Haven't visited for few days and already the heated debate gets a tad stale ;D. Let’s put one final spin on it.
First of all I’d like to show exactly why Rosh’s statement is not applicable when considering features of Fallout stylistics:
Rosh said:
In context with the Art Deco movement, that is exactly what it was meant to mean. The Art Deco movement, from a couple of decades past, was a cultural revival, a "revitalization through art" of the country. Since the 1930's and before was before the 1950's, and the 1950's was going into more Googie styles, then it would mean that Art Deco was from yesteryear. "In ruin", which you conveniently left out, was also added to give context, because the game is post-apocalyptic. Put in context, it means that the styles of the last couple of decades were put into ruins for art reasons, to fit into the post-apocalyptic universe.
I'm repeating myself again here. I'm familiar with the styles of modernism (predominately with architecture but other spheres of design as well, with exception to textiles and jewellery perhaps). Also, because you've misunderstood, I'm not even questioning the "revitalization through art" aspect of it (with the great recession, and later post war reconstruction as elements of the movement social, economical and historical context). Where do you exactly see me denying that? It is an amusing way of putting it – not because is elaborate but because in the given context it’s loosing its relevance and sound like a half-successful attempt to show ones expertise and knowledge. Hence my initial interest and enquiry. Asking “Sorry what? Is a question about the whole sentence in context. I’m not asking for your further clarification – yes I know I should have pasted the whole fragment I had been questioning – sorry. I realised that it might have not been enough when Atoga picked that up as well to which I clarified that:
The sentence in this context strikes me as odd".
Saying that its an odd argument in THE CONTEXT of you explaining why certain styles are used more and other less, (and this is the context of your whole post against which you cast Art Deco in Fallout). Let me illustrate this for you, using your own words (and paraphrasing) and I’ll try to reduce commenting to minimum:
First you say:
(the Fallout style) It's also "as envisioned by a 50's science fiction pulp artist, in styles commonly used in EC Comics". People seem to believe that when someone mentions that, it's time to Google for "50's styles". Pffft...how woefully ignorant.
Then you go on to specify to all those ignorant people what's the real stuff (artistic styles used by authors and relation thereof to the contemporaries e.g. Googie and people living in the 50s) is about. By the way your sentence about the Retrodesign - bad composition again - is thrown in media res but is relatively non-obtrusive to your ensuing argument so let's not go there (I’m even tempted to say it holds some water). Returning, in the nutshell you say: artistic styles of the 50s weren't used by the 50's authors because (what you concluded from your knowledge and experience of SF), generally references to popular culture in any given period are rarely used in SF novels from that respective period, because contemporaries who were "into" popular culture wouldn't really be an audience for SF (you used the word "watched" - but lets not go into minutiae details coz that might just add more confusion for you, already suffering from clarity deficiency syndrome).
I gotta tell ya when I first got to this point I thought: Damn! Where are the bloody examples to back it up because its not only a generalization but also a fallacy contradicting majority of my knowledge and analytical research into SF, but at ease I read his posts before, he may conjure up some fairly plausible explanation and examples.
But let’s continue looking at your exact words. Than you immediately say THIS:
Then why is Fallout uses a lot of Art Deco; to show the artistic hopes of yesteryear's revitalization through art, in ruin.
So we’ve got all that trend in SF that rather than using contemporary cultural elements uses other – in this particular case past stylistics. That’s your generalization. Fallout, in particular, as any other SF setting is doing the same – according to Rosh the fact that retrofuturistic styles are used in Fallout actually confirms the principle. Why? Now here his argumentation is getting really technical – or should I say convoluted (and I’m no layman)
Rosh thinks that his argument holds coz Fallout as a post-apocaliptic game (created in the 90’s and make no mistake it’s very important) is delivered in a form and idiom imitating the style of 50’s SF (for Rosh it’s enough, to accept that it must be then identical to 50’s products stylistics in every respect) uses past artistic references to show – also for artistic reasons – “yesteryear’s" styles (art deco in relation to the 50s) in ruin (due to the apocalypse) – it does that because (again as a typical SF product) the use of contemporary styles would not fit the 50s idiom. After all, Fallout is an artistic rendition of (interactive) EC comic (to use Rosh’s oft repeated – probably after designers – product reference)..Interesting.
