Edited twice, because a post wasn't showing up and I thought it was deleted:
I think you got confused at some point, and its about when you asked why they no longer publish novels if the story was so popular. The thing we have been saying is that it wasn't, but it has been increasing in popularity ever since the company started posting stories online. I actually don't disagree much with a lot of the things you said, its just that you ought to keep better track with what is being disputed. Older novels did indeed follow a structure I think you would approve of, and older characters had better story arcs with growth and everything. At some point, they stopped selling well enough for the company to think it worth continuing to publish novels, assuming that they were ever that popular. And if they did start publishing them again, they would probably start with ebooks like Godsend before touching print media so as to not have to compete for shelf space at bookstores like they did before.
No, O Formless One, it is you, not I, who is confused. Your point was indeed that MTG's story is growing in popularity. However, my point was that the game has also increased massively in popularity, and that by the looks of things, interest in the story hasn't increased in line with this (i.e. the ratio of MTG players to Vorthoses does not *appear* to have narrowed as much as you suggest).
But let's have some fun: let's assume you are right, and that it is the serial format that is "increasing the story's popularity". Why then is it still lagging massively behind the Horus Heresy, which now stands at 50+ books, all of which have sold like crack? The Horus Heresy was never told in serialised form -- it is successful because it is a richly told story that captured players' hearts. Format is always secondary; a good story will sell no matter how it is told.
Thus, the Brothers' War failed because it is simply not as compelling as the Horus Heresy, for various reasons. Telling it in serialised form would not have saved it. In fact, serialising it would only have hurt it, because serialisations have a tighter timescale and are required to fit an oscillating arc of cliffhangers and resolutions, which is anathema to character development and extremely hard to do without descending into farce.
Another mistake you make is your assumption that the increasing popularity of MTG's story is a sign that it is in a good place. What if only one person reads the story today, and then next year two people read it? In such a case, the story is increasing in popularity. That doesn't mean it doesn't have acres of room for improvement.
(I have to ask everyone to leave me out of further discussions, as I won't have time to reply.)
I don't think it's fair to compare WotC to Games Workshop. Wotc seems to actually care about its players.
Okay, I have to admit I actually laughed at that. I understand what you mean, but that was the old Games Workshop; it's under new management now, and it really shows.
It seems that the spam filter ate my previous post for reasons I don't understand (I guess referencing one too many other franchises even for comparison's sake triggers it or something?) but I guess I will be more concisethis time around: if you do indeed understand marketing, then you ought to realize this is a moot discussion. "Buzz" is an indirect way of gauging interest, and its got a participation bias. Sure, using it systematically can tell you something about whether people like the story or not, but that's something rather different than just gauging interest. More direct is the traffic to Wizard's website and the story posts (or when they were selling novels, sales data), and I don't think anyone except Wizards and the people they do business with have that data.
Fervour of story discussion activity on Mtgsalvation, Reddit, Facebook, and elsewhere is the best measure you or I have to determining the popularity of MTG's story. But Wizards' behaviour can also be used. They have decided not to continue publishing novels, and to give away their scraps of story for free. Why do you think this is? Surely, if the MTG story was as popular as you suggest, Wizards would be selling it and by now have accreted a publishing arm to rival Black Library?
Morover, they have to do a cost benefit analysis as well, and novels aren't cheap to make. Having some guy in the Creative dept. write something up once a week and accompany it with existing artwork on the other hand is probably incredibly inexpensive and easy to justify. And lastly, this is actually where Magic's story as we know it today started-- with the Weatherlight saga, which was published as serialized fiction in magazines. In some ways, those short stories were incredibly similar to what we are getting today, right down to the ups and downs in writing quality.
I agree with all that. But again, Black Library. Why isn't Wizards spewing bestselling novels that cover production costs many times over? It's not because there is no market; MTG is just as popular as Warhammer 40,000. The reason Wizards is scared of its own stories is that Wizards has not yet learned how to organise an effective story department. Don't get me wrong, Creative has a lot of talent; I personally think Kelly Digges and Doug Beyer are capable of authentic awesomeness. Khanfall was a well-crafted story from virtually any perspective. And sure, the story team does have many good ideas -- I particularly like the profundity of the aetherborn, forced to embrace life by the shadow of death.
