[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

Spoiler:

And, seriously, can you picture Marie Magdalen, with a decomposing body on her shoulders and her kids in tow, walking all the way from Jerusalem to Gaul? Poor woman. And why on earth would she even want to go there? It's not like the Louvre and the Eiffel tower had been built yet. There was nothing there, especially not in the Languedoc. Who would want to drag a body all the way there?

Now, I'm no expert on Christian lore, but I found this:

Spoiler:

The French tradition of Saint Lazare of Bethany is that Mary, her brother Lazarus, and Maximinus, one of the Seventy Disciples and some companions, expelled by persecutions from the Holy Land, traversed the Mediterranean in a frail boat with neither rudder nor mast and landed at the place called Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer near Arles. Mary Magdalene came to Marseille and converted the whole of Provence. Magdalene is said to have retired to a cave on a hill by Marseille, La Sainte-Baume, where she gave herself up to a life of penance for thirty years.

Spoiler:

Speaking of silly, I just love the dagger retcon. So the old Schattenjäger dagger, barely good enough to cut up dead mummies and pry open vents was actually a sacred relic blessed by Jesus? Talk about waste of a good blessing. Someone should have told the Ritters than needn't bother looking for their lost talisman when they had a much more important artifact gathering dust in the main hall of their castle.

Actually, this is completely wrong.

Spoiler:

Jesus says "Carry the gold with you". The gilded hilt of the sword became the Talisman, not the knife

[Kurufinwe]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Spoiler:

Within the boundaries of supernatural-themed, speculative fiction, the story of GK3 seems to me everything but far-fetched, unless, of course, one doesn't wish to interpose his or her religious beliefs, the same beliefs that make Christ an untouchable figure. Otherwise, I honestly can't see what's far-fetched in the concept of a bloodline stemmed from the occult lore of an ancient group of Predynastic priests, who sought the power of blood to create a 'divine' line of Pharaohs. This concept, which I don't recall in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, is well-rooted in the actual Egyptian history and culture, where the Pharaohs were considered divine in nature and physical manifestation of Ma'at, the cosmical order. In addition to this, the 'Heka' magik as practiced by the priests of the highest rank often used blood and blood manipulation, so - in my opinion - Jane Jensen's imaginative story is very well grounded in actual history and folklore

Oh, I'm mostly fine with that bit. And indeed it's a very old theme. Obviously Frank Herbert dealt with it a few decades earlier a lot more originally and, I think, cleverly, in the Dune books, but I can definitely live with that part of the story. It's the whole Holy Blood, Holy Grail part that I find especially ridiculous. (But then again: grail stories, me cranky.)

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Now, I'm no expert on Christian lore, but I found this:

Spoiler:

The French tradition of Saint Lazare of Bethany is that Mary, her brother Lazarus, and Maximinus, one of the Seventy Disciples and some companions, expelled by persecutions from the Holy Land, traversed the Mediterranean in a frail boat with neither rudder nor mast and landed at the place called Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer near Arles. Mary Magdalene came to Marseille and converted the whole of Provence. Magdalene is said to have retired to a cave on a hill by Marseille, La Sainte-Baume, where she gave herself up to a life of penance for thirty years.

I'm not saying that Jane Jensen came up with that story. Any self respecting country, or city, likes to drag a mythical figure into its official history -- it's a matter of prestige (like Rome being founded by the sons of a hero from the Trojan war, etc.). That won't prevent me from finding it silly.

Actually, this is completely wrong.

Spoiler:

Jesus says "Carry the gold with you". The gilded hilt of the sword became the Talisman, not the knife

Spoiler:

Now that's interesting. I always assumed that the hilt of the sword became the hilt of the dagger, and that it's why it's able to kill the monster (Asmodeus) during the ending. (And maybe that's why Montreaux says 'It's royal blood' when he gets killed by the wound inflicted to Asmodeus? I was never sure I had really understood what he meant by that.)

