The Campaign Builder's Guild

QuoteI do not think a Campbellian Journey  and thought provoking stories are necessarily the equivalent of oil and water. You can take hard hitting issues and make them a key point in a heroes journey. You don't necessarily need to have hard science to deliver a message to your audience.

I have no disagreement with any of this.

I've been describing a particular type of story structure as a classical science fiction story structure, but I do not think it's accurate to say that's the only kind of "thought provoking story" or "hard hitting issue" or "message to your audience."

Quote from: Lord VreegIt's not future science, it is alternate science.  It is not supposed to be far in our future, it is far in A future.  Not to say you are wrong, but I think you are holding Dune to rigor beyond most science fiction.  It's not like SnowCrash or Neuromancer explained more science, it was just less alien.

Actually this is kind of my point.  I'm not making a case for "harder" science fiction or more rigor.  I could, as easily, pick on Snow Crash or Neuromancer.  The former is full of a lot of Sumerian myth and dubious cognitive linguistics, for example.  Lots and lots and lots of science fiction can be characterized in similar terms.  Basically, I think we shouldn't make hard distinctions between science fiction, fantasy, and horror: I think these generic labels actually aren't especially useful most of the time, rarely reflect reality, and reify categories that have encouraged the ghettoization of speculative fiction as a whole (even the term "speculative fiction" does this - as if all fiction weren't speculative).  I think generic labels have far, far more to do with marketing and money than they have to do with actual differences between types of texts.   I think we should embrace hybridity and fluidity, that we should blur and deconstruct and sometimes just flat-out ignore generic boundaries rather than entrenching them.  In my experience, many of the most interesting texts out there (like Dune, or, as LC points out, Vonnegut) are those that defy, mess with, refute, or shatter generic categorization.

EDIT: Another way of putting this is that I think a great deal of the time the supposed differences between SF and fantasy are primarily cosmetic rather than substantive, i.e. more a matter of appearance than structure.

George R.R. Martin has a great quote about this:

Quote from: On Generic DistinctionsInterviewer: Originally you were more inclined to write science-fiction. What prompted you to move to fantasy, and how did The Song of Ice and Fire come about?

George R. R. Martin: I don't think I really did 'move' per se. If you go all the way back, I've always written science-fiction, I've always written fantasy, I've always written horror stories and monster stories, right from the beginning of my career. I've always moved back and forth between the genres. I don't really recognise that there's a significant difference between them in some senses. I mean, the furniture is different. One has spaceships and one has horses; one has ray guns and one has swords. But it's all still what Faulkner called "the human heart in conflict with itself". He said that was the only thing worth writing about and I've always agreed with that. It's about the people, and the rest is just the furniture and the setting.

Quote from: SPActually this is kind of my point.  I'm not making a case for "harder" science fiction or more rigor.  I could, as easily, pick on Snow Crash or Neuromancer.  The former is full of a lot of Sumerian myth and dubious cognitive linguistics, for example.  Lots and lots and lots of science fiction can be characterized in similar terms.  Basically, I think we shouldn't make hard distinctions between science fiction, fantasy, and horror: I think these generic labels actually aren't especially useful most of the time, rarely reflect reality, and reify categories that have encouraged the ghettoization of speculative fiction as a whole (even the term "speculative fiction" does this - as if all fiction weren't speculative).  I think generic labels have far, far more to do with marketing and money than they have to do with actual differences between types of texts.   I think we should embrace hybridity and fluidity, that we should blur and deconstruct and sometimes just flat-out ignore generic boundaries rather than entrenching them.  In my experience, many of the most interesting texts out there (like Dune) are those that defy, mess with, refute, or shatter generic categorization.

Well, this was not the point I was getting, but one I am ok with to some degree, but also one I warn against going too far with, as labels are dangerous but agreed upon definitions are the source of actual discourse.  Much of what I enjoy about LC's commentary is that he pedals cleverly on the roads with the most clarity, byways the farthest away from value judgments. and paths of strict comparison. Things move along briskly.

Still, I am quite pleased with this conversation as a whole.  And your point is well taken when I apply it to the campaigns that seem the most literary-ready.  They dwell much in shadowy ambiguity, giving the moments of stark coherence special weight.  The strangeness and often surface contradictions give way to sudden understanding. 

Quote from: Lord VreegWell, this was not the point I was getting, but one I am ok with to some degree, but also one I warn against going too far with, as labels are dangerous but agreed upon definitions are the source of actual discourse.