But the way stories are currently created at Wizards is not conducive to seduction. Their block narratives are overplanned and overdeveloped to the point of sterilisation. It doesn't have to be this way. Instead of constraining the story beats within a tight market rubric, forcing cliffhangers to coincide with weekly episodes or quarterly blocks, and characters to live up to brand archetypes or brand values, they should create breathing space between the card game and the wider story, give individual authors room for improvisation, feeling their way organically through the story using their characters as avatars. The flavour should give context to the story, not the other way round. Nissa should be allowed to grow and change, not be condemned to life as a hippy because Wizards wants a face for the colour green.
Wizards needs to learn, as Games Workshop did, that story shouldn't fit the brand -- story *is* the brand.
No air of superiority intended, and I don't think anyone is an idiot for enjoying a bit of escapist fantasy. Personally, I'm not a very good MTG player -- I play a casual Sultai delver deck about once a month and I'm sure most of you would obliterate me if we ever played a game. That's why I don't post in the Spike threads -- instead I read what more informed people than me have to say, and learn from it.
However, I happen to have a long background in understanding the marketing and mechanics of story, so I figured I'd give my informed opinion in this thread. I'm just trying to make the point that the MTG story could be monumentally better if only it was managed in a more organised way, and a few creative risks were taken, in the vein of Black Library.
I'm well aware that MTGsalvation is not the be-all and end-all of MTG. However, it is one of the best gauges that we have to determining the popularity of MTG's story, as people who are interested in a story tend to discuss it. This is known as "buzz", and it is used by literary agents, publishers and movie execs to determine the approximate popularity of a given story. It is a much better gauge than your claims of "Lots of people I know like it".
I never claimed that the MTG story was ever good. I know it has always been bad, and Jay, it is not just my opinion. I am basing my appraisal of the MTG story on several technical grounds which we discussed ad nauseam at the start of this year, and which I don't want to get into again. If you still don't get that storytelling isn't completely or even mostly subjective, there's no point in trying to convince you further. You brought up Warhammer, and I'm glad you did, because when you compare Wizards' story management with that of Black Library -- the New York Times bestselling publishing arm of Games Workshop, which I may soon be joining as commissioning editor -- you will hopefully see that there *is* a huge market for well-told game fiction, and so much potential for MTG's story that isn't being tapped into due to poor management.
What? The story is more popular than ever. What numbers are you basing this on, because the 'Magic Story' threads are our most trafficked basically ever.
I'm basing my numbers on the number of people who view and post in the story subforum, relative to the forum in general. The Magic story threads may be the most trafficked ever, but that's only because the player base is at its largest ever.
So... do what they were unsuccessful at for 20 years again? Look, magic players only want to buy Magic cards. If they switched back to for-pay novels, the storyline interest would drop significantly.
What a strange thing to say. You're essentially saying that it is never worth trying again what you once failed at. You also make a bizarre assumption that "Magic players only want to buy cards" which is unsupported by any evidence. Your last sentence is also unsubstantiated.
And seriously, what are you even doing here? If you find the story so awful, why do you have an account basically only to talk about it?
What a welcoming mod you are. I post here because I want the MTG story to be good, but feel it falls seriously short. If you have a problem with that, ban me.
I'm not saying the story is perfect, but not everything has to be a fantasy epic. I can see Warhammer players, who'd have to have money to spare, buying novels, but Magic players?
Another puzzling statement. Why would Warhammer players have money to be spare where MTG players wouldn't? Both hobbies are arm-amputatingly expensive, with a primary demographic of middle-class professionals with disposable income.
The reality is the story is better known and more popular than ever thanks to the free online articles. And it's been pretty steadily improving in overall quality.
This is an unsubstantiated claim that doesn't really require a response.
