New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[Rechan]

Are we seriously arguing that dryads are obscure? Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years but we all had to read Edith Hamilton's Mythology in school back then. Forget fantasy readers; I would venture to guess that a lot of people who never touch the stuff have at least been exposed to the concept of a dryad, even if they haven't retained it.

Now, I was homeschooled for my middle school years, but the closest High school ever came to discussing mythology was Beowulf, and the vaguest scratching of the surface of the Illiad.

 

[frankthedm]

Same thing with dryads, which have always (with the exception of WoW

And Warhammer Fantasy.

) been nymph-like creatures associated with trees.. ..for like 2400 years. Now it sounds like they're a cross between a treant and a shambling mound, that can turn into a woman.

Fits better on my battlemat than a soft skinned fey who has to have wizard powers shoehorned in to have an viable role other than to be that target of satiric lusts. Even in the settings where the tree-birtch is their normal form, most folks still should think of the dryad as the beautiful tree girl, since more people will see her ‘false face’ and live to talk about it.

If you ask most people who read fantasy what a dryad is, they're going to have certain opinions of what to expect.....and most people won't tell you that they're expecting an intelligent female shambling mound/treant hybrid.

They will be expecting a victim based on Greco-Roman mythology’s family of Nymphs. However, the new dryad has great potential as an extension of the “ancient gods of the old wood” hungry for human blood and sacrifice. EDIT: And I'll tell ya, I got more uses for a Blair witch tree birtch in my 4eMM than the hapless tree girl.

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/woodelves/painting/converting_dryads/default.htm

 

[Piratecat]

Unpronounceable? Like the Ixitxachitl? I oughtta slap you silly for such an absurd hyperbole. If you're more interested in conversation, come on down to the level of rational discussion, and tell me, briefly, how you would pronounce that word?

Time to take a deep breath, please!

It's fine to disagree with someone, but we ask you not to be rude about it.

 

[Spatula]

Dryads are not obscure critters. And yes, the vast majority of people who regularly read fantasy works have read the Narnia series (and how many more people have been lead to the books by the big-budget movie?). It's the #2 classic fantasy story after LotR. If you're going to try and argue that Narnia is some little-known work, you're not going to find much of anything to support that.

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, The Chronicles of Narnia has traditional Dryads, and the novel Magic Kingdom for Sale - SOLD has a Dryad or two. Not to mention the fact that one or two Dryads must have show up somewhere in the Xanth novels. These books are not exactly obscure, so I would say that "most people who read fantasy" is rather appropriate.

Of course, anyone who reads Greek myth will also be well aware of traditional Dryads, and that is a fairly wide group itself.

There's also a half-Dryad in David Eddings' Belgariad and Mallorean (the chief heroine, in fact), so I agree that they're not exactly obscure.

However, I have no problem with Dryads, who are nature spirits, having a "combat form" in D&D. Make a nod to the original myth by saying they often appear to be "nymphs, elf-maids, or beautiful human women." And then mention that, when provoked, they can turn nasty.

That would certainly work.

 

[Scribble]

Okay, that's 4. Got any more?

Da Vinci Code, the Matrix, From Hell (at least the graphic novel, not sure about the movie) Possibly the TV Show LOST... CNN (last year? Maybe the year before when they did that whole thing about the lost books of Judah?) ummm The Illuminatus Trilogy... Some of William Gibson's stuff... Parts of Snow Crash.

Gnosticism seems like a good source for mystical coolness... (at least thematically...)

 

[TwinBahamut]

1) I don't think they have much of a mythology in the first place.

2) Downplaying mythology is what D&D's been doing for 30 years.

Just because Gnostic Christianity was a minor sect that no longer exists, does not mean it "did not have much of a mythology". It still was just as complex and real as any other religion, currently worshiped or not.

Also, as I said, D&D downplaying mythology is irrelevant to anything I have said in this thread.

No, I knew one off the bat because it's the only one that someone has said to me, "That's gnosticism right there". In fact, I didn't even know about it until then. That's not "It's rather common" like you stated if I can only think of one source. Common implies it's all over the place.

If it's so common, I expect you to give me a list of 8-9 off the bat.

