Survivor Appendix N Authors- LEIBER WINS!

[Nikosandros]

Bellairs, John 1
Burroughs, Edgar Rice 16
Carter, Lin 14
de Camp & Pratt 7
Dunsany, Lord 17
Leiber, Fritz 15
Merritt, A. 16
Offutt, Andrew J. 14
Pratt, Fletcher 12
St. Clair, Margaret 11
Tolkien, J.R.R. 11
Wellman, Manley Wade 14
Williamson, Jack 16
Zelazny, Roger 16

 

[SkidAce]

I have the same problem with Brandon Sanderson. Good ideas, too many words to get them across. I

HERETIC! Filthy, unclean....get thee hence from me....

Maaaaadness I tell yah.....*





*just kidding...mostly....

 

[tglassy]

I’m a huge fan of Sanderson. Have almost his entire Cosmere Collection on audiobook. It’s amazing.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

I’m a huge fan of Sanderson. Have almost his entire Cosmere Collection on audiobook. It’s amazing.

I am a lot more tolerate of long-winded audio books. Particularly, if the reader is good. (Dickens for example, is enjoyable if I can listen while doing other things.)

 

[Rydac]

Bellairs, John 1
Burroughs, Edgar Rice 16
Carter, Lin 14
de Camp & Pratt 7
Dunsany, Lord 15
Leiber, Fritz 16
Merritt, A. 16
Offutt, Andrew J. 14
Pratt, Fletcher 12
St. Clair, Margaret 11
Tolkien, J.R.R. 11
Wellman, Manley Wade 14
Williamson, Jack 16
Zelazny, Roger 16

 

[werecorpse]

Bellairs, John 1-2=-1
Burroughs, Edgar Rice 16
Carter, Lin 14
de Camp & Pratt 7
Dunsany, Lord 15
Leiber, Fritz 16
Merritt, A. 16
Offutt, Andrew J. 14
Pratt, Fletcher 12
St. Clair, Margaret 11
Tolkien, J.R.R. 11+1=12
Wellman, Manley Wade 14
Williamson, Jack 16
Zelazny, Roger 16

 

[Parmandur]

This comment explains oh so much

I read the first 8 Wheel of Time novels in about a week, the first go through: fast reading makes large books seem smaller, and small books seem...thin.

 

[Maxperson]

So, we had this debate before, and it was pretty heated. Here, have a look-

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...amp-D-is-not-(just)-Tolkien&highlight=Tolkien


To recap some of the main points-

1. Tolkien maximalists find that everything in D&D is from Tolkien; they are wrong. They end up making absurd arguments about clerics, or Paladins, or magic swords, or trolls, or all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with Tolkien (or we have good history and sourcing on).

2. Tolkien minimalist deny everything; they are wrong. They end up making absurd arguments about Rangers (for example) which are clearly from Tolkien (or we have good history on).

I guess that makes me a Tolkien realist. I don't maximize or minimize.

 

[Maxperson]

You clearly didn't even read what I wrote. Again, Gary making a reference directly to Tolkien in no way, shape, or form means that Tolkien was the foundational influence to D&D. Which is what you claimed. It only means he was an influence. And we know how much, because Gary addressed this many times. He's outright said he wasn't the biggest influence, but included him and some of his creations because that's what people were most familiar with, and of course he wanted to sell as many brown boxes as possible.

The only response to this is to call Gary a liar. Which is awfully convenient now that he's dead and can't defend himself any longer.

LOL No. No the only response isn't to call Gary a liar. Hell, I haven't even gotten to the point where I know he even said those things. I provided a solid argument. Chainmail is the foundation for D&D and Tolkien influenced that foundation quite a bit. That equates to Tolkien influencing the foundation of D&D. You've done nothing but make an unsubstantiated claim about what Gygax said. Right at this point in the conversation it has about as much weight as if I said that Gygax once said he loved riding mules through Moscow. Since you claim that Gygax said multiple times that Tolkien didn't influence the game's foundation, it should be memorialized somewhere for you to link for me. Once you do that, we can move past this point. Right now you haven't even countered my argument yet.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean...Gygax was a liar? This isn't even a controversial statement.