I personally think it's good that Creative haven't been releasing so many stories; in my opinion they should stop telling stories altogether. They've been trying to get MTG players interested in their new, lazily written, corporate-driven "vision" of the story for a while now, and, judging from the attendance figures of this subforum, very few players have taken the bait. At this point Wizards is just wasting money churning out this pulp.
Instead of writing long pieces filled with the Power Rangers winking at each other and saying cringeworthy stuff like "Right on!" and "get real!" (before defeating the greatest threats in the multiverse in the most laughably nonsensical ways), Creative should hire sharper writers and have them focus solely on the flavour text on cards, creating subtle hints of a story that gives enough leeway for people to piece together into their very own story, which will inevitably be much richer and more coherent than any "prose" from the Wizards hacks.
Alternatively, if Wizards are intent on reaching a mass market, they should abandon this "free story" crap, hire quality tie-in fiction writers like Dan Abnett, and have them craft an elaborate and well-planned novel cycle, sold for profit. Although I find the MTG story embarrassingly awful in general, the shameless nerd in me would pay good money for a mature Game of Thrones-esque novel about the power struggles between the various Khans of Tarkir -- especially if it involves a secret alliance between the Sultai Brood and House Dimir...
For those of you who care about this terrible story, the new Kaladesh campaign mode for Magic Duels adumbrates the general plot.
Dovin Baan turns out to be in league with Tezzeret, and together they twirl their moustaches and mwhahaha, and then kidnap Pia. Chandra gets mad as hell, and burns stuff. Tezzeret could easily kill Pia, but instead he twirls his moustache some more, and devises a long-winded plot to have Pia killed in the arena by one of his artifact creations. Then the Gatewatch arrive, combine their powers, and save the day. Tezzeret flees, waving his fist and screaming "I would have got away with it if it weren't for you pesky kids!"
Well, Ashiok, if it means anything, I agree with you. It's why I don't usually waste my time posting in this thread (though I scan it every now and again). In my experience, it's best just to enjoy MTG for the gameplay, and ignore the drivel that Creative farts out.
I personally see this as fitting the feeling of cosmic horror without having to be entirely hopeless. It hasn't been that way in every Lovecraft thing, and as others said definitions tend to change/expand with time. Eldritch Moon feels plenty cosmic horror enough to me, and that's likely not an uncommon sentiment given the views in this thread. It would be like trying to restrict fantasy to something that only strictly resembles Tolkein's work, or any number of other equivalents I'm sure.
I get the feeling I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, but I have to say, categorising things based on "feel" is not normal practice, especially when the criteria are already well-defined. And this is precisely the reason why definitions loosen, till they no longer mean anything. It's not like you're being forced to use the word "cosmic horror", so why use it when you can just use the catch-all phrase Lovecraftian (or, more accurately, Derlethian) horror?
Sure, I said I didn't understand what "Lovecraftian" really meant anymore (because it's thrown around so casually these days). But when you say "Lovecraftian horror", most people will know what you're talking about (i.e. a horror written in the style of Lovecraft).
I understand that when you are a huge fan of something, other peoples flawed perception of that particular thing might be enerving, but look at it this way: There were quite a few things a greek mythology geek would find not accurate about Theros but which other people would find out of place if they were there, like angels for example (humanoid angels are a greek invention in fact). And Magic is not a scientific study of themes it uses in its sets. For most people the term "lovecraftian" and "cosmic" horror are pretty broadly about eldritch tentacled entities from beyond, who cause madness just by looking at them. In popular culture the notion that these entities are not only incomprehensible but also undefeatable never really took root. A lot of Lovecrafts ideas about cosmic horror never took root which is sometimes even good (he was after all an extreme racist). And even HE wrote cosmic horror stories in which the plans of these entities were foiled by mere man (The Dunwhich Horror comes to mind).
All in all, as others have said, definitions change and this set does not want to be a scientifically accurate representation of cosmic horror based only on Lovecraft. Just leave it be.
What I'm trying to say is, why describe this block as "cosmic horror" (wrongly) when you can just call it "Lovecraftian horror"? Perhaps to other people I'm coming across as pedantic, but I just don't know why people would deliberately use the wrong word to describe something when there is an alternative correct one? It would be like people calling the Theros block "Norse Mythology". I just don't get it.
