[Forked Thread: How Important is Magic..?] 5 things you need to know

[Mallus]

As a boy living in rural Wisconsin, I had no difficulty whatsoever with having many fantasy novels that, apparently, Hussar and you could not find. Perhaps your location was different.

I don't doubt you RC, but yes, things were different where I grew up, which BTW, was the part of northern New Jersey that's one big, barely differentiated suburb of New York City. We didn't lack for book stores, new or used, by there simple wasn't much older fantasy for sale, other than Tolkien, Lewis, and Alexander. Oh, and the Merlin books that include The Hollow Hills.

My experience is that the big explosion in commercially available fantasy lit didn't occur until the late 1970s/early 1980s, a decade after the initial success of LotR, and after bestsellers like Shanara and Thomas Covenant (people tend to forget how well the leper sold). And many of these newer fantasy series bore the marks of being influenced by D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't doubt you RC, but yes, things were different where I grew up, which BTW, was the part of northern New Jersey that's one big, barely differentiated suburb of New York City. We didn't lack for book stores, new or used, by there simple wasn't much older fantasy for sale, other than Tolkien, Lewis, and Alexander. Oh, and the Merlin books that include The Hollow Hills.

My experience is that the big explosion in commercially available fantasy lit didn't occur until the late 1970s/early 1980s, a decade after the initial success of LotR, and after bestsellers like Shanara and Thomas Covenant (people tend to forget how well the leper sold). And many of these newer fantasy series bore the marks of being influenced by D&D.

Well, I certainly hope you've had the opportunity to "backfill" your literary plate and try some of the earlier fantasy works.


RC

 

[Cadfan]

My experience is that the big explosion in commercially available fantasy lit didn't occur until the late 1970s/early 1980s,

This is certainly the common wisdom. Those wishing to convince the world otherwise might start not on enworld, but on Wikipedia, which agrees with you about the history of the fantasy genre.

History of fantasy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The modern fantasy genre first took root during the 18th century with the increased popularity of fictional travelers' tales, influencing and being influenced by other early forms of speculative fiction along the way, finally unfurling in the 19th century from a literary tapestry of fantastic stories and gaining recognition as a distinct genre (mainly due to the nigh-ubiquitous recession of fantastic elements from "mainstream" fiction) in the late 1800s.

In 1923 the first all-fantasy fiction magazine, Weird Tales was created. Many other similar magazines eventually followed, most noticeably The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. The pulp magazine format was at the height of its popularity at this time and was instrumental in bringing fantasy fiction to a wide audience in both the U.S. and Britain. Such magazines also played a large role in the rise of science fiction and it was at this time the two genres began to be associated with each other.

However, it was the advent of high fantasy and, most importantly, the popularity of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings which finally allowed fantasy to truly enter into the mainstream. Tolkien had published The Hobbit in 1937 and The Lord of the Rings in the 1950s; while the first was a juvenile fantasy, the second was an epic fantasy of great scope and seriousness.[39] Although Tolkien's works had been successful in Britain, it was not until the late 1960s that they finally became popular in America; however, at the point, they began to sell, and sell steadily, in large numbers.[40] Numerous polls to identify the greatest book of the century found The Lord of the Rings being selected by widely different groups.[40]
It is difficult to overstate the impact that The Lord of the Rings had on the fantasy genre; in some respects, it swamped all the works of fantasy that had been written before it, and it unquestionably created "fantasy" as a marketing category.[41] It created an enormous number of Tolkienesque works, using the themes found in The Lord of the Rings.[41]
With the immense success of Tolkien's works many publishers began to search for a new series which could have similar mass-market appeal. For the first time publishing fantasy was looked at as a profitable business venture and fantasy novels began to replace the fiction magazines as the heart of the genre.

Although many fantasy novels of this time proved popular, it was not until 1977's The Sword of Shannara that publishers found the sort of breakthrough success they had hoped for. The book became the first fantasy novel to appear on, and eventually top New York Times bestseller list. As a result the genre saw an incredible boom in the number of titles published in the following years.
While fantasy has remained somewhat of a niche market, that has begun to change in recent years. The long-running series of light fantasies by Piers Anthony (Xanth) and Terry Pratchett (Discworld) regularly hit the bestseller lists from the 1980s onward. Thanks largely to J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels, which have become the best selling book series of all time, fantasy is becoming increasingly intertwined with mainstream fiction. The blockbuster success of several film adaptations of fantasy novels such as The Lord of the Rings and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe has helped further this trend.
Today fantasy continues as an expansive, multi-layered medium encompassing many sub-genres of literature; from traditional high fantasy and sword and sorcery, to magical realism, fairytale fantasy, horror-tinged dark fantasy and more.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is certainly the common wisdom. Those wishing to convince the world otherwise might start not on enworld, but on Wikipedia, which agrees with you about the history of the fantasy genre.

History of fantasy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cadfan,

No one is arguing that an explosion of fantasy novels didn't occur in the 70's.

I am, however, arguing that Hussar's statement (which I have quoted many times) is wrong. In particular, he is wrong when he says "That bibliography represents a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time." One only has to list available books and check them against the 1e DMG bibliography to demonstrate this.

Within what you yourself quoted from wikipedia,

In 1923 the first all-fantasy fiction magazine, Weird Tales was created. Many other similar magazines eventually followed, most noticeably The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. The pulp magazine format was at the height of its popularity at this time and was instrumental in bringing fantasy fiction to a wide audience in both the U.S. and Britain.​

So, "In 1923....bringing fantasy fiction to a wide audience in both the U.S. and Britain."

Although Tolkien's works had been successful in Britain, it was not until the late 1960s that they finally became popular in America; however, at the point, they began to sell, and sell steadily, in large numbers.​

Again, "began to sell, and sell steadily, in large numbers" in the late 1960s.

Although many fantasy novels of this time proved popular, it was not until 1977's The Sword of Shannara that publishers found the sort of breakthrough success they had hoped for.​

We note that the entry says that "many fantasy novels of this time proved popular" ("This time" being post-Tolkein, pre-1977). Again, this is a denial of the basic idea that fantasy novels didn't exist then, eithe in numbers or in popularity.

Finally, TSoS came out in 1977; the 1e DMG in 1979. Clearly, again, by this time the boom had started.

Hussar is simply, objectively (1), wrong in his assertation.

@Mallus: Maybe this is why the game came out in Wisconsin instead of New Jersey? Better book stores?


RC



(1) Assumes that a standard for Fantasy follows that in common usage among those who study literature, as defined in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, or some reasonable facsimile thereof.

Also assumes that "a fairly large chunk" is not taken to mean something akin to "a fairly small listing".

Of course, with this crowd........

 

[Hussar]

Something I would point out. In the quickie test poll I did on what newer gamers have read, it's pretty apparent that the so-called giants of the genre are not terribly commonly read. I'd venture to say that de Camp's Conan is likely a lot more read than Howard's, unfortunately, for example.

But, the point is, shouldn't D&D try to incorporate the newer stuff? I mean, if very few new gamers have read anything by Jack Vance, and you hit them with Vancian magic systems, aren't you going to get a big disconnect? Considering that J. K. Rowlings is much, much more widely read, isn't their first reaction going to be somethign to the effect of, "What do you mean I only cast one spell per day? That's just messed up. Who came up with this crap?" when the wizards that they read about cast spells whenever they want to?

In other words, if D&D wants to be in touch with newer gamers, doesn't it eventually have to abandon the trappings of writers that fewer and fewer people have read?

 

[Mallus]

Well, I certainly hope you've had the opportunity to "backfill" your literary plate and try some of the earlier fantasy works.

Sure! Well, some... the truth is I'm fairly well read in older science fiction, but less so in fantasy fiction. While I love Golden Age SF (Cordwainer Smith is a fav), I prefer new(ish) fantasy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd venture to say that de Camp's Conan is likely a lot more read than Howard's, unfortunately, for example.

This is a place where you and I can agree. I started with de Camp, actually, but I am very, very glad that I eventually read Howard's Conan. It is unfortunate that de Camp is still (perhaps) more widely known; the recent reprinting of all Howard's Conan stories, however, may change this. (They've also reprinted quite a few of his other works! Yay!)

But, the point is, shouldn't D&D try to incorporate the newer stuff?

Yes!

I mean, if very few new gamers have read anything by Jack Vance, and you hit them with Vancian magic systems, aren't you going to get a big disconnect?

Not necessarily.

Nor should incorporating the newer stuff (where it is good) mean ditching the older stuff (where it is good).

Rather than abandonning "the trappings of writers that fewer and fewer people have read", I would say that the game should promote what is good...and what makes for a good game.....regardless of when it was written.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

In the quickie test poll I did on what newer gamers have read, it's pretty apparent that the so-called giants of the genre are not terribly commonly read. I'd venture to say that de Camp's Conan is likely a lot more read than Howard's, unfortunately, for example.

BTW, I just looked at your poll. It shows 34% have read REH (yay!) and doesn't list de Camp at all. So, I'm not at all sure how valid your conclusions are now that REH's words are again available for a new generation of readers.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

I, for one, was not much acquainted with the heroic fantasy genre when I was introduced to D&D. I had read The Hobbit and the Chronicles of Narnia, the Bible, some fairy tales, classical mythology and Arthurian stories, and maybe Conan the Conqueror (although that may have come soon after), but that's all I recall offhand. I was in the main a science-fiction fan, devouring works by the likes of Wells, Heinlein and Asimov. Fantasy to me meant primarily the superheroes and monsters of comic books and B movies.

The game enchanted me on its own merits, and that seemed to be par for the course among other young players I met. We were not disappointed that D&D was not like Marvel Comics!

 

[Ariosto]

It seems to me hardly possible that prospective D&Ders today could be any more enthusiastic about comic books than I and my peers were back in the 1970s. Video games have rather "exploded" in prominence since then, but as I recall their first efflorescence coincided with that of 1st edition AD&D and the Moldvay and Mentzer "red box" Basic D&D sets.

Reflecting on that, I have reservations about the radical changes in the latest version of the game -- which are strikingly toward emulation of those other media.

The notion that "kids today" are some strikingly new species is a favorite hobby-horse among two demographics: teenagers, and those self-consciously "over the hill". It's the "pony-tailed guy" of trend punditry.

From the Sex Pistols to AC/DC to whatever is the latest iteration, there's always something "edgy" because it's getting back to the roots of rock 'n' roll. By the time the mass media descended on Seattle in search of the next big "grunge" act, it was passé. The point in the first place had been to break moribund faddish molds, not to make a new one.

That return to roots is a perennially repeated feature of artistic movements that themselves produce enduring classics informing later innovators. They carry forward the true and proven fundamentals, engaging with which one's unique perspective can produce something that resonates deeply with individuals far removed in space and time.

Hail, hail rock and roll
Deliver me from the days of old
Long live rock and roll
- Chuck Berry, "School Days"