Tolkien and Modern fantasy [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Telonius

2008-09-25, 03:02 PM

Ok, I accept that Tolkien is a very big influence on modern fantasy, especially D&D-style fantasy. However, I've got a bit of a question:

For those who think he is the defining influence, how many have read:

1) Poul Anderson, especially "The Broken Sword" and "Three Hearts and Three Lions"?

2) Fritz Leiber, especially the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories?

3) Robert E. Howard, especially the Conan stories?

4) Jack Vance, especially the Dying Earth books?

1) No.
2) No.
3) Yes.
4) No.

Doesn't matter what I've read, though (at least until my own book's published). It matters what authors have read.

EDIT: If/when I get published, here's my list of influences.

Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea
Tolkien's works
Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising Sequence
Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun/Long Sun

Gorbash Kazdar

2008-09-25, 03:03 PM

Are you referring to modern fantasy games or modern fantasy as a genre? The former is fine here, the latter belongs in Media Discussions. :smallconfused:

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 03:05 PM

Are you referring to modern fantasy games or modern fantasy as a genre? The former is fine here, the latter belongs in Media Discussions. :smallconfused:

I would hazard a guess that it's modern fantasy as a genre but focusing on modern fantasy games, since maybe half of the major entries in modern fantasy have been turned into RPGs.

TheThan

2008-09-25, 03:07 PM

Howard wrote his works in the 30s, hardly what I would call “hundreds of years ago”.

Though you do have a point. I think the timing is pretty significant. Tolkien’s work was done in the 50s, while dnd came out in the late 70s. So its not too difficult to see that Tolkien was an influence.

I’m sure that if DnD came out back in say the 40s or 50s. Howard and his colleagues would have been a greater influence than they were in the creation of DnD.

[edit] wow triple ninjad

WalkingTarget

2008-09-25, 03:12 PM

Matthew

2008-09-25, 03:14 PM

I'd say that Tolkien's primary influence to fantasy gaming is the inclusion/depiction of the non-human races that are available in D&D.

I'd say that the Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, and Orcs in D&D owe more to Tolkien than to any other source, mythological or fictional. They may have diverged somewhat over the years, but the basic structure is still there.

Exactly so. Orcs and Halflings are entirely inventions of Tolkien, though they can be said to have earlier analogues. The dungeon exploration in search of treasure element is more commonly found in Conan and other texts.

Woot Spitum

2008-09-25, 03:46 PM

I've read a quite a bit of R.E. Howard, including his Conan stories. I have read some of the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser Stories. I have only read one short story by Jack Vance: The Moon-Moth. I haven't read anything by Poul Anderson.

Honestly, I don't see as much influence from any of these authors on modern fantasy compared to Tolkien. I can see Fritz Lieber's more modern take on the "dashing rogue" architype influencing some things, but stoic, mentally unshakable heroes like Conan and Solomon Kane seem to have fallen out of favor, only to be replaced by more neurotic naval gazers.

Tolkien, on the other hand, was not only responsible for the invention of hobbits and orcs, but also for redefining dragons, dwarves, and elves.

TempusCCK

2008-09-25, 03:51 PM

Gorbash Kazdar

2008-09-25, 03:51 PM

1) I'm not a Poul Anderson fan, so I haven't read those specifically. I may check them out, though.

2) Lieber's works are difficult reads, but they definitely heavily influence the concept of a thieves' guild so often found in D&D and similar works, and the depictions of Lankhmar certainly define how large cities in D&D are presented. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser definitely are strong influences on how thief-type and barbarian-type characters are presented.

3) I'm a huge Howard fan, especially the earlier Conan works. I think the later ones tend to devolve somewhat into pulp, sadly. I'd say Conan has the least general influence on D&D, besides evil cults and magicians (which pop up with Lieber anyways) and barbarians (and really D&D barbarians owe more to the comic or movie depictions than to Howard's works).

4) Vance is... well, let's be honest and say he was a terrible writer. It's extremely difficult to read him, and frankly a lot of his works are just silly. However, if you ever want to understand where the original D&D campaigns and the conception of wizards (not just the casting system, but wizards in general) comes from, go here, full stop. The original D&D wizards are Dying Earth characters.

As for Tolkien, I think his influence on D&D is in the races, as mentioned by WalkingTarget. At this point, trace back non-human races in high fantasy, and unless they are specifically breaking with Tolkien, you'll find yourself staring at him.

Also, the party concept definitely fits Tolkien far more than it does any of the other sources. In Tolkien, you find the dwarves and Bilbo, and then the Fellowship, as being integral to the story. Even when the latter breaks up, you still end up with groups as opposed to singular characters out by themselves. Howard focuses on a single, almost superhuman, protagonist in Conan, while Lieber has a pair of skillful friends in Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser - but it's still just a pair. Vance follows a string of individual characters, small groups where only one person really contributes and the others are just there for color or to get in trouble to drive the plot, or groups that spend as much time fighting with each other as they do working together.

In literary terms, Tolkien remains the key influence for high fantasy, I think. So much still stems from his idea of quests and great powers, and epic histories. Also, the scope of Tolkien's works is greatly defining. The fate of the world hangs in the balance, and the forces of darkness are powerful and dangerous.

Lieber, Vance, and Howard are really much more of a low fantasy style - less heroic, at times gritty, with flawed protagonists often out more for themselves than anything else. The worlds tend to have few monsters and no non-human races, and are usually kind of crappy places. In the genre, you just don't find that much anymore. There's not much Low Fantasy around in general anymore.

Even the grittiest stuff, like Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, or say the Mistborn series by Sanderson, are much more epic in scope than anything Howard, Vance, or Lieber generally dealt with. You could argue that the characters in these are more like the low fantasy characters, but that comes across more as a deconstruction or move away from Tolkien than a move towards Lieber or Vance, I think. About the only really low fantasy work I can think of is Brust's Jhereg series... and even that's debatable.

Personally, I'd say Tolkien is the dominant influence on setting in fantasy RPGs, and Lieber, Howard, and Vance on characters.

In literature, Tolkien is a major touchstone - most works either follow those conventions or deconstruct/invert them. There's some hearkening back to Conan here and there, but its often not recognized as fantasy - it's a Conan story.

Grey Paladin

2008-09-25, 03:51 PM

In my opinion Howard, Vance, and Lovecraft contributed to the genre far more then Tolkien, who is only remembered because he is relatively mainstream within the substream.

Saph

2008-09-25, 03:54 PM

For those who think he is the defining influence, how many have read:

1) Poul Anderson, especially "The Broken Sword" and "Three Hearts and Three Lions"?

2) Fritz Leiber, especially the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories?

3) Robert E. Howard, especially the Conan stories?

4) Jack Vance, especially the Dying Earth books?

1) Yup.
2) Nope.
3) Yup.
4) Yup.

Although I've only read bits and pieces of Anderson and Howard.

I do think reading Jack Vance is really good if you're into D&D. For one thing, Jack Vance is a very good (if odd) writer, and for another, you'll do a lot of 'oh, THAT's where it came from,' from reading the Dying Earth books. Cugel seems like the original D&D rogue, and the whole spellcasting system comes straight from the Dying Earth wizards.

Tolkein still takes the lion's share as regards influence, though.

- Saph

edit: Gorbash, you're being too hasty in calling Vance a bad writer. Sure, a lot of his early stuff like Big Planet is forgettable, but he's gotten much much better as he's grown older. Night Lamp and the Lyonesse series are superb books.

Matthew

2008-09-25, 03:54 PM

If you'd all be so kind as to notice that I never said "The Lord of the Rings", I said Tolkien, the Hobbit predates any of the other works listed up there, and was one of the first major "fantasy" works in the Western World since probably some of the tales of King Arthur.

No it doesn't, the Conan stories were first published in 1932, but even if it did, its influence would have to be thought quite minimal.

