Do you read non-RPG fantasy novels?

[barsoomcore]

I voted for "RPG Related novels are so lame" -- with the caveat that Moorcock, Lovecraft et al are NOT writing RPG related novels.

I read the first Dragonlance book, I think, and maybe leafed through a Shadowrun book.

The truth is, really great authors write THEIR OWN material, because they're good enough to publish it. It's like cover bands -- they're unlikely to be musical geniuses, because if they were, their original material would be good enough to bring in the crowds. And so RPG novels (or any sort of novelisation project) are pretty much always getting written by second-string writers, and so are usually not going to be as good as original material.

Sad truth.

 

[Ibram]

I'll jump on board with those who say that HPL, REH and others are not RPG related. The way I see it RPG novels are those clearly linked to an RPG (by the arthors intent, so REH doesnt count), usualy by being published under the same lable or some such.

Most of my collection consists on non-RPG related books, but as of late I find myself buying mostly Warhammer novels.

 

[Wombat]

I think calling Lovecraft or Moorcock "RPG related" authors is at best counter intuitive, at worst completely nonsensical. I've read a fair amount of both (especially Lovecraft, I dislike Moorcock) but not in relation to any RPG.

Quite so -- both of them existed well before any games related to them; to count them as rpg-related books is to denigrate them.

I have read some spinoff books (related to a game, a movie, a tv series, whatever) in my life, including a couple D&D books. For the most part they have been attrocious. I can think of two Star Trek novels that were fairly good, but other than that, nothing. The D&D books were probably the worst of the lot -- a couple of Forgotten Realms books (no, I don't remember the specific ones), but they essentially turned me off to the whole notion of gaming in FR from there on in.

I read a lot. Fiction, nonfiction, long, short, difficult texts, simple ones, whatever. As far as fantasy is concerned, I love Charles deLint, Guy Gavriel Kay, Gene Wolfe, JRR Tolkein, Robert Holdstock, KJ Parker, and a few others, but I am even more a devotee of the Arthurian legends, from Geoffrey of Monmouth to modern authors. Would these be considered "rpg-related", as Pendragon is still, however marginally, on the market? Then again, I am always quite willing to read history books, new and old, explorations of legends and mythology (primary sources, retellings, explications, etc.).

For the most part, however, I put most gaming literature in the same category as most bestsellers and romance novels -- they are lightweight eyepopcorn with little that will draw me back for a second read. On the other hand, I love the Harry Dresden books of Jim Butcher, and they hardly classify as Great Literature.

Am I hypocritical? Probably. But I like contraditions.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

The truth is, really great authors write THEIR OWN material, because they're good enough to publish it. It's like cover bands -- they're unlikely to be musical geniuses, because if they were, their original material would be good enough to bring in the crowds. And so RPG novels (or any sort of novelisation project) are pretty much always getting written by second-string writers, and so are usually not going to be as good as original material.

Sad truth.

What about the Mythos of Lovecraft. Many talented writers, Lovecraft, Howard, Bloch, all wrote in Lovecraft's 'Circle'. Sort of a shared world fiction before the idea really existed. Of course, those authors did write their own material as well, but they seemed to enjoy writing each others material as well.

And what of Ed Greenwood. Sure he writes RPG novels, but he CREATED said world. He created it well before D&D. He has allowed others to exapand the world. But, it's pretty hard to call Mirt a borrowed RPG character when Ed first wrote about him before D&D existed. (Note: This is not a discussion about Ed's ability to write, it's about whether his FR novels can be called Novelizations or Orginal ideas.

 

[Desdichado]

I really like the concept of a shared gestalt setting, as in Lovecraft and his croneys, so I don't have a problem with writing using someone else's creation. In fact, I'd go further in disagreeing with barsoomcore; some of those considered the very best writers in the English language have borrowed more than they invented in terms of plot, characters, and more (ever read much Shakespeare? Tennyson? Mallory?) Same can be said of other languages: Homer didn't invent the characters of Odysseus or Achilles, and likely didn't invent the plots either.

That said, I don't think many of Lovecraft's little group of friends were particularly talented at all; in fact, I don't think Lovecraft was that great of a writer. He had great ideas but his actual writing techniques were often extremely poor, and most of the rest of the Cthulhu Mythos writing circle didn't even have that; they were merely aping Lovecraft himself.

