What I am referring to is cases where a video game (or book or movie or whatever) will use a name from mythology for a character that doesn't have all that much in common with the mythological figure. Some people get really pissed off over this kind of thing and say it's a sign of the writers being too lazy/stupid to get it right. I don't see much of an issue with it myself. Where does board 8 stand?
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
First example that comes to mind would be Valkyrie Profile, which takes some pretty significant liberties with Norse mythology I believe. Although that's actually using Norse mythology as a setting. I'm talking more...if I made a game and there was a character named Fenrir, some people would get extremely angry if he didn't end up doing stuff like being sealed away, cutting off a guys hand or killing a major leader during the apocalypse because those are things the Fenrir of Norse mythology did.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
basically, god of war. and the logic behind it is easy - if you put a scenario + take the characters then it's assumed you'll do SOMETHING resembling the original source. if you're the fans of the source and you don't get that, then... it's pretty reasonable to get upset over that. if you expected nothing despite taking that, or if you just know of them in passing, different story.
nobody really complains about the way things go down in SMT games despite throwing ine very mythology possible.
--
The King Wang. Listen up Urinal Cake. I already have something that tells me if I'm too drunk when I pee on it: My friends. - Colbert.
From: Wanglicious | #010 basically, god of war. and the logic behind it is easy - if you put a scenario + take the characters then it's assumed you'll do SOMETHING resembling the original source. if you're the fans of the source and you don't get that, then... it's pretty reasonable to get upset over that. if you expected nothing despite taking that, or if you just know of them in passing, different story.
nobody really complains about the way things go down in SMT games despite throwing ine very mythology possible.
If you copy the entire setting, yeah, that's different because you're advertising that you're specifically using the established traits of the original source. I'm talking more general cases, like if you name all the major antagonists in your work after Greek gods because it sounds cool and people will know when they see the names that these are probably important characters, but they don't necessarily follow the traits of the deities in question (Zeus isn't going out shape shifting and having sex with everything he sees and so on)
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
From: Panthera | #008 First example that comes to mind would be Valkyrie Profile, which takes some pretty significant liberties with Norse mythology I believe. Although that's actually using Norse mythology as a setting. I'm talking more...if I made a game and there was a character named Fenrir, some people would get extremely angry if he didn't end up doing stuff like being sealed away, cutting off a guys hand or killing a major leader during the apocalypse because those are things the Fenrir of Norse mythology did.
You probably noticed this, but there are basically no examples of this - for good reason, too, because it's bad writing. If you're going to actually reference the norse Fenrir's story and then make your Fenrir be absolutely nothing like it with no further attention paid to the myth, you're being gratuitious with the pointless referencing, which good writers don't do. Further, if you're working with a visual medium, your team is going to slap you silly for making them waste time coding and animating a scene that is pointless. There's a reason one of the first things people learn about writing fiction properly is to conserve detail.
EDIT: This doesn't mean you can't have a character named Gilgamesh and have him be nothing like the God-King of Uruk, for instance - see Gilgamesh Wulfenbach of Girl Genius. It just means you shouldn't waste time establishing a pointless connection.
From: KanzarisKelshen | #013 You probably noticed this, but there are basically no examples of this - for good reason, too, because it's bad writing. If you're going to actually reference the norse Fenrir's story and then make your Fenrir be absolutely nothing like it with no further attention paid to the myth, you're being gratuitious with the pointless referencing, which good writers don't do. Further, if you're working with a visual medium, your team is going to slap you silly for making them waste time coding and animating a scene that is pointless. There's a reason one of the first things people learn about writing fiction properly is to conserve detail.
EDIT: This doesn't mean you can't have a character named Gilgamesh and have him be nothing like the God-King of Uruk, for instance - see Gilgamesh Wulfenbach of Girl Genius. It just means you shouldn't waste time establishing a pointless connection.
This post makes no sense. You just completely contradicted yourself. Either you can or you can't have a character with a mythological name that doesn't act like their mythological counterpoint.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
From: Panthera | #014 This post makes no sense. You just completely contradicted yourself. Either you can or you can't have a character with a mythological name that doesn't act like their mythological counterpoint.
that's not what he said
he said you can't have a Fenrir character, reference the norse mythology then not be anything like Fenrir. But you can just have a guy named Fenrir
From: Panthera | #014 This post makes no sense. You just completely contradicted yourself. Either you can or you can't have a character with a mythological name that doesn't act like their mythological counterpoint.
You missed the point. Here, walkthrough time:
I) Good Writing.
