Yonder stands your orphan with his gun
November 20th 2008 03:03
“Sword and sorcery” has become, by common usage, a near-synonym for “fantasy,” but there’s really no reason it should be. The dictionary does not demand that every fantasy character has to go without indoor plumbing – only that they engage in fantastic adventures. And there is no rule about what time period those can happen in; many of the genre’s most talented and celebrated writers, from Sheri S. Tepper to Neil Gaiman, have written popular and enduring fantasy stories set not in an era of magic swords and griffins, but the 20th century with its automatic pistols and airplanes. Magic has never gone quite so far, but it was nearly inevitable that a game with such an eclectic range of influences and the practice of designing a new setting for almost every block would encounter the modern era (or something like it) once in a while.
Although this character would not have seemed entirely out of place in the trenches of the Somme, he wasn’t the first; back in 1998 the beginner-level set Portal Second Age featured a dozen or two pieces of art showing characters using firearms.
This single characteristic of the set's art direction was cited in a couple of Wizards of the Coast articles, coming from such figures as creative director Brady Dommermuth and head of design Mark Rosewater, as one of the greatest mistakes in the game’s history. (Mr. Rosewater mentioned the guns of Alaborn in the same article as Urza’s Saga, thereby putting twelve images of single-shot pistols on the same level as the block that contained around twenty cards which ended up banned or restricted, the rules nightmare that is Opalescence, and the broken “untap N lands” mechanic. It just goes to show that even our game’s most insightful writers have the odd off day.)
I’ve never had a problem with the Alaborn musketeers; in fact, I rather liked them. I thought they added an interesting and unique look and feel to the already broad spectrum of Magic flavor. I find it quite bizarre that the Dommermuth creative administration held such strong feelings about them – especially considering that several times over the last few years, they stretched the concept of “sword and sorcery” dangerously close to its breaking point.
Even so, the point of those articles found purchase among some readers. A few flavor-watchers are eager to call for an absolute ban on anything resembling a firearm – even as they gladly accept settings, objects, and characters heavily influenced by mythology or even contemporary literature. But is the use of technology a more dangerous incursion into the “pure” and “original” Magic multiverse than Shadowmoor’s use of Oona, ancient British mythology’s inscrutable faerie queen? Or Arabian Nights, the first expansion set ever made, where each and every card depicted a character or place such as Sinbad or the City of Brass?
Or is the real problem that some people have a very narrow definition of the fantasy genre, a definition based solely on the presence of superficial characteristics, forms, and stereotypes? Are they really afraid of Jace and Chandra fighting with field artillery instead of ice and fire? Or are they unwilling to read a story that doesn't follow a formula recognizable at a glance, and as such demands actual comprehension rather than mere attention? Perhaps a better question is not what is inside the firing chamber, but what is inside you.
That’s not a gun. It’s just a metal tube he uses to shoot projectiles at people… oh, wait.
Although this character would not have seemed entirely out of place in the trenches of the Somme, he wasn’t the first; back in 1998 the beginner-level set Portal Second Age featured a dozen or two pieces of art showing characters using firearms.
This single characteristic of the set's art direction was cited in a couple of Wizards of the Coast articles, coming from such figures as creative director Brady Dommermuth and head of design Mark Rosewater, as one of the greatest mistakes in the game’s history. (Mr. Rosewater mentioned the guns of Alaborn in the same article as Urza’s Saga, thereby putting twelve images of single-shot pistols on the same level as the block that contained around twenty cards which ended up banned or restricted, the rules nightmare that is Opalescence, and the broken “untap N lands” mechanic. It just goes to show that even our game’s most insightful writers have the odd off day.)
I’ve never had a problem with the Alaborn musketeers; in fact, I rather liked them. I thought they added an interesting and unique look and feel to the already broad spectrum of Magic flavor. I find it quite bizarre that the Dommermuth creative administration held such strong feelings about them – especially considering that several times over the last few years, they stretched the concept of “sword and sorcery” dangerously close to its breaking point.
That’s not a robot. It’s just an autonomous construct that performs reconnaissance missions and laborious tasks… oh, wait.
Even so, the point of those articles found purchase among some readers. A few flavor-watchers are eager to call for an absolute ban on anything resembling a firearm – even as they gladly accept settings, objects, and characters heavily influenced by mythology or even contemporary literature. But is the use of technology a more dangerous incursion into the “pure” and “original” Magic multiverse than Shadowmoor’s use of Oona, ancient British mythology’s inscrutable faerie queen? Or Arabian Nights, the first expansion set ever made, where each and every card depicted a character or place such as Sinbad or the City of Brass?
“Princess Elspeth! Can I have your autograph? I loved you in Mercedes Lackey’s Winds of Change!”
Or is the real problem that some people have a very narrow definition of the fantasy genre, a definition based solely on the presence of superficial characteristics, forms, and stereotypes? Are they really afraid of Jace and Chandra fighting with field artillery instead of ice and fire? Or are they unwilling to read a story that doesn't follow a formula recognizable at a glance, and as such demands actual comprehension rather than mere attention? Perhaps a better question is not what is inside the firing chamber, but what is inside you.
| 51 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