Was your interpretation confirmed somewhere? I definitely like it better than mine.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

Oh, I'm mostly fine with that bit. And indeed it's a very old theme. Obviously Frank Herbert dealt with it a few decades earlier a lot more originally and, I think, cleverly, in the Dune books, but I can definitely live with that part of the story. It's the whole Holy Blood, Holy Grail part that I find especially ridiculous. (But then again: grail stories, me cranky.)

I'm not familiar with Frank Herbert's work, unfortunately, despite a friend of mine constantly trying to get me reading the Dune books. However, Jane's story always seemed to me quite clever and fascinating (even if not as much as her take on Ludwig II, Wagner and lycanthropy, I must add). Moreover, I understand that you're cranky for Grail stories, and I'd like to know - even if it is off-topic - what do you think of Christy Marx's takes on the Grail in Conquests of Camelot, since her view and Jane's shared a certain similarity

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

Spoiler:

Now that's interesting. I always assumed that the hilt of the sword became the hilt of the dagger, and that it's why it's able to kill the monster (Asmodeus) during the ending. (And maybe that's why Montreaux says 'It's royal blood' when he gets killed by the wound inflicted to Asmodeus? I was never sure I had really understood what he meant by that.)

Was your interpretation confirmed somewhere? I definitely like it better than mine.

Well, my interpretation is that...

Spoiler:

The hilt (gold) became the Talisman and that the blade of the sword, or part of it, was reforged into the Ritter's knife. I think it's safe to assume that the hilt became the Talisman because of what Jesus says about 'carrying the gold', given that the Ritter's knife isn't made of gold but has an hilt of dark leather (as depicted in The Beast Within) or some other dark material.

At the end, it is a combination of Talisman and Knife that kills Asmodeus or, rather, that particular manifestation of Asmodeus as the Temple Guardian evoked by Solomon. Plus, judging by what Grace says over the radio, the throat is a sensible spot no matter what, and I always thought that it wasn't a particular power of the knife to kill Asmodeus, rather than the knowledge that the demon has a very clear weakness.

[Kurufinwe]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Well, my interpretation is that...

Spoiler:

The hilt (gold) became the Talisman and that the blade of the sword, or part of it, was reforged into the Ritter's knife. I think it's safe to assume that the hilt became the Talisman because of what Jesus says about 'carrying the gold', given that the Ritter's knife isn't made of gold but has an hilt of dark leather (as depicted in The Beast Within) or some other dark material.

At the end, it is a combination of Talisman and Knife that kills Asmodeus or, rather, that particular manifestation of Asmodeus as the Temple Guardian evoked by Solomon. Plus, judging by what Grace says over the radio, the throat is a sensible spot no matter what, and I always thought that it wasn't a particular power of the knife to kill Asmodeus, rather than the knowledge that the demon has a very clear weakness.

The more I think about it, the more I think you're right... and the more I think the ending was confusing.

I'm not familiar with Frank Herbert's work, unfortunately, despite a friend of mine constantly trying to get me reading the Dune books. However, Jane's story always seemed to me quite clever and fascinating (even if not as much as her take on Ludwig II, Wagner and lycanthropy, I must add).

You have to read Dune. If you only read one science-fiction book in your life, it should be this one. Book 4 (The God Emperor) is a fascinating as well. 2&3 tend to go a bit too much into pseudo-philosophical hogwash for my taste, and 5&6 are eminently-readable but completely unnecessary adventure books. (And don't get me started on the pre/sequels written by Herbert's son.) Anyway, read Dune. And you probably won't fail to notice the similarities between Herbert's Kwisatz Haderach and Jensen's Kenosh Kania (even the words are similar!).

Moreover, I understand that you're cranky for Grail stories, and I'd like to know - even if it is off-topic - what do you think of Christy Marx's takes on the Grail in Conquests of Camelot, since her view and Jane's shared a certain similarity

Ooh, a mod inviting me to derail a thread! That's a chance I'm not gonna miss!

