Hi Ulysses.
I'm not sure where you got the deffinition of monster as any creature that
was once not evil but has turned that way, but certainly according to the
fantasy cosmology of many alternate histories that is not the case. The
daleks as I said were created that way, genetically engineered to hate
anything that wasn't a Dalek and seak to destroy it. And how about something
like the Trffids, killer plants with poison stings from John Wydham's day of
the triffids? those had literally no moral character at all, they killed as
a natural predator because they didn't have a choice not to.
While your monster deffinition is true perhaps for vampires, I'd argue it
isn't for zombies, at least not in the zombi appocalypse sense the term is
usually meant, since zombies are! no longer human, and at least in every
zombocalypse I've seen don't have a choice about eating living people.
Regarding the appearence question, well obviously you haven't read enough
propper science fiction, since the question of alien appearence vs
motivations is a common one. Indeed in his science fiction trilogy, C S
Lewis raises this question quite directly when discussing how his main
character could possibly relate reasonably on a level of friendship with
creatures who looked so different from humans.
while the classic bug eyed monsters and similar horror aliens were indeed
based on monstrous appearence, or on the assumption (first made by H G Wells
in War of the Worlds), that any super intelligent species would
automatically have evil intentions, that is certainly not the case anymore,
indeed in modern scifi series like babylon 5 and to ane xtent star trek
presents aliens very much in the same way as humans, as races who's
appearence might be different but who essentially are individual groups with
their own ways of life, beliefs, culture and customs and are no worse or
better than most humans.
This conception of other races as like humans but different also occurs a
lot in fantasy literature, ---- at least in the better written fantasy
literature, indeed these days a distinction between monsters, ie, creatures
who's nature is destructive or violent without recourse, and demi humans,
ie, creatures with human intelligence and a choice on their action are
common.
Regarding setting, well science fiction can certain range in styles of
future, indeed this is one reason I enjoy doctor who so much myself since
it can range from travelling back into history to the distant future, to
politics, horror, post appocalyptic, space battles or very different places.
With regards to fatnasy literature, well the reason there is heavy bias
towards the medaeval period is largely to do with where the genre came from.
Back in the late 19th and early 20th century, fantasy was exclusively
retelling of nordic or germanic myths in style, and figures like Conan the
Barbarian were common. Indeed fantasy at that point didn't really have real
human characters or what we would call complex morality, for all they could
be enjoyable on their own rather stylised grounds.
As well as a realized world with it's own history, language, myths and
culture, tolkien gave the fantasy genre something new, ---- the ability to
include human characters. Tolkien fought in the first world war and always
said he admired the courage of very ordinary people who were made to do
extraordinaary things, hence why his principle characters, despite epic
figures like Aragorn and Gandalf were hobbits from a small country shire.
Naturally once Tolkien tried a pressident there were many people who played
with it and attempted things in a similar vane, or took the idea in another
direction some more or less successful. Obviously when something has been
popular there are lots of immitators, and I do confess I myself find that
generic dungeons and dragons medaeval world with kings and peasants, elves
dwarves and humans these days a little bland simply because I've seen it so
often before, but that's true of any genre.
A good fantasy author should however create a unique world, and in the ranks
of good fantasy writers many have.
I am for example currently reading way of kings by brandon sanderson, ---- a
world who's history and development is so different to our own it's hard to
put any! time frame on it. I also recently finished Robin Hobb's farseer
books, which take place in a world where different nations exist at
different times, from early to late renaesance, (plus dragons).
Then there is Pamela Hills' silver city series set in a world closer to
ancient rome or the tirkish empire, and Tad williams fantasy War of Flowers
which takes place in a world with close to modern technology.
Fantasy has the potential to create any world or situation you can imagine,
indeed unlike science fiction your not limited to plausability of scientific
principles just to your own consistancy of creation, (I myself enjoy fantasy
and sf pretty equally and don't really find much difference between them).
Finally however, remember that for a game there must be some sort of
challenge to the player, a puzzle, a battle, an environment to explore. That
is likely why medaeval periods appeal to game creators since you can have
lots of unexplored dungeons, naturrally occurring monsters etc, although i
agree with a little creativity you could do this in other settings too, ----
indeed following the Japanese originals like the Final fantasy series, many
games are now being set in a world with many elements of modern technology
such as cars, tanks and electricity, which also happens to contain magical
elements as well.
Beware the Grue!
Dark.
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
