TSR Appendix N Discussion

[Snarf Zagyg]

And, as I said, it contains references to "Mirkwood" and "wargs." Which were published with The Hobbit. In 1937. The former, perhaps, could have been a similar coinage--it's not like "mirk" (an archaic spelling of "murk") and "wood" are uncommon words. "Warg," on the other hand, was a pure invention by Tolkien, rooted in his knowledge of Old Norse and Old English. It is simply untenable to argue that Anderson did not get the latter from Tolkien, and thus almost surely the former, and many other things besides, as well.

Well, as we already discussed previously in the thread, you can't simply make that extrapolation, because (1) the majority of the book was written earlier, and (2) the timing doesn't work out given when he wrote the book and when he read the Hobbit.

If you want to say that a specific term was later added into the 1961 printing, that's fine. But again, that's the problem that we see with both this and with the issues with people discussing D&D. A lack of familiarity with the source material leads people to find one references, and then assume "many other things as well."

Anderson well incredibly well-read in the exact same areas as was Tolkien, which is exactly why Anderson appreciated Tolkien when he finally read his works. For example, Tolkien did not originate the term "Mirkwood."

 

[Parmandur]

But you do to the characters. And a lot of the writing in Barrier Peaks is designed to obfuscate player metagame knowledge.

When dealing with any kind of portal fiction, you have to consider just what is your baseline normal? These days the early 20th century middle class English world of Bilbo and the Pevensie children is more alien to many readers than the Fantasylands they visit.

Yup, I have gone through the experience having to explain some of the social context of Britain in and around WWII to my 21st century born American children while reading Narnia. They enjoyed it, but the experience us different than the original audience. Lewis actually didn't think people would read or remember his books beyond his lifetime, because he was a literary historian and knew the score.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Silver Chair (1953) makes a dig at "progressive education", which is a reference left behind by Time.

 

[Parmandur]

The Silver Chair (1953) makes a dig at "progressive education", which is a reference left behind by Time.

In more than one way, knowing Lewis' own educational experience prior to WWI. he appreciated that nobody in the Army was trying to tell him that he should be grateful for being there while he was traumatized, unlike school where the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse included gaslighting about it being "the best time of his life." He unsurprisingly hated the British school system.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

To add to this, one of the main reasons I think it is necessary to rationally discuss Tolkien is because far too much of the discussion of fantasy literature (and D&D) gets trapped in this never-ending cycle. Tolkien was important and influential, but there were a number of writers (some of them mostly forgotten, some of them nearly completely forgotten) that were also writing at that time who were also important and influential at that time- and to attribute everything, always, to Tolkien shows the same facile understanding of history and influence that you often see in other fields. It's like the person whose knowledge of reggae's history is that Bob Marley was wicked popular, so you literally are unable to discuss rocksteady without someone going on about everything they know about Bob Marley.

History is complicated and multi-faceted; something that I am sure Prof. Tolkien himself would acknowledge if he were still around. It is somewhat bizarre that we have to keep having these conversations about things that do little credit to Tolkien (who is still a cultural icon, even if people mispronounce his name in America) while doing such a disservice to so many other amazing people. For that matter, the idea that Tolkien did not, himself, stand on the shoulders of giants is also incorrect; it is common, albeit incorrect, for people to credit him for things that he did not do. He did not popularize the Mirkwood- this was a term that, while derived from Myrkvior, was used in England long prior to Tolkien and achieved some popularity with (wait for it) The House of the Wolflings (William Morris). Warg, for that matter, was not coined by Tolkien, but was also a term used in various sources that referred to older Scandinavian materials- see, e.g., The Old Runic Monuments of Scandinavia (from 1868), "Here we are at once on familiar ground. The WARGUS is our well-know Old-English WARG or WEARG .... WULF and and the now obsolete WARG being two words of exactly the same meaning."

