Buried Giant: Genre and boundaries in fiction and gaming
This book elicited an active discussion of the relation and boundaries of Fantasy and literature by some experts, e.g.
1) Neil Gaiman's review in the NYT (paywalled, excertps from here: http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2015/03/neil-gaiman-on-kazuo-ishiguros-buried.html - short summary: he thought it was important and effective, didn't love it because it might be allegory);
2) Ursula K Le Guin took active offense against Ishiguro as disrespectful trespasser, and then drew back: (https://www.ursulakleguin.com/blog/95-are-they-going-to-say-this-is-fantasy and https://www.ursulakleguin.com/blog/96-addendum-to-are-they-going-to-say-this-is-fantasy); and
3) Ishiguro's response in the Grauniad (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/08/kazuo-ishiguro-rebuffs-genre-snobbery)
Reading through this stuff I started thinking about how there is an idea that people's expectations and identities deserve to be met, respected, confronted.
This applies to rpgs as well, e.g. narrative games, OSR games, crunchy games, SF vs Fantasy games, table-top vs computer RPGs, etc. And I think there might be something important here about how TTRPGs work in play - the people playing have expectations of what's allowed or not within the frame, people expect their play to be validated, and this can leaed to conflict e.g. a) Some people might want to play immersive games where their character's actions occur as described in the 1st person, other people want to simply describe what the character does in the 3rd person and let the system shape outcomes through mechanics; b) Some people want to use combat to resolve all encounter, others might want something to do something other than kill Bill.
It comes up in our discussions as well. Interested in hearing what Buried Giant provoked among the TTRPGBC, if anything. How did Buried Giant satisfy or disturb expectations? Anyone have any experiences with this in play?