L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Well yeah. I don't think anyone here is saying that he didn't directly pull from Tolkien. The obvious ones being hobbits and Balrogs. I think where my disagreement is when people start listing a whole laundry list of things they attribute to Tolkien that weren't, and/or saying or implying that we wouldn't have D&D without Tolkien, or it would be a completely different unrecognizable beast without Tolkien. I don't think those kinds of statements are remotely true, because I certainly remember fantasy being pretty darn popular with our without Tolkien as I have mentioned earlier. We have actual evidence to point to the rise of RPGs before Tolkien went through his resurgence of popularity in 1977.
So yeah, he was an influence. And yeah, Gary pulled some stuff from him. But Tolkien is not the end all/be all influence that led to D&D. Seriously, not only do we have Gary's own words, but we have Appendix N that literally tells us all of the other influences.
But Tolkien made it possible for older fantasy to be reprinted and for newer stuff to be published. Yes, Gygax pulled inspiration from a lot of sources, which are cited in Appendix N. It would have been very hard for people to get hold of those books if fantasy hadn't blossomed in the late 60s, however. Gygax and Arneson could have created a role playing game, in this environment, but I really don't think Gygax would have considered publishing it to be worth the financial risk. We can never know for sure, but I'm thinking without Tolkien paving the way, there would have been no room for an odd little fantasy game.
Eventually, as people have mentioned, role playing games would have emerged. The idea had been simmering, but it would have been under entirely different circumstances, and different timing.
It really wasn't. I mean, yeah, it was popular. But it was less popular as a genre than sword and sorcery. Look at the media at the time (60s and 70s). It was almost all exclusively S&S. High Tolkienesque fantasy was not. I'm not saying he wasn't popular or well known or anything, but at the time, authors like Howard and Lieber were still more popular. We have actual evidence to show this by looking at what sorts of things were being created in the 60s and 70s. It wasn't until it became a cartoon, and immediately brought in a huge swath of young people into the fantasy (cuz that's what cartoons do) before high fantasy began to really rise.
So when you consider this, it seems clear D&D would have existed just as soon as it did. Things like the SCA and Tékumel had nothing to do with Tolkien, but laid the groundwork for RPGs.
*Edit* I mean, it took 40 years for a movie about the Hobbit to come out, and that was animated. Meanwhile, there were plenty of fantasy movies coming out (all of the Sinbad movies, all of the monster movies, etc). So he couldn't have been THAT super popular if no one was making a movie version of it while all these other fantasy movies were being made.
It was not until 1982 when the best one of all time came out The Sword and the Sorcerer; I jest I jest but it wins for the coolest most imprtaical sword of all time. The tri bladed sword hat can shoot of the blades for ranged attacks who needs a bow ha
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
By your logic, we can't have a vampire book/movie without it being pulled from Anne Rice. And obviously that's not the case.
The rest of your post is just pure speculation. Not really accurate either.
1. Tolkien created the idea of giant eagles
2. Giant eagles already existed in Arabian myth and Tolkien used them to put into his own stories
It's clear that #2 is the accurate option.
So, I dug this up-
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/01/gygax-on-tolkien-again.html
It's interesting because it sources an interview with Gygax from 1974 (which, as noted, is prior to the threatened litigation). I agree with the final paragraph- that Gygax was annoyed by Tolkien's prevalence, didn't see it as a good model for fantasy roleplaying, and that while certain aspects were borrowed (as were aspects from many sources), it isn't nearly as prevalent as some here make it out to be.