Norse Mythology is a bit more narrowly defined than something like cosmic horror. I don't really think we're going to see a shift in perception where "Norse" will be shifted to include Greece. That and "Lovecraftian horror" and "cosmic horror" tend to be treated as synonyms for one another, it seems kind of odd to dislike one being used to describe Eldritch Moon and not the other.
As for the criteria being defined, as others have said criteria changes. Cosmic Horror doesn't have to be as strictly defined as it once was. It's the same as saying Harry Potter isn't fantasy because it isn't the same as Lord of the Rings. Whether or not that's a good thing is up for debate I suppose, but that doesn't make the use of the term inaccurate in this context necessarily.
Whether or not the definition has shifted to the point that Eldritch Moon fits it is also something up for debate, but it's not as though there is a group of people deciding whether or not the word is applicable or not. And people who make Eldritch Moon have described it as cosmic horror as well, which at least shows a more widespread shift in how the word is used than it would have when it was first talked about.
Unfortunately, there are some prominent inaccuracies and logical fallacies in your post. For instance LOTR/HP/fantasy is a false equivalence, because cosmic horror is not the work of a single author like LOTR, but is in fact a subgenre unto itself, comprising works outside of Lovecraft, such as Laird Barron and Thomas Ligotti. Also, Lovecraftian horror =/= cosmic horror.
However, I think I'm done with this thread now. People will continue to use the words that they want to use, and it's not going to physically harm me, so I guess it's probably not a big deal. But thanks to all of you who engaged with me on this issue without resorting to snark or name-calling -- a rare thing these days.
I personally see this as fitting the feeling of cosmic horror without having to be entirely hopeless. It hasn't been that way in every Lovecraft thing, and as others said definitions tend to change/expand with time. Eldritch Moon feels plenty cosmic horror enough to me, and that's likely not an uncommon sentiment given the views in this thread. It would be like trying to restrict fantasy to something that only strictly resembles Tolkein's work, or any number of other equivalents I'm sure.
I get the feeling I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, but I have to say, categorising things based on "feel" is not normal practice, especially when the criteria are already well-defined. And this is precisely the reason why definitions loosen, till they no longer mean anything. It's not like you're being forced to use the word "cosmic horror", so why use it when you can just use the catch-all phrase Lovecraftian (or, more accurately, Derlethian) horror?
Sure, I said I didn't understand what "Lovecraftian" really meant anymore (because it's thrown around so casually these days). But when you say "Lovecraftian horror", most people will know what you're talking about (i.e. a horror written in the style of Lovecraft).
I understand that when you are a huge fan of something, other peoples flawed perception of that particular thing might be enerving, but look at it this way: There were quite a few things a greek mythology geek would find not accurate about Theros but which other people would find out of place if they were there, like angels for example (humanoid angels are a greek invention in fact). And Magic is not a scientific study of themes it uses in its sets. For most people the term "lovecraftian" and "cosmic" horror are pretty broadly about eldritch tentacled entities from beyond, who cause madness just by looking at them. In popular culture the notion that these entities are not only incomprehensible but also undefeatable never really took root. A lot of Lovecrafts ideas about cosmic horror never took root which is sometimes even good (he was after all an extreme racist). And even HE wrote cosmic horror stories in which the plans of these entities were foiled by mere man (The Dunwhich Horror comes to mind).
All in all, as others have said, definitions change and this set does not want to be a scientifically accurate representation of cosmic horror based only on Lovecraft. Just leave it be.
What I'm trying to say is, why describe this block as "cosmic horror" (wrongly) when you can just call it "Lovecraftian horror"? Perhaps to other people I'm coming across as pedantic, but I just don't know why people would deliberately use the wrong word to describe something when there is an alternative correct one? It would be like people calling the Theros block "Norse Mythology". I just don't get it.
