[Forked Thread: How Important is Magic..?] 5 things you need to know

[Hussar]

I also recommend the Dictionary of Imaginary Places (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b...f+imaginary+places&sprefix=dictionary+of+imag), which contains entries related to hundreds of pre-D&D fantasy works, and has a ton of entries that can be used almost wholesale when creating a D&D campaign.

Right, hundreds. Thank you for proving my point for me. Despite being able to draw on nearly a CENTURY of work, all they could do was find hundreds of works. I can find THOUSANDS of works that have been done post 1980. That, of course, being my point. Not that fantasy did not exist pre 1980. But that fantasy as a genre was a tiny niche genre (and the fact that you have less than a thousand works over the course of decades means you have a tiny niche genre) before the explosion in the 1980's.

Something I would also point out here that I thought of later, is the inclusion of Moorcock in earlier D&D. Moorcock makes a huge impact on D&D with the alignment system, which is ported almost word for word into D&D. Yet Moorcock was the China Mieville of his time. He was the guy turning the fantasy world on its ear in the sixties. People complain about angsty dual wielding drow, but, come on, that icon is a lot older. Elric was angsty before being angsty was cool.

So, yeah, I have no problems whatsoever with D&D drawing any and all sources into the game. We survived humanoid hippos with British accents flying spaceships in the Phlogiston in the game. We can survive anything.

 

[rounser]

Right, hundreds. Thank you for proving my point for me. Despite being able to draw on nearly a CENTURY of work, all they could do was find hundreds of works. I can find THOUSANDS of works that have been done post 1980. That, of course, being my point.

I don't consider it a valid one. Consider the music industry pre-1980 and post-1980, and your point is all washed up. There is more information being created and recorded each year now than there was in the entirety of human history beforehand.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Right, hundreds. Thank you for proving my point for me.

One of the really cool things about 3e (and 2e before it) was that it opened D&D up to even more subgenres of fantasy. It is sort of sad to see 4e moving so strongly in the opposite direction, IMHO.

In any event, in addition to rounser's wise comment, I note that the point you stated was

Because, at the time, fantasy was a tiny niche genre tucked in on the coat tails of SF. That bibliography represents a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time.​

which is what I demonstrated to be untrue. If your point wasn't what you said, don't blame me for not being a mind-reader!

Also note that I agreed with you that the fantasy market -- especially in terms of marketing it as such -- has mushroomed since the 60s (specifically, since the incredible success of LotR).




RC

 

[Mallus]

Yet Moorcock was the China Mieville of his time. He was the guy turning the fantasy world on its ear in the sixties. People complain about angsty dual wielding drow, but, come on, that icon is a lot older. Elric was angsty before being angsty was cool.

Interesting comparison. I'd say that's spot on. Also, Elric was a deliberate inversion of a typical D&D protagonist (ahem, a certain Cimmerian), so among D&D's primary influences you have not only the original S&S stories, but parodies of them written decades later.

That argues for a tradition of broadly inclusive fantasy in D&D.

We survived humanoid hippos with British accents flying spaceships in the Phlogiston in the game. We can survive anything.

As do the British hippos in space.

 

[Mallus]

Because, at the time, fantasy was a tiny niche genre tucked in on the coat tails of SF. That bibliography represents a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time.​

which is what I demonstrated to be untrue. If your point wasn't what you said, don't blame me for not being a mind-reader!

But you didn't demonstrate it was untrue. The works you referred to were not widely nor readily available in the marketplace, so the point stands.

Also note that I agreed with you that the fantasy market -- especially in terms of marketing it as such -- has mushroomed since the 60s (specifically, since the incredible success of LotR).

As you acknowledge here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But you didn't demonstrate it was untrue. The works you referred to were not widely nor readily available in the marketplace, so the point stands.

Actually, fantasy works were blossoming in the late 60s and early 70s. There were more people reading fantasy works, and older works were being reprinted. Several dedicated magazines were in print at this time as well, which could not survive the actual mushroom that occurred later.

Fantasy works were widely read, and available. As a boy living in rural Wisconsin, I had no difficulty whatsoever with having many fantasy novels that, apparently, Hussar and you could not find. Perhaps your location was different.

The 1e DMG was printed in 1979, and the list of available fantasy works in 1979 (or 1978) were already in the beginning stages of that mushroom. Fantasy sales were good, and books were being printed specifically targetted at that market.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually, fantasy works were blossoming in the late 60s and early 70s. There were more people reading fantasy works, and older works were being reprinted. Several dedicated magazines were in print at this time as well, which could not survive the actual mushroom that occurred later.

Fantasy works were widely read, and available. As a boy living in rural Wisconsin, I had no difficulty whatsoever with having many fantasy novels that, apparently, Hussar and you could not find. Perhaps your location was different.

The 1e DMG was printed in 1979, and the list of available fantasy works in 1979 (or 1978) were already in the beginning stages of that mushroom. Fantasy sales were good, and books were being printed specifically targetted at that market.


RC

Hussar is not saying that Fantasy did not exist then. He says there are coming a considerably larger amount of fantasy books out now then they were coming out then, and that makes it even harder to point to "iconic" books or books that set some kind of standard fantasy literature experience for gamers. It was easier for individual authors to stand out then.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar is not saying that Fantasy did not exist then. He says there are coming a considerably larger amount of fantasy books out now then they were coming out then, and that makes it even harder to point to "iconic" books or books that set some kind of standard fantasy literature experience for gamers. It was easier for individual authors to stand out then.

It may not surprise you that I've had this discussion with Hussar before, and speak from experience.

He is not saying that fantasy didn't exist, nor is he simply saying that there is more fantasy now; he is saying that fantasy was a "tiny niche genre" and that the bibliography in the 1e DMG "represents a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time".

Now, "fairly large chunk" is open to interpretation. Does that mean 75%? 50%? 25%? 10%? 2%? But, I would hazard that most people who actually examine what was available at the time the 1e DMG was published will conclude that the bibliography doesn't represent "a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time".

These are concrete claims that can easily be examined.

It certainly didn't represent "a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy" I had already read at the time.

YMMV on how much earlier fantasy you had/have read, and YMMV on what was available within your community, but what was available overall is objective, and I contend that only by some absurd definition of "fairly large chunk" does the 1e DMG bibliography come close to being such.

The secondary claim, that you bring up, about how easy it is for iconic/good writers to stand out then (as opposed to now) may be true, but the idea that one could believe that "That bibliography represents a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time" rather underscores that Hussar, at least, is not aware of all the iconic/good early fantasy writers that exist.

RC

 

[Hussar]

I don't consider it a valid one. Consider the music industry pre-1980 and post-1980, and your point is all washed up. There is more information being created and recorded each year now than there was in the entirety of human history beforehand.

Look, I'm not saying that there is no fantasy before 1970. That's not true. But, I am saying that fantasy as a genre was certainly not a major genre by any measure until the mid-70's and really not until after 1980.

It's pretty easy to see. Take Tolkien for example. There's a reason that Tolkien's publisher was an academic publisher, not a mainstream one. Heck, Unwin's publishing house was better known for publishing Jung texts.

Take a look here at the number of boxed sets made for LotR. In 1965, when RavenCrowking is claiming that LotR is a major power house, they published less than 10 000 boxed sets. That's vanity press sized runs.

Heck, LotR didn't even get into paperback until a decade or more after its release. Think about that for a second. How long does it usually take a book to get released in paperback? That gives you an idea of how far from mainstream fantasy was back then.

Hussar is not saying that Fantasy did not exist then. He says there are coming a considerably larger amount of fantasy books out now then they were coming out then, and that makes it even harder to point to "iconic" books or books that set some kind of standard fantasy literature experience for gamers. It was easier for individual authors to stand out then.

Bingo.

Y'know, I'm gonna fork this thread and try a little experiment. See how iconic different authors are with the younger crowd.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Take a look here at the number of boxed sets made for LotR. In 1965, when RavenCrowking is claiming that LotR is a major power house, they published less than 10 000 boxed sets. That's vanity press sized runs.

Okay; let's take a closer look at the above.

(1) D&D appeared in 1974, not 1965.

(2) The D&D 1e DMG appeared in 1979, not 1965.

(3) LotR was published continually in seperate volumes in addition to the boxed sets.

From the same website you link to:

As noted above the books proved to be popular, so Allen & Unwin thought that there may be a market for a collected edition of the three volumes. Some readers had already chosen to construct their own by binding the three books together - in January 1956 a "leading bookseller" requested unbound sheets to make one for his own library.​

And the reason that Tolkein's publisher was an academic publisher is that Tolkein was an academic. Most of his published work (if not his most popular work) is academic in nature.

Selective information leads to what might, on the surface, seem like a good argument, but it is easily punctured.


RC