I agree, but I don't think generic distinctions serve this purpose well.  The labels don't reflect the things they're labeling, and no one agrees on what should be labeled what or how the labels should be distributed.  Rather than speaking generally or generically I think we should speak more in particulars.  Rather than speaking of genres we should speak of tropes, of individual texts rather than broad types, of particular stories rather than sweeping structures, of content rather than category.

http://www.futurity.org/algorithm-lets-thoughts-control-the-cursor/?utm_source=Futurity%20Today&utm_campaign=8380a6701d-November_2111_21_2012&utm_medium=email

BTW,  favorite source of 'that future feeling'.

Quote from: SPI agree, but I don't think generic distinctions serve this purpose well.  The labels don't reflect the things they're labeling, and no one agrees on what should be labeled what or how the labels should be distributed.  Rather than speaking generally or generically I think we should speak more in particulars.  Rather than speaking of genres we should speak of tropes, of individual texts rather than broad types, of particular stories rather than sweeping structures, of content rather than category.

well, we have done a decent job of finding where certain very popular texts straddle.  Though by many definitions I see, you could call them all Fantasy and assign a 'Science/futuristic Involvement %'  I mean, hell, the OP title defines a conversation about one such 'broad Type'.  But sure, I can give this one some more rope and see how it hangs.

I think more specific labels would be better than over-broad labels. Sci-Fantasy, Hard Science, Medieval Fantasy, Steampunk, Cyberpunk, Low Magic, High Magic, Tween Pop Horror Comedy, etc.

Labels that give you a better description of what the book/movie/game/show is about rather than being stuffed into an ill-fitting meta-header.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

QuoteI do not think a Campbellian Journey  and thought provoking stories are necessarily the equivalent of oil and water. You can take hard hitting issues and make them a key point in a heroes journey. You don't necessarily need to have hard science to deliver a message to your audience.

I have no disagreement with any of this.

I've been describing a particular type of story structure as a classical science fiction story structure, but I do not think it's accurate to say that's the only kind of "thought provoking story" or "hard hitting issue" or "message to your audience."

If all you are doing is going to Cool Location Y to fetch MacGuffin X to defeat Bad Guy Z, then you probably aren't doing anything more than creating entertainment (which can be good or bad).

If you are going to spend a significant portion of the book dealing with the ramifications of toxic Elemental Fire Sludge that is devastating the environment but which also keeps the Flames of Urookoo alight (which serves as the seal that prevents demons from entering the material plane), then I think you have something deeper and more philosophical going on, even if the overall plot structure can be boiled down to "Go there, get that, defeat him."

I won't deny that there are many ways to speak to your audiences. By far one of the best approaches I have seen is classic Sci-Fi. I was merely ruminating on why those classic kinds of stories have not popped up in what is otherwise a Fantasy tale - and gained the same cultural and market penetration - of more generic fantasy literature (which focuses more on characters and save the world from the bad guy kind of plots.

QuoteI won't deny that there are many ways to speak to your audiences. By far one of the best approaches I have seen is classic Sci-Fi. I was merely ruminating on why those classic kinds of stories have not popped up in what is otherwise a Fantasy tale - and gained the same cultural and market penetration - of more generic fantasy literature (which focuses more on characters and save the world from the bad guy kind of plots.

That's an interesting question, and I have two theories about it.

Firstly and more generally, I feel that any kind of media product that seeks to start deep conversations about serious issues is always going to have less market penetration than a lighthearted, entertaining romp, because media consumers need to think harder about denser material to derive the enjoyment from it. I don't think that aspect of this has anything to do with genre or themes or issues; it's just that easy entertainment is easier than challenging entertainment.

Secondly and more specifically, if we're still talking about my loose genre groupings of sci-fi as dealing with societal issues and fantasy as dealing with a character's development over the course of an adventure arc, things line up the way they do because of how magic is almost always handled.

I'll elaborate on that second one.

If you need to fry an adversary in a setting full of technology, you can do so by Having A Spacegun. If you need to fry an adversary in a setting full of magic, you can do so by Being A Wyzzarde. Technology, such as Having A Spacegun, is generally transferable; you can go buy a Spacegun or plunder one from Space Pirates or whatever, they're not hard to come by. Magic, such as Being A Wyzzarde, is generally not transferable-- at least not easily; you might have to be from a certain bloodline to become a Wyzzarde, or undergo much strenuous tutelage from some crochety elder Wyzzarde, or undertake an epic quest to immerse yourself in the magic pond at the foot of Wyzzarde Mountain, or all three of those things. You almost never just pick magic up at the store like a loaf of bread (unless you're already a Wyzzarde shopping at Wyzzarde-mart, or unless mass-manufacture of magic is a technique where someone's trying to make their magic seem more like tech, whatever, you get the idea).

