Pastiche in Roleplaying

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Ian Charvill]

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.

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.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I still don't understand what the heck pastiche is.

[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]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]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?

[John Kim]

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.
...
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.  

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.  

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.

[Ian Charvill]

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).

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Nick the Nevermet]

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

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 :)

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Jack Spencer Jr]

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.

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.

[Nick the Nevermet]

thank you for clarifying that.  The transcription of play was very helpful as well.

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Ian Charvill]

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)

[Jeff Klein]

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 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312198698/102-0898740-4309711?v=glance">The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, which I can't recommend highly enough.

[Ron Edwards]

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