Eorran

2008-09-25, 04:05 PM

Tolkien, on the other hand, was not only responsible for the invention of hobbits and orcs, but also for redefining dragons, dwarves, and elves.

That's one area I think his influence is strongly felt: as I understand it, before Smaug, dragons were typically large, brutish beasts, dangerous but not the clever, schemeing, force of personality and physical terror that was Smaug.
To the OP, I haven't read any of the suggested books. I did recently read A Wizard of Earthsea though; where does Ursula K. LeGuin fit into this time frame?

Gorbash Kazdar

2008-09-25, 04:08 PM

edit: Gorbash, you're being too hasty in calling Vance a bad writer. Sure, a lot of his early stuff like Big Planet is forgettable, but he's gotten much much better as he's grown older. Night Lamp and the Lyonesse series are superb books.
I haven't read those, but I found the writing in much of his works to be flat out bad. It's not the story I'm talking about here, mind you, because those are often fairly interesting. It's the characters - flat as pancakes - and the stylistic issues - many, varied, and painful. It seems like he wants to be clever, but comes off as a teenage writer trying to be clever and is beating you over the head with it. There are far too many words for what's actually being said, and the dialogue is laughable - its an attempt to recall the overly ornate speech of, say, Dumas' musketeers, but it just falls flat. Brust did the same thing far better in his Phoenix Guard books.

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 04:11 PM

Having no grasp on style stopped Tolkien not. =p Or is this guy in another class?

Saph

2008-09-25, 04:20 PM

I haven't read those, but I found the writing in much of his works to be flat out bad. It's not the story I'm talking about here, mind you, because those are often fairly interesting. It's the characters - flat as pancakes - and the stylistic issues - many, varied, and painful. It seems like he wants to be clever, but comes off as a teenage writer trying to be clever and is beating you over the head with it. There are far too many words for what's actually being said, and the dialogue is laughable - its an attempt to recall the overly ornate speech of, say, Dumas' musketeers, but it just falls flat. Brust did the same thing far better in his Phoenix Guard books.

I don't know what you mean about the stylistic issues, but you really should try reading his later works. Vance is one of those writers who's easy to underestimate, because he's been writing for so very very long - he's 92 years old as of now. For instance, The Dying Earth was published in 1950, while the Lyonesse trilogy came out in the 1980s - that's a gap of more than thirty years, more than the length of most writers' careers! He's had the time to practise a LOT, and it shows. I'd have trouble recommending a fantasy trilogy better than Lyonesse.

- Saph

Ravens_cry

2008-09-25, 04:31 PM

averagejoe

2008-09-25, 04:31 PM

That's one area I think his influence is strongly felt: as I understand it, before Smaug, dragons were typically large, brutish beasts, dangerous but not the clever, schemeing, force of personality and physical terror that was Smaug.
To the OP, I haven't read any of the suggested books. I did recently read A Wizard of Earthsea though; where does Ursula K. LeGuin fit into this time frame?

Truenamers. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, LeGuin is just an okay writer. A Wizard of Earthsea was excellent, but most of her others fall flat. Even if that's arguable, I doubt if her influence on fantasy is very high, except that she seemed ahead of the pack with the whole school of magic thingy. I could be wrong about that, though.

Gorbash Kazdar

2008-09-25, 04:32 PM

Having no grasp on style stopped Tolkien not. =p Or is this guy in another class?
I'd say he's in another class - at least, the Dying Earth stuff I've read. Plus, the strength of Tolkien's story makes up for a great deal for me. Vance's stories are interesting, but not nearly of that caliber. Again, at least in the Dying Earth works I've read.

@Saph: I'll give Lyonesse a chance - I was so turned off by the Dying Earth works that I flat out gave up on anything else of his, but I will certainly allow that something else he wrote might be much better.

Yulian

2008-09-25, 04:39 PM

averagejoe

2008-09-25, 04:52 PM

Tolkein gives us settings, but he didn't give us much of the style. How many games have you played werein greed and lust for gold or power wasn't a factor in the party?

Well, yeah, but that's just because the characters are basically player avatars. I think it's their natural style for greed rather than any cultural considerations. :smalltongue:

Oslecamo

2008-09-25, 05:47 PM

Is it too late to mention Lord Dunsany?

Read his stuff, read some Howard, then some Tolkein.

You'll see some fascinating parallels.

Dunsany didn't do much with nonhuman races, that we can certainly thank Tolkein for. Howard gave us dark magic, raw visceral fear, savage violence, lust, hate, greed...not much of that appears in Tolkein at all. Most of the characters are almost irksomely noble and some of them are hard to relate to. Conan, Kull, Bran Mac Morn (less so Solomon Kane)...these are the "adventurers" you see in modern RPGs far more than you see characters like the Fellowship. Even the "questing wizard" arechetype shows up more in Howard's works. We can also thank Leiber for more civilized versions of the same.

Boromir. His father. The mouth of Sauruman. Grimtongue. The forest elves in the Hobbit. The human city by the lake in the Hobbit. All with major flaws. Tolkien also did those kind of characters.

Tolkein's works are also very low in monsters. Howard's are anything but. You had lizard-like dragons, leftover dinosaurs, demons, ape-monsters, serpent-things of every description, lost inhuman races, gods, transformed wizards, degenerate elder races, star-born demigods (Tower of the Elephant), and all manner of fiends.

No they're not. Read the Silmarion for a good bunch of monsters from Tolkien. Who can actually kill adventurer's, unlike Conan monsters who normally have trouble dealing with comoners and farmers.

He created the typical dragon. Smart, greedy, and badass enough to rule over everything he sees. But still with a weak point. Plus orcs, Shelbob, Balrogs, and many other monsters who still today are classics of all fantasy setings. Unlike most of Howard's creations, wich are lucky if they appear in pulp fiction.

One can also see the style of magic in RPGs doesn't derive from Tolkein much at all.

Nukers nuff said. Gandalf goes around shooting fire here and there, and thanks to that almost every arcane caster out there also goes flinging fire, no matter the game. You didn't see many fire shooting wizards in Conan did you?

Leiber and Howard's spell-flingers are more what you see. They call death from above, change the shape of others, steal youth, hurl fire, summon demons...heck, the "lich" is very similar to Kull's old enemy Thulsa Doom (forget the movie, that guy was more like Thoth-Amon). The story Red Nails even has a magical item that seems very much like a D&D style Wand that slays people with a zappy beam.

And they still can't kill one almost naked man. Or, again, a bunch of angry farmers.

Tolkein gives us settings, but he didn't give us much of the style. How many games have you played werein greed and lust for gold or power wasn't a factor in the party?

- Yulian
(New member of the forums. Hi.)

Read the Hobbit. Twelve dwarfs and one halfling face the dragon that slaughtered an entire dwarfen city. When he was a baby.

And they do it for the gold. And jewels. And magic items like +5 mythral chain shirts of fortification.

Tsotha-lanti

2008-09-25, 05:51 PM

2) Fritz Leiber, especially the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories?

3) Robert E. Howard, especially the Conan stories?

Yes and hell yes. I've got all of Howard's Conan stories in hardcopy. The relevance to modern fantasy RPGs (other than games like MERP and LOTR) is immense, compared to Tolkien's superficial touch.

You forgot Michael Moorcock - although I suppose your point was that all these authors were around before Tolkien. Moorcock was a post-Tolkien author with no real influence from Tolkien. He continued the Lovecraftian tradition in his own way, intentionally subverting (and, I suppose, doing some deconstructing) the style of fantasy written by Howard and already subverted with black humor by Leiber.

It's merely a matter of timeframe, before Tolkien what we know as fantasy today was nearly non-existent in Western Culture, and you had to scrape back hundreds of years to find anything remotely like it.

Not having read any of the books you mentioned (but having heard of a majority of them) how heavily influenced by Tolkien are they?

