Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6354519" data-attributes="member: 59082">Tolkien and Gygax are two of my most revered artists/creators in that what they both did, in different ways, deeply influenced what I love. But whereas Tolkien was a great artist of the imagination whose sub-creation was so vividly envisioned and finely wrought and balanced, Gygax was more of an eccentric madman whose sub-creation was a chaotic smorgasbord of random components, often without rhyme or reason. Both have their place, but they're on very different sides of the creative spectrum. Maybe Gygax realized this and resented the two being fused together. I'm guessing Tolkien wouldn't have thought much of Gary's chaotic amalgammation of themes and ideas. But I hear you about elves, dwarves, orcs and such. I think one thing that is over-stated is that Tolkien &quot;created&quot; these ideas when what he really did was create a fresh version of archetypal ideas. Just about everything in Tolkien has been around for thousands of years in fairy stories, legends, and myths. Tolkien had his own unique, and truly exquisite, vision of this &quot;mythopoeia&quot; which has proven to be the most influential in the history of modern fantasy literature, at least going back to Shakespeare if not the Arthurian stories. The best of post-Tolkien fantasy taps into the same archetypal depths and may even include elves, dwarves and orcs--or some variation on those themes--but crafts them into new, unique forms. It is too bad that most fantasy authors and RPG designers focus mainly on secondary influences, which ends up leading to derivative sub-creations. I suppose there's nothing wrong with this, but I think creative works become more vital and alive to the degree to which the creator is able to form their own relationship with the imaginal and creating from that, rather than simply re-assembling pre-fabricated parts into slightly new packaging.End of my own rant!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 6354519, member: 59082"] Tolkien and Gygax are two of my most revered artists/creators in that what they both did, in different ways, deeply influenced what I love. But whereas Tolkien was a great artist of the imagination whose sub-creation was so vividly envisioned and finely wrought and balanced, Gygax was more of an eccentric madman whose sub-creation was a chaotic smorgasbord of random components, often without rhyme or reason. Both have their place, but they're on very different sides of the creative spectrum. Maybe Gygax realized this and resented the two being fused together. I'm guessing Tolkien wouldn't have thought much of Gary's chaotic amalgammation of themes and ideas. But I hear you about elves, dwarves, orcs and such. I think one thing that is over-stated is that Tolkien "created" these ideas when what he really did was create a fresh version of archetypal ideas. Just about everything in Tolkien has been around for thousands of years in fairy stories, legends, and myths. Tolkien had his own unique, and truly exquisite, vision of this "mythopoeia" which has proven to be the most influential in the history of modern fantasy literature, at least going back to Shakespeare if not the Arthurian stories. The best of post-Tolkien fantasy taps into the same archetypal depths and may even include elves, dwarves and orcs--or some variation on those themes--but crafts them into new, unique forms. It is too bad that most fantasy authors and RPG designers focus mainly on secondary influences, which ends up leading to derivative sub-creations. I suppose there's nothing wrong with this, but I think creative works become more vital and alive to the degree to which the creator is able to form their own relationship with the imaginal and creating from that, rather than simply re-assembling pre-fabricated parts into slightly new packaging. End of my own rant! [/QUOTE]

Verification