another person you might think about is Walter Benjamin.  I'm thinking particularly of his "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," and his recently translated and edited Arcades Project.  He's less brutally critical, but he's interested in the ways in which people sort of wander along and pick up interesting things from shop windows, collecting impressions, rather than actually going out and doing anything, and he's interested in the social phenomena that make this happen.  I think you could read RPG's as like this: we wander through our games picking up fantasies for amusement, but never act upon them precisely because they are fantasies.  If I were going to start a big cultural criticism project on RPG's, this is where I'd start.

7. Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again, but you might look into ritual theory and especially Claude Levi-Strauss's The Savage Mind.  If one could find in RPG's a way to recapitulate "savage thought," then actualize it through shattering the RPG/reality wall, you'd end up with people who look at the world in a really radically different way.  I don't know that that's revolution, per se, but it'd sure as hell be a different kind of play -- and a different form of art.

Chris Lehrich

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I don't understand the whole idea of distancing. What is the point of distancing? It seems to me that immersion in art is diffcult enough that to attempt what seems to me to be the opposite is foolish or pretentious. "Seems to me" because I must be missing something about this.

[clehrich]

Correction: Artaud's book is The Theater and Its Double, which includes manifestoes on the Theater of Cruelty and a lot of other cool stuff.

Chris Lehrich