That’s (minus my commentary) is exactly what you said and I quoted at the head of this post.
One can even make an effort and say it’s a valid observation. But it fails for one fundamental reason which should be taken for granted by any one who has a critical (meaning analytical) mind and I think the majority the participants of this forum have otherwise they wouldn’t offer their opinions. The reason is that FALLOUT IS ONLY STYLED AFTER THE 50’S SF PRODUCTS IT IS NOT THE REAL 50’S PRODUCT. It’s a computer game medium (which adds another layer but I won’t even go there, too obvious) non existent then, but more importantly, I repeat, it was designed in the 90’s, by people who didn’t live in the 50s. Now even if we accept that they went to great lengths to imitate the 50’s stylistic idiom and themes (which I believe they did and probably stated that themselves – great chaps as they are), they couldn’t discard their contemporary consciousness (of ppl living in the 90s) and put themselves completely into 50’s paradigm – it’s impossible even if you suffered complete amnesia (or brain wipe) you wouldn’t have complete reference and consciousness (even in single aspect) of the period which you didn’t live in (experienced) first hand (not just through research which by default is never complete) and time travel if existed wouldn’t help either. Even if we remain only on the level of style/art it’s impossible. Even Leo Boyarsky – kudos to him wouldn’t be able to do it. It’s beyond the capacity of human brain. It’s even “clearly obvious from playing the fucking game.� If you actually try to analyse the stylistics yourself – (which you involuntarily do anyway, interacting with it or rather your brain does)
If anyone has any doubts try it yourself – put yourself in the “mode� of any period which you didn’t live through like 50s for instance – even if you think you can shield off any references from different periods and relay on only ORIGINAL material you will fail coz even that original information is being filtered through your CURRENT intellect (knowledge, viewpoint, experience, emotions, culture and all that). Sorry to say that but it will only be an approximation, or adaptation of the said stylistics.
By the way, my argumentation and analysis presented here in somewhat simplified way (believe me this is heavy shit and I’ve already touched upon ontology, epistemology and transcendentalism – all important for text/discourse/medium analysis in my former post) is not some sort of an acid trip, most of the principles behind it are highly influenced by a body of cultural sciences, and techniques of discourse analysis – I don’t feel its necessary to give any sources here. My old buddy PiP who is on exactly the same page as I’m will confirm it. (You’re having a fucking ball don’t you mate ;D shit I can’t believe I’m doing this shit here. What a fucking comedy! ;D )
Alright (regaining composure)
More from Rosh
Is that clear enough for you now? Or did you suddenly forget that we were talking about Art Deco, just like you forgot that you wanted to know what the designers of the game said
Oh it’s clear for me, just as your own reasoning seems to be clear for you. As far as this matter is concerned, my aim is to provide enough arguments to demonstrate (not necessarily to you) that your reasoning is somewhat insubstantial.
You assume that I lack reference and background knowledge. Only on the basis of me questioning YOUR statement – OPINION, formed by you using your own brain about the reasons for using art deco in the game and further your so cold expertise of SF as a genre. Am I questioning the fact that Fallout draws from Art Deco, retro futurism, googie, modernism etc? No. Rosh I’m questioning your generalization and your evaluation.
I doubt that the designers of the game were ever consciously exploring the aspect of "yesteryear’s revitalization through art (if you insist on using one aspect of the movement as the denominator for the whole), in ruin" by their use of the said stylistics. Yes, it is a feature of many modernist styles (i.e. art deco or art noveu) no doubt about it. But in the context of Fallout the revitalization aspect is imported only as a side-effect of featuring that sort of stylistics.
I am sorry I don't dice it into layman's terms for you to begin with, but you're the one who wanted to butt into the conversation, it's your obligation to educate yourself a bit.
But you have diced into layman’s terms. There is nothing elaborate about your original statements – I said it many times I wasn’t questioning the concepts but the way you’ve put them together. Oh and, I’m sorry for butting in and questioning your flow of thoughts – you were stating them openly on the forum and thus is open for debate so even if you were the lead designer of the game I could have been questioning your arguments (you do it yourself all the time)
Three-part sentences of items listed in context, or three items to be reflected upon in the same train of thought. Yet we seem to be aware that you're failing at context.