I personally see this as fitting the feeling of cosmic horror without having to be entirely hopeless. It hasn't been that way in every Lovecraft thing, and as others said definitions tend to change/expand with time. Eldritch Moon feels plenty cosmic horror enough to me, and that's likely not an uncommon sentiment given the views in this thread. It would be like trying to restrict fantasy to something that only strictly resembles Tolkein's work, or any number of other equivalents I'm sure.
I get the feeling I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, but I have to say, categorising things based on "feel" is not normal practice, especially when the criteria are already well-defined. And this is precisely the reason why definitions loosen, till they no longer mean anything. It's not like you're being forced to use the word "cosmic horror", so why use it when you can just use the catch-all phrase Lovecraftian (or, more accurately, Derlethian) horror?
Sure, I said I didn't understand what "Lovecraftian" really meant anymore (because it's thrown around so casually these days). But when you say "Lovecraftian horror", most people will know what you're talking about (i.e. a horror written in the style of Lovecraft).
By the standards you're putting forth, apparently Lovecraftian hasn't meant anything since Chaosium released Arkham Horror in 1987 or the Call Of Cthulhu RPG in 1981, both of which allow "insignifcant humans" to overcome Old Ones.
Listen man, I don't wanna argue with anyone here. Some posters on this forum are "alpha-geeks" who have to demonstrate their intellectual superiority at every opportunity. You might not be one of them, but even so, I don't wanna play that game, especially when the subject at hand is off-topic. If you have a very clear idea of what the word Lovecraftian means, cool. But I don't, and I doubt you'd be able to convince me otherwise.
As for those of you deciding that "cosmic horror" means whatever you want it to mean, fine. I've already given the official definition; whether people adhere to it is not my responsibility.
On topic, I'm glad Wizards decided to focus on Eldrazi-corrupted creatures rather than Eldrazi spawn. The BFZ block really suffered from all those indistinguishable creature cards. Now my hope is that we see more non-Eldrazi colourless cards -- perhaps automatons in the Kaladesh block. I'm getting tired of seeing Ugin in cahoots with Emrakul (in modern).
"I'm been proven wrong, so everyone else is a super-geek and I'm too cool for that"
Really, Teysa_Karlov? How exactly have I been proven wrong?
It was actually daved74 who got it wrong, by confusing the word "Lovecraftian" with the term "cosmic horror". He in fact laid out a straw man argument, but I didn't call him on it because I didn't want to go too off-topic.
If you can provide a shred of evidence for daved74 proving me wrong, then I will hold up my hands and apologise to you for being "oh-so-cool". If you can't, then I would appreciate an apology from you for insulting me without knowing what you're talking about.
If you don't respond, then this is a sign that you know you messed up, but are not man enough to admit when you're wrong, which would, incidentally, also make you a colossal hypocrite.
By the standards you're putting forth, apparently Lovecraftian hasn't meant anything since Chaosium released Arkham Horror in 1987 or the Call Of Cthulhu RPG in 1981, both of which allow "insignifcant humans" to overcome Old Ones.
Listen man, I don't wanna argue with anyone here. Some posters on this forum are "alpha-geeks" who have to demonstrate their intellectual superiority at every opportunity. You might not be one of them, but even so, I don't wanna play that game, especially when the subject at hand is off-topic. If you have a very clear idea of what the word Lovecraftian means, cool. But I don't, and I doubt you'd be able to convince me otherwise.
As for those of you deciding that "cosmic horror" means whatever you want it to mean, fine. I've already given the official definition; whether people adhere to it is not my responsibility.
On topic, I'm glad Wizards decided to focus on Eldrazi-corrupted creatures rather than Eldrazi spawn. The BFZ block really suffered from all those indistinguishable creature cards. Now my hope is that we see more non-Eldrazi colourless cards -- perhaps automatons in the Kaladesh block. I'm getting tired of seeing Ugin in cahoots with Emrakul (in modern).
Are you actually trying to argue that Emrakul is somehow NOT pretty much just a Great Old One? I see Lovecraft's cosmic horror invading a setting of Gothic horror... the genre HPL started with.
