Dwarves don't sell novels

[Turjan]

According to this site you would be mistaken.

As well as this list which also lists the Silmarillion as Tolkien's only best seller.

This site also agrees.

This one too

I could go on, but I think I've proven my point.

I think it depends somewhat on how you define the word bestseller. In the US, Ballantine's alone has sold about 50 million copies of the LotR books. But this was over a period of about 50 years .

 

[AZNtrogdor]

in what issue and on what page can I find this article?

 

[Hussar]

Heh, and probably 39.5 million of those copies were sold to schools.

Compare that to the almost 7 million copies sold on the first day for Half Blood Prince.

Worldwide, she's flogged almost 270 million books. Somehow I think she's likely more read than Tolkien.

Don't get me wrong. I love Tolkien. I really do. I've read the Hobbit and the LOTR many, many times. Read the Lost Tales and the Simirallion more than a few times as well. However, let's not get too carried away in personal preferences here. I 100% agree that LOTR is a better book than Harry Potter. But, that doesn't mean that it's the best fantasy book out there.

I'm still stunned by the idea that we should limit our inspirations to a small subset of the genre when there are absolutely fantastic sources outside of Tolkien and Howard.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I think those bestseller lists only tallied the top 10 best sellers of each year. That's not necessarily the definition of a best seller.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

From what I gather, D&D's roots are the dungeon.

I'm sorry, you misunderstood me.

 

[Turjan]

Don't get me wrong. I love Tolkien. I really do. I've read the Hobbit and the LOTR many, many times. Read the Lost Tales and the Simirallion more than a few times as well. However, let's not get too carried away in personal preferences here. I 100% agree that LOTR is a better book than Harry Potter. But, that doesn't mean that it's the best fantasy book out there.

I'm still stunned by the idea that we should limit our inspirations to a small subset of the genre when there are absolutely fantastic sources outside of Tolkien and Howard.

Well, at least LotR tends to win "best book of all times" polls .

Anyway, I'm certainly no advocate of limiting fantasy to LotR-inspired works. Quite the opposite. Frex, I love Jack Vance stories, if you cannot tell already from my handle .

 

[rounser]

I'm sorry, my phrase was apparently over your head.

Patronising someone for misunderstanding what you're trying to get across is neither big nor clever when it may well be that the problem is on your side, especially when you do so without an attempt to explain what, indeed, you did mean. That's just rude.

 

[Hussar]

I think those bestseller lists only tallied the top 10 best sellers of each year. That's not necessarily the definition of a best seller.

Oh, true, if you want to go by total volume over time, then it does come out different. Not hugely different, but, Tolkien does get to move up the list if you do.

Honestly, I do agree with Zinser in that I don't want SF themes in my game. However, I mean it in a different way than he does. At the root, there is a huge difference between the function of the narrative of fantasy and SF. SF is politically motivated by and large.

Warning, I'm painting with some very broad strokes here, so, don't get too excited.

The basic purpose of nearly every SF story is to examine the effects of science or technology on the human condition. Whether it's becoming a god in Dune or robots in Asimov, Data in Star Trek or the dystopian views of Heinlein; this examination of what it means to be human can be seen in so many SF stories. Even Mary Shelly examines this nearly two centuries ago with Frankenstein.

I love these kinds of stories. I do. My favourite reading is probably more SF than fantasy, although I like fantasy as well. In the wiki article, they mention the idea that modern Fantasy is an outgrowth of travel stories. And, really, that's true. The function of the narrative in Fantasy is generally world building. You don't try to link it to the real world (although you can) in any sort of reflective way. You write fantasy to create a world and present that world to the reader. Conan wouldn't know self reflection if it bit him on the loincloth. But Hyboria is fully realized and given an entire history. But, that world of Hyboria isn't meant to represent anything. It is what it is - a fantasy world.

However, what makes for great reading doesn't make for a great game IMO. I don't play RPG's to make some sort of profound statement about the human condition. I play RPG's to kill stuff and take its lunch money. Sure, there can be stories within the game. And hopefully they are good stories as well. But, they are fantasy stories. They are not meant to be anything other than what is presented - a good adventure.

Trying to do that with SF, again in my opinion, doesn't work as well. Star Wars, while clothed in SF toys, is pretty solidly fantasy in theme. The hero farmboy travels out and slays the dragon. There is no attempt to discuss any sort of ramifications of the technology. It's exactly the same as magic in fantasy - it's taken completely for granted and ignored. It works because it has to work or the story stops. There is no attempt to link the Force to some sort of commentary on anything in the real world.

That's why I say Pern is fantasy. It's the same as Star Wars. The science isn't the point of the story. There's no attempt to talk about how science or technology is changing these people. They are presented whole cloth without any conflict between themselves and their setting. ((Well, ok, the Thread is setting, but, you know what I mean))

I have no problems stealing ideas from SF and putting them into fantasy. It's still fantasy, just with a new pair of pants and maybe a nice belt. When you remove the idea of dealing with how science and technology affects the human condition, it's no longer SF particularly. It's fantasy.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Patronising someone for misunderstanding what you're trying to get across is neither big nor clever when it may well be that the problem is on your side, especially when you do so without an attempt to explain what, indeed, you did mean. That's just rude.

I was rude, I apologize. Possibly frustrations in real life carried over and clouded my judgement as well, who can say. Mostly, I was bemused that you took serious something said in jest. You will note the "" winking smiley that you excluded from my quote. I thought that was clear enough there was a lack of seriousness in my statement. *shrug*

I AM still bemused how far all of us on all sides are deviating from the original post.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Oh, true, if you want to go by total volume over time, then it does come out different. Not hugely different, but, Tolkien does get to move up the list if you do.

Not even that though I agree. An author may have a bestseller for one week of a year. That's a bestseller in that year, but it may have only ranked 99th for the year as a whole...

Anyone have the British bestseller charts for the 20th century out of curiousity?