Lord of the Rings was published in 1954. Howard was dead by 1936, all his Conan stories published. Leiber's first Fafhrd & Mouser story was published in 1939. Tolkien started writing LOTR around 1937.

So no, you didn't have to go back at all to find a ton of 20th-century fantasy as we still know it.

If you'd all be so kind as to notice that I never said "The Lord of the Rings", I said Tolkien, the Hobbit predates any of the other works listed up there, and was one of the first major "fantasy" works in the Western World since probably some of the tales of King Arthur.

No, The Hobbit was published in '37. Howard was already dead then.

And was pointed out, Dunsany's Gods of Pegana is even earlier - from 1905 - and a huge influence on all early 20th-century fantasy, starting with Lovecraft.

Edit: Woah, Oslecamo. Pro-Tolkien rage any? It helps if you know what you're talking about when you dis an author like that, though.

Edit2: I can't believe I forgot C.S. Lewis. Half of the Chronicles of Narnia was published before LOTR, too. Considering the volume of pre-Hobbit fantasy, claiming The Hobbit (a minor book in any case) was the influence there would be a bit silly.

horseboy

2008-09-25, 05:53 PM

He created the typical dragon. Smart, greedy, and badass enough to rule over everything he sees. But still with a weak point. Plus orcs, Shelbob, Balrogs, and many other monsters who still today are classics of all fantasy setings. Unlike most of Howard's creations, wich are lucky if they appear in pulp fiction.Really, vampires, demons from beyond the pale and giant snakes are lucky to appear in pulp fiction, if anywhere? :smallconfused:

Nukers nuff said. Gandalf goes around shooting fire here and there, and thanks to that almost every arcane caster out there also goes flinging fire, no matter the game. You didn't see many fire shooting wizards in Conan did you?And that he threw fireballs around while in the top of a fir tree sets up the Hi Int/Low Wis stereotype wizard.

And they still can't kill one almost naked man. Or, again, a bunch of angry farmers. Barbarians have DR. :smallcool:

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 05:53 PM

Don't forget that the first three books of The Once and Future King were published just after The Hobbit and well before Lord of the Rings. The King Arthur mention got me going.

Now that we're on the subject, Lord of the Rings had an undeniably large influence, but the more I think about it, the more I think that Tolkien just happened to be the guy who got noticed most out of a general revival of the fairy tale as adult consumption material - not the one who actually opened the floodgates.

Neon Knight

2008-09-25, 06:01 PM

1. Nope.
2. Nadda.
3. HELL YES! I've also read a bunch of King Kull, Brak Mak Morn, and the ever awesome puritan swordsman Solomon Kane. And I love it. All of it. :smallbiggrin:
4. Sorry, no.

KevLar

2008-09-25, 06:01 PM

Interesting topic. Having read, from all that has been mentioned, only Tolkien, Le Guin and Lord Dunsany, I'd like to ask a question.

You agree (I think) that Tolkien contributed the races. Now, there are the "usually good" races (elves, dwarves, halflings), and there are the "evil races": orcs and the like. In Middle Earth, orcs are evil because they were explicitly created in order to be evil, by THE evil overlord of the story, for evil purposes (to take over the world). The thing that always bugged me the most about D&D was how evil races were incorporated into the setting, WITHOUT the evil overlord creating them. Orcs are evil just because. It makes no sense at all, and you end up with a Manichean world for no apparent reason - and I mean without the morality, however simple, of the LOTR story.

So, my question is this. How did this "evil races" trope get into D&D? How did objective alignment happen? Was it Tolkien? Was it someone else before him?

Raz_Fox

2008-09-25, 06:33 PM

What Tolkien DID grasp, was world building. On an epic scope that is all the more impressive when you realize this was, just, one, man. Tolkien wasn't just trying to tell a story, he was trying to build a mythology. He created much of the language we use when describing this genre.

I absolutely adore Tolkien's works, but I must agree with you here. I've pored over The Atlas of Middle Earth, which is as much history as it is maps, and I must say one thing.

Tolkien was the one person who threw me into the fantasy genre. If it wasn't for him, I never would have read the Belgariad, or the Riftwar Saga. I never would have played Dungeons and Dragons, or read Order of the Stick. I never would even have considered being a fantasist, or a writer. To think that the works of a man, so long dead, could change a young man's life like this... :smalleek:

Just one man, making a world. A world that was so strong and pure that it took on a life of its own. Niggle's Leaf.

Read the Hobbit. Twelve dwarfs and one halfling face the dragon that slaughtered an entire dwarfen city. When he was a baby.

And they do it for the gold. And jewels. And magic items like +5 mythral chain shirts of fortification.

Thank you for making my evening. I think this is the most I've laughed since lunch.

And that he threw fireballs around while in the top of a fir tree sets up the Hi Int/Low Wis stereotype wizard.

I'm afraid this only brought on a huge grin. :smallbiggrin:

erikun

2008-09-25, 06:42 PM

So, my question is this. How did this "evil races" trope get into D&D? How did objective alignment happen? Was it Tolkien? Was it someone else before him?
This is primarily the Tolkien influence. You have the "good" forest dwelling elves, the "good" stay-at-home hobbits halflings, the "good but gruff" dwarves mining for ores, the "evil" orcs, and the humans capable of both sides. There really isn't much other reason, beyond getting into fairy tales. (Although to be fair, most elves/dwarves were downright cruel and evil in those. D&D 4e got this part right, at least.)

Interesting point: Tolkien orcs were weak, pathetic, cave-dwelling creatures. The closest thing in D&D would be goblins. The "orcs" frequently mentioned are actually magically created half-orcs, taking the orcs cruelity and mixing it with human's strength.

Rei_Jin

2008-09-25, 06:45 PM

Matthew

2008-09-25, 06:55 PM

Ah, but if you read the Silmarillion, you find out that Orcs were originally Elves that were captured and twisted into their current form. Thus, the evil races were created by an overlord, as previously stated.

Indeed, though Tolkien himself had rejected that notion by the end of his life. That it remains in the Silmarillion is as an artefact (or because no better explanation could be found by his editors).

Raum

2008-09-25, 06:56 PM

Yulian

2008-09-25, 07:01 PM

Oslecamo.

Most of the Tolkein characters you listed are the exceptions out of a very large cast. Few are out there for greed or ambition in a general sense. There is an overarching plot compelling them all. They are not "just adventuring". Conan, Fafhrd and Grey Mouser were.

There weren't really that many monsters in The Silmarillion. There were a lot of variants of the same thing. Tons of spiders, wolf-things, and dragons. You didn't have shambling undead tomb-guardians (don't start with the Barrow-Wights), seductive sorceresses, degenerate elder-races, Lovecraftian horrors (Howard and HPL were contemporaries and pen-pals). Just because D&D cribbed a lot of the names and creatures directly from Tolkein doesn't mean the style of monster isn't from Howard. The things lying under treasure chests are absolutely not from Tolkein, no matter what they may look like.

Nobody guarded dungeons and treasures in Tolkein very much. In Howard it happened all the time. Go read The God in the Bowl or the aforementioned Tower of the Elephant. They're almost prototypes of gaming modules.

You actually did see shooty-wizards in Conan, by the way. I even mentioned a specific case of zappy-beams and wands. They also killed lots of farmers and peasants. Go read some Howard, the civilian body counts can be shockingly high. And of course they can't kill the naked guy. He's the protagonist and is extremely capable or we wouldn't have a story. That's like saying "Well, an army of orcs couldn't kill some Hobbits."

In Queen of the Black Coast a single degenerated pre-human being slaughtered an entire ship's crew and Conan's love interest. Every dark wizard tying some chicks to a pole to sacrifice to a demon is not Tolkein's. Every dark thing forgotten by time that skulks out to slake its horrible meat thirst on the nearby village isn't his.

I'll give you The Hobbit being propelled by greed. Also remember that story wasn't originally meant to be part of the other cycle.