Show me where. Can you even analyse my statements, identify the ideologies I'm drawing from (PiP provided a visual hint to one framework), let alone understand my reasoning? No you dismiss it instead.
Shall I shut up about that as well, or do you want me to not put things in context for you, and then you gripe at me putting them in context, and then now you're complaining because I have to explain myself at a depth you're unfamiliar with?
They were fairly simple from the start, too simple in fact - by that I mean superficial. Your further explanation was even more crude - hence I have accused you of being simplistic - suspecting that you could do better, but you disappointed me.
(More pseudo-intellectual bullshit.)
Except that I can point out that in context with the designer's plans, as I now remind you for about the third time. I can also note that every Fallout game is pretty much the same. So, given those two facts, it is my obligation to educate you upon matters you seem to have little familiarity with, and then you decide to presume it's my fault for your ignorance or failure to read in context?
You could point it out but why should I take your word for it. Your analytical skills are somewhat primitive.
Let me get this straight, so you know the "designer's plans". All designers involved in fact. You had known their intentions, and witnessed the initial stages of the project, you've seen story boards, concept art, everything. Then you accessed their thoughts, references, all the concepts they were drawing from., in fact you were there, with them, present in all their heads at once, throughout the whole production process and afterwards when they were adding new elements of setting responding to fans' setting-related questions and such. ;D
But seriously, even if you knew all the published material by heart, and were able to quote any reference available, how can you be sure that you can analyse and interpret all that completely, reaching an absolute (always true) meaning?
Taking even such small part of the whole design as the use of at deco - do you even realise how much concepts, historical background, intertextuality and connotations are involved here? - you cannot justify your being selective by saying it's a context of a computer game, and even if you do what makes you think that, even within this small sphere, you know it all? Especially as you probably never used any formal analytical methods (not consciously anyway). Are you familiar with such approaches as deconstructivism, or structuralism? Let me guess. You are not. But you still claim to be an authority on the subject going even as far as forcing your views on the others claiming they their knowledge is insufficient. Confirmation in your own words:
I say many interpretations (and I was talking about your analysis of the whole SF not only Fallout but once again you didn't understand the question - and you accuse me of not reading in context) and you say:
No, dipshit, there's one , the one the designers stated, the one they put into the fucking game,
I try to expand a bit given that you're ignorant about that part, maybe you need a bit more of the whole picture.
So the designers not only stated how to interpret stylistics of the game they also placed the right interpretation in the game. But doesn't interpretation rest with the receiver, not the designer? Does it mean that if I interpret the game stylistics differently (using different approach but justifying it with factual and relevant examples), I'm still incorrect? Is it true with any interpretation of art and style? Is all experience of artistic culture so predetermined for us? Are we prisoners of determinism and designers' plans? Or maybe Fallout is a special case with one and only true interpretation (the whole picture you are talking about)
What do you think people?
Now as far as the SF debate is concerned, It’s, as expected, become academic.
Let me recreate your “event list� here coz it's getting a bit silly:
i) First you say that SF authors in the 50's often take familiar elements and gives them a "twist"
ii) I say that all SF is like that - (remember that I've also said that my concepts of SF and popular culture are probably different than yours)
iii) To that you say that:
Not entirely, some is about pure speculation of wholly unheard-of things.
(throwing Verne at my arse)
iv) I reply that it's pretty much the same - (giving few examples) - author uses familiar concepts to manipulate (or twist or whatever) to reach new unheard-of ideas. And those source concepts can only either predate or be contemporary to the author (they don't come from the future)
v) Afterwards you add that I'm wrong if one takes into consideration the knowledge of common man of a given period because the new ideas were so innovative (I don’t think its as important as you believe, in fact, even if you taken primitive knowledge I could still back up my approach – using very broad aspect of familiarity)
vi) Then you admit that Verne for instance didn't write about unheard-of things but was using familiar ones as springboard to develop something new but the new concept were so innovative that might have been considered (earlier) unknown
Now at this point I have to say that you are actually going along very similar track to mine the difference is very superficial. For example, following your absolutely irrelevant reference to science (it’s not introducing anything new to the issue at hand and could easily spark off a new dabate) You move on (or rather get back) to EC Comics claiming that they use the same method – yeah fine but does that contradict me in any way? Frankly, no.