A) You have a Gilgamesh in a cyberpunk setting. B) This Gilgamesh is the leader of a megacorp, Uruk. Tons of people depend on him and worship and revere him almost like a god. C) Gilgamesh one day meets a young revolutionary named Enkidu. With Enkidu's help, he survives an assassination attempt from Ishtar, leader of another corp. D) Suddenly afraid of his own mortality, Gilgamesh begins to pursue ways to transcend his body. On his quest, Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh loses his only chance at immortality, and is forced to come to terms with the fact that one day he will die. His tale finishes on a sober note, with Gilgamesh wiser and more mature than he was when his story began.
II) Good Writing:
A) You have a Gilgamesh in a cyberpunk setting. B) This Gilgamesh is a freedom-fighting lone wolf, warring against the domineering Chimeratech Corp because of them turning him into a cybernetic freak and killing his sister. C) The story proceeds from here until Gilgamesh brings Chimeratech down.
III) Bad Writing:
A) You have a Gilgamesh in a cyberpunk setting. B) This Gilgamesh is the leader of a megacorp, Uruk. Tons of people depend on him and worship and revere him almost like a god. C) Gilgamesh one day meets a young revolutionary named Enkidu. D) Enkidu then becomes sidelined as Gilgamesh uncovers a dark secret and decides to become a freedom-fighting lone wolf, warring against the domineering Chimeratech Corp. We get a few flashbacks that reveal they turned him into a cybernetic freak and killed his sister forty years ago.
See the difference here? One story borrows from the myth to reinforce its narrative. Another story doesn't and simply uses a name. The third story brings in mythic elements and then does nothing with them. This is something you don't do unless you're a hack. No inconsistencies here.
he said you can't have a Fenrir character, reference the norse mythology then not be anything like Fenrir. But you can just have a guy named Fenrir
The thing is, the guy just having that name is precisely what I said I was talking about, and then he replies that there's no examples of that because it's bad writing, then goes on to say instead you can have...exactly what I said and it's cool. So...yeah
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
From: Panthera | #017 The thing is, the guy just having that name is precisely what I said I was talking about, and then he replies that there's no examples of that because it's bad writing, then goes on to say instead you can have...exactly what I said and it's cool. So...yeah
See above. You can have a Myth Hero, a Hero With A Mythic Name, or a Not-Myth Hero. The first two are fine, the third is not (unless the story centers around averting the events of the original myth, which are occurring once more, but then the story becomes something else entirely). A name doesn't do anything by itself, Panthera. You can have a character named Mario without mentioning Super Mario Bros. and nobody will bat an eyelash. You CANNOT create a Mario character who dresses like Mario, speaks with an italian accent and becomes big by eating shrooms and then take him in an entirely different direction from the famous plumber, because you're toying with audience expectations...or to put it more plainly, you're ****ing with the audience.
Okay, dude, the point is that this is all really weird and strange that you're trying to point these things out to me as if they're what I'm talking about even though the whole point of the topic is specifically people who get mad at the "name only" approach.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
From: Panthera | #019 Okay, dude, the point is that this is all really weird and strange that you're trying to point these things out to me as if they're what I'm talking about even though the whole point of the topic is specifically people who get mad at the "name only" approach.
Those people don't exist. Or when they exist, they're shunned for being tools. So basically, you'd be better served by talking about the thing I was talking about than the...what...two, three people out of millions and millions who complain about a minor, irrelevant detail with an utterly stupid reasoning?
I agree with Kanz' explanation of things, but to go with the whole "name only" approach, there are still some names that need to be handled certain ways. For example, if you name your character Ares, and he isn't warlike at all, I'm gonna look down on you. You don't even need to reference any other part of his mythology, but that's what the name of Ares embodies.
But I've never been so picky. The only name I've ever thought as a "bad" choice in fiction was Adam, because apparently no character is named Adam on accident. Along with Kanz' rules above, this leads to very few stories where Adam is legitimately a proper name for a character.
From: EDumey | #021 I agree with Kanz' explanation of things, but to go with the whole "name only" approach, there are still some names that need to be handled certain ways. For example, if you name your character Ares, and he isn't warlike at all, I'm gonna look down on you. You don't even need to reference any other part of his mythology, but that's what the name of Ares embodies.
But I've never been so picky. The only name I've ever thought as a "bad" choice in fiction was Adam, because apparently no character is named Adam on accident. Along with Kanz' rules above, this leads to very few stories where Adam is legitimately a proper name for a character.
Out of curiosity, would you say Human Revolution's Adam Jensen counts as a proper name? As I recall there was no Garden of Eden sillyness with him, just a 'first of his kind' sort of thing.
EDIT: Also yes, the meaning of a name is important. Even divorced from the goddess, the name Athena means 'wise'. If your character is a dolt and you don't intend on making a point of her clashing name, don't call her that, for instance.