General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
The only "master of the genre" I'll concede is Tolkien, because he's so good at worldbuilding. Worldbuilding ruins far more books than it ever helps, so the fact that he managed to pull it off so incredibly well is a genuine accomplishment for the ages.
That's why I don't consider Tolkien to be part of the genre.
Tolkien didn't write 'Fantasy', he wrote pieces of fiction almost as an afterthought to illustrate the world and history he had created to put the languages he had invented into context.
If 'Fantasy' authors bother about world-building at all, they do it the other way around:
They first and foremost want to tell intruiging stories, so they'll only do as much world-building as required by the story they're trying to tell and no more. It's entirely different goals.
In general, I much prefer 'Fantasy' novels written by authors that also or primarily write SF novels since they tend to put a lot more thought into creating believable worlds. Most pure 'Fantasy' writers are lazy and just reuse existing tropes knowing that their audience will be acquainted with them.
Naturally, exceptions exist. But you really have to search for them (or ask around in forums like this to find threads like this one ).
I'm a little older than 25, and I've read all of the authors on the list. Brooks doesn't really tickle my fancy anymore, though I enjoyed the first Shannara trilogy years ago. I didn't really get into Jordan. I've read one book by Vance; not one of the Dying Earth ones; the fantasy one (something-ys). I can see links to D&D in it, and I'm looking for the sequels, but it's not earth-shattering. Mieville is quite good. I scorned Rowlings for years, and finally gave in and read Potter. I enjoyed it. Alot.
You should, on the other hand, read the acknowledged masters of the genre.
Why?
Maybe I don't feel like reading Richard Burton's translation of The Arabian Nights, Malory's Morte d'Arthur, Spenser's Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, The Aeneid, Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales, Pilgrim's Progress, The Mabinogion and Gulliver's Travels.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Maybe I don't feel like reading Richard Burton's translation of The Arabian Nights, Malory's Morte d'Arthur, Spenser's Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, The Aeneid, Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales, Pilgrim's Progress, The Mabinogion and Gulliver's Travels.
What, no Grimm's Brothers? I always thought HCA's fairy tales were kinda, well, depressing (I'm looking at you, Little Match Girl).
I need to read Paradise Lost and the Faerie Queene.
I need to read Paradise Lost and the Faerie Queene.
You don't need to read The Faerie Queene.
__________________ Kosmon tonde, ton auton apantōn, oute tis theōn oute anthrōpōn epoiēsen, all’ ēn aei kai estin kai estai pur aeizōon, haptomenon metra kai aposbennumenon metra. . . . Panta gar to pur epelthon krinei kai katalēpsetai.
Maybe I don't feel like reading Richard Burton's translation of The Arabian Nights
I am still working on that, having on my shelf volumes 2 through 17 of the Burton Ethnological Society (later Burton Club) subscription. It is a perennial font of adventure and wonder, one I heartily commend to lovers of fantasy!
Maybe I don't feel like reading Richard Burton's translation of The Arabian Nights, Malory's Morte d'Arthur, Spenser's Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy, The Aeneid, Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales, Pilgrim's Progress, The Mabinogion and Gulliver's Travels.
First, how do you know you won't like those works? Or are you saying you've tried them and didn't like them? Because I have no problem with that.
Second, I wouldn't consider those masterpieces of the fantasy genre; I'd consider them important influences on the fantasy genre.
My advice is to start with the works that a lot of well-read people -- people who have read the "classics" of the genre and the more recent best-sellers -- consider really, really good.
The goal is not to read works by dead authors, or to read works that are really old. The goal is to read good writing. And there's obviously nothing stuffy about our definition of "good" if we're placing Robert E. Howard and Fritz Leiber at the top of the swords & sorcery canon.
My advice is to start with the works that a lot of well-read people -- people who have read the "classics" of the genre and the more recent best-sellers -- consider really, really good.
I have two problems with you saying "You don't have to read dead authors to be a fan. The issue is not whether they're dead or alive. You should, on the other hand, read the acknowledged masters of the genre."
1. People know their own tastes. They can decide for themselves what they want to read. Someone who reads nothing but Forgotten Realms novels is still a fantasy fan.
You say that a mystery fan must read Sherlock Holmes. Well my mother is a huge fan of detective stories, yet I don't think she's ever read Sherlock Holmes. Just not her cup of tea. There are lots and lots of mystery novels that aren't Sherlock Holmes, so it's entirely possible to be a mystery fan and never have read The Adventure of the Six Napoleons.