I wrote about it at length in this thread. I'm now not really happy with what I wrote there (too messy, far too grandiloquent, and a bit whiny to boot), but I'll just sum up my main idea here: the strength of all the grail stories lies precisely in the grail itself. On the intriguing, odd-sound word, and on the simple thematic power of the cup-that-grants-life. And Christy Marx missed that and deprived herself of all the powerful baggage that comes with the grail.

(somewhat longer version below)

There are two main sides to the grail in the medieval stories: the grail as the ultimate quest object; and the Grail as the Absolute (especially in the Vulgate Cycle), that is as that-which-explains-everything and that-which-commands-total-submission (as such, I think that the Lancelot-Grail remains to this day the most pertinent text ever written on, well, basically totalitarianism (I'm trying to be extremely brief here, I don't want to derail this thread too much). Whatever aspect you choose to focus on, the central theme is always that the grail is at the heart of the story. That, I believe, is why the grail stories are so powerful: precisely because that mythical cup with an intriguing name draws all the focus lines to itself.

And that, I feel, is what Christy Marx missed by focussing on her new-agey "Goddess" instead and reducing the grail to a symbol of that goddess. Don't get me wrong, I mostly like CoC (apart from those annoying fights). I just think it's a bit of a thematic mess that's not half as powerful as it could have been. Ultimately, I believe Christy Marx might have bitten more than she could chew with that game, at least at the time she made it.

Still, I like Christy Marx's take on the grail about a hundred times better than the whole 'The grail is a code word for a giant conspiracy' stuff that we had in GK3 (which thankfully didn't really make more than a passing reference to the grail in the entire game).

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

The more I think about it, the more I think you're right... and the more I think the ending was confusing.

I don't know. Maybe it's because I've played the game more times than I can count, but everything seems perfectly clear to me - apart from one tiny detail that isn't pertinent to the discussion here, so I'll leave it out. Suffice it to say that I'm preparing for my umpteenth replay of the whole series, so maybe this time around I will discover even that answer.

And you probably won't fail to notice the similarities between Herbert's Kwisatz Haderach and Jensen's Kenosh Kania (even the words are similar!).

I remember those words from the David Lynch's move, which is the only David Lynch movie that I don't adore, hence my opposition to reading the books.

On the Grail, which isn't that out-of-topic, since it is a central theme in Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned, I can perfectly understand your position and I've enjoyed many medieval grail romances, such as Chretien de Troyes', but I guess that I prefer the symbolic approach of Christy Marx (Grail = Goddess, feminine, Venus) and Jane Jensen - where the 'Grail' is a word representing other than a material cup/spiritual absolute - because I personally find this kind symbolism more intriguing.

Spoiler:

'San Greal' being a calembour for 'Sang Real' and the Holy Cup, filled with blood, thus becoming a womb full of semen, and consequently a symbol for a progeny whose bloodline is characterized by the same archetypal qualities, much like a well-aged wine, is, to me, a concept far more fascinating than the religious/mystical version one can find in Robert de Boron romances, or the mythological artifact of Perceval. But I guess that it is a matter of tastes

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

I remember those words from the David Lynch's move, which is the only David Lynch movie that I don't adore, hence my opposition to reading the books.

Yeah, Dune is clearly Lynch's worst movie, which is doubly sad since Dune is a great novel which you should most definitely read.

And I'm with Kurufinwe: grand conspiracies are goofy, and the whole plot summarized does sound more ridiculous than vampires and werewolves and voodoo. Maybe because the supernatural doesn't present itself as possible: it makes a clean break with realism. All this stuff that might technically happen but isn't remotely plausible just sounds silly.

The undead only seem ridiculous when you focus too closely on the technical aspects (cf. Gremlins 2: "What if they're eating on an airplane and they cross into a different time zone?"). It's something to relate to on a primal, fairy-tale level, not an intellectual one.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

All this stuff that might technically happen but isn't remotely plausible just sounds silly.

That's where you lose me. Exactly what is so incredibly unthinkable with the plot in GK3 while vampires, werewolves, voodoo and giant sandworms in outer space works just fine???