At any rate, the magic a character commands is almost always more a fundamental part of a character than the technology they have access to. If you're writing a sort of classical adventure tale with the big dramatic character arc, you get certain advantages by writing it in a world with magic that you don't get by writing it in a world with technology.

If you want your protagonist to use magic, Becoming A Wyzzarde is often a more dramatic or interesting (or at the very least, more exhausting) than Acquiring A Spacegun, and Being A Wyzzarde is more likely to let you easily tie in themes of prophecy, fate, powerful lineage, and so forth. If you want your protagonist not to use magic, that can become a deficit to overcome-- being the underdog to whom the flashy powers are forever inaccessible due to the character's nature. If the protagonist's disadvantage is Not Being A Wyzzarde, he or she has got to compensate by becoming a badass; if the disadvantage is Not Having A Spacegun, why not just go get one. If you want your antagonist to use magic, that helps put a face on your villain and localize a problem specifically in this one individual-- the villain who captains a Battle Starcruiser feels different from the villain who knows a Death Curse, and sometimes can be tied more directly, through those methods, to a sort of metaphysical Evil that gives your hero the motivation and the moral permission to go forth and kick ass.

Obviously this is a whole post made up of generalizations and oversimplifications and the best works elaborate and subvert huge swaths of all of these ideas. But if the question is about why a preponderance of literature connects certain story types to certain genres/idioms, I think we have a peanut-butter-and-chocolate situation here: some things just naturally go together.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonFirstly and more generally, I feel that any kind of media product that seeks to start deep conversations about serious issues is always going to have less market penetration than a lighthearted, entertaining romp, because media consumers need to think harder about denser material to derive the enjoyment from it. I don't think that aspect of this has anything to do with genre or themes or issues; it's just that easy entertainment is easier than challenging entertainment.

I'd usually agree with you in general, although Game of Thrones and the ascendency of dark cable TV in general with shows like Orange is the New Black, Breaking Bad, Dexter, House of Cards etc are begining to complicate this trend.  There seems to be a growing appetite for mature shows that explore the more sinister aspects of the human pysche and the more unpleasant parts of our society.

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Luminous CrayonFirstly and more generally, I feel that any kind of media product that seeks to start deep conversations about serious issues is always going to have less market penetration than a lighthearted, entertaining romp, because media consumers need to think harder about denser material to derive the enjoyment from it. I don't think that aspect of this has anything to do with genre or themes or issues; it's just that easy entertainment is easier than challenging entertainment.

I'd usually agree with you in general, although Game of Thrones and the ascendency of dark cable TV in general with shows like Orange is the New Black, Breaking Bad, Dexter, House of Cards etc are begining to complicate this trend.  There seems to be a growing appetite for mature shows that explore the more sinister aspects of the human pysche and the more unpleasant parts of our society.

Don't forget all the awesomely dark series on BBC like Luther, Copper, and Sherlock Holmes (the one with Barbarian Cucumber).

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Luminous CrayonFirstly and more generally, I feel that any kind of media product that seeks to start deep conversations about serious issues is always going to have less market penetration than a lighthearted, entertaining romp, because media consumers need to think harder about denser material to derive the enjoyment from it. I don't think that aspect of this has anything to do with genre or themes or issues; it's just that easy entertainment is easier than challenging entertainment.

I'd usually agree with you in general, although Game of Thrones and the ascendency of dark cable TV in general with shows like Orange is the New Black, Breaking Bad, Dexter, House of Cards etc are begining to complicate this trend.  There seems to be a growing appetite for mature shows that explore the more sinister aspects of the human pysche and the more unpleasant parts of our society.

. I find all of this more similar to LotR, in that once the means is there, the content follows.   
I don't see there being a growing appetite, I see there being a willingness to spend budget dollars now that there is a proven audience.  One of the positive sides of technology.