2. It's not clear cut who the masters of the fantasy genre are. Gary's Appendix N is about 50% worth reading and 50% crap, imo. A lot of people think Terry Brooks, Terry Pratchett and JK Rowling are good writers. I don't. Personally I don't much like REHoward, the only good things about him are his low-level techniques, his word choice and sentence structures, and yet he would probably be regarded by most aficionados as the second best fantasy writer, after Tolkien. Gene Wolfe doesn't get mentioned much round here, John Crowley never, but imo they're the two best writers of modern fantasy.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Last edited by Doug McCrae; 19th July 2009 at 05:08 AM..
Gary's Appendix N is about 50% worth reading and 50% crap, imo.
I rather suspect that, as a rule of thumb, works of lesser literary merit tend to make better inspiration for RPGs.
One can certainly borrow bits from fine literature, but the undertakings -- masterfully crafted novel, with an author in full control, versus game of group improvisation and chance -- are fundamentally different.
A good D&D game probably looks more like a Lin Carter affair than it really resembles a work by John Crowley or Gene Wolfe.
Last edited by Ariosto; 19th July 2009 at 04:00 AM..
People know their own tastes. They can decide for themselves what they want to read. Someone who reads nothing but Forgotten Realms novels is still a fantasy fan.
A fan of poor fantasy. :cheeky:
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
I have two problems with you saying "You don't have to read dead authors to be a fan. The issue is not whether they're dead or alive. You should, on the other hand, read the acknowledged masters of the genre."
1. People know their own tastes. They can decide for themselves what they want to read. Someone who reads nothing but Forgotten Realms novels is still a fantasy fan.
You say that a mystery fan must read Sherlock Holmes. Well my mother is a huge fan of detective stories, yet I don't think she's ever read Sherlock Holmes. Just not her cup of tea. There are lots and lots of mystery novels that aren't Sherlock Holmes, so it's entirely possible to be a mystery fan and never have read The Adventure of the Six Napoleons.
In my opinion, it's not a matter of "if you are a fan of this genre you must like these specific works," but more that even if your tastes lead you to different preferences within the genre, you ought to have read the "masters of the genre" on some level so you can understand their place of influence within the genre. It gives you proper intellectual grounds to criticize them related to the whole, or at least to articulate why they aren't of your taste.
As an aside, you mention your mother having never read any Sherlock Holmes because "[the Holmes detective stores are] not her cup of tea." How does your mother know this if she has never read them . . . any of them?
Quote:
Appendix N is about 50% worth reading and 50% crap, imo.
There's plenty of pulp adventure of the sci-fi/fantasy type that is not great literature but is great idea fodder for D&D/RPGs. And even something that is not great literature can still be great entertainment, in my opinion.
Quote:
Personally I don't much like REHoward, the only good things about him are his low-level techniques, his word choice and sentence structures, and yet he would probably be regarded by most afficionados as the second best fantasy writer, after Tolkien.
At least you've read Howard and can explain your dislike of his writing. Dismissing him out of hand without any reading because he's "old" would just be a symptom of chronological snobbery.
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
When it comes to things they haven't read yet? I disagree. In fact, I know that I didn't know my own tastes when I first came to fantasy novels, and I made some terrible purchases, because I had to make my own decisions based on cover art, branding, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug McCrae
They can decide for themselves what they want to read.
No one's passing down edicts on what fantasy fans must read. The issue is that other people have read more fantasy novels than I have, and they have a better grasp of what's out there, so it would behoove me to take their advice on what's good and what's bad. Will it perfectly match my own taste? No, of course not. Is it a better guide than buying the latest Dragonlance-branded novel? Yes, definitely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug McCrae
Someone who reads nothing but Forgotten Realms novels is still a fantasy fan.
Someone who reads nothing but Forgotten Realms novels is missing out. If they try Tolkien, Howard, etc., and they still prefer Forgotten Realms novels, that's one thing. If they never try the classics of the genre, that's sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug McCrae
You say that a mystery fan must read Sherlock Holmes. Well my mother is a huge fan of detective stories, yet I don't think she's ever read Sherlock Holmes. Just not her cup of tea. There are lots and lots of mystery novels that aren't Sherlock Holmes, so it's entirely possible to be a mystery fan and never have read The Adventure of the Six Napoleons.
I never suggested that a mystery fan must read the entire Sherlock Holmes canon, just that it would be odd for a mystery fan to have never read any Sherlock Holmes at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug McCrae
It's not clear cut who the masters of the fantasy genre are. Gary's Appendix N is about 50% worth reading and 50% crap, imo.