[After a brisk nap]

I thought I just explained this in the post above? It's not that it's "incredibly unthinkable", it's just that it's unconvincing. I never get the sense reading vampire stories that the author is expecting me to believe in vampires, but all these fictional multi-generation conspiracies just make me want to scream "history doesn't work like that!" (for "history", substitute "society", "politics", "organizations", or just "people" as appropriate).

So what bugs me about Dune, for example, isn't the giant sandworms or the fish-navigators or even the facedancer shape-shifters (who are blatantly ridiculous if you think about them for just a minute), but the whole setup where there's a big anti-machine crusade, they set up a galactic empire, and then for 10,000 years nothing happens.

Is it possible? Sure. It doesn't violate any laws of physics or anything like that. But is it believable? Not for a second. (Dune is still a great book, though!)

[UPtimist]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

(Also, for some reason, I'm known to get cranky when the grail stories get bastardised. So let's not even go there.)

I know you said "let's not even go there", but I'm just wondering what exactly you meant by this? Are you talking about the (original) grail stories of the Middle Ages, around 12th century, or, like the modern more abstract concepts or what?

BTW, since I seem to have a compulsion to promote it in every possible situation, since we're on the subject of conspiracy theories, the grail, templars and such, I can't stress highly enough what an incredible book Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum is. First of all, it basically covers the whole history and especially the essence of human beliefs (also includeding conspiracy theories), it's a sort of a trip into being a human being, and although it deals with the same concepts (and more, of course) as for example The Da Vinci Code (and GK3 too, at the same time), it is infinitely better, a literary masterpiece and written by a real genius. I have to say though, Eco himself said that something like the first 70 pages were intenionally written very difficult, so that the reader would get used to the style of writing (which is true to Eco, so that it's not the most easy to read but once you get into it it somehow gives so much more, it's like it's on another level), so you shouldn't quit at the beginning if it seems a bit weird

Oh, and if you're not into conspiracy teories, let me note that this book is self-critical in this way. Any conspiracy in it isn't naïve, and the whole point in this area is the question whether it is credible or not.

I'm all excited just thinking about it Such a masterpiece

[Ascovel]

I'm not sure if the conspiracies criticism is valid. Conspiracies are very convincing to a lot of people. Not wanting to believe in accidental historical events, but preferring to see everything as carefully planned is very common. It's enough you have a slight paranoia and you might see things like that in simple daily news. And common fears and passions is what fiction is all about.

On the other hand, I think a lot of people demand their fiction to be much too plausible. Much more plausible than their lives even. So if something like what they read has not happened in reality (yet) they will deem it implausible. If anyone read an account of 9/11 events a day before it happened as a fictional story, one would find it completely far-fetched.

Going back to GK3, for me the only weakness of the story was that I felt it borrowed too much from that Holy Grail book and added too little of new ideas. Too much info the player took from the laptop encyclopedia rather than discovering through game world interactions and personally I wasn't convinced it sticked together into a fully consistent story. It wasn't even explained why "the vampires"

Spoiler:

drained people who weren't descendants of Jesus out of blood and then left their bodies in public places.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

Maybe because the supernatural doesn't present itself as possible: it makes a clean break with realism. All this stuff that might technically happen but isn't remotely plausible just sounds silly.

See, I completely disagree. Now, before I put on my Fox Mulderish 'I Want To Believe' T-shirt, let me say that I'm not one of those swayed supporters of the supernatural who organize annual trip to Roswell or monthly visits to the local haunted castle. But I consider myself an hopeful agnostic, where some supernatural matters are concerned, even if from a rigorously lay, atheistic point of view, and, foremost, I'm surely an avid reader of horror fiction, especially the supernatural-themed one, from the Henry James' ghost stories to the most imaginative works of Clive Barker, and I must say that Jane's three stories - voodoo, werewolf and vampires/bloodlines - were so wonderfully researched, so strikingly grounded in history and lore, that they wholeheartedly convinced me, suspending my disbelief from beginning to end, and persuaded me of their plausibility (as far as a literary creation is concerned). Trying to judge a work of fiction on the base of realism is misleading: it's the plausibility that's important, at least in my opinion, that saying the capacity of said fiction to convince the reader/viewer/player that those things could happen. (And I'm totally avoiding the fact that, for example, Jane used these supernatural themes often as symbols, thus lavishing them with a whole new level of interpretation)