So...where did the idea of radioactivity causing giant mutations come from? Oh, I know! It must have been Alice in Fucking Wonderland, from the same shroom you're on
Again, here as well speculation on unheard-of concepts can be understood as familiar concepts undergoing a "twist"
That concept originated from the known fact that radiation affects mutation. It was known earlier. Where from? Oh I don’t know maybe from the fact that the guy who discovered that radiation can increase mutation of fruit flies (in 1926) and then won Nobel Prize in 1946.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html
And the GIANT (or any aberrant) result of mutation is the so cold "twist" of yours. Probably used in EC comics and dime pulp fiction to tap into widespread fear of this new freshly harnessed atomic power and it’s dangers, along with the onset of the arms race and all other events. Why? For the sake of sensationalism among others, and appealing to the same sentiment of our psyche that gave birth to werewolves, vampires and other embodiments of fearsome things, and forces. Dangerous radiation and mutation are very abstract things but become more accessible if animated as horribly mutated inhuman beings – that’s obvious (although the theory of Folk Psychology is still considered controversial)
The fact that the end result is improbable and clearly fictional doesn't mean that my claim is invalid.
We're going in circles here, and this discussion could go on indefinitely.
Along the same note, Fallout's designers added something that would have been considered a relatively brand new subject to a 50's author - biological, not just radioactive, warfare.
Yeah, but for the fact that Fallout designers weren’t living in the 50s much later when existence of biological warfare and all sorts of mutagens was (unfortunately) more than certain.
On a side note, congratulations on noticing the submarine! Salute
On the side note, no I haven't missed the submarine. You have.
Evidence:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/theymadeamerica ... on_lo.html
(his achievements brought him celebrity status - hence he was fairly popular and heard of)
and
http://www.robertfulton.org/
(Trivia: What name he's given to his submarine? No fuckin way!!!!!!! Nautilus - but how he possibly could if he preceded Verne by what 70 odd years??? (Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (Vingt mille lieues sous les mers, 1870)) - this must be for you an evidence of time travel.)
and yet another one to awe you:
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/fulton.html - a website endorsed by MIT go fucking challenge that source
But it's getting better
Plain google search brings the following:
http://inventors.about.com/library/inve ... arine4.htm (16th fucking century - documented)
somtin more substantial? Here ya go:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostsub/history.html (with a neat timeline for you, Verne included)
Anyone, virtually anyone at least a bit versed in marine history can tell you that, but probably question now why I have used iron-cast bell example instead. Two reasons:
This information is so readily available - especially online - that you would hit the jackpot immediately, as I said before it was to be an intellectual exercise for you (difficulty level, appropriate) and/or I wanted another forum member to throw that in your face, hence even further undermining your so called knowledge of SF (no one did but no matter, they know anyway
)
Diving bell is a contraption was used first time for deep diving (if limited) not just submersion. Hereby illustrating alternative scientific inspiration for Verne's unheard-of invention, oh and it’s an older idea as well.
Finally to sum up, the case of Verne's Nautilus propulsion, ideally I would send you back to the book. But if you need some quick remedy for your catatonic state of knowledge, here's some simplified meterial:
http://home.att.net/~karen.crisafulli/nautilus.html
Oh and the propulsion dilemma – here is an alternative view (albeit based on quotations)
Now as far as I remember the propulsion was referred to as electrical – which you confirm. The element of danger? Well electricity is quite dangerous in itself but there is another thing; Verne hinted at the source of that energy as well – chemical reaction. Yes the chamber was sealed but it’s easy to guess, looking from Verne point of view even, that chemical reaction (or set of reactions) producing energy of that magnitude could probably be quite dangerous (toxic fumes, acidity, unstable substances). Yeah it’s quite similar to nuclear power from certain perspective but he is not that vague.
Still another aspect is the source of electrical current: chemical vs thermonuclear (coz this is used in modern subs I believe). Now I’m not a specialist so correct me if I’m wrong but, the first produces electricity in a way directly (like a battery), whereas thermonuclear uses (funnily enough) modernised principle of a steam engine – nuclear fission produces enormous amounts of heat (among other radiations) which is used to convert water into steam and engage dynamo-like mechanism which in turn produces electricity. So, similar but different – crazy stuff.
With the view of the above references some of that:
So, essentially, Verne went from...a ship voyage (moderately familiar, if at all relevant to undersea travel), to undersea travel with an electrically-powered submarine with a "dangerous power source" about 70 years before it would really happen. In fact, it was his work that really inspired the development of the submarine. Onto space travel...well, it was theorized before, but Verne put it into the public eye. The same with going to the center of the earth, which perhaps had the dinosaurs and a few other common elements, but the rest was not that entertained in science fiction. Sure, we could go on about the Odyssey and those books, but...
Is sort of, I don’t know, highly debatable.
Most science fiction does use commonly known elements, because most "heavy" science fiction tends to be where the audience is required to have an imagination.
Just look at this sentence! Look at it! What you even trying to achieve with it I don’t know. I’ve shown the sentence (in context) to a few of my English friends and they agree with me – it’s outlandish.
At the time of his authoring, the concepts of underwater and outer-space travel were quite unheard-of in the public eye. True, they were subjects in discourse and academic studies before Verne wrote about them, but this time finding the earliest source doesn't prove right.
Doesn't prove wrong either.
Verne was talking about subjects that were up to that point considered a "first light bulb in the Eskimo igloo", for a hopefully sufficient metaphor. While the light bulb did exist elsewhere, the first time it was turned on it made quite an impact. It was something they had never considered except in perhaps crude terms.
Perhaps. That's one way of looking at it I suppose. Still considering historical data, and the fact that 19th century was a period of rampaging industrialism, technological development (take Charles Babbage for instance) and scientific discoveries, I will be more inclined to say that he was a visionary but not extraordinarily inventive. Nonetheless his works are superb.
Anyway, the discussion becomes a bit pointless. The bottom line is that any SF work, in fact any new conceptualization can be said to have been a result of interplay between familiar concepts, or rather domains (networked clusters of concepts). I could even go to the very basic meta-conceptual level here but that would take a LOT more space. PiP illustrated the whole thing with his usual “to the point� brevity, as he always does (;D) whereas I like to fuck around with words and meanings, so use his contribution as further illustration of cognitive approach to conceptualization.
By the way PiP, read some fiction instead of playing the bloody games all the time ;D
As the final point:
Back to the real subject, and how SuperH also reminded me upon it - references are in contextual scope. To clarify, using a common leatherhead outfit and cutting off an arm to make it look like Mad Max. That is a decent homage, as Mad Max put the post-apocalyptic genre into the eyes of many. Where it strays from Mad Max is in a number of other ways, namely the art style (aw, shit brought that up again...), the setting elements ("SCIENCE! post-apocalyptic" instead of "bleak post-apocalyptic"), the humor style, and a few other items that are freely available..
Alternatively one may say that fallout is a hybrid of artistic styles (drawing from pulp SF, and very much the contemporary SF as well), where stylistic bastardisation (not a pejorative term, it means adaptation) of pulp SF stylistics seems to be the most prevalent but not exclusive. So if Tensen made one of his characters look like taken from Mad Max that would be acceptable in my view. I agree that however that the 90’s reference is a bit too far though.
That's it kids from now on no lectures (I hope ;D). No go and scavenge some pre-apocalyptic spam!
Oh come on Rosh, you know you're too experienced for that 
)
- except one book as a kid, which I can't remember - so I don't know how much evidence there is for Verne's conceiving nuclear power; the idea of atom has been present in culture since the ancient Greece, but subatomic particles were theorised only a few years after 'Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea' was published, and Sklodowska 
. Like EC comics and mad-max leather jacket - like you rightly pointed out. I think you want to say that making a character more mad-max-like than those in Fallout is no longer Fallout style, and I utterly agree - and I'm sure shamer does, too. The difference is that shamer apparently thinks it is still acceptable in some cases while you don't. Gee now that's a biggie 
