D&D 4E 4e Design and JRR Tolkien

[MerricB]

Just read an interesting comment by Laurell K. Hamilton (who would have to be one of the more successful writers of Urban Fantasy/Erotica/Horror today):

"I thought once I would write only heroic fantasy like a mix of Tolkien and Robert E. Howard. But the bottom fell out of the heroic fantasy market and I was left scrambling to find a vision that the publishers would buy..." (From the introduction to her collection of short stories, Strange Candy).

I thought it was quite interesting when applied to this discussion.

Cheers!

 

[Desdichado]

How strange. It certainly doesn't seem like the bottom has fallen out of that market. I still see plenty of new heroic fantasy books hit the shelves every year.

Possibly this is a read between the lines thing; "I couldn't sell my heroic fantasy, so I found my voice somewhere else?" I don't know. I don't know her from Adam (Eve?) so I'm just guessing, though.

Huh.

 

[Raven Crowking]

ERB seems to almost go through cyclic periods of renewed interest and general apathy. For what it's worth, now that fantasy has come forward and gained a lot of mainstream success, I notice that ERB is---again---out of print.

Just for the record, I picked up a new print of A Princess of Mars on 4 August of last year, for my birthday.

 

[Hussar]

Either way, it should be noted that the Modern Fantasy genre as such exists clearly from the 18th Century on, and is not a product of 1980+.

RC

Again, if you're going to respond to things I said, at least take me off ignore so you can see my other responses.

I never said that.

What I did say is that according to Locus Magazine, there have been more fantasy novels written since 2000 than there was prior to about 1980 (possibly 1975).

You get 300 fantasy novels (not including media tie ins) per year since 2000. In 1975, according to Gardner Dozois, you might get lucky to get 3 titles per MONTH. And he was including SF with fantasy.

So, yes, there is a fair bit of fantasy back then, even at only a couple of books per month, you've still got several hundred, maybe even a thousand titles. We've had more than 2000 new fantasy titles (not including SF or media tie ins) since 2000.

 

[Hussar]

Also, about authorial intent.

There's about as much textual support for Dumbledore being gay as there is for Gandalf. After all, every "clue" that supports Dumbledore being gay can be applied to Gandalf as well.

As to author's "owning" their work. Ballocks. Complete and utter ballocks. Once a text is released, it has to stand on its own. The author can claim whatever he or she likes after the release, but, their interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's. If your interpretation is unsuported by the text, it's wrong. Full stop. If it's supported by the text, then fair enough, it's a valid interpretation. The more support you can find in the text for your interpretation, the more valid it becomes.

However, if Terry Brooks stood up tomorrow and claimed Swords of Shanarra was a mystery novel, he'd be wrong. It doesn't matter that he wrote the book, he'd still be wrong.

As far as the Encyclopedia of Fantasy goes, well, that's one interpretation. Works like Dracula can be claimed by modern fantasy, but, really, fit better in Horror. Of course, horror and fantasy are fairly close genres so, overlap is inevitable. I wouldn't put it in the modern fantasy genre, but, I can see how it would be.

But, in any case, that was never really germane to my point. My point is, and remains, that modern fantasy as a genre didn't really mature into a wholly separate genre distinct from SF until the late 70's and early 80's. The fact that so many authors had to publish their fantasy stories as SF stories, shows how minor the genre really was.

Or, to put it another way, who are the golden age fantasy authors that can rival Heinlein or Asimov in terms of numbers of titles?

 

[Desdichado]

Just for the record, I picked up a new print of A Princess of Mars on 4 August of last year, for my birthday.

Yeah, I made that claim based on an Amazon search I made probably two or three years ago and only finding prior editions on sale through the used book store vendors.

I just did a quick Amazon search and see that it has in fact just been reprinted by multiple people since then. Including Penguin Classics, which delights me greatly.

Most of them are clearly small press guys, but there's a few "major" releases out there. On a whim I searched for Tarzan of the Apes and had a similar result. When I searched for Lost on Venus I only got the 60s printing and a few small press offerings.

 

[Baby Samurai]

This thread has drifted into the arena of the unwell, making an enemy if its own future…

 

[Raven Crowking]

Most of them are clearly small press guys, but there's a few "major" releases out there. On a whim I searched for Tarzan of the Apes and had a similar result. When I searched for Lost on Venus I only got the 60s printing and a few small press offerings.

Not a bad book, and I wouldn't mind locating the other Venus books. It's the only Venus book I have.

One of the reasons that I think ERB's popularity may have waned in the last few decades is the marked racial tone of his primary texts. Tarzan is, after all, a white man whose name means "White Skin", that, though raised by apes, is in fact the de facto ruler of Africa. I can see where some folks might have problems with that.

RC

 

[Darkwolf71]

Also, about authorial intent.

There's about as much textual support for Dumbledore being gay as there is for Gandalf. After all, every "clue" that supports Dumbledore being gay can be applied to Gandalf as well.

As to author's "owning" their work. Ballocks. Complete and utter ballocks. Once a text is released, it has to stand on its own. The author can claim whatever he or she likes after the release, but, their interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's. If your interpretation is unsuported by the text, it's wrong. Full stop. If it's supported by the text, then fair enough, it's a valid interpretation. The more support you can find in the text for your interpretation, the more valid it becomes.

I think a better way of saying what (I think) you mean would be: If it is so obscure that nobody picks up on it authorial intent means squat. I mean Rowlings may have meant for Dumbledore to be gay from the first concept, but the 'clues' mentioned could also apply to one who was totally devoted to a woman in his youth and after her loss never found intrest in another. (I know that's a complete fabrication of non-existant facts, I'm just saying.)

Or perhaps, and easier to read into existing text, he was one of those whose singular focus on persuit of knowledge and mentoring others that he simply didn't have time or intrest in sex one way or the other. There is simply no overt evidence to support the claim within the entire series to say either 'Yes, he is gay', or 'No, he is not'.






Now, that out of the way... OMFG!!!! Gandalf is GAY!?!?!?!...
*blood begins to shoot out of my eyes...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Another thought on why we should consider reading the classics......

A lot of Tolkein's work centers on the idea of the reluctant hero, who has greatness thrust upon him, or the hero who is willing to sacrifice all for the good of others. These characters have cropped up like weeds in Tolkein's wake....and adventures assuming that the PCs would emulate these sorts began appearing by mid-to-late 1e.

The heroes of Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs (for example), are as self-interested as any PC. A would-be DM who expects his players to emulate Frodo may be sadly mistaken. One who expects his players to emulate El Borak, Conan, Allan Quatermain, or John Carter is probably going to have his expectations met more often.

"What do I do when my players refuse to submit to legitimate authority?" is a question largely asked by those unfamiliar with fiction where protagonists do exactly that. Tarzan might submit himself to the French police because he thinks it is the right thing to do; certainly they cannot compel him to do so. And, he is rewarded by his actions....the French police whom he assaulted do not press charges.

Right now, I'm reading The Best of Robert E. Howard Volume I: Crimson Shadows. One of the stories included, "Hawk of the Hills" has El Borak refuse to agree to the dictates of the British government. There are two protagonists -- El Borak and the government mediator sent to him. It's a good example of how protagonists who end up on opposite sides can be thrust into a situation where they must work together.

ERB is wonderful for showing how to deal with reversals. Tarzan is captured countless times, and given the means to escape. Both REH and ERB deal with secret doors, traps, pits, poison, etc....indeed, all of the early D&D tropes which are still with the game. ERB is great for examples of "wandering monsters" (all sorts of things happen to Tarzan that are not directly tied to the plot), overwhelming odds (any John Carter novel), and turning enemies into allies (John Carter, Tarzan, just about any ERB character).

The recent discussion (another thread) about SoD is another example of things that, if one is versed in fantasy classics, seem less game-breaking. REH uses several "just die" effects, where a Save would literally represent the character not encountering them in the first place. REH, ERG, Rider Haggard, and others make use of the "near miss" for many effects. In REH stories, the protagonist always has some form of warning before such a deadly effect is encountered.

In "The Valley of the Worm", Howard not only has his protagonist have to rest up several days/weeks due to injury, but allows the protagonist to be killed by the death throws of the aforementioned "Worm". It is also a story in which D&D-like poison, and 3e D&D-like archery, takes place.

I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. With so much good new fantasy out there, why would anyone go back to read the old? One excellent reason is that the older fantasy is almost a primer on DMing this game.

RC