[Nerdinburgh '08] Spione
Ron Edwards:
Hi,
The Spione Wiki is designed to provide a cornucopia of references - it's a bit overwhelming, maybe, but the Spy vs. Guy section ought to give a good start, as well as the subcategory of that name in the Film section. The first chapter of the book describes the literature and includes a profile section on the work of John le Carré. There's also an older thread at the Spione forum which is about one's "top five" for recommending to people.
My favorites aren't necessarily the most famous titles, but the most famous ones are damned good, that's for sure. Let's see ... so I guess it's most useful to provide an informal, as of this moment list for each.
Among my favorites
The Looking-Glass War by John le Carré
River of Darkness by James Grady
the Kyril trilogy by John Trenhaile
Funeral in Berlin by Len Deighton
The Sandbaggers (BBC TV series)
The Sisters by Robert Littell
The Intercom Conspiracy by Eric Ambler
The Lives of Others (German film)
Most famous
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Smiley's People by John le Carré
The Six Days of the Condor by James Grady (film version: Three Days of the Condor)
The Falcon and the Snowman by Robert Lindsey (also, film version)
Berlin trilogy and later books by Len Deighton (not related to the title in the above list)
The Company; The Defection of A.J. DeWinter by Robert Littell
The Miernik Dossier by Charles McCarry
The Mask of Dimitrios by Eric Ambler
The Heart of the Matter; The Quiet American by Graham Greene (the recent film version of the latter is a knockout; put it up in my fave list)
Spooks (called “MI-5” in the U.S.) (BBC TV series)
Titles that emphatically do not belong in the genre include the Blackford Oakes novels by William F. Buckley Jr., the Jack Ryan series by Tom Clancy, the James Bond series by Ian Fleming and others (although the literary Bond is a fascinating animal, not at all the same as either the film character or the popular icon), and any other novels by Charles McCarry.
Best, Ron
P.S. I confused myself at one point in an earlier post; I somehow got it into my head that Moreno had organized this game session in Italy, which of course makes no sense because he already did that a while ago. So my question to him makes no sense either.
Callan S.:
Hi Joe,
Beyond protagonism, literature has other techniques for making a case about something - like a narrator (a voice who isn't even in a character in the story world), or even description, like the badguys always wear black, or the onset of winter comes just as someone dies. Or even as subtle as the title of a chapter. Talk amongst players is much like a narrators voice (here it's the groups voices discussing). They're all a means to an end of making a case. Did the game seem to accomidate some method like those? I've read a sample of the book part of spione and that certainly promotes discussion, I'd imagine the rules promote some methods of getting into some meaty subject. What was there?
Callan S.:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 25, 2008, 07:41:44 AM
I'm so not happy with that post.
Callan, let me re-try it as the game designer participating in the thread, only.
Can you clarify what you'd like to know or want to say about the game (as described here), for me?
Best, Ron
Let's check out shared ground. Beyond just describing the game world details, on and on in a pure exploratory way, players might want to get at some situation/life choice/culture/problem. I called it 'making a case' in my other post. Those players want to aim in the general area of something, not just anywhere in the game world. In a broad sense, sound about right? Or something like it? Or do we differ here? Alot?
To use a car analogy, aiming at that situation requires movement. Wheels/protagonists are commonly used in cars. But you could use a hovercraft system, or tank treads, or some funky robot walker legs. You don't need wheels/protagonists to do it, but you do need some method of moving. Now "Protagonists are just an assumption!". When I say they aren't just an assumption, I mean if it's an okay option in the game not to have wheels/protagonists, then some other method of moving needs to be provided in those circumstances. But yeah, I didn't ask what your using, dang.
That method might just be 'Hey, the players talk about play while playing, showing what's important' and that works out cool. But before it wasn't even that, it was as if it's enough to say the current propulsion method was an assumption and...leave it at that. And sadly I was just as short. 'No, wheels/protagonists aren't just an assumption' and I left it at that. What's the propulshion method when there are no protagonists? I'm pretty sure there are lots of ways, including just inter player chat, but I need to hear it from ya!
Is the car analogy crappy?
Ron Edwards:
Hi Callan,
I am not really interested in trying to dissect previous posts and who-meant-what. I'm trying to move forward.
If you are saying that a story needs some substantial and consequential piece of the material, "compelling" probably being my best choice of words, then we agree fully. Spione is amply stocked with such things.
1. The primary mechanical one, which is far more important to the outcomes of play than the principals, is embodied in the characters called Supporting Cast. It is entirely accurate to say that a game of Spione is ultimately about them and what happens to them.
2. Another one, which I think is also quite important, is the unavoidable relevance of the spy "community" (Spider's Web) in Berlin during these decades to anyone alive in the world today. That is usually manifested as reactions and associations, especially when a few details are made known via discussion. Exactly which details, and what those reactions and associations will be, depends on the group.
Protagonizing characters fits very well into the "story material matrix" or "tissue" or whatever you want to call it, which is present due to these two elements. Using your analogy, these two things are the hovering mechanisms of the hovercraft, which can also be fitted with wheels, or better, shall we say "afterburners," enhancing the airborne-motion function.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Ah, a focus on supporting cast and their outcomes - that's an interesting difference. Perhaps not relevant, but sometimes in a film I think how supporting cast are kind of just used to show off someone elses life (yes, some sort of protagonist/hero/dude), but I think that doesn't quite work if the lives of supporting cast are treated as unimportant. Ah great, looks like I'm thinking it's all to support some hero dude. But really if all supporting cast lives get roughly as much focus as some hero dude, then you could decide someone else is actually the hero dude of the story. Might be what your getting at, but in my own words. And would the focus on supporting cast tie into the spy vs guy genre, in that it's alot about guys/normal people/supporting cast?
With #2, it is no doubt close to the bone. No wererats to grant some distance from the situation, ala 'it was a mutual decision'? ;) But wouldn't it be less about protagonising stuff and more about our own personal positions in relation to these events? I know it could sorta cross polinate to the supporting cast (ie, players start put them in that same position) and make them more relevant to us, but it'd be doing so by adding whatever diamacles swords are hanging over us in real life (hope that's not too dramatic a description). That's stark stuff. At those points in play, doesn't the whole protag stuff get left behind for awhile, while people think of their own position?
Also, rocket hovercraft - yay!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page