I'm not entirely sure that even that can be said about Greenwood; I find his prose tedious, and I don't think very many of his ideas are even really that good.

 

[scadgrad]

...That said, I don't think many of Lovecraft's little group of friends were particularly talented at all; in fact, I don't think Lovecraft was that great of a writer. He had great ideas but his actual writing techniques were often extremely poor, and most of the rest of the Cthulhu Mythos writing circle didn't even have that; they were merely aping Lovecraft himself.

While I'd be the last to compare Lovecraft to say Hemmingway, Joyce, or Dickens, I find him to be a damn fine writer, one who in the due course of time will probably find his place as a worthy successor to "the divine Edgar." I think you and I are of completely different mindsets, because I think both REH and Fritz Lieber (who's only loosely associated w/ the HPL circle but still) are excellent writers.

Still, I'll kick the dead horse by pointing out that HPL and Moorcock (who I really enjoy) are anything but RPG-related.

I'm a voracious reader when I can find the time though work, kids, and gaming take up much of my time. Since I'm so pressed for time I rarely read any of the dreck that is Game Fiction though I have on occasion.

Last Two Books Read Curse of Chalion (sp?) by Bujold (4/5 stars) and The Skystone by Jack Whyte (3/5 stars)

Currently Reading The Darkness that Comes Before by Bakker and The Amber Spyglass by Pullman

Best Book I've Read in the Past 12 Months Perdido Street Station by China Mieville(5/5 stars primarily for imagery and imagination)

Cost Management, a Strategic Emphasis; 3rd edition.

I love the plot development in the 17th chapter. Riveting.

Bah, I found this to be the worst tripe I've read in ages. Poorly drawn characters and absurd moments of exposition just totally ruined it for me. I can't understand why the young kids go on and on about this guy. What's he up to now? 11 books in the series? Just finish it already. Somehow I figured you were one of those "Cost Management" Fanboyz Curtis.

 

[barsoomcore]

Forgive me if I indicated that authors who make use of other people's ideas are invariably sub-standard. Everybody makes use of other people's ideas, so that's not a very useful distinction. I mean, good grief, OBVIOUSLY I'm not talking about Shakespeare here. Little benefit of the doubt, anyone?



What I meant was that people who can only attract audiences to their work by explicitly making it part of something already popular are unlikely to be top-notch artists. Writing Cthulhu stories is not doing so. Writing a novel based on the game Call of Cthulhu is.

And again, doing so is no evidence that an artist isn't great -- it's the inability to publish otherwise. How well did Ed Greenwood's novels sell before Forgotten Realms became a popular campaign setting? Not very well, I'm thinking.

Likewise, the Thieves' World project (among other shared-world efforts) is exempt -- that was an effort to CREATE something popular by working together, not a bunch of people profitting on some pre-existing fanbase.

Sorry if I was unclear. I was trying to say that there's a reason to suspect that most RPG novels are going to be less well-written than standalone novels -- and the reason is that the really great writers don't need a bandwagon to jump. They create their own.

 

[JoeBlank]

I'll agree with the concensus that novels upon which an RPG is later based do not count as RPG novels.

So with that criteria in mind, I have read exactly one RPG related novel: Forged, the Oathbound novel. Decent read, and a fun way to get into the setting. If I eventually play Eberron I'll probably read a novel or two for that setting.

Otherwise, I read plenty of non-RPG fantasy, as well as books unrelated to fantasy.

Currently reading the Thieves World books, and Play Baseball the Ripken Way (the former almost meets the RPG criteria, as I was inspired to reread them because of the new RPG coming out, but I won't be playing or even buying the RPG; the later so that I will have some idea what I am doing while coaching my sons).

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I voted the third option. But right now I exclusively read RPG novels. So Nyah.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The same way, authors that have RPG versions of their work, such as HP Lovecraft and Michael Moorcock are RPG related.

No, there are RPGs related to them not the other way around. You are reversing causality.

RPG Novels based around RPGs are a completely different, and generally inferior, thing. (There are exceptions, but they are exceptions.)

The Auld Grump