Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Ron Edwards, February 25, 2002, 03:35:21 PM
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisAs I understand Ron's model, love/power/fear are NOT in the inner circle, and are NOT synonomous with sex/blood (or death, which is another matter entirely).
QuoteMy fear in using blood & sex all the time as the primary focus of lines on an R-Map - and using those R-Maps in an RPG - is that I see it almost-inevitably leading to an endless chain of "not only is she a betrayer - she betrayed her OWN DAUGHTER!", "not only is he greedy, but he SLEPT HIS WAY to the top!", "how can you love her - she was MARRIED TO HITLER!"In short, eventually EVERYTHING becomes bad soap opera.
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisI lost a rather long reply here when my login timed out, and I don't have the heart to recreate it. Super-short (for me) version - "love = sex" is not, by my reading, part of what Ron's talking about here.I'm NOT saying realtionship maps are about cheap television hooks. I like 'em, even with blood and sex, I just question why blood & sex (in their pure form, ignoring the "everything can be seen as blood and sex" perspective for the moment) would always be primary.
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisRipley/Newt soap-operesque? Probably a matter of opinion. My own varies based on mood - at times, yeah, it seems like just a cheap Hollywood manipulation to set-up the "Battle of the Mothers".
Quote from: greyormWhy? Because we're flesh-meat-animals, plain and simple, and flesh-meat-animals are all about sex, blood and death.
QuoteHowever, I'm betting that if you remove all the ideological frosting from the cake, you end up with a lot of very basic, primal motivations cleverly disguised by human intellect as being about something else.
QuoteOf course, your example also misses the point, which not that ideological motivators do not exist or do not influence humans, but that they do so on top of a web of sex/blood/death.
QuoteIn short, no one fights because they believe in something...they fight for something because it
QuoteLet us make an example: Thomas, the inventor, stays at his lab all night most days during the week, neglecting his son and wife for his inventions, which he loves and adores.What's really going on?
QuoteAnother example: a young man goes off to war, to fight for his country. Why? Because he loves his country...actually, he's trying to escape from his parents, get away from home and strike out on his own to prove himself as an adult.
QuoteThus any example that might be referenced fails to support the contention that sex/blood/death are not primary fails to take into account that at the base of everyone's life exist these very primal, instinctual motivators, regardless of the events which are recorded for posterity.
Quote from: greyormThis is perhaps the source of the problem...I attempted, and apparently failed, to indicate that they are not pre-eminent -- that is, existing above and beyond all else -- but basic, existing at the root. They may never be seen by the chronicler, or ever thought of by the chronicled, but they are nonetheless the primary influence/motivator of the rest of the personality. Every human individual has at their motivating root their social relationships, the strongest of which are sex/blood/death or love/power/fear if you prefer.
QuoteFirst, I don't think that this situation is one where the relationship map is a good tool to use.
Quote from: AndyGuestA relationship map is useful where family/sex relationships are important. Where, for example, honour is the driving factor maybe we should have an honour map ?
Quote from: Blake Hutchinssome of the back-and-forth has resulted from people confusing the plot movers for the relationships