Whether or not Emrakul is supposed to be a Great Old One is immaterial. An MTG block can never be cosmic horror, because the concept of planeswalkers puts human beings at the centre of the universe.
There are other points, too: For instance, non-humans and even the Eldrazi themselves feel fear -- Ulamog and Kozilek were described as being scared after Chandra went super-Saiyan on their asses -- suggesting that human emotions are not just limited to a tiny speck of dust in a single brief moment of the universe, but are in fact a quality inherent to the multiverse itself -- a decidedly anthropocentric conceit.
A being of hideous power approaching the world from Outside, totally outside of the classifications and tropes of this reality.
Steady on, bro. Emrakul may be described as a being of hideous and unfathomable power, but she is completely at the mercy of Hasbro's marketing department, and will eventually be humiliated by the power rangers -- you know this. Sure, Cthulhu got rammed by a ship, but it's important to note that Lovecraft hated doing stuff like that, and felt he had been reduced to a hack by his financial concerns. The MTG creative team have no such qualms.
It's also important to note that not everything Lovecraft wrote about aliens was cosmic horror.
No, O Formless One, it is you, not I, who is confused. Your point was indeed that MTG's story is growing in popularity. However, my point was that the game has also increased massively in popularity, and that by the looks of things, interest in the story hasn't increased in line with this (i.e. the ratio of MTG players to Vorthoses does not *appear* to have narrowed as much as you suggest).
But let's have some fun: let's assume you are right, and that it is the serial format that is "increasing the story's popularity". Why then is it still lagging massively behind the Horus Heresy, which now stands at 50+ books, all of which have sold like crack? The Horus Heresy was never told in serialised form -- it is successful because it is a richly told story that captured players' hearts. Format is always secondary; a good story will sell no matter how it is told.
Thus, the Brothers' War failed because it is simply not as compelling as the Horus Heresy, for various reasons. Telling it in serialised form would not have saved it. In fact, serialising it would only have hurt it, because serialisations have a tighter timescale and are required to fit an oscillating arc of cliffhangers and resolutions, which is anathema to character development and extremely hard to do without descending into farce.
Another mistake you make is your assumption that the increasing popularity of MTG's story is a sign that it is in a good place. What if only one person reads the story today, and then next year two people read it? In such a case, the story is increasing in popularity. That doesn't mean it doesn't have acres of room for improvement.
(I have to ask everyone to leave me out of further discussions, as I won't have time to reply.)
Okay, I have to admit I actually laughed at that. I understand what you mean, but that was the old Games Workshop; it's under new management now, and it really shows.
Fervour of story discussion activity on Mtgsalvation, Reddit, Facebook, and elsewhere is the best measure you or I have to determining the popularity of MTG's story. But Wizards' behaviour can also be used. They have decided not to continue publishing novels, and to give away their scraps of story for free. Why do you think this is? Surely, if the MTG story was as popular as you suggest, Wizards would be selling it and by now have accreted a publishing arm to rival Black Library?
I agree with all that. But again, Black Library. Why isn't Wizards spewing bestselling novels that cover production costs many times over? It's not because there is no market; MTG is just as popular as Warhammer 40,000. The reason Wizards is scared of its own stories is that Wizards has not yet learned how to organise an effective story department. Don't get me wrong, Creative has a lot of talent; I personally think Kelly Digges and Doug Beyer are capable of authentic awesomeness. Khanfall was a well-crafted story from virtually any perspective. And sure, the story team does have many good ideas -- I particularly like the profundity of the aetherborn, forced to embrace life by the shadow of death.
But the way stories are currently created at Wizards is not conducive to seduction. Their block narratives are overplanned and overdeveloped to the point of sterilisation. It doesn't have to be this way. Instead of constraining the story beats within a tight market rubric, forcing cliffhangers to coincide with weekly episodes or quarterly blocks, and characters to live up to brand archetypes or brand values, they should create breathing space between the card game and the wider story, give individual authors room for improvisation, feeling their way organically through the story using their characters as avatars. The flavour should give context to the story, not the other way round. Nissa should be allowed to grow and change, not be condemned to life as a hippy because Wizards wants a face for the colour green.
Wizards needs to learn, as Games Workshop did, that story shouldn't fit the brand -- story *is* the brand.
No air of superiority intended, and I don't think anyone is an idiot for enjoying a bit of escapist fantasy. Personally, I'm not a very good MTG player -- I play a casual Sultai delver deck about once a month and I'm sure most of you would obliterate me if we ever played a game. That's why I don't post in the Spike threads -- instead I read what more informed people than me have to say, and learn from it.
However, I happen to have a long background in understanding the marketing and mechanics of story, so I figured I'd give my informed opinion in this thread. I'm just trying to make the point that the MTG story could be monumentally better if only it was managed in a more organised way, and a few creative risks were taken, in the vein of Black Library.
I'm well aware that MTGsalvation is not the be-all and end-all of MTG. However, it is one of the best gauges that we have to determining the popularity of MTG's story, as people who are interested in a story tend to discuss it. This is known as "buzz", and it is used by literary agents, publishers and movie execs to determine the approximate popularity of a given story. It is a much better gauge than your claims of "Lots of people I know like it".
I never claimed that the MTG story was ever good. I know it has always been bad, and Jay, it is not just my opinion. I am basing my appraisal of the MTG story on several technical grounds which we discussed ad nauseam at the start of this year, and which I don't want to get into again. If you still don't get that storytelling isn't completely or even mostly subjective, there's no point in trying to convince you further. You brought up Warhammer, and I'm glad you did, because when you compare Wizards' story management with that of Black Library -- the New York Times bestselling publishing arm of Games Workshop, which I may soon be joining as commissioning editor -- you will hopefully see that there *is* a huge market for well-told game fiction, and so much potential for MTG's story that isn't being tapped into due to poor management.
I'm basing my numbers on the number of people who view and post in the story subforum, relative to the forum in general. The Magic story threads may be the most trafficked ever, but that's only because the player base is at its largest ever.
What a strange thing to say. You're essentially saying that it is never worth trying again what you once failed at. You also make a bizarre assumption that "Magic players only want to buy cards" which is unsupported by any evidence. Your last sentence is also unsubstantiated.
What a welcoming mod you are. I post here because I want the MTG story to be good, but feel it falls seriously short. If you have a problem with that, ban me.
Another puzzling statement. Why would Warhammer players have money to be spare where MTG players wouldn't? Both hobbies are arm-amputatingly expensive, with a primary demographic of middle-class professionals with disposable income.
This is an unsubstantiated claim that doesn't really require a response.
Instead of writing long pieces filled with the Power Rangers winking at each other and saying cringeworthy stuff like "Right on!" and "get real!" (before defeating the greatest threats in the multiverse in the most laughably nonsensical ways), Creative should hire sharper writers and have them focus solely on the flavour text on cards, creating subtle hints of a story that gives enough leeway for people to piece together into their very own story, which will inevitably be much richer and more coherent than any "prose" from the Wizards hacks.
Alternatively, if Wizards are intent on reaching a mass market, they should abandon this "free story" crap, hire quality tie-in fiction writers like Dan Abnett, and have them craft an elaborate and well-planned novel cycle, sold for profit. Although I find the MTG story embarrassingly awful in general, the shameless nerd in me would pay good money for a mature Game of Thrones-esque novel about the power struggles between the various Khans of Tarkir -- especially if it involves a secret alliance between the Sultai Brood and House Dimir...
Dovin Baan turns out to be in league with Tezzeret, and together they twirl their moustaches and mwhahaha, and then kidnap Pia. Chandra gets mad as hell, and burns stuff. Tezzeret could easily kill Pia, but instead he twirls his moustache some more, and devises a long-winded plot to have Pia killed in the arena by one of his artifact creations. Then the Gatewatch arrive, combine their powers, and save the day. Tezzeret flees, waving his fist and screaming "I would have got away with it if it weren't for you pesky kids!"
And that's it.
Unfortunately, there are some prominent inaccuracies and logical fallacies in your post. For instance LOTR/HP/fantasy is a false equivalence, because cosmic horror is not the work of a single author like LOTR, but is in fact a subgenre unto itself, comprising works outside of Lovecraft, such as Laird Barron and Thomas Ligotti. Also, Lovecraftian horror =/= cosmic horror.
However, I think I'm done with this thread now. People will continue to use the words that they want to use, and it's not going to physically harm me, so I guess it's probably not a big deal. But thanks to all of you who engaged with me on this issue without resorting to snark or name-calling -- a rare thing these days.
What I'm trying to say is, why describe this block as "cosmic horror" (wrongly) when you can just call it "Lovecraftian horror"? Perhaps to other people I'm coming across as pedantic, but I just don't know why people would deliberately use the wrong word to describe something when there is an alternative correct one? It would be like people calling the Theros block "Norse Mythology". I just don't get it.
I get the feeling I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, but I have to say, categorising things based on "feel" is not normal practice, especially when the criteria are already well-defined. And this is precisely the reason why definitions loosen, till they no longer mean anything. It's not like you're being forced to use the word "cosmic horror", so why use it when you can just use the catch-all phrase Lovecraftian (or, more accurately, Derlethian) horror?
Sure, I said I didn't understand what "Lovecraftian" really meant anymore (because it's thrown around so casually these days). But when you say "Lovecraftian horror", most people will know what you're talking about (i.e. a horror written in the style of Lovecraft).
Really, Teysa_Karlov? How exactly have I been proven wrong?
It was actually daved74 who got it wrong, by confusing the word "Lovecraftian" with the term "cosmic horror". He in fact laid out a straw man argument, but I didn't call him on it because I didn't want to go too off-topic.
If you can provide a shred of evidence for daved74 proving me wrong, then I will hold up my hands and apologise to you for being "oh-so-cool". If you can't, then I would appreciate an apology from you for insulting me without knowing what you're talking about.
If you don't respond, then this is a sign that you know you messed up, but are not man enough to admit when you're wrong, which would, incidentally, also make you a colossal hypocrite.
Listen man, I don't wanna argue with anyone here. Some posters on this forum are "alpha-geeks" who have to demonstrate their intellectual superiority at every opportunity. You might not be one of them, but even so, I don't wanna play that game, especially when the subject at hand is off-topic. If you have a very clear idea of what the word Lovecraftian means, cool. But I don't, and I doubt you'd be able to convince me otherwise.
As for those of you deciding that "cosmic horror" means whatever you want it to mean, fine. I've already given the official definition; whether people adhere to it is not my responsibility.
On topic, I'm glad Wizards decided to focus on Eldrazi-corrupted creatures rather than Eldrazi spawn. The BFZ block really suffered from all those indistinguishable creature cards. Now my hope is that we see more non-Eldrazi colourless cards -- perhaps automatons in the Kaladesh block. I'm getting tired of seeing Ugin in cahoots with Emrakul (in modern).
Whether or not Emrakul is supposed to be a Great Old One is immaterial. An MTG block can never be cosmic horror, because the concept of planeswalkers puts human beings at the centre of the universe.
There are other points, too: For instance, non-humans and even the Eldrazi themselves feel fear -- Ulamog and Kozilek were described as being scared after Chandra went super-Saiyan on their asses -- suggesting that human emotions are not just limited to a tiny speck of dust in a single brief moment of the universe, but are in fact a quality inherent to the multiverse itself -- a decidedly anthropocentric conceit.
It's a game mechanic.
Steady on, bro. Emrakul may be described as a being of hideous and unfathomable power, but she is completely at the mercy of Hasbro's marketing department, and will eventually be humiliated by the power rangers -- you know this. Sure, Cthulhu got rammed by a ship, but it's important to note that Lovecraft hated doing stuff like that, and felt he had been reduced to a hack by his financial concerns. The MTG creative team have no such qualms.
It's also important to note that not everything Lovecraft wrote about aliens was cosmic horror.
To this, I can only shrug. The word Lovecraftian doesn't really mean anything anymore.