AP, might I suggest you sign up for forum access since you''re interested in making a valuable contribution to the community?

I''m not familiar with that particular work of Byron''s, so I can''t comment. As for Burns, well I have to agree. Both these authors are much better at poetry than they are at prose, so that might have something to do with it.

Hardy has enough emotional conflict in his stories that they could make interesting settings for games if the proper technology was implemented. Not sure how popular they would be with the younger crowd, but it might hit an older demographic quite well (I''m thinking, 35+). Largely untapped at the moment...

I still think Verne and Wells have a lot to offer that has not yet been exploited.

Unfortunately, I do have to disagree with your statement about reading. I do strongly believe that any serious writer should read as much as they can from a broad variety of topics. The professional published authors I know are indefatigable readers...

quote: Original post by Tacit
Which Dickinson are you referring to here, LD?

I intended Charles, but you can put Emily in there too. I don''t know of any SF writers named Dickinson, not that my knowledge is exhaustive

Point being, while both of them certainly have something to offer for a reading writer, authors whose works deal with more SF material tend to have much keener edges on their characters, plotlines, and general ambiance. Not because old material is inherently worse (although C.D. does make me want to keel over and die), but because old material is old, and there''s a lot of chaff to sort through to get to the applicable material.

Basically, struggling through The Castle of Otranto - which, I know, is not a Dickinson book, but poses a roughly equivalent barrier to entry - taught me that some of the "classics" are best left to academics.

Having said that, I read Shakespeare and to this day I laugh out loud at the opening scene of Romeo and Juliet. As I said, feel free to choose your own sources.

ld

quote: Original post by liquiddark

I intended Charles, but you can put Emily in there too. I don''t know of any SF writers named Dickinson, not that my knowledge is exhaustive

Point being, while both of them certainly have something to offer for a reading writer, authors whose works deal with more SF material tend to have much keener edges on their characters, plotlines, and general ambiance. Not because old material is inherently worse (although C.D. does make me want to keel over and die), but because old material is old, and there''s a lot of chaff to sort through to get to the applicable material.

Basically, struggling through The Castle of Otranto - which, I know, is not a Dickinson book, but poses a roughly equivalent barrier to entry - taught me that some of the "classics" are best left to academics.

Having said that, I read Shakespeare and to this day I laugh out loud at the opening scene of Romeo and Juliet. As I said, feel free to choose your own sources.

ld

Are you sure you don''t mean Charles Dickens?? I don''t know of any Charles Dickinson. Emily Dickinson is not an author I can imagine being able to offer much useful material for a game. Charles Dickens, on the other hand, is one of the few Victorian authors that actually has works extremely well suited to a stroy-driven game. His settings are amazing, his characters well developed (and there are many of them), his storylines complex and with a kind of reverse-branching structure (starts with many branches and slowly works his way to the ultimate conclusion, which is usually surprising).

As for the Castle of Otronto...well the Gothic novel is an aquired taste, for sure.

In any case, regardless of your feelings for his work, Shakespeare is nothing to be laughed at.

Besides, the fact that stories are old or written in a complex English that most people don''t or can''t understand doesn''t make them any less interesting or useful. Just think of them as being ripe for interpretation. Films do this all the time; why not games?

quote: Original post by Tacit
Are you sure you don''t mean Charles Dickens??

I am an idiot. You''re right, of course.

We''ll have to agree to disagree about his work. I personally find his characters ridiculous, his plots too complex to be of any interest (perhaps I am simply too stupid), and his wording painful. It''s a matter of historical fact that the man was paid by the word, and not paid very well per word for most of his professional life. If there happened to be a way to say something in more words without killing the sale, he said it in more words. And it comes through in everything I''ve read that he''s written (which is, admittedly, a limited sample).

quote: In any case, regardless of your feelings for his work, Shakespeare is nothing to be laughed at.

