Dwarves don't sell novels
Zander
Explorer
The Grimm brothers described elves as "pretty" (in translation, of course) but the seven creatures in Snow White as "dwarfs" (again, in translation). Now I'm not sure about German but in English and many other European languages the word for the fantastic creature called a dwarf was (and is) the same as that applied to real people with achondroplasia and similar conditions. This was no coincidence: achondroplasiacs were thought to have magical abilities. The difference between mythical and real dwarfs was blurred to the point where they were often considered the same. It is most unlikely that the Grimm brothers (who weren't exactly politically correct by modern standards) would have described someone with achondroplasia as "pretty". So it's a fairly safe bet that the seven creatures in Snow White are not elven.Turjan said:
But whether or not the Grimm brothers "saw dwarves as a kind of elf" isn't really relevant. What is, is how readers have perceived the dwarves. It is highly improbable both because of the aforementioned blurring between real and fantastic dwarves and the fact that in the story they are labelled as "dwarfs" that they would be thought of as anything else.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
I'm now confused. If you (Zander) are not contesting that fantasy should change, and that fantasy contains all sorts of various elements, then what is wrong with WOTC changing elements? "Without regard to its heritage"? What exactly does that mean? Should dwarves be lawful and nice (which actually isn't in the Grimm's story of Snow White)? Or should they be nasty magical tricksters from Rumplestiltskin? Either way, you can point to "heritage" antecedents for dwarves.
Your other point has been that ignoring traditional fantasy will lead to D&D becoming less popular and eventually dying.
How do you explain the lasting popularity of X1 Isle of Dread? This is one of, if not the most popular module ever produced in D&D. Yet, you will not find a single element of traditional fantasy in it. No elves, no dwarves, no demi-humans of any kind. No pseudo-medieval setting, no pseudo-Europe, not even a dragon in sight.
A module that is filled with elements from Horror and SF is in the top three of most popular modules of all time. How does this jive with your ideas Zander?
Your other point has been that ignoring traditional fantasy will lead to D&D becoming less popular and eventually dying.
How do you explain the lasting popularity of X1 Isle of Dread? This is one of, if not the most popular module ever produced in D&D. Yet, you will not find a single element of traditional fantasy in it. No elves, no dwarves, no demi-humans of any kind. No pseudo-medieval setting, no pseudo-Europe, not even a dragon in sight.
A module that is filled with elements from Horror and SF is in the top three of most popular modules of all time. How does this jive with your ideas Zander?
Turjan
Explorer
Your assumption is wrong, as I already pointed out in post #305. The Grimms point out that there are beautiful elves and ugly elves, and dwarves is one name usually used for the ugly ones. They explicitly say that the dwarf Alberich sits in between, because he is both at the same time, light and dark elf.Zander said:
Now you tell us the dwarves from Snow White were just humans? May well be. But then this does not really belong into a discussion about fantasy. The dwarves from myths were always magical beings, as are the ones in other Grimm fairy tales, like Snow-White and Rose-Red.Zander said:
However, it's time to end these circling discussions. Although you say that you want WotC to follow many "traditional" influences for fantasy creatures, I don't see your view of tradition go far beyond Tolkien standards, which represent a small slice of northern European tradition with a few inventions, like his elves or his hobbits. Real tradition goes far beyond that and doesn't have set distinctions between D&D's stereotypical fantasy races. It's all in flow. I got it that you don't like that. It's a pity that D&D doesn't follow your handpicked sources but makes use of the wealth of different traditions. But keep in mind that what you see as "traditional" is a very personal subset of what is out there.
Infernal Teddy
Explorer
Zander said:
Just checked my illustrated copy of Grimms Märchen. The one for grown-ups. You're wrong again.
Infernal Teddy
Explorer
Kae'Yoss said:U-huh. I think I once saw a video of that. The stories' names were (not-so-) subtly altered. I'd repeat them, but Eric's Granny would object.
No, not that one.