Quote from: Steerpike
I suppose I could attempt to reconcile our views by putting it this way - I think a large number of individuals at a particular point in history happened to share a particular set of values (approximately, of course, not exactly the same values), and that some of these values can be read into or reflected by The Lord of the Rings as opposed to other works of the time, such as, say, Gormenghast or The Dying Earth.  I think this had something (but certainly not everything) to do with the series' success.

I would not disagree that a group of individuals could share values; I also argue that in evaluating what determines items that are a 'hit' or not is more dependent upon charismatic individuals motivating others to read and stimulating buzz, rather than the general 'quality' or even in many cases, the general correspondence of values to popular work.
 

QuoteI probably also tend to ascribe more weight to the structure and form of the texts themselves than you do, perhaps.

Likely true. You are the English expert, so if you did not value the structure and form of texts, then you'd be out of a job I would think. Unless, I suppose, you went to teach Philosophy of Language or a similar course. :)

Quote

Quote from: Light DragonIt's arbitrary on the macro level- the influencers chose this idea over another.

I'm not convinced the choices early D&D designers made in terms of literary influences were arbitrary.  For example, they used Vance's spell system and not Tolkien's.  Why?  If it was an entirely arbitrary choice - that is, wholly random or on a whim - there would no real reason for choosing one over the other.  I think there are real reasons they chose Vance's spell system over Tolkien's: Vance's spells were far more codified and internally consistent than Tolkien's, the memorization system naturally allows for a resource-management element in the context of the roleplaying game, Vance's spells were named which inclines them for translation into a rules-set, etc.

I am not convinced that your rebuttal addresses my statement. I will try to clarify. Arbitrary on the macro level means that while the influencers themselves had reasons for choosing one thing over another, the later-adopters follow the influencers because the influencers are important rather than the strength of their ideas. A completely trash idea of course will not be adopted, but an idea that works just well enough will be adopted. It's like in engineering with design and iteration. Choosing one just good enough model closes off certain other choices that one could take. Choosing a 3 pin rather than a 4 pin plug will close off certain engineering choices. This does not mean there is anything less inherently popular than the 4 pin, it just means that Company A went with the 3 pin.

Quote

Quote from: Light DragonYou make a good argument and it is true that many people read books that 'speak to them.' I don't, but many people do.

I should add that I don't think many people are aware of the cultural and political forces that may be shaping their responses to a particular text.  As a species we are generally painfully unaware of the motivations for most of our actions the bulk of the time.

I argue it depends on what you mean by 'aware.' If you mean a statement that people could articulate-then you win. I agree that people cannot always articulate why they do not enjoy something or why they prefer option A over option B; but stating that people are not 'aware' of why they act as they do smacks of cultural elitism. Someone who votes for Harper is very aware that they're voting for a politician who will do certain things; very much as someone who reads a book (rather than skimming) is very aware of what they like or do not like. They actively experience the positive and negative parts of the book and they have a feedback loop within themselves- e.g. "this book has a gay person. I don't like gay people." They are aware of why they disagree with what the book's politics appear to be. While they may not necessarily articulate why they like or do not like it, they are very aware that certain texts are entertaining and others are offensive.

I suppose, though, that you likely mean the third type of awareness... that of a cultural psychologist, or I forget the exact term, but a sociologist would also work for the term- someone who analyzes the cultural zeitgeist and the cultural clefts in society among different regions, socio-economic statuses and who believes very strongly in classifying people in boxes and putting labels on them and inventing things like 'races' and demographics to divide people. I dislike that type of distinction. I love statistics and I enjoy statistics that group people in boxes and predict how people will act. But these statistics themselves do not generate meaning. Meaning is not independent of the interpreter or the way in which the statistics are presented and are originally generated. In short, while I will agree that there are cultural trends and fads and political trends and fads, I argue that people make a conscious choice of some rather than others among those that they consider important to their being. Of course, people don't have the time to choose opinions on 'everything' and many opinions are half-formed, but people make active choices rather than being swept along by the course of history. (This I believe is the difference between the determinism you mention and the view of active free-will I espouse).

QuoteIn a different time, when a different series of values were in circulation - and in different economic climates, of course - her story wouldn't have generated the same appeal.  "Divorced mother sells books about witchcraft targeted to children" would not have flown in other centuries.  The adverse reaction to Rowling by some especially backwards Christian conservatives holds testament to this.

True enough that her story would have played different in a different time. That does not necessarily rebut my statement that the importance is what the influencers thing rather than the culture itself. Now, influencers are usually going to be the ones who are conformists. But sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are the ones who change culture. They make the culture. Their individual charisma is what matters, not the inherent value of any tome.

Quote from: Lord Vreeg
you are having major 'chicken and the egg' issues.  The Causality of D&D causing the popularity but then professing that it was already more popular than the other writers is compartmentalizing the example from trhe actual, larger cultural dynamic.  Both D&D/RPGs and Tolkien benefited, while helping each synergistically, by a larger cultural movement away from SF into this era where Fantasy is the burgeoning superpower.
Which, by the way, while I like fantasy better slightly, I think is part of a horrible cultural pendulum swing in our society.  The greater reasons for this removal from reality as opposed to trying to grapple with scientifically produced possible futures frightens me anthropologically. 

Popularity is not a 1-0 binary proposition. A single work can be more popular than another while still being a niche work.

QuoteLD, I don't think 95% of the people who read and enjoyed (at any level) realize when something they read is grabbing onto their cultural totems.  That is one of the points, a better author has a lighter touch with these things.

I suppose that either I have a greater faith in people's reasoning and rationality, or I have a wider definition of 'realization' with respect to that issue. When someone sees a work and they see a character as being a factory worker who struggles against an oppressive boss, who struggles with alcoholism, etc. and overcomes those issues, just like they face those issues in their own life, that is what I would see as understanding one's 'cultural totems.' On a more obvious level, a blatantly right-wing political space opera would appeal to a right-wing person, etc.

Quote from: Humabout

Quote from: Light DragonWhich Science Fiction greats? At least, which greats since the 1990s? Most modern Sci-Fi I've read is pretty negative or dystopian at worst, or at best it focuses on the human condition... in a usually negative fashion that creates a dread of advancement.

I haven't read anything I'd consider "great" from the 1990s to present.  I've had a horrible time finding anything that could count as "literature" as opposed to slop thrown out to make a buck.  (I think that's part of what has impressed me about ASoFaI, although that's clearly fantasy.)  Harlen Ellison, Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C Clark, Frank Herbert - these were masters and wrote stories of literary value that won't be forgotten a week after the movie adaptation leaves the theaters.

Thanks for the answer. I could not think of any either. :)
I can name a number of sci-fi authors who I like, but I doubt anyone would consider them to be 'greats.' I'd take some issue with some of the masters you list, but I understand the rationale for the list.

Quote from: HumaboutAre you familiar with The Revolt in 2100 or any of Heinlein's stories involving Jeremiah Sutter?  They are quite pessimistic and cautionary, but they still express an optimism insofar as such things won't last.  I would suggest that Heinlein expressed a lot of pessimism toward people throughout his novels, but these are not the hopeless, dismal, self-indulgent pity-fests of Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep.

Those tales (Revolt in 2100, etc.) sound worth checking out.

QuoteBasically, I think we shouldn't make hard distinctions between science fiction, fantasy, and horror: I think these generic labels actually aren't especially useful most of the time, rarely reflect reality, and reify categories that have encouraged the ghettoization of speculative fiction as a whole (even the term "speculative fiction" does this - as if all fiction weren't speculative).

I've given some thought over the ghettoization before. As I've visited libraries over time, I've come to appreciate the ghettoization more and more. Libraries that do not segregate science fiction are difficult to navigate to find a work that interests me. General fiction is a great wasteland of literature that reduces the benefit of a library, which is browsing a shelf and finding something that might be of interest. If I want a work that focuses on ideas and new things, I want a spec-fic work, and general fiction does not provide that. Faulkner's works or Twain's works, while interesting, don't tell me anything I couldn't find out from history. And I figure that people who prefer to read about history would prefer to not have to deal with skipping past book after book about some weird alien empire to get to their George Eliot.

If westerns, general fiction and sci-fi/fantasy were all grouped together, much more time would be wasted in finding 'similar' works that would appeal to a person. If someone wants to 'broaden' their interests, then they can browse the appropriate section, 'improving' themselves. I see no need to force people to wade through dross they don't want to deal with to discover what they desire.

Quote from: Light DragonIf westerns, general fiction and sci-fi/fantasy were all grouped together, much more time would be wasted in finding 'similar' works that would appeal to a person. If someone wants to 'broaden' their interests, then they can browse the appropriate section, 'improving' themselves. I see no need to force people to wade through dross they don't want to deal with to discover what they desire.