It is certainly true that Tolkien had a singular genius for borrowing and synthesizing a lot of this material (not to mention his facility with language and literature!); it is also true that other authors (particularly Anderson, who spent part of his childhood in Denmark and repeatedly returned to Norse myths) also did separate, and amazing, work in disparate areas. Heck, of interest to this group is that Anderson, author of one of the most influential books on D&D, was also a founding member of the Society of Creative Anachronism.

In short, I always think it is important to remember that Tolkien has a secure legacy; it is not necessary to celebrate him by insisting that others were just imitating him. Especially when that is not the case.

 

[billd91]

Heh. Tell me about it. I LOVED Thomas Covenant when I first read it. Devoured the books. All sorts of stuff stuck with me over the years and my view of Monks are STILL based on Cords.

Then I reread Lord Foul's Bane a few months ago. Holy crap was it boring. I realized I was 2/3rds through the book before he even arrived in The Land. SO MUCH EXPOSITION. SO MUCH SETTING DUMP. Gack. I couldn't even get through it.

That setting dump was the best part when I read Lord Foul's Bane about a decade back (I had never read it before). The rest of was such a miserable slog with a protagonist I hated that I forced myself through the book and refused to go on with the rest of the series. My wife stopped with the rape - which I totally understood.

 

[billd91]

It's notable that the movies clearly establish the Pevensies in a historical context - WW2 - which is still somewhat familiar to most people. That's not spelled out in the novels. It's just "the present day".

Well... kind of.
The WW2 context is spelled out. It explicitly states in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that they were sent away from London to avoid the air raids. But it is also glossed over very quickly - no real sense of national trauma or anything, just an excuse to adventure in a big old house or in the countryside without a lot of supervision.

In a sense, Prince Caspian is just as bad since the kids are training off to school the following year and one should expect the war to still be on and weighing on their minds. Nope!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well... kind of.
The WW2 context is spelled out. It explicitly states in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that they were sent away from London to avoid the air raids. But it is also glossed over very quickly - no real sense of national trauma or anything, just an excuse to adventure in a big old house or in the countryside without a lot of supervision.

In a sense, Prince Caspian is just as bad since the kids are training off to school the following year and one should expect the war to still be on and weighing on their minds. Nope!

Enid Blyton also glosses over the war in novels of that period. Probably felt it was too traumatic for children whilst it was still current.

But for modern audiences, it's a useful pointer: this happened then.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Also portal fantasy, isekai fiction, etc. Fish out of water stories are popular for a reason.

Absolutely. Even John Carter, who becomes a veritable Superman on Barsoom, is relatively close to the baseline compared to everything else on the strange and violent Mars.

Also Bilbo in The Hobbit.

100%

But they aren't called elves. That's the key thing here. "Elf" meant a tiny little sprite thing until Tolkien came along. Prior to Tolkien, "elf" did not mean what it means today. Prior to Tolkien, "orc" wasn't even a word people used in Middle English, let alone Modern. Prior to Tolkien, the word "warg" did not even exist. Dwarves are more complicated, as sometimes they are more people-like, but most of the time they were people-shaped plot devices prior to Tolkien (which isn't a knock against them, plot devices are important writing tools, but they rarely rise to the level of being characters in their own right.) Etc.

If anyone is interested in reading a story featuring pre-Tolkien dwarves, I heartily recommend Anatole France's Bee: The Princess of the Dwarfs (not Tolkien's dwarves). It's fascinating to see in what ways the portrayal lines up with Tolkien, and how it diverges.

 

[Hussar]

That setting dump was the best part when I read Lord Foul's Bane about a decade back (I had never read it before). The rest of was such a miserable slog with a protagonist I hated that I forced myself through the book and refused to go on with the rest of the series. My wife stopped with the rape - which I totally understood.

Ugh.

This is why I don't read fantasy very much anymore. The idea that setting exposition is important or necessary or even wanted is something I just can't get behind. I really don't enjoy it. It's why I couldn't get through A Song of Fire and Ice. Just couldn't be bothered. I simply do not care.

Very, very much a different strokes kind of thing.