L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
(Textual criticism is a science. Albeit it is a ‘human science’, like history and psychology, as opposed to a ‘physical science’.)
Good lord, you'd think people would know LoTR was a book before it was a movie - especially people who pride themselves on the incisiveness of their Google enshrined research!
wikipedia said:The first Ballantine paperback edition was printed in October [1965], and sold a quarter of a million copies within ten months. On September 4 1966, the novel debuted on New York Times' Paperback Bestsellers list as number three, and was number one by December 4, a position it held for eight weeks.
sf-encyclopedia.com said:The chances are that [swords & sorcery] would never have attained the extraordinary popularity it has today were it not for the belated but huge success of J R R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (3 vols 1954-1955), and the lesser though still remarkable success of T H White's The Once and Future King (1958), the latter forming the basis of the musical Camelot (1960), filmed in 1967. When these works had filtered through to the mass market via paperback editions (not until 1965 in the case of Tolkien) it became obvious that there was a huge appetite for work of this kind; publishers began to fall over one another in the effort to feed it.
sf-encyclopedia.com said:By the time Tolkien was published, sword and sorcery was showing signs of vigour elsewhere, its two finest exponents being perhaps Fritz Leiber and Jack Vance.
I was once an archaeologist. I say that because something which is taught in that scientific discipline are techniques for the avoidance of cultural confirmation bias, and rushing too quickly to simplify something found - "you should only put the finds in a box... not what you think about them" was a phrase I remember being taught at university when I studied it.
It’s well known that halflings were originally called hobbits before TSR was forced to change the name by the Tolkiens. Same, IIRC, with ents and treants.
What else came from Tolkien?
Orcs?
Our vision of goblins?
Balrog - Balor?
Giant Eagles?
High and wood elves?
I’m sure some were a case of having the same inspiration, and of course plenty of D&D is inspired by a million other things than Tolkien. But I’m curious which elements were adopted from Tolkien specifically.
A largely off-topic aside...
Without wanting to take anything away from your point (which I think is absolutely correct), the phrase "you should only put the finds in the box" made me shudder a bit. For me it conjures the unfortunate popular notion that archaeology is all about furiously exhuming artifacts. In fact, (acknowledging that you doubtless know this) another thing that archaeology teaches is that unless you do the pains-taking work of diligently recording the context in which an artifact is found, you might as well have stayed home.
Ironically, of course, in order to make the point, I have
[sblock]taken your quote out of context.[/sblock]
Hmm. What is your definition of 'science'?