Basically, the only way I can justify genre distinctions is as a necessary evil for libraries and bookstores.  I get where you're coming from here.

Quote from: Light DragonI argue it depends on what you mean by 'aware.' If you mean a statement that people could articulate-then you win. I agree that people cannot always articulate why they do not enjoy something or why they prefer option A over option B; but stating that people are not 'aware' of why they act as they do smacks of cultural elitism. Someone who votes for Harper is very aware that they're voting for a politician who will do certain things; very much as someone who reads a book (rather than skimming) is very aware of what they like or do not like. They actively experience the positive and negative parts of the book and they have a feedback loop within themselves- e.g. "this book has a gay person. I don't like gay people." They are aware of why they disagree with what the book's politics appear to be. While they may not necessarily articulate why they like or do not like it, they are very aware that certain texts are entertaining and others are offensive.

I suppose, though, that you likely mean the third type of awareness... that of a cultural psychologist, or I forget the exact term, but a sociologist would also work for the term- someone who analyzes the cultural zeitgeist and the cultural clefts in society among different regions, socio-economic statuses and who believes very strongly in classifying people in boxes and putting labels on them and inventing things like 'races' and demographics to divide people. I dislike that type of distinction. I love statistics and I enjoy statistics that group people in boxes and predict how people will act. But these statistics themselves do not generate meaning. Meaning is not independent of the interpreter or the way in which the statistics are presented and are originally generated. In short, while I will agree that there are cultural trends and fads and political trends and fads, I argue that people make a conscious choice of some rather than others among those that they consider important to their being. Of course, people don't have the time to choose opinions on 'everything' and many opinions are half-formed, but people make active choices rather than being swept along by the course of history. (This I believe is the difference between the determinism you mention and the view of active free-will I espouse).

Well, I'm definitely not in favour of reifying social constructs like race in order to label and delimit people (even as, simultaneously, I'd contend that we need to understand "race" as a social construct in order to address the very real problems posed by things like discrimination).  But I was really talking more about a more general awareness at the level of consciousness and cognition.  That is, I think people may be conscious of some of their opinions, but they may not always understand the forces that shaped those opinions.  And there are plenty of times people may hold deep-seated prejudices while simultaneously denying that they hold such prejudices, even to themselves.  There are people, for example, who will tooth-and-nail deny being sexist one moment but then casually objectify a woman the next - people often don't realize, or aren't fully conscious of, what makes them tick.  And then there are all sorts of subconscious instincts and impulses and urges and desires that people have that they may or may not be fully aware or in control of, that may be guiding their choices without their full realization.  I think a lot of the time, reason and rationality come in after a choice has already been made, to justify the choice rather than to inform the choice.  There's evidence, for example, that our brains actually make choices a brief moment before we become fully conscious of having made those choices.

It's all very odd, but brains are weird, and we've gotten really good at pretending we're these lovely autonomous rational individuals who make choices on the basis of reason and logic, when in fact we're usually the opposite to some significant extent.

QuoteThat is, I think people may be conscious of some of their opinions, but they may not always understand the forces that shaped those opinions.

Restated, I can agree that people may not always understand all the influences that go into the formation of an opinion, but ultimately an opinion is theirs, their decision at a particular point in time, not a deterministic opinion wholly shaped by others. Certainly, some societies and sub-cultures have more common opinions, but at the root of each sub-culture is an individual with individually chosen opinions. (Based on what you said earlier about determinism, I think this may be a core dispute between us).

QuoteAnd there are plenty of times people may hold deep-seated prejudices while simultaneously denying that they hold such prejudices, even to themselves.  There are people, for example, who will tooth-and-nail deny being sexist one moment but then casually objectify a woman the next -

I'd like to add that some people define certain terms, like "sexist" differently. To them, a "sexist" would be doing something more than just "casual objectification." I realize that was just an example you gave, but the larger point I make is that one cannot read too much into terms that society defines or that you define when people are answering sociological surveys, or when a sociologist or cultural anthropologist is making classifications. The definition that matters and that the person should be judged by whether they are living up to is the definition that they give and the definition by which they understand the word to hold. I am a very strong believer of the evolution of terminology, of language, of "sub-cultural" specific terms, and of neologisms and I am highly suspicious of reading too much into sociological or cultural anthropological studies especially when even individual context is difficult to determine. One example of a tongue in cheek look at cultural anthropology is Miner's study of the so-called "Nacirema" culture, which I'm sure you have come across. :P