You're giving Tolkein, a great writer mind you, way too much credit for a style that he didn't create. Dungeon crawling, fighting evil wizards, tavern brawls, and questing for loot are not the center of his works. His world may be the basis for the world, but the PCs and villains that live in it aren't always his. There's also the clear issue of predating his work, too.

More people "play" a Howard or Leiber story, stylistically, than play LotR or The Silmarillion.

- Yulian

Neon Knight

2008-09-25, 07:26 PM

Further proof of the lethality of Howardinian monsters:

In The Black Stone, the horrible frog thing that the people of the valley worship is slain by invading Turks. Although they had artifacts like Mohammad blessed steel and ancient spells, the thing still claims half of his slayers.

In Worms of the Earth, the titular degenerate worms of the earth devour an entire roman fortress and garrison.

In The Valley of the Worm, an entire tribe is butchered by a monstrous epic worm.

I could go on. Normal men die by the dozens in Howard tales. Howard's protagonists are made of sterner stuff than mortal men.

For example, in a particular tale, Solomon Kane defeats an incorporeal demon. He does not wound it; pistol ball and sword thrust have no effect upon it. He beats it by being so grim, so determined, so fearless, so goddamn manly that the thing leaves him be. He scares the everloving crap out of a ghost made of hate and insanity. He is simple that badass. That's all there is to it.

FURTHER ARGUMENTS: In Shadow Kingdoms, King Kull and Brule the Spear Slayer fight 14 snakemen. These are not trained warriors, and possess only daggers. Yet King Kull and Brule are almost overwhelmed by them. Not only is it directly stated that had the snakemen been warriors, the two would have died, but it also implied that had King Kull or Brule fought alone, the 14 unskilled snakemen would have won.

theMycon

2008-09-25, 07:42 PM

Every time I hear these arguments I have to sigh and say "why does no-one know about James Cabell anymore? He was popular for almost 50 years, and Jurgen* was almost universally considered the finest fantasy work of the 20th century until, for some unknown reason, people stopped caring in the 70's." Half of his works turn into smut with a high-fantasy coating, and the other half is best described as "Terry Pratchett with realistic characters."
It's far more in-tone with "The hobbit" than the rest of Tolkien's works, but it's a pre-anything-by-Tolkien fantasy as we see it now.

Ah, but if you read the Silmarillion, you find out that Orcs were originally Elves that were captured and twisted into their current form. Thus, the evil races were created by an overlord, as previously stated.
Which reminds me of the point I have to make every time someone calls Orcs "Tolkein's Invention" and Halflings "Hobbits with a different name."
They ARE traditional dwarves (from Norse legend). Not "there's a number of parallels," it's "there might be a difference, but it's never mentioned." The only plausible difference is "the Norse ones tend to hide in their hole and are afraid enough of good gods to deal with them when they have to. Tolkien orcs seem to only fight." I imagine they have to have some peace-time, though.

*Blah-blah "Some folk gave that title to 'Lud-in-the-mist', but it's more a (phenomenal) detective story in a world where elves & fairies exist than it is a fantasy, and you only see one & a half fairies."

Matthew

2008-09-25, 07:52 PM

Which reminds me of the point I have to make every time someone calls Orcs "Tolkein's Invention" and Halflings "Hobbits with a different name."
They ARE traditional dwarves (from Norse legend). Not "there's a number of parallels," it's "there might be a difference, but it's never mentioned." The only plausible difference is "the Norse ones tend to hide in their hole and are afraid enough of good gods to deal with them when they have to. Tolkien orcs seem to only fight." I imagine they have to have some peace-time, though.

That was me, and I don't think they are at all like Norse Dwarves. Both Orcs and Hobbits are inventions of Tolkien. They have analogues, but they are by far and away the most differentiated from any inspirational mythology.

Rei_Jin

2008-09-25, 07:59 PM

The name Orc, as far as I understand it, was based on the name of Orkus, god of the underworld. Generally regarded to be quite nasty and demonic. Thus, (If I understand this correctly) Tolkien took this concept, and applied it to a race of humanoids.

The halflings are, as previously mentioned, based on Snerglings.

Elves are based on the fey in many mythologies, the dwarves are based on the norse mythology, the humans are based on characters out of things like Beowulf, etc.

Tolkien was obsessed with the different mythos' that he could see in the history of the English. Thus, he took elements from different mythos' that had influenced the development of England over the previous 2000 years, and put them into a melting pot, added his own influences, and gave it a twist.

Voila, you have Middle Earth, as we know it.

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 07:59 PM

How could Tolkien not think Britain had its own mythology? King Arthur!

Matthew

2008-09-25, 08:07 PM

The name Orc, as far as I understand it, was based on the name of Orkus, god of the underworld. Generally regarded to be quite nasty and demonic. Thus, (If I understand this correctly) Tolkien took this concept, and applied it to a race of humanoids.

That is incorrecto! Tolkien (erroneously) based his word for "orc" on a passage of Beowulf where he thought he found the word used to mean "demon". That has since been dismissed as a wishful reading of the text (though not by everyone). The origin of that word, in Tolkien's view, would have been related to "orcus", which is also where the modern word "ogre" is derived, in the sense of "hellish" or "demonic".

The halflings are, as previously mentioned, based on Snerglings.

Never heard that before, and it would run rather contrary to his famous explanation of their genesis.

[edit] Looking into it, it seems that Tolkien thought that Snerglings might have been an unconscious influence, but were in no way purposeful inspiration.

Rei_Jin

2008-09-25, 08:15 PM

Well, to be honest, the stories of King Arthur only became widely known after the publishing of "The Once and Future King" By T.H. White. Prior to that, it is believed that the Arthur we know first appeared in Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" around the 15th century. There were prior writings about him, but they varied widely from author to author, with even the french getting involved.

The problem is not that there are no stories in the past of England, but that there was no creation mythos.

Matthew

2008-09-25, 08:17 PM

Well, to be honest, the stories of King Arthur only became widely known after the publishing of "The Once and Future King" By T.H. White. Prior to that, it is believed that the Arthur we know first appeared in Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" around the 15th century. There were prior writings about him, but they varied widely from author to author, with even the french getting involved.

Goodness no. This is very, very wrong. Mallory's work was a synthesis of many different very complete texts. You need to check into the Alliterative Morte de Arthur, amongst other things.

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 08:24 PM

Goodness no. This is very, very wrong. Mallory's work was a synthesis of many different very complete texts. You need to check into the Alliterative Morte de Arthur, amongst other things.

I think that's what Rei Jin was driving at. The Mabovigion (Or however you spell it, the Welsh language is confusing in English) and the French romances which together comprised most of his King Arthur (throw in a few other sources, yes, like Gawain and the Green Knight) were some very wildly varying accounts that Malory ended up synthesizing.

Though the Mabo-whatsit bears the strongest direct relation of any one.

Rei_Jin

2008-09-25, 08:24 PM

But with those texts, do they differ from what we know and accept to be King Arthur today? Are they different in what they say about him, and what they reference?

I wasn't referring to the earliest text that speaks of an individual known as King Arthur, because that comes from the 12th century. But mythos and stories evolve over time, and change. The Arthur we know is based on Le Morte De Arthur and The Once and Future King. Note that the We is meant as in the societal We. King Arthur and his knights, the round table, Guinevere and Lancelot, Mordred, etc.

Different stories take different views on the same individual. They mention different things, emphasis different elements, add in or take out other people, etc.

Of course, I could just be horribly, horribly wrong. :smallsmile:

EvilElitest

2008-09-25, 08:28 PM

Matthew

2008-09-25, 08:29 PM

I think that's what Rei Jin was driving at. The Mabovigion (Or however you spell it, the Welsh language is confusing in English) and the French romances which together comprised most of his King Arthur (throw in a few other sources, yes, like Gawain and the Green Knight) were some very wildly varying accounts that Malory ended up synthesizing.

