Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4782323" data-attributes="member: 18280">It may not surprise you that I've had this discussion with Hussar before, and speak from experience.He is not saying that fantasy didn't exist, nor is he simply saying that there is more fantasy now; he is saying that fantasy was a &quot;tiny niche genre&quot; and that the bibliography in the 1e DMG &quot;represents a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time&quot;.Now, &quot;fairly large chunk&quot; is open to interpretation.&nbsp; Does that mean 75%?&nbsp; 50%?&nbsp; 25%?&nbsp; 10%?&nbsp; 2%?&nbsp; But, I would hazard that most people who actually examine what was available at the time the 1e DMG was published will conclude that the bibliography doesn't represent &quot;a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time&quot;.These are concrete claims that can easily be examined.It certainly didn't represent &quot;a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy&quot; I had already read at the time.YMMV on how much earlier fantasy you had/have read, and YMMV on what was available within your community, but what was available overall is objective, and I contend that only by some absurd definition of &quot;fairly large chunk&quot; does the 1e DMG bibliography come close to being such.The secondary claim, that you bring up, about how easy it is for iconic/good writers to stand out then (as opposed to now) may be true, but the idea that one could believe that &quot;That bibliography represents a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time&quot; rather underscores that Hussar, at least, is not aware of all the iconic/good early fantasy writers that exist.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4782323, member: 18280"] It may not surprise you that I've had this discussion with Hussar before, and speak from experience. He is not saying that fantasy didn't exist, nor is he simply saying that there is more fantasy now; he is saying that fantasy was a "tiny niche genre" and that the bibliography in the 1e DMG "represents a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time". Now, "fairly large chunk" is open to interpretation. Does that mean 75%? 50%? 25%? 10%? 2%? But, I would hazard that most people who actually examine what was available at the time the 1e DMG was published will conclude that the bibliography doesn't represent "a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time". These are concrete claims that can easily be examined. It certainly didn't represent "a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy" [i][b]I had already read[/b][/i][b][/b] at the time. YMMV on how much earlier fantasy you had/have read, and YMMV on what was available within your community, but [i][b]what was available overall[/b][/i][b][/b] is objective, and I contend that only by some absurd definition of "fairly large chunk" does the 1e DMG bibliography come close to being such. The secondary claim, that you bring up, about how easy it is for iconic/good writers to stand out [i][b]then[/b][/i][b][/b] (as opposed to now) may be true, but the idea that one could believe that "That bibliography represents a fairly large chunk of all the fantasy you could read at the time" rather underscores that Hussar, at least, is not aware of all the iconic/good early fantasy writers that exist. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification