Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8198924" data-attributes="member: 18">Sure, and I don't think Pratchett does derive directly from D&amp;D, but I am always suspicious of the &quot;all the same sources&quot; thing, because I've seen it used incredibly dubiously by a lot of people. Specifically, it's often used when the influence is extremely obvious, like the bright Green, non-pig-like, heavily-built Orcs of Warcraft - that's an actual one I've seen people go totally berserk shrieking &quot;SAME SOURCES!!!!&quot; over, when it's utterly false.At this point, my reaction on reading the words &quot;the same sources&quot; is to think &quot;Oh this is probably bollocks&quot; and to immediately start closely examining what is being claimed. Sometimes it's true, but usually there's some deadly-obvious element that isn't.Fans are much worse for it than authors, but equally there are a lot of authors who have just never spoken about their influences in detail (sometimes it's wonderfully surprising when they do, though).One particularly common fan-bad-reaction is when an influence is pointed out that strongly pre-dates them, and that they're totally unaware of. You get this a lot with young 30-somethings and younger discussing D&amp;D. They think the influence is pretty much Tolkien and nothing else. Appendix N be damned. Some will add in REH/Conan, but that's pushing it. Moorcock, despite his utterly massive influence? They've never heard of him, and you need to &quot;stop making stuff up&quot; (I was seriously told that on reddit once) - Moorcock was definitely a &quot;nobody&quot; with no influence on fantasy/SF. Vance? Some of them know the magic system is called &quot;Vancian&quot; but good luck getting them to accept anything more than that. I don't get why the reaction is to get angry rather than curious, but it a lot of these people are holding forth at length on the subject, and I guess consider themselves experts (a little knowledge and so on).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8198924, member: 18"] Sure, and I don't think Pratchett does derive directly from D&D, but I am always suspicious of the "all the same sources" thing, because I've seen it used incredibly dubiously by a lot of people. Specifically, it's often used when the influence is extremely obvious, like the bright Green, non-pig-like, heavily-built Orcs of Warcraft - that's an actual one I've seen people go totally berserk shrieking "SAME SOURCES!!!!" over, when it's utterly false. At this point, my reaction on reading the words "the same sources" is to think "Oh this is probably bollocks" and to immediately start closely examining what is being claimed. Sometimes it's true, but usually there's some deadly-obvious element that isn't. Fans are much worse for it than authors, but equally there are a lot of authors who have just never spoken about their influences in detail (sometimes it's wonderfully surprising when they do, though). One particularly common fan-bad-reaction is when an influence is pointed out that strongly pre-dates them, and that they're totally unaware of. You get this a lot with young 30-somethings and younger discussing D&D. They think the influence is pretty much Tolkien and nothing else. Appendix N be damned. Some will add in REH/Conan, but that's pushing it. Moorcock, despite his utterly massive influence? They've never heard of him, and you need to "stop making stuff up" (I was seriously told that on reddit once) - Moorcock was definitely a "nobody" with no influence on fantasy/SF. Vance? Some of them know the magic system is called "Vancian" but good luck getting them to accept anything more than that. I don't get why the reaction is to get angry rather than curious, but it a lot of these people are holding forth at length on the subject, and I guess consider themselves experts (a little knowledge and so on). [/QUOTE]

Verification