No, not at all. Those texts do not form the majority of the Arthurian corpus. The main Arthurian texts were concurrently translated as:

Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Brittaniae (c. 1125) [Latin]
Wace, Roman de Brut (c. 1150-75) [Anglo Norman]
Lazamon, Brut (c. 1200) [Old/Middle English]

There are many ancillary texts that deal with other characters, which come from disperate authors, but the actual Arthurian story has always been more or less complete. The above texts were wildly popular, insane numbers of manuscripts survive dealing with these.

But with those texts, do they differ from what we know and accept to be King Arthur today? Are they different in what they say about him, and what they reference?

No, the main Arthurian story has been the same since c. 1125. Lancelot gets worked in and Guinevere changes lovers (from Mordred to Lancelot), but the Arthurian story is always almost identical.

I wasn't referring to the earliest text that speaks of an individual known as King Arthur, because that comes from the 12th century. But mythos and stories evolve over time, and change. The Arthur we know is based on Le Morte De Arthur and The Once and Future King. Note that the We is meant as in the societal We. King Arthur and his knights, the round table, Guinevere and Lancelot, Mordred, etc.

Lots of things get added [i.e. individual knight's stories], but most of what turns up in Malory is based on the Old French Arthurian Cycle, which is in turn based on the Geoffrey of Monmouth's work.

Raum

2008-09-25, 08:29 PM

That is incorrecto! Tolkien (erroneously) based his word for "orc" on a passage of Beowulf where he thought he found the word used to mean "demon". That has since been dismissed as a wishful reading of the text (though not by everyone). The origin of that word, in Tolkien's view, would have been related to "orcus", which is also where the modern word "ogre" is derived, in the sense of "hellish" or "demonic".Tolkien claimed to have based the term orc on Beowulf as you say, but 'orke' was in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'reminiscent of giant or ogre' a hundred and fifty years before Tolkien. From Wikipedia:
From under the OED entry ‘orc’:

* 1605 J. SYLVESTER tr. G. de S. Du Bartas Deuine Weekes & Wks. (II. i. 337) “Insatiate Orque, that euen at one repast, Almost all creatures in the World would waste.” [seeming ‘orca’ usage]
* 1656 S. HOLLAND Don Zara (I. i. 6) “Who at one stroke didst pare away three heads from off the shoulders of an Orke, begotten by an Incubus.” [seeming ‘ogre’ usage]
* 1854 Putnam's Monthly Mag. (Oct. 380/1) “The elves and the nickers, the orcs and the giants." [usage unclear]
* 1865 C. KINGSLEY Hereward (I. i. 71) “But beyond, things unspeakable — dragons, giants, rocs, orcs, witch-whales … ” [usage unclear]

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 08:30 PM

No, not at all. Those texts do not form the majority of the Arthurian corpus. The main Arthurian texts were concurrently translated as:

Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Brittaniae (c. 1125) [Latin]
Wace, Roman de Brut (c. 1150-75) [Anglo Norman]
Lazamon, Brut (c. 1200) [Old/Middle English]

There are many ancillary texts that deal with other characters, which come from disperate authors, but the actual Arthurian story has always been more or less complete. The above texts were wildly popular, insane numbers of manuscripts survive dealing with these.

I'm familiar with Geoffrey of Monmouth, but I actually spent two semesters studying King Arthur and I've never even heard of the other two guys.

I am not saying you're wrong; you're a well-informed individual generally. I would like more information, though, as well as good reason I shouldn't sock my professor.

Rei_Jin

2008-09-25, 08:34 PM

The Once and Future King was largely based on Le Morte De Arthur. Le Morte De Arthur was a synthesis of previous texts available. I have read The Once and Future King, and loved it. I have read part of Le Morte De Arthur.

I recognise the texts you are talking about, but without being intimately familiar on what they say, I just can't weigh in on that aspect of the discussion. My understanding is that whilst the story of Arthur has been told for nearly 900 years now, that it has changed and evolved over time. And that the two texts that I referenced seem to tell the stories that most people know and accept.

Matthew

2008-09-25, 08:35 PM

I'm familiar with Geoffrey of Monmouth, but I actually spent two semesters studying King Arthur and I've never even heard of the other two guys.

I am not saying you're wrong; you're a well-informed individual generally. I would like more information, though, as well as good reason I shouldn't sock my professor.

If you've never heard of Wace or Lazamon you should sack his ass now. Wace invented the round table! (well, he may have stolen it from the Welsh, but his is the first written text to introduce it)

[edit]
Oh, "sock", no don't punch him. :smallbiggrin:

I'll dig up some stuff in a bit.

Tolkien claimed to have based the term orc on Beowulf as you say, but 'orke' was in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'reminiscent of giant or ogre' a hundred and fifty years before Tolkien.

Indeed so, but that's not from where Tolkien was stealing his mythology. He wanted an earlier text to be the root.

EvilElitest

2008-09-25, 08:36 PM

oh sorry, i thought this was the genre of fantasy

In terms of gaming, Tolkien is more like the grandfather, he may no longer have the same sort of direct effect on the games, but he certainly is a big influence. The world building, the races, the kinda tone of the eariler games, and the general fantasy sterotypes are owned to him
Also when did Tolkien not have 3-D characters. He may not have presented his characters fully, but they weren't 2-D. The orcs may have been always Chaotic Evil, but to be fair, Tolkien himself spent the rest of his life trying to find a solution to that, as a devout catholic he didn't believe in a race of totally evil creatures
from
EE

Raum

2008-09-25, 08:45 PM

Indeed so, but that's not from where Tolkien was stealing his mythology. He wanted an earlier text to be the root.Quite possibly. My point was simply that Tolkien didn't create orcs as brutish humanoids. He did do a very good job of popularizing the image.

I don't mean to detract from what he did either, just pointing out that he based everything on existing images and mythologies. Then he brought them to life in a way which has similarly inspired many who followed him. :smallsmile:

Matthew

2008-09-25, 08:51 PM

Quite possibly. My point was simply that Tolkien didn't create orcs as brutish humanoids. He did do a very good job of popularizing the image.

I don't mean to detract from what he did either, just pointing out that he based everything on existing images and mythologies. Then he brought them to life in a way which has similarly inspired many who followed him. :smallsmile:

Well, hang on there. What's an ogre? That's the question. Ogres are rarely humanoids in the way orcs are, they're usually giants or demons. The words are used interchangably. Orcs in the sense of armies of mortal humanoids are very much Tolkien's thing. As I say, there are analogues, but the kind of orcs we see in modern fantasy are Tolkien's animal.

The Once and Future King was largely based on Le Morte De Arthur. Le Morte De Arthur was a synthesis of previous texts available. I have read The Once and Future King, and loved it. I have read part of Le Morte De Arthur.

I recognise the texts you are talking about, but without being intimately familiar on what they say, I just can't weigh in on that aspect of the discussion. My understanding is that whilst the story of Arthur has been told for nearly 900 years now, that it has changed and evolved over time. And that the two texts that I referenced seem to tell the stories that most people know and accept.

The basic Arthurian story is always the same.

Arthur's Conception

Uther Pendragon gets Merlin to use magic to look like Duke Gorlois so he can lie with Igraine, Arthur is conceived. Gorlois is killed, Igrain and Uther are married.

Arthur Comes to Power

Uther dies, Arthur is crowned king. He conquers all of Britain and many other countries besides. There is a period of stability and plenty that lasts a decade or more.

Roman Tribute

The Romans demand tribute from Arthur. He goes to war, fighting as far as Rome itself.

Betrayal at Home

Mordred, having been left in charge in Britain, tries to make off with Guinevere and usurp Arthur's rule. Arthur, Gawain, and the army return.

Final Battle

Everyone gets killed. Arthur may not really be dead.

Additions

The various knight's tales and Holy Grail story, along with the Lancelot and Guinevere angle get introduced within a couple of centuries [c. 1150-1300]. Arthur's role is most often that of a background character in these tales, a context against which to set them.

