Ron's clarifications over in The Roots of Sim (Response to Nar Essay) are very important if pastiche is to become part of The Forge lexicon.

1. 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.

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.

sirogit wrote: 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.

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,

... 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.

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.
...
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.

Hi John,

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.

Ron Edwards wrote:

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.

Wow, that's a personal call, don't you think? I mean, the "bad" part?

Ron Edwards wrote: 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).

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:

Ron, in the Nar essay, wrote: 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.

John Kim wrote: 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.

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

Chris wrote: 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.

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

Dictionary.com wrote:

• 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).

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.

• 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

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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?

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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

Ron Edwards wrote: 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

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

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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)

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
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.

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