To be absolutely clear, I meant this in a good way. I have a great love for the works of Shakespeare in their entirety. I was referring to Gregory''s repeated defusing of Sampson, until finally..."I will be civil with the maids, I''ll cut off their heads." "The heads of the maids?" "Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads, take in what sense thou wilt." That''s a brilliant example of a grudging joke by a character who really doesn''t feel like joking, but has a good friend trying to lighten his spirits. I grin throughout the passage, but this part always makes me laugh out loud. Shakespeare, I feel, is something that an author can penetrate with far less difficulty than most classical authors

quote: Besides, the fact that stories are old or written in a complex English that most people don''t or can''t understand doesn''t make them any less interesting or useful. Just think of them as being ripe for interpretation. Films do this all the time; why not games?

I don''t really care about their usefulness as subject matter for games. I''m talking about their usefulness as a writer''s tool when learning to write or to write better. The conventions of literature in this century have tended to streamline writing to a razor''s edge, and hence reading contemporary authors tends to yield a lot more per-word than reading classical authors. I don''t believe this is true of everyone; modern playwrights and scriptwriters, especially, tend to take simplification way too far, IMO.

It is my belief as a writer that one should indeed read classical literature, regardless of the barriers encountered. However, before doing so I believe in reading good contemporary authors. Nobody''s mentioned John Grisham yet, although he''s an excellent example of successful modern writing. He''s good in much the same tradition as Tom Clancy or Robert Jordan (especially Robert Jordan) - as long as you don''t read too many of the author''s books, there''s a lot to learn from them, and the market for his type of writing is 10-100 times the market for more "literary" fiction. One of the Star Trek films made a joke that rang true where Kirk called Danielle Steele and a few others of that ilk "the greats". Criticism notwithstanding, it''s likely that these are the folks who''ll last out the ages. What that will say about our time on earth, few can say.

At this point I should note that literary "researchers" tend to piss me off; also that I''m sticking firmly to the original topic, mainly because I believe that skill in writing is vastly more important than the subject matter. Shakespeare robbed the vaults of literature blind, but he did it with aplomb, and made something of lasting value as a result.

ld

Well, I''m obviously biased, having studied the classics. I haven''t found much of literary value, or much of anything that helps me become a better writer. Of course, this is completely personal and I imagine I would find certain works to be of interest and you other completely different ones.

One contemporary writer who''s style I feel has a lot of merit is William Gibson. Aside from the subject matter, Gibson is a brilliant ''visual'' writer with a certain flair for language that I personally find very enjoyable to read. To quote a terrible beer ad: "Tastes great. Less filling."

At least we agree that someone interested in writing must saturate themselves with as much reading material from as many varied sources as possible, even if we disagree as to the degree of saturation (you less, me more) or order (you say contemporary authors first, I say second).

Another author who I''ve found to be surprisingly lucid is Charles Darwin. Ever try reading the Voyage of the Beagle? It''s actually rather incredible stuff. Conrad is good as well, although quite a bit heavier. But I digress...

I feel the right to take certain liberties with the thread''s topic since I started it, but that''s probably unfair of me. Apologies all around...

R.

quote: Original post by Tacit
To quote a terrible beer ad: "Tastes great. Less filling."

I believe you meant "To quote a terrible beer" :/


- Kevin "BaShildy" King
Game Programmer: DigiPen
www.mpogd.com

Kevin, I honestly wouldn''t know. I live in Canada where there''s no such thing as a terrible beer...just a terrible hangover.

YAY CANADA!!

He''s right, you know. "The Sound of Silence" is a drinking song up here...

ld

quote: Original post by Tacit
One contemporary writer who''s style I feel has a lot of merit is William Gibson. Aside from the subject matter, Gibson is a brilliant ''visual'' writer with a certain flair for language that I personally find very enjoyable to read. To quote a terrible beer ad: "Tastes great. Less filling."

Do you seriously feel this way? Like he''s got nothing deeper to offer?

Or are you just lightheartedly making a funny?

ld
who also thinks Gibson''s language burns up the atmosphere

No no...I wasn''t trying to marginalize Gibson''s work. He is a great writer and has a lot of interesting ideas. I''m fortunate enough to be friends with one of his close colleagues and collaborators, and listening to some of their exploits is what observing nuclear fission must be like.

I love his stuff, I was just making a comparison between his style and that of some of the other ''heavier'' authors we mentioned. Gibson''s writing is truly modern in presentation, in the sense that it''s layered and enjoyable on multiple levels, but accessible to a mainstream audience.