Raum

2008-09-25, 09:15 PM

Well, hang on there. What's an ogre? That's the question. Ogres are rarely humanoids in the way orcs are, they're usually giants or demons. The words are used interchangably.Perhaps that's why he tried to relate the word to a (mis)translation of Beowulf words as 'demon'? I hadn't seen ogre's origins being related to demons though. I have seen it as originating in a French translation of the Arabian Nights as a "man eating giant" and from other sources as the Byzantine word for Hungarian. Hmm...off to see what Google finds...

Orcs in the sense of armies of mortal humanoids are very much Tolkien's thing. As I say, there are analogues, but the kind of orcs we see in modern fantasy are Tolkien's animal.I suspect setting the evil brutes up as members of armies stemmed from Tolkien's experiences in WWI. The culture of orcs (as well as other races from LotR) was Tolkien's creation. Those races' basic appearance and existence (in mythology) is what preexisted Tolkien.

Matthew

2008-09-25, 09:34 PM

Perhaps that's why he tried to relate the word to a (mis)translation of Beowulf words as 'demon'? I hadn't seen ogre's origins being related to demons though. I have seen it as originating in a French translation of the Arabian Nights as a "man eating giant" and from other sources as the Byzantine word for Hungarian. Hmm...off to see what Google finds...

Hmmn, I think it's the "giant" (in the sense of monstrous outsider) part that is supposed to relate it to demons, but I can't really tell. I think there is another strand of thought that relates giants and Grendel to the line of Cain, which is supposed to be a demonic analogue of man.

I suspect setting the evil brutes up as members of armies stemmed from Tolkien's experiences in WWI. The culture of orcs (as well as other races from LotR) was Tolkien's creation. Those races' basic appearance and existence (in mythology) is what preexisted Tolkien.

Quite possibly. I always thought of them as goblins writ large.

AstralFire

2008-09-25, 09:36 PM

Hmmn, I think it's the "giant" (in the sense of monstrous outsider) part that is supposed to relate it to demons, but I can't really tell. I think there is another strand of thought that relates giants and Grendel to the line of Cain, which is supposed to be a demonic analogue of man.

That sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't put my finger on where I've heard it before.

Tsotha-lanti

2008-09-25, 09:38 PM

There was some mess around jotun - giant - ettin - etten in Tolkien's translation, wasn't there?

Yahzi

2008-09-25, 09:39 PM

4) Vance is... well, let's be honest and say he was a terrible writer.
:smalleek:

I will admit that he is a difficult writer, but his work is brilliant. It is also heavily dosed with satire, which is perhaps not always apparent.

However, if you ever want to understand where the original D&D campaigns and the conception of wizards (not just the casting system, but wizards in general) comes from, go here, full stop. The original D&D wizards are Dying Earth characters.
Not just the wizards - one of Vance's characters is a "swordsman of the sixth circle." Can you say Fighter-6? :smallbiggrin:

As for Tolkien, I think his influence on D&D is in the races, as mentioned by WalkingTarget.
Yes, exactly. Orcs, Treants, Elves, all existed before Tolkien, but they just meant "weird thing." He gave them iron-clad, unbreakable attributes. He solidified their form in the public psyche.

Also, the party concept definitely fits Tolkien far more than it does any of the other sources.
That I hadn't considered, but I think you're right.

Prophaniti

2008-09-25, 10:15 PM

I wouldn't call Tolkien the defining influence on modern fantasy. Tolkien is largely responsible, not for defining fantasy, but bringing it into the mainstream and general public knowledge. I have heard of most of the ones linked in the OP, but have not chanced upon a copy (at a time when I had money) to pick up for my own. I've heard they're quite good, and can easily see the argument that they had more 'defining' influence on fantasy than Tolkien did.

Not that I'll ever let anything usurp Tolkien's special place in my personal library, of course.

turkishproverb

2008-09-25, 10:26 PM

How could Tolkien not think Britain had its own mythology? King Arthur!

Well, to be honest, the stories of King Arthur only became widely known after the publishing of "The Once and Future King" By T.H. White. Prior to that, it is believed that the Arthur we know first appeared in Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur" around the 15th century. There were prior writings about him, but they varied widely from author to author, with even the french getting involved.

The problem is not that there are no stories in the past of England, but that there was no creation mythos.

Anything but. Arthur appeared and was very popular since before the the romans left the british isles. His real issue with arthur was that any story about him resembling what the canon was (IE: Mallory) was woefully corrupted by french influences (IE Lancelot).

No, not at all. Those texts do not form the majority of the Arthurian corpus. The main Arthurian texts were concurrently translated as:

Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Brittaniae (c. 1125) [Latin]
Wace, Roman de Brut (c. 1150-75) [Anglo Norman]
Lazamon, Brut (c. 1200) [Old/Middle English]

There are many ancillary texts that deal with other characters, which come from disperate authors, but the actual Arthurian story has always been more or less complete. The above texts were wildly popular, insane numbers of manuscripts survive dealing with these.

No, the main Arthurian story has been the same since c. 1125. Lancelot gets worked in and Guinevere changes lovers (from Mordred to Lancelot), but the Arthurian story is always almost identical.

Lots of things get added [i.e. individual knight's stories], but most of what turns up in Malory is based on the Old French Arthurian Cycle, which is in turn based on the Geoffrey of Monmouth's work.

To say nothing of the pre-arthurian stories and mentions of the great arthur. Heck, one of the earliest mentions of him is in a poem praising a certain unrelated warrior, where the phrase "and yet he was not arthur" appears.

I'm familiar with Geoffrey of Monmouth, but I actually spent two semesters studying King Arthur and I've never even heard of the other two guys.

I am not saying you're wrong; you're a well-informed individual generally. I would like more information, though, as well as good reason I shouldn't sock my professor.

your professor was not doing their job. layoman was key, even if he only translated Wace.

Mike_G

2008-09-25, 11:07 PM

Ok, I accept that Tolkien is a very big influence on modern fantasy, especially D&D-style fantasy. However, I've got a bit of a question:

For those who think he is the defining influence, how many have read:

1) Poul Anderson, especially "The Broken Sword" and "Three Hearts and Three Lions"?

2) Fritz Leiber, especially the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories?

3) Robert E. Howard, especially the Conan stories?

4) Jack Vance, especially the Dying Earth books?

I've read some Lieber, including all the Fafhrd and the Mouser stuff, lots and lots of Howard, plus Moorcock's Eternal Champion stuff and Karl Edward Wagner's Kane stories.

The problem, I think, is that a lot of this stuff isn't in print. Publishing companies aren't interested in the slim, 150 page pulp fantasy that birthed the genre. Huge fat series are the norm. Even Lord of teh Rings is a short series compared to anything the current crop of Eddings, Goodkind, Brooks, and the late Jordan etc are cranking out.

I relly miss the feel of the old pulpy stories.

Leewei

2008-09-25, 11:44 PM

Thinking back to the first edition Deities and Demigods, I recall Elric saga, Arthurian legends, Lovecraft, and Leiber characters statted out, along with Greek, Egyptian, Sumerian and other mythologies. There's no doubt that D&D came out of several influences, not just Tolkien. Given the popularity of LotR as a movie and gaming franchise, it's no accident that creative and marketing efforts heavily accent D&D towards Tolkien.

Going back to the OP, I've been fortunate enough to read a few Fritz Leiber stories. I found them witty and entertaining fantasy literature. I'd bet that AD&D multi-classing was a more-or-less direct transfer form Leiber -- his characters had a patchwork of histories.