Agreed. But I would recommend that every D&D player try some Tolkien, Howard, etc. -- and probably a few not-really-classics that profoundly influenced D&D, like Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.
Ironically, its the fact that Robert E. Howard is so well regarded that allows me to dismiss him without reading a single page. I know more about Robert E. Howard's writing than I do about, say, Jonathan L. Howard. And I just finished a novel by the latter last night. Quite enjoyed it, actually- kept imagining the main character as played by David Mitchell.
Anyways, I give a hearty rasberry to these so called classics. Labeling dime store pulp novels "classics" of the entire fantasy genre is like calling the Scoobie Doo a classic of the animation genre. Even if technically true in the sense that many people would label it as such, so what? Being first chronologically is great, and we owe a lot to the authors that established the tropes and foundations of a genre. That doesn't mean that they were any good, or that their fame is deserved in anything other than a sense of historical obligation. The real question is whether these authors have survived the test of time- whether now, with many more competitors than they once faced, they're still considered worth reading. I'm pretty sure that Leiber and Howard have not passed this test. Howard has at least created an archetype that everyone knows and loves, but they tend to know it and love it through the effects its had on other writing or on secondary materials based on his, rather than through his actual words on paper.
Oh, and for the record, it is NOT surprising that a mystery fan might not have read any Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes is only tangentially part of the modern mystery genre. Go browse the shelves a little, and you'll see that Agatha Christie is the mystery genre's Darwin, and Arthur Conan Doyle is its Lamarck. I like both authors, definitely, but can completely understand how a mystery reader might not have ever read the latter. Not that this is really relevant to the conversation, because you could have selected Christie as your example instead of Doyle, but hey. Just sayin'.
Anyways, I give a hearty rasberry to these so called classics. Labeling dime store pulp novels "classics" of the entire fantasy genre is like calling the Scoobie Doo a classic of the animation genre. Even if technically true in the sense that many people would label it as such, so what? Being first chronologically is great, and we owe a lot to the authors that established the tropes and foundations of a genre. That doesn't mean that they were any good, or that their fame is deserved in anything other than a sense of historical obligation. The real question is whether these authors have survived the test of time- whether now, with many more competitors than they once faced, they're still considered worth reading. I'm pretty sure that Leiber and Howard have not passed this test. Howard has at least created an archetype that everyone knows and loves, but they tend to know it and love it through the effects its had on other writing or on secondary materials based on his, rather than through his actual words on paper.
I have an English degree and a Master's of Fine Arts in Writing (just by way of establishing credibility). I'll take Howard ANY DAY over half the the "classics" we force upon unsuspecting schlubs in high school. His skills with characterization, plot development, and diction are as good if not better than the so-called greats that kids must stomach (or more likely, completely ignore because the works are completely irrelevant to today).
Also, looking down your haughty nose at something you've never read smacks of elitism and is in poor taste. Howard has not only survived the test of time in literature, but has actually become MORE famous in the 50 years since his suicide than he ever was during his own life.
I have an English degree and a Master's of Fine Arts in Writing (just by way of establishing credibility). I'll take Howard ANY DAY over half the the "classics" we force upon unsuspecting schlubs in high school.
I don't think that contradicts my general opinion of "classics" as being old novels foisted off on the young, generally forcibly, thereby ruining their love for reading by making them base their first impression of an entire genre on what is fundamentally that genre's rough draft.
As for Howard, life is short and books about mighty thews make me want to vomit. Plus I know a hell of a lot about the Hyborian Age than I do about, say, Idaho, because yes, it has been influential. Influential and the opposite of what I want in a novel.
And yes, Conan is undergoing a revival these days, but Howard is not. This is a revival that is taking place in video games and movies and even comic books, and only after those in the actual written words of the author of the original text on which all of this is based.
... Howard is much like Lovecraft in that way. Conan is popular. Howard is not. Lovecraftian horror is popular. Lovecraft is not. Which says something about a fan of the genre's position or obligations regarding these authors, though I suspect you'd think it says something different from what it says to me.
Ironically, its the fact that Robert E. Howard is so well regarded that allows me to dismiss him without reading a single page.