Other horror adventures, like Scratches for example, deprived of this kind of well-rooted background, of this historically researched framework (I thing I found also in Mr. Boakes, for example), rang to me as silly and not even remotely plausible. But I never, never, felt this way with Gabriel Knight.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

See, I completely disagree. [...] I must say that Jane's three stories - voodoo, werewolf and vampires/bloodlines - were so wonderfully researched, so strikingly grounded in history and lore, that they wholeheartedly convinced me, suspending my disbelief from beginning to end, and persuaded me of their plausibility (as far as a literary creation is concerned). Trying to judge a work of fiction on the base of realism is misleading: it's the plausibility that's important, at least in my opinion, that saying the capacity of said fiction to convince the reader/viewer/player that those things could happen.

It doesn't sound like we're actually disagreeing, except maybe in which abstraction we prefer to use. Like I said, I have no problem with supernatural elements in fiction, and I can easily suspend my disbelief about them within the story. I'm not asking for realism in this sense (although I agree with you that grounding it in well-observed and real, or real-seeming, detail can enhance the effect).

I still wouldn't say that means the author has convinced you those things could actually happen, though. Dune didn't make me more inclined to believe in precognition (maybe even less so), and Lord of the Rings didn't make me worry about North Korea getting a magic ring of power, even though I accepted both fine within the story.

I will admit that I've spent a more than reasonable amount of time thinking about how to fortify my apartment in case of zombie attack, but that doesn't mean I seriously think there could ever be zombies.

Originally Posted by Ascovel

I'm not sure if the conspiracies criticism is valid. Conspiracies are very convincing to a lot of people. Not wanting to believe in accidental historical events, but preferring to see everything as carefully planned is very common. It's enough you have a slight paranoia and you might see things like that in simple daily news. And common fears and passions is what fiction is all about.

Right. I think part of what bothers me about conspiracy theories is that a lot of people do believe in that kind of thing, and many of the stories are written taking the ideas seriously.

To return to the point about realism, even if a story features impossible elements, we do usually demand a degree of psychological realism. When we watch a horror movie, we may accept ghosts even if we don't really believe in them, but if the characters don't react to the ghosts in any way remotely like we think real people would react to seeing ghosts, it's going to fail to be believable. (Psychological realism is subject to genre convention, caricature/comedy requirements and artistic license, but still mostly holds true.)

And what holds true of characters individually, I think also applies to larger groups. Call it sociological realism: How would society as a whole respond to, say, first contact with aliens, or to demonstrated psychic powers, or to the invention of a time machine, or to a zombie apocalypse?

Some stories avoid the question (inconveniently, a lot of these thought experiments "break reality"--they would change the world so radically that there's no saying what it would look like), others grapple with it more or less impressively. Most conspiracy theory fiction fails the psychological and sociological realism tests spectacularly. It assumes people who don't behave like real people, working together in organizations that don't function like real organizations. And that's a problem when the dynamics of the conspiracy are so much in focus.

[potan]

After reading so many good thing about Gabriel Knight on this thread,
i give this series a try, GK 1: Sin of the Fathers.