Moorcock really needs to be mentioned here as well. The notions of summoning and planar travel -- also the Law / Chaos duality in D&D both probably sprang from the pages of his books.

horseboy

2008-09-25, 11:49 PM

Yahzi

2008-09-26, 12:14 AM

I just need to stop for a moment and encourage everyone to read some more Jack Vance. If you like your sarcasm sharp to the point of drawing blood, your villains nasty and your heroes just as bad, you really, really should read Vance, starting with The Dying Earth. I love Eyes of the Overlord and Cugel's Saga, but then I also love Green Magic and Rhialto the Marvelous. And the Lyonesse series is like George R R Martin's excellent "Song of Ice and Fire," minus the pornography and gratiutous violence, with an extra helping of wit and cleverness.

LibraryOgre

2008-09-26, 01:02 AM

For the record: I didn't include Moorcock more because I didn't think of him, and haven't read much of his stuff.

I first slogged my way through the Lord of the Rings before the movies came out... I felt a sense of obligation to do that. One thing that struck me was how archetypical Gimli and Legolas were... you can clearly see their stamp upon the standard elves and dwarves of D&D. The orcs, somewhat, but it was of lesser impact since we've long played our orcs as more developed than Tolkien's orcs (who were pretty much just sword-fodder).

However, about last year I got a bug in my butt about the roots of modern fantasy, and started reading people like Anderson and Vance; this year, I added Leiber and Howard, since working in the library provided easy access to their material. While Tolkien's presentation of dwarves and elves resonated with the gamer in me, Leiber and Anderson blew me away with the D&Dness of their work. "Two Sought Adventure" (from 1939, 15 years before the Lord of the Rings was published) reads like a D&D adventure; "Three Hearts and Three Lions", an adventure on a slightly grander scale. Reading an adaptation of Ill Met In Lankhmar (where Mike Mignola, of Hellby fame, turned them into graphic novels), I was taken with how Fafhrd and Grey Mouser against the Theives' Guild presaged Drizz't and company doing the same thing.

Before I read them, I would've said Tolkien was the greatest influence on gaming. After reading them, I don't see his touch nearly as much.

Tsotha-lanti

2008-09-26, 02:14 AM

Why am I thinking Mignola has done covers for Lhankmar books? I recall them distinctly looking like the art of Hellboy.

And get reading Moorcock. Even if you don't like the repetition of themes, just giving the entire Elric saga a read-through is a great idea. (And, if you like it, get some Clark Ashton Smith collections and read his Zothique stories. The connection is clear, to me, especially in the way they both paint culturally and physically fantastic worlds out of nowhere.)

Avilan the Grey

2008-09-26, 02:19 AM

Oslecamo

2008-09-26, 02:41 AM

Actually, there's a book that's even older than any of those refered here, quite popular, and had a considerable influence in modern fantasy. What book you ask?

The bible of course:smallbiggrin:

Clerics, priests with long robes, paladins, all briming with light and good at healing. Big impossible stuff hapening. Demons, corruption. Witches, seduction. Great epic stories. You name it.

Not to mention the most popular version of angel(pristine guy/gal with white feathery wings).

Avilan the Grey

2008-09-26, 02:41 AM

Well, hang on there. What's an ogre? That's the question. Ogres are rarely humanoids in the way orcs are, they're usually giants or demons. The words are used interchangably. Orcs in the sense of armies of mortal humanoids are very much Tolkien's thing. As I say, there are analogues, but the kind of orcs we see in modern fantasy are Tolkien's animal.

Coming from a different mythological and linguistic culture, I had to get my head around these things when I was a kid...

(There are no real equivalent of "ogre" in Swedish, the closest translation would be "larger than average troll". Demons does not exist in Swedish mythology, really, and neither does Fairies (well the actual fairies do, but they are a singular people, not the lumping in of almost all supernatural that is not undead as in Irish and British mythology. Fairies is fairies, Trolls are Trolls, gnomes are gnomes and never shall these be related...).

In Swedish, Norwegian and probably Danish Giants and Trolls are the ones with an unclear border between them; the same stories can be told in different places either calling the "monster" a Giant or a Troll. Or a Giant troll...
The only real difference is that trolls always has tails. Giants usually don't. In case you spot one... :smalltongue:

Anyway my ranting is almost over.
My point, if there is such a thing is to point out that for me, at least, finding my way through Tolkien and other sources to the folklore of the British isles was a little difficult at first because although we are culturally quite close we are also very far appart. One big difference is that Scandinavia was the last area of Europe to become Christian, 500 years after the British isles. We have only been Christian for pretty exactly 1000 years.

I wish Google had existed when I was a kid, it would have been much easier to understand exactly the nature of the beasts I was reading about :smallsmile:

Avilan the Grey

2008-09-26, 02:44 AM

I suspect setting the evil brutes up as members of armies stemmed from Tolkien's experiences in WWI. The culture of orcs (as well as other races from LotR) was Tolkien's creation.

Very much so, remember the famous quote where he states that the difference between IRL WWI and the War of the Ring was that in WWI it was just orcs, fighting on both sides.

Avilan the Grey

2008-09-26, 02:52 AM

I first slogged my way through the Lord of the Rings before the movies came out... I felt a sense of obligation to do that. One thing that struck me was how archetypical Gimli and Legolas were... you can clearly see their stamp upon the standard elves and dwarves of D&D. The orcs, somewhat, but it was of lesser impact since we've long played our orcs as more developed than Tolkien's orcs (who were pretty much just sword-fodder).

I agree with Legolas and Gimli being archetypical.

The Orcs as you said, not that much; they are a little too Face-less and every time I read a dialogue like the one in the Tower, I wish I could read more. It seems like Tolkien already when writing the end of the LOTR trilogy started to regret the Irredeemable orcs that troubled him a lot later in life. Gorbag and Shagrat are people. Extremely unpleasant and cruel, but individuals enough to have a personality despite the direct influence from Sauron.

Anyway, it is quite clear that the creator(s) of D&D mainly borrowed the name from Tolkien; the green-skinned pig-sapiens that the original (A)D&D orcs were basically only had the name and maybe the foul breath in common with Tolkien's orcs.

Ocs, much more than Elves and Dwarves, has become so many different things in different settings. Personally my favourite orcs are definitely the followers of Gork and Mork and Mindy (well maybe not Mindy :smallbiggrin:). WAAAGH!

hamlet

2008-09-26, 09:18 AM

I think people are overstating the influence of Tolkien on D&D. Certainly he was an influence, but as Gygax himself said, bigger influences were Vance, Leiber, Howard, and Anderson along with Lovecraft, Dunsany, and a lot of the old pulp fantasy stories.

While the elves and dwarves certainly resemble Tolkien's, I think that the reason is not because Gary got them from Tolkien, but that he got them from the same root that Tolkien did, Norse and Anglican mythology. It's also of note that D&D elves do not, really, resemble their Tolkienish cousins (and I'm talking the original D&D elves here, not the myriad idiotic sub-races that sprang up like weeds everywhere).

I think, in the end, that Tolkien is seen as such a big influence is that, after 50 years, he remains fabulously popular (outselling the bible as I understand it) and moved out of subculture and into our main culture (even if only as an oddity) while the others stayed quietly in the realm of subculture.

It's exactly the same thing as Anime and Japanese sensibilities lately: they have "graduated" from the realm of a smallish subculture and "grown on us" until they are as familiar to us as things like The Brady Bunch and I Love Lucy.

When D&D moved from subculture and into the realm of culture, I think it kind of left behind a lot of things like Anderson and Lieber and the old pulp stories and picked up on the more modern and recent sensibilities instead.

Matthew

2008-09-26, 09:39 AM

Yulian

2008-09-26, 10:31 AM

For example, in a particular tale, Solomon Kane defeats an incorporeal demon. He does not wound it; pistol ball and sword thrust have no effect upon it. He beats it by being so grim, so determined, so fearless, so goddamn manly that the thing leaves him be. He scares the everloving crap out of a ghost made of hate and insanity. He is simple that badass. That's all there is to it.

I can only hope the upcoming Solomon Kane comic series from Dark Horse will be half as awesome as the stories. The Conan series is great so far, I have the entire run of both volumes so far.

- Yulian

hamlet

2008-09-26, 10:42 AM

That seems unlikely to me. Whilst Gygax certainly grew tired of the focus on Tolkien and his elves and dwarves are not exactly the same as Tolkien's, he did say that he added them because of the popularity of Tolkien. The trouble he had with the Tolkien estate over hobbits/halflings is I think more likely the reason he sought to disassociate D&D elves and dwarves from their Tolkien analogues.

I've never seen the dwarves and elves as direct Tolkien analogues. The halflings/hobbits . . . yeah . . . but admittedly that was intentional.

The elves, though, are far from their Tolkien cousins. Much closer to the Aelfar really.

Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lfar#Elves_in_Norse_mythology)

Matthew

2008-09-26, 11:25 AM

I've never seen the dwarves and elves as direct Tolkien analogues. The halflings/hobbits . . . yeah . . . but admittedly that was intentional.

The elves, though, are far from their Tolkien cousins. Much closer to the Aelfar really.

Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lfar#Elves_in_Norse_mythology)

I agree by 1979 that was certainly the case, but in 1974 when they first appear in D&D I have significant doubts. Even the Orcs and Hobgoblins are more akin to Tolkien's at that early stage.

Chronos

2008-09-26, 11:27 AM

How could Tolkien not think Britain had its own mythology? King Arthur!Britain had its own mythology, but England didn't. Arthur is Welsh. Ireland, which is to some degree "British" (in so far as it's part of the British Isles) has a wealth of folklore (Leprechauns, banshees, etc.), and Scotland has a bit of similar, but England doesn't.

While we're at it on fantasy authors not heavily influenced by Tolkien, you could also add Lloyd Alexander (who drew from many of the same sources as Tolkien, but not so much from Tolkien directly) and Anne McCaffrey. Alexander probably had more to do with the notion of the party than Tolkien did: His groups of protagonists are both smaller than Tolkien's and more diverse. Thirteen fighters, a rogue, and sometimes a wizard wouldn't make for a very effective D&D party, but a fighter, a sorceress, a paladin, a bard, and a rogue might.

AstralFire

2008-09-26, 11:33 AM

How could I forget the Prydain Chronicles? For a long time they WERE fantasy to me. Hell, in a lot of respects, they still are. I still think orcs and elves are kinda weird...

hamlet

2008-09-26, 11:39 AM

I agree by 1979 that was certainly the case, but in 1974 when they first appear in D&D I have significant doubts. Even the Orcs and Hobgoblins are more akin to Tolkien's at that early stage.

A difference of opinion then.

Personally, I never liked having my elves in D&D be clones of Tolkien, and they very rarely were.

Yes, they were haughty and sometimes inscruitable, but never the nigh demi-gods that they were in Middle Earth.

Personally, my favorite elf reimagining would have to go to Dark Sun's elves. They're just nifty in my not so humble imagination.

I've considered getting a project together to "refluff" all of the races and detail their cultures, but I've not the energy this week.

BardicDuelist

2008-09-26, 01:31 PM

What about Lloyd Alexander? I mean, the D&D bard practically screams of Adaon and Fflam. I think that this is important because it serves as a differentiating point both from the Celtic bard and the jester that would have been unplayable.

Many of the other things may have stemmed from earlier sources, but the band of heroes is present, powerful treasure, dark lord, and an evil sorceress.

Monsters are there in the form of Cauldron Born.

I doubt that this may have been a strong influence on EARLY D&D, but it can certainly be shown as an influence on later aspects of that game. Not greater than Tolkein, but possibly as great as some of the other authors mentioned.

Jayabalard

2008-09-26, 01:33 PM

What about Lloyd Alexander? I mean, the D&D bard practically screams of Adaon and Fflam. I think that this is important because it serves as a differentiating point both from the Celtic bard and the jester that would have been unplayable.Are you referring to a specific edition bard? 1e bards gained their spell abilities under druid tutelage and used the druid spell list, which seems like it is much more celtic bard influenced than 3e bards were.

Subotei

2008-09-26, 02:32 PM

I suspect setting the evil brutes up as members of armies stemmed from Tolkien's experiences in WWI. The culture of orcs (as well as other races from LotR) was Tolkien's creation. Those races' basic appearance and existence (in mythology) is what preexisted Tolkien.

Nail on the head there Raum. His work (and life) were massively influence by his experiences WWI. The approach of Frodo - the whole I hate it, but I must take on the task, even though I know there's no hope, is taken straight form the Trenches. The blasted landscapes of Mordor are the battlefields, Frodo the officer with his objective, Sam the faithful batman following behind. Its pure WWI stuff.

The other theme coming through LOTR (though not much discussed) is the clear anti-communist vibe: West vs East, evil faceless hordes etc - even the orcs have working class accents (as opposed to his posh middle class heroes). Perhaps this explains some of LOTRs massive popularity in the 50's and 60's??

Despite its faults, I love it. Lieber and Vance too. Not read Anderson, but will when I find a copy. Moorcock should be compulsory as far as I'm concerned. But it's clearly Tolkien's massive popularisation of the Fantasy genre that got the whole DnD thing going (thank God!)

Matthew

2008-09-26, 02:42 PM

The other theme coming through LOTR (though not much discussed) is the clear anti-communist vibe: West vs East, evil faceless hordes etc - even the orcs have working class accents (as opposed to his posh middle class heroes). Perhaps this explains some of LOTRs massive popularity in the 50's and 60's??

Well, it could be read like that, or it could be read in a very religious way. Both readings Tolkien explicitly rejected, if I recall correctly, though that doesn't mean that they are not present, only that Tolkien's assertion was that they were not intended (I prefer the religious reading myself).

Subotei

2008-09-26, 02:56 PM

Well, it could be read like that, or it could be read in a very religious way. Both readings Tolkien explicitly rejected, if I recall correctly, though that doesn't mean that they are not present, only that Tolkien's assertion was that they were not intended (I prefer the religious reading myself).

Our backgrounds, influences and beliefs give us subconscious prejudices. Whos to say what LOTR would've been like if written by an atheist Tolkien brought up on a Soviet collective farm?

Matthew

2008-09-26, 03:00 PM

Our backgrounds, influences and beliefs give us subconscious prejudices. Whos to say what LOTR would've been like if written by an atheist Tolkien brought up on a Soviet collective farm?

It could well have been; I only mention it because Tolkien rejected any explicit or intentional influence from those sources in regards to the structure or appearance of the story (always assuming, I am remembering correctly).

Saph

2008-09-26, 03:22 PM

It could well have been; I only mention it because Tolkien rejected any explicit or intentional influence from those sources in regards to the structure or appearance of the story (always assuming, I am remembering correctly).

Yes, he had a very specific disclaimer to that effect in the Foreword. I think your interpretation's a bit far-fetched, Subotei - calling it 'clear' is definitely wrong. Lots of people claim that LotR is 'obviously' an allegory for their particular hobby-horse, but Tolkein wrote a pretty thorough rebuttal. I'll quote him verbatim on this one, just because I love Tolkein and I've always loved that formal pointed Oxford English writing style. :)

From the Foreword of Lord of the Rings:

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical . . . The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels . . .

"The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied . . .

"Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed dominion of the author.

"An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences . . ."

People still try to write 'interpretations' of LotR, of course, but I've yet to see one that's half as convincing as Tolkein's own words. :)

- Saph

AstralFire

2008-09-26, 03:27 PM

Death to Death of the Author.

Almn

2008-09-26, 03:27 PM

1) No.

Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun/Long Sun

I love these!
Nice to find out that someone has read them!

AKA_Bait

2008-09-26, 04:39 PM

I can't believe I forgot C.S. Lewis. Half of the Chronicles of Narnia was published before LOTR, too. Considering the volume of pre-Hobbit fantasy, claiming The Hobbