Be advised; this thread is not for serious in depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 82
- 6
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Part of this is that "Genre Founders" is one of the strongest possible selection effects. Weird and pulp fiction entered the modern canon through intermediaries in the 60s and 70s, so there's an additional filter when compared to something like detective fiction.
A month or two ago I was reading Michael Moorcock's collection of early Elric stories, specifically this volume. It's unapologetically schlocky, sword and sorcery married with "all the angst that's fit to print," and its influence seeped into the entire genre. Moorcock includes a variety of author's commentary between stories. Lovecraft is specifically cited as a non-influence! But it was immersion in this pulp culture that influenced his generation so heavily. The man was running an Edgar Rice Burroughs fanzine as a teenager in 1954; before ever getting published, he was reading Howard and Lieber along with French existentialists and Beats.
There's a lot more in this essay about Moorcock's attempts to conflate SF and literary fiction, but I think the point about Lovecraft et al. is clear. What we label, today, as "Lovecraftian" is a distillation of his work--the elements which most captured the minds of this particular generation of New Wave freelancers.
The other factor is that atmosphere is its own axis, nearly orthogonal to both technical skill and to underlying ideas. But the first part of this has ballooned enough; I suppose I'll argue about the differences between Harry Potter and Earthsea another time.
I read that one nearly a year ago and yeah, Elric as a character is...a bit much. Adolescent is the word I would use. Not that I didn't enjoy the stories.
I'd agree that there's something about Lovecraft. His prose can get pretty purple, his plots aren't particularly inventive, and his ideas, when stated bluntly, don't seem terribly sophisticated or compelling (There is no higher power and the universe is pointlessly cruel and chaotic? Shocking twist). And yet, he makes an impression. He casts a longer shadow than many other "better" writers. Maybe it's just sheer conviction. He really feels dread when contemplating a universe stripped of divine purpose and he's able to communicate that dread to the reader? I dunno.
There is a certain authenticity to Lovecraft. Everything I've read about the man paints him as an odd character himself, with poor relationships, unsuccessful in most endeavors, and with a somewhat fragile temperament. Extremely passive and neurotic, which his contemporaries put on how much he was raised exclusively by women. These attributes come through in his writing, in a way his imitators cannot match.
You can mimic his style, even improve on it. You cannot mimic his pathos.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link