What is that supposed to mean? Certainly, if you've read Robert E. Howard's original Conan stories, and you didn't enjoy them, I wouldn't recommend reading more of them -- but if you haven't read them at all, I totally disagree that you can somehow dismiss them entirely because other people do like them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
Anyways, I give a hearty rasberry to these so called classics. Labeling dime store pulp novels "classics" of the entire fantasy genre is like calling the Scoobie Doo a classic of the animation genre. Even if technically true in the sense that many people would label it as such, so what? Being first chronologically is great, and we owe a lot to the authors that established the tropes and foundations of a genre. That doesn't mean that they were any good, or that their fame is deserved in anything other than a sense of historical obligation. The real question is whether these authors have survived the test of time- whether now, with many more competitors than they once faced, they're still considered worth reading. I'm pretty sure that Leiber and Howard have not passed this test. Howard has at least created an archetype that everyone knows and loves, but they tend to know it and love it through the effects its had on other writing or on secondary materials based on his, rather than through his actual words on paper.
I would say that you're completely misunderstanding what's meant by "classics" or "masterpieces" of the genre. These are not dry works to be foisted upon youngsters to build character; these are ripping yarns that have stood the test of time -- a few decades, at least.
Also, non-fans may know Conan better from comics and movies than from the original short stories, but that does not mean that the comics and movies are better. They're just visual media that are easier to casually take in. (James Bond is another example of this. I recommend the novels over most of the movies.)
As for Howard, life is short and books about mighty thews make me want to vomit.
Have you read any Howard? Or have you simply read Howard pastiches? Because I absolutely loathe the pastiches I've read, because they are "books about might thews," while the originals aren't. The copy-cats distilled away all that's good about Howard's work and kept nothing but the alpha-male hero. (Again, not too different from James Bond.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
And yes, Conan is undergoing a revival these days, but Howard is not.
What are you talking about? A half-dozen Howard compilations have come out in the past few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
Howard is much like Lovecraft in that way. Conan is popular. Howard is not. Lovecraftian horror is popular. Lovecraft is not.
I disagree. Lovecraft had a germ of something fascinating in his work, and other writers have done more with his ideas than he achieved in his own purple prose. He had ideas but lacked execution. (Rabid Lovecraft fans will disagree with me, of course.)
Howard's writing is definitely pulp, but it's head and shoulders above the imitators' thud and blunder.
I don't think that contradicts my general opinion of "classics" as being old novels foisted off on the young, generally forcibly, thereby ruining their love for reading by making them base their first impression of an entire genre on what is fundamentally that genre's rough draft.
Lord Dunsany, CS Lewis, even Edgar Allan Poe, are fantasy's rough draft. Howard is far more refined as a "genre" author, and he proved he could do multiple genres too--westerns, horror, sf, fantasy, and sea stories, among others.
Quote:
As for Howard, life is short and books about mighty thews make me want to vomit. Plus I know a hell of a lot about the Hyborian Age than I do about, say, Idaho, because yes, it has been influential. Influential and the opposite of what I want in a novel.
You say that like Howard uses "mighty thews" all the time, or hell, that it's even a standard phrasing. It's not. In fact, having read every Conan, Kull, and Solomon Kane story, I can't say I ever remember reading that exact phrasing. I do remember reading about mighty thews in an ERB story, The Monster Men, however. I also did a Google Book search just now and turned up several Howard books that include that phrased, but all in the introductions written by the editor and not by Howard himself. Also, what exactly do you want in a novel? Like everyone, some Howard is bad (heck, even some Gaiman and Chabon are bad).
Quote:
And yes, Conan is undergoing a revival these days, but Howard is not. This is a revival that is taking place in video games and movies and even comic books, and only after those in the actual written words of the author of the original text on which all of this is based.
This just shows you don't know what you're talking about. There are now three monthly standard comic books from Dark Horse, "Conan," "Kull," and "Solomon Kane." Del Rey has recently republished every Conan story, Solomon Kane story, and Kull story, and there are plans to republish Steve Costigan. And there's a new Solomon Kane movie set to drop soon as well.
Quote:
... Howard is much like Lovecraft in that way. Conan is popular. Howard is not. Lovecraftian horror is popular. Lovecraft is not. Which says something about a fan of the genre's position or obligations regarding these authors, though I suspect you'd think it says something different from what it says to me.
Again, this shows how little knowledge you have on the subject. The Library of America, a very important grouping of literary who's who, has published a complete H.P. Lovecraft in the last few years, giving him a legitimate break into the realms of "literary" classics. Lovecraft also is still relevant in that Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, and other modern horror "masters" all cite Lovecraft's influence alongside even Poe.
Again - if you haven't read anything by a particular author, you can in no way make a legitimate judgment about that author. It'd be like me going around saying "Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince is the worst movie ever filmed" when I haven't seen it yet. It's preposterous, rude, and judgmental based on zero exposure. If you had said you read "The Tower of the Elephant" by Howard and decided you didn't like the Conan stories, at least you'd have some basis upon which to make your claims.
).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