Here is my Comments so far:

GK 1: Sin of the Fathers.
- Is there a way to turn on HOTSPOT TEXT, so i don't have to click every single pixel on the screen, especially since the game has a painterly style, it's hard to tell if the item is HOTSPOT / part of background.
- Move faster dammit
- I'm not really a fan of many VERBS in adventure game, i think 2 should be enough LOOK & INTERACT. I know most old games use so many verb, but i think it's just a waste of my time.
- After starting the game, i'm not entirely sure what is the goal of this game ? Investigating the Voodoo Murder ?

pretty nice graphics and i bet the story is awesome, it's just those small stuff that keep bugging me

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by potan

- Is there a way to turn on HOTSPOT TEXT, so i don't have to click every single pixel on the screen

No, but the hotspots that are necessary for the game's progression are usually very definite and clear, especially if you're playing the Windows version.

- Move faster dammit

Adjust the Speed Bar in the Option Menu.

- After starting the game, i'm not entirely sure what is the goal of this game ? Investigating the Voodoo Murder ?

Yes, Gabriel's immediate goal is to investigate the Voodoo Murders as a research for his next horror novel. As you will proceed through the game, though, the scope will increase.

[millenia]

I don't really understand the whole conspiracy and/or Christianity thing. To me GKs never went overboard with anything really. Or well, I didn't love the skank in the second part and there are a couple of far fetched puzzles somewhere .

To me conspiracy theories aren't just silly. They can be silly but they are not that automatically. There actually are some conspiracies irl too, rarely as huge and meaningful as in fiction but that's fiction. I agree with this:

Originally Posted by Ascovel

On the other hand, I think a lot of people demand their fiction to be much too plausible. Much more plausible than their lives even. So if something like what they read has not happened in reality (yet) they will deem it implausible. If anyone read an account of 9/11 events a day before it happened as a fictional story, one would find it completely far-fetched.

And I like Christian themes, I like all religions really - when they are not interfering our real lives but are a part of mythology in a piece of fiction. To me it seems that some people are still offended when people go jerk around with Christian mythology and that's just fine, I'd just rather have those people say it offends them than trying to make excuses why it is bad for some other reason. (I don't mean this specifically to anyone in this thread, just making a general notification.)

To me Gabriel Knight stories are very well written and one of the most interesting pieces of fiction ever made. I would love to get my hands on the books (are the several?) and I'd welcome a movie or a tv-serie too. I was never bored during the games, quite the contrary, I kept that computer in GK3 pretty hot reading everything I just could find in it.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by millenia

To me Gabriel Knight stories are very well written and one of the most interesting pieces of fiction ever made. I would love to get my hands on the books (are the several?)

Only two of them, the novelizations of the first two games. While the first one is pretty much a novelized walkthrough of the game, the second book is much, much more satisfying. They can be quite pricey, though.

Anyway, if you like Jane's writing, I'd also recommend her second original novel, Dante's Equation.

[3rdFloor]

I've been poking around this thread and I find it all very, very interesting. Makes me want to play the whole trilogy again.

[heribertovalle]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Only two of them, the novelizations of the first two games. While the first one is pretty much a novelized walkthrough of the game, the second book is much, much more satisfying. They can be quite pricey, though.

Just DON't even try reading the first book. As he so wisefully said, It's a glorified walkthrough. I spent a buck on it in a used paperback store. I so regret it.

It'll spoil the game for you. just play the games, they're quality stuff.

[inm8#2]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Only two of them, the novelizations of the first two games. While the first one is pretty much a novelized walkthrough of the game, the second book is much, much more satisfying. They can be quite pricey, though.

Anyway, if you like Jane's writing, I'd also recommend her second original novel, Dante's Equation.

Millennium Rising (now called "Judgment Day") was also a very good read.

[kadji-kun]

Originally Posted by heribertovalle

Just DON't even try reading the first book. As he so wisefully said, It's a glorified walkthrough. I spent a buck on it in a used paperback store. I so regret it.

It'll spoil the game for you. just play the games, they're quality stuff.

No offense, it may be a glorified walkthrough, but it was still a damn good read.

I feel that the book and game is as different as night and day. In the book, you understand the thoughts going through Gabe's head, instead of a Female Voodooess narrating the game.

I'd kill to have the first game's narration redone with Gabe's voice and thoughts. It made the book well worth the read.