Zander
Explorer
No, you're the one who is mistaken.Infernal Teddy said:
The earliest version by the Grimm brothers, Die Kinder- und Hausmärchen (Children's and Household Tales), was first published in 1812. In 1823, i.e. during the lifetimes of the brothers, the first translation appeared in English. The translation was done by Edgar Taylor and published as German Popular Stories. In 1884, Margaret Hunt re-translated the stories which were published as Household Tales. It is said that the Hunt translation is very true to the original. As much as I am able with my limited ability in German, I have compared Grimm with Hunt and this seems to be the case, at least as far as Snow White is concerned.
In both Taylor and Hunt's translation, the dwarfs are described as very orderly and about the height of a seven-year-old girl. The dwarfs are described as "friendly" (that's a quote, by the way) and not once but twice they are called "good" (another quote). Both translations say: "They were seven dwarfs who dug and delved in the mountains for ore... In the mornings they went to the mountains and looked for copper and gold".
What I said previously was correct at least in the English-speaking world. From my limited ability in German, it seems to be the case in the German-speaking world too.
HeavenShallBurn
First Post
This has gotten pretty off topic but eh I'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.
I think a lot of people are losing sight of the fact that the published Grimms Tales in every time period were very heavily altered from the original tales. What he published were cleaned up whitewashed versions rather than the actual folktales because he was marketing them to industrial age middle-class folk who wouldn't have wanted to hear the things in the original form. It's like when I was a small kid and my Welsh great-grandmother would tell me stories, sometimes they had the same name as things in children's books but they were very much harsher and more dark stories than the published ones and given that she was born in late 19th century rural Wales and only learned English as second language I would tend to think hers were the more authentic version. Same case here I believe.
I think a lot of people are losing sight of the fact that the published Grimms Tales in every time period were very heavily altered from the original tales. What he published were cleaned up whitewashed versions rather than the actual folktales because he was marketing them to industrial age middle-class folk who wouldn't have wanted to hear the things in the original form. It's like when I was a small kid and my Welsh great-grandmother would tell me stories, sometimes they had the same name as things in children's books but they were very much harsher and more dark stories than the published ones and given that she was born in late 19th century rural Wales and only learned English as second language I would tend to think hers were the more authentic version. Same case here I believe.
Zander
Explorer
I've already answered this but rather than re-state it, allow me to illustrate what I mean...Hussar said:
Imagine that the year is 2010 and WotC have published 4E. As you might expect, there is an entry for centaurs in the 4E Monster Manual. But they are not human and equine in colour. Instead, they are fire engine red. They now have plates along their spines like a stegosaurus and their heads look like those of vampiric rabbits. They have two pairs of human arms, not one, with each ending in a crab-like pincer. This is the new centaur in 4E D&D, completely replacing the previous version.
While we're here, let's have a look at the 4E PHB. Elves no longer have pointed ears. Instead they have a third eye in the middle of their foreheads. They also have a tail-like appendage extending from the front of each knee. Elves are particularly skilled in the use of great clubs and other large, bludgeoning weapons.
Let's turn to halflings. In 4E, they average 7ft (2.13m) - the name 'halfling' now being ironic. They have no arms but do have four legs, two from each hip. They also have a prehensile tail. Halflings have a hand growing from each shoulder blade. As part of their religious customs, female halflings cut off their little fingers leaving them with three fingers and a thumb on each hand. Male halflings don't do this.
Arcane spells in 4E are cast as bubbles that come out the caster's mouth and float away. When the bubble bursts or is broken, the spell activates centred on where the bubble was at the time.
I could go on but I don't think I need to. You can see what D&D might be like if WotC changed the fantasy core of the game without regards to fantasy's heritage.
Please check your facts. It actually is.Hussar said:
X1 Isle of Dread, popular though it may be (voted 16th best module in Dungeon or Dragon magazine a couple of years ago IIRC), is one of many modules the vast majority of which are mainstream fantasy. If the whole game had been like Isle of Dread, D&D may not have become as popular as it has.Hussar said:
Besides, the non-standard setting of Isle of Dread was not the only thing that distinguished this module. It was also, for example, the first to take place mostly outdoors, not in a dungeon. And it was sold as part of the Expert Set so would have been one that many gamers would have played just because they had it. So you can't safely say that the popularity of Isle of Dread is attributable to its lack of traditional fantasy. There may be other reasons.
Last edited:
