OD&D Evidence Chainmail Had Material from Dave Arneson

[Bardic Dave]

So I assume, as a serious scholar, you looked at the copyright registrations submitted by Lowry and Gygax in 1973, right?

Let's see, there was:

1. Alexander the Great (A299083)
2. Chainmail (A299078)
3. Dunkirk (A299082)

All of them have the same date. May 15, 1971.

That was a good Saturday. Wasn't it?

I think it might help if you tone down the snark just a smidge. And yes, that must have been an extraordinarily productive Saturday! Gary invented three games from scratch and made it down to the copyright office and back in time for supper!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hriston]

According to this article , Arneson’s notes were auctioned off in 2012, and scans were supposed to have been made before that, which were to be given to his estate. Has anyone been allowed to look at them, and are they available to the public?

 

[Bardic Dave]

According to this article , Arneson’s notes were auctioned off in 2012, and scans were supposed to have been made before that, which were to be given to his estate. Has anyone been allowed to look at them, and are they available to the public?

Good find. Something for the OP to investigate, if he cares to.

 

[mwittig]

Notice that there aren't just a few sources that state that the correct date is March, 1971. It's all of the sources. Everything from wikipedia, to blog posts, to less-serious scholarship (Empire of the Imagination) to serious scholarship (Playing at the World) to websites that specialize in the buying and selling of old manuscripts.

All of them.

So that makes it right? Is that why "serious scholarship (Playing at the World)" doesn't include a citation or explanation of that date?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[mwittig]

Let's see, there was:

1. Alexander the Great (A299083)
2. Chainmail (A299078)
3. Dunkirk (A299082)

All of them have the same date. May 15, 1971.

This is a great find, thank you for contributing something meaningful. This would seem to make sense; Chainmail actually seems to have appeared later than May 15, 1971. Perhaps the May 15 date is the earliest date of the three. Lowry did publish all of them in 1971.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bardic Dave]

This is a great find, thank you for contributing something meaningful. This would seem to make sense; Chainmail actually seems to have appeared later than May 15, 1971. Perhaps the May 15 date is the earliest date of the three. Lowry did publish all of them in 1971.

See this, right here? That's not scholarship! You're making blind inductions based on information you don't understand, and you don't seem at all interested in untangling what this new information actually means.

What you should be doing now is looking into how copyright applications actually work and what the significance of the date on the application actually is. Not making unfounded conjecture!

 

[mwittig]

You just found out that the only piece of evidence you have that Chainmail was not published in March is indisputably incorrect .... and you now assert that it must be after the completely arbitrary date?

Just because Lowry put down the same date for three titles published in the same year does not mean that its an arbitrary date. Like I said, it could correspond to the earliest date of the three. In any event, the March, 1971 date appears to be completely unsupported; the fact that multiple books use it (without explanation or citation) does not make it right.