Survivor Appendix N Authors- LEIBER WINS!

[Reynard]

.What really gets me about Tolkien is the number of people on these forums who insist that elves'n'dwarves'n'orcs are "staples of the genre" or "universal in fantasy." They are nothing of the kind. They are, in fact, quite unusual in fantasy fiction outside the sub-genre of Tolkien and Tolkien rip-offs. But because D&D happened to be published around the height of the Tolkien craze, the creators (perhaps inevitably) shoehorned it into that sub-genre, and so we're stuck with them forever.

None of those things are about Tolkien or his writing.

 

[Dausuul]

None of those things are about Tolkien or his writing.

No, but since this is about writers from Appendix N, I consider "impact on D&D and its descendants" to be a legit reason to downvote the guy.

Also, while Tolkien's vision was spectacular (and the reason for his success), his writing was only tolerable.

 

[Gradine]

Anderson, Poul 5
Bellairs, John 19
Brackett, Leigh 16
Brown, Frederic 20
Burroughs, Edgar Rice 25
Carter, Lin 18
de Camp, L. Sprague 15
de Camp & Pratt 20
Dunsany, Lord 19
Farmer, P. J. 19
Gardner, Fox 21
Howard, R.E. 15
Lanier, Sterling 18
Leiber, Fritz 22
Merritt, A. 20
Moorcock, Michael 25
Norton, Andre 23
Offutt, Andrew J. 20
Pratt, Fletcher 20
Saberhagen, Fred 12
St. Clair, Margaret 17
Tolkien, J. R. R. 28
Weinbaum, Stanley 16
Wellman, Manley Wade 18
Williamson, Jack 18
Zelazny, Roger 24

 

[Gradine]

No, but since this is about writers from Appendix N, I consider "impact on D&D and its descendants" to be a legit reason to downvote the guy.

Also, while Tolkien's vision was spectacular (and the reason for his success), his writing was only tolerable.

The Hobbit is proof that Tolkein can spin a lively tale when he's trying to. Lord of the Rings is a bit of a slog as far as the writing goes though

 

[Reynard]

Also, while Tolkien's vision was spectacular (and the reason for his success), his writing was only tolerable.

This probably isn't really the place for this, but you are objectively and demonstrably wrong. Do not confuse your preferences with qualified criticism and expertise. Many an English Literature PhD has examined Tolkien's work and shown why it holds a place in the modern canon.

You can downvote Tolkien for any reason you want but proclaiming that he's a bad writer says much about your relevant expertise.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

Anderson, Poul 5
Bellairs, John 19
Brackett, Leigh 16
Brown, Frederic 20
Burroughs, Edgar Rice 26
Carter, Lin 18
de Camp, L. Sprague 15
de Camp & Pratt 20
Dunsany, Lord 19
Farmer, P. J. 19
Gardner, Fox 21
Howard, R.E. 15
Lanier, Sterling 18
Leiber, Fritz 22
Merritt, A. 20
Moorcock, Michael 25
Norton, Andre 23
Offutt, Andrew J. 20
Pratt, Fletcher 20
Saberhagen, Fred 12
St. Clair, Margaret 17

Tolkien, J. R. R. 26 - Don't get me wrong, I love the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, but he is VASTLY over hyped, and I cannot countenance the possibility or this ending with everyone else out and Tolkien with +2753 or some junk. Tolkien was good, but NOT THAT GOOD.

Weinbaum, Stanley 16
Wellman, Manley Wade 18
Williamson, Jack 18
Zelazny, Roger 24

 

[OB1]

Anderson, Poul 5-2=3
Bellairs, John 19
Brackett, Leigh 16
Brown, Frederic 20
Burroughs, Edgar Rice 26
Carter, Lin 18
de Camp, L. Sprague 15
de Camp & Pratt 20
Dunsany, Lord 19
Farmer, P. J. 19
Gardner, Fox 21
Howard, R.E. 15
Lanier, Sterling 18
Leiber, Fritz 22
Merritt, A. 20
Moorcock, Michael 25
Norton, Andre 23
Offutt, Andrew J. 20
Pratt, Fletcher 20
Saberhagen, Fred 12
St. Clair, Margaret 17+1=18
Tolkien, J. R. R. 26
Weinbaum, Stanley 16
Wellman, Manley Wade 18
Williamson, Jack 18
Zelazny, Roger 24[/QUOTE]

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Anderson, Poul 5
Bellairs, John 19
Brackett, Leigh 16
Brown, Frederic 20
Burroughs, Edgar Rice 26
Carter, Lin 18
de Camp, L. Sprague 15
de Camp & Pratt 20
Dunsany, Lord 19
Farmer, P. J. 19
Gardner, Fox 21
Howard, R.E. 15 + 1 = 16
Lanier, Sterling 18
Leiber, Fritz 22
Merritt, A. 20
Moorcock, Michael 25
Norton, Andre 23
Offutt, Andrew J. 20
Pratt, Fletcher 20
Saberhagen, Fred 12
St. Clair, Margaret 17
Tolkien, J. R. R. 26 - 2 = 24
Weinbaum, Stanley 16
Wellman, Manley Wade 18
Williamson, Jack 18
Zelazny, Roger 24

My vision for D&D is more Leiber & Howard than JRRT.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

This probably isn't really the place for this, but you are objectively and demonstrably wrong. Do not confuse your preferences with qualified criticism and expertise. Many an English Literature PhD has examined Tolkien's work and shown why it holds a place in the modern canon.

You can downvote Tolkien for any reason you want but proclaiming that he's a bad writer says much about your relevant expertise.

Writing which is technically proficient, which follows a set of academic rules, or which very closely matches to the vagaries of a particular style, is NOT the same as writing which is GOOD.

Evidence: the millions of English Lit PhDs, English teachers, Literature teachers, and Writing teachers who have not been, are not, and will not ever be, on the New York Times or Amazon Best sellers list.

Literature is art, and just as I will ignore you if you tell me that any Jackson Pollock piece is anything but trash, or that Worhol's soup can is somehow better than Velasquez "Las Meninas", so to if you tell me Ayn Rand's "Fountain Head" is good, or indeed anything other than an abysmal slog, I shall put your opinions directly into the "Ignore" bin.

And if you tell me that I cannot judge the quality of Art or Literature because I do not have a degree in these things, I shall feed you a plate of Horse Excrement, and inform you that it is finer than caviar or Wagyu beef, and that you cannot argue with me since I am a certified Chef with a Culinary degree and you are not SO HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, eat your plate of horse turds.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*