Xenogears, Xenosaga, The Matrix, Scrapped Princess, and probably many things I have never read. That is more than enough. Would you mind providing a list of fiction that is directly inspired by any other relatively obscure religious sect that has such a number of works inspired by it? How about Lutheranism or Calvinism? Do those have many fantasy works based on them?

You said "Most people who read fantasy fiction knows what a dryad is". Which implies that most have read books with dryads in them. But you can only name three series that have dryads in them, then surely most fantasy readers have read those three series/books. I've never even heard of the second two, and I've been reading fantasy for over ten years.

You're overgeneralizing what you think "Most" people in any category know or read.

I never said any such thing. Look back and see for yourself. I understand that you are confused somewhat (I responded to your response to someone else, after all), but none-the-less, you are putting words in my mouth.

And you never heard of Xanth? Piers Anthony's novel series that must have more than 30 entries, and used to hit best-seller lists frequently? It is atypical fare, but it is widely popular fantasy.

Also, for the whole fantasy in school stuff... I was exposed to Greek myth in the second grade, around the time that I was reading my school's copies of the Chronicles of Narnia books, as my very earliest introduction to the fantasy genre. Norse myth came a few years later. Tolkien came in High School. Around this time was mostly spent reading Anne McCaffery, Mercedes Lackey, Piers Anthony, Isaac Asimov, Terry Brooks, and various other relatively modern authors. I never once touched the old stuff like Lieber, Moorcock, Howard, or various other things you don't even see on bookstore shelves these days.

Rechan, what do you think is common and popular fantasy?

 

[Klaus]

Regardless of the name, the Fire Archon (who I first thought would be a good creature) does look mighty awesome. Which brings me to:

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Great colour! I really like that one, too.

 

[Rechan]

Dryads are not obscure critters. And yes, the vast majority of people who regularly read fantasy works have read the Narnia series (and how many more people have been lead to the books by the big-budget movie?). It's the #2 classic fantasy story after LotR. If you're going to try and argue that Narnia is some little-known work, you're not going to find much of anything to support that.

Saying it's Obscure and saying "Most people who read fantasy aren't assumed to have read it" are two different things.

Just because Gnostic Christianity was a minor sect that no longer exists, does not mean it "did not have much of a mythology". It still was just as complex and real as any other religion, currently worshiped or not.

But its level of prominence dictates something. As I referenced earlier, elves who make shoes are also in mythology, but they by no means are on equal footing as Hercules. Just because it's there means very little.

If you go back and read what I said, I said "Rich history firmly rooted in mythology" in a sarcastic manner. Gnosticism was brief and obscure, so it's not a rich history, and again, not deeply rooted if it didn't last a long time.

If a sect of people popped up in the middle of no where for five years and created a Theory of Creation and then died out, and their theories were barely touched upon until late 20th century, that doesn't mean that their theory of creation and all their mythological ideas are on equal, strong, historical footing that have as much literary basis in Western literature and fantasy writing as anything else. It's a snapshot of a small group's ideas that disappeared, compared to legends and lore that have been prevelent for centuries.

Also, as I said, D&D downplaying mythology is irrelevant to anything I have said in this thread.

So D&D's downplaying mythology is irrelevent, but using Archons as angels is somehow wrong because it's downplaying mythology in D&D?

If it has nothing to do with D&D, then what's the problem?

Would you mind providing a list of fiction that is directly inspired by any other relatively obscure religious sect that has such a number of works inspired by it? How about Lutheranism or Calvinism? Do those have many fantasy works based on them?

You're the one making the argument that gnosticism is common in literature. I'm sorry that you are having to back up your claim. If I was making a claim that Janism was influential and common, I would be expected to provide proof of that, because the burden of proof lies on myself.

And you never heard of Xanth?

No.

Rechan, what do you think is common and popular fantasy?

Short answer? Knights, dragons, magic swords, witches.

Long answer: Do you really want an essay on what I think is common to most fantasy readers?

I never said any such thing. Look back and see for yourself. I understand that you are confused somewhat (I responded to your response to someone else, after all), but none-the-less, you are putting words in my mouth.

I went back - you're right. I've confused you with Banshee.

Then why are you arguing his point that Most fantasy readers read this stuff if that's not what you think?