D&D 5E Which parts of D&D came from Tolkien?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Harzel]

(Textual criticism is a science. Albeit it is a ‘human science’, like history and psychology, as opposed to a ‘physical science’.)

Hmm. What is your definition of 'science'?

 

[Harzel]

Good lord, you'd think people would know LoTR was a book before it was a movie - especially people who pride themselves on the incisiveness of their Google enshrined research!

Well, I think people do; what has been a source of contention in this thread is the relative popularity and impact of LoTR prior to the late 70s, compared in particular to swords and sorcery ala Howard and Lieber. Much of people's initial response seems to hinge on personal experience. I was in junior high / high school in the late 60s and in my social milieu LoTR fandom utterly swamped the preceding interest in other fantasy. Others who encountered Tolkien later seem unconvinced that that experience was representative of the broader situation. I've made a modest attempt to find quantitative data on the subject, but anything really satisfactory has eluded my nontrivial, but also not extensive attempts.

One can easily find this about LoTR.

The first Ballantine paperback edition was printed in October [1965], and sold a quarter of a million copies within ten months. On September 4 1966, the novel debuted on New York Times' Paperback Bestsellers list as number three, and was number one by December 4, a position it held for eight weeks.

Also, that that was the first in a series of publication of fantasy works by Ballantine that appears to have led to the establishment of its Ballantine Adult Fantasy brand.

There is the occasional unsupported and unquantified (but perhaps authoritative?) assertion such as

The chances are that [swords & sorcery] would never have attained the extraordinary popularity it has today were it not for the belated but huge success of J R R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (3 vols 1954-1955), and the lesser though still remarkable success of T H White's The Once and Future King (1958), the latter forming the basis of the musical Camelot (1960), filmed in 1967. When these works had filtered through to the mass market via paperback editions (not until 1965 in the case of Tolkien) it became obvious that there was a huge appetite for work of this kind; publishers began to fall over one another in the effort to feed it.

Although from the same source

By the time Tolkien was published, sword and sorcery was showing signs of vigour elsewhere, its two finest exponents being perhaps Fritz Leiber and Jack Vance.

Which publication of Tolkien this refers to and what "signs of vigour" means is left in doubt. The whole article is here.

Quantification of the popularity of S&S in the 60s and early 70s probably exists, but is not, at least by me, easily found.

 

[Harzel]

A largely off-topic aside...

I was once an archaeologist. I say that because something which is taught in that scientific discipline are techniques for the avoidance of cultural confirmation bias, and rushing too quickly to simplify something found - "you should only put the finds in a box... not what you think about them" was a phrase I remember being taught at university when I studied it.

Without wanting to take anything away from your point (which I think is absolutely correct), the phrase "you should only put the finds in the box" made me shudder a bit. For me it conjures the unfortunate popular notion that archaeology is all about furiously exhuming artifacts. In fact, (acknowledging that you doubtless know this) another thing that archaeology teaches is that unless you do the pains-taking work of diligently recording the context in which an artifact is found, you might as well have stayed home.

Ironically, of course, in order to make the point, I have

[sblock]taken your quote out of context.[/sblock]

 

[Hriston]

I think the dwarven subraces (Hill and Mountain) are another example of borrowing from Tolkien. In The Silmarillion, dwarves are divided into those of the houses of the seven fathers of the dwarves, who had their mansions in the mountains, and the "petty dwarves", who were unattached to the great houses and lived in the hills and lowlands. I'm not sure if any reference to petty dwarves is found in books published earlier than The Silmarillion, but the information was available by 1977 at the latest, the year bothThe Silmarillion and the Monster Manual were published.

Also of note is that D&D uses dwarves, rather than dwarfs, as the plural of dwarf, a variant spelling popularized by Tolkien.

 

[Celebrim]

My daughter is an avid consumer of modern young adult fantasy, and came to me with a question that reminded me of another one which might have been over looked: "Dad, what does it mean that they are speaking 'Common'? Is that like English?"

No, that's Tolkien.

 

[Slit518]

It’s well known that halflings were originally called hobbits before TSR was forced to change the name by the Tolkiens. Same, IIRC, with ents and treants.

What else came from Tolkien?

Orcs?
Our vision of goblins?
Balrog - Balor?
Giant Eagles?
High and wood elves?

I’m sure some were a case of having the same inspiration, and of course plenty of D&D is inspired by a million other things than Tolkien. But I’m curious which elements were adopted from Tolkien specifically.

To answer the question, and not read 20 other pages, I would say Worgs.

Perhaps our current vision of dwarfs as well?

 

[Caliburn101]

A largely off-topic aside...



Without wanting to take anything away from your point (which I think is absolutely correct), the phrase "you should only put the finds in the box" made me shudder a bit. For me it conjures the unfortunate popular notion that archaeology is all about furiously exhuming artifacts. In fact, (acknowledging that you doubtless know this) another thing that archaeology teaches is that unless you do the pains-taking work of diligently recording the context in which an artifact is found, you might as well have stayed home.

Ironically, of course, in order to make the point, I have

[sblock]taken your quote out of context.[/sblock]

Yeah, you did.

More usually we mapped the things out and then took photos, and THEN put them in find trays.

But the analogy wouldn't have worked as well with the word 'tray' - which is why the lecturer used it of course.

 

[RobertBrus]

Originally Posted by Yaarel
(Textual criticism is a science. Albeit it is a ‘human science’, like history and psychology, as opposed to a ‘physical science’.)

Hmm. What is your definition of 'science'?

Science is not so much a "thing" as it is an approach. This cognitive technique can be used for studying any subject, whether of a physical nature or pure abstraction. Science is a way to look at and think about the world, the what and how of it, rather than the why. So yes, Textual Criticism is science, or at least can be depending on who is doing the work. The so-called "hard" sciences might seem more "scientific" because of the numbers and tangibility, but the "soft" sciences are still science because of the way in which the study is approached. Whether it is biblical study, Shakespeare, or D&D a la Tolkien.

 

[Shasarak]

The only way to get funding for your department is to try and brand your subject as a Science.

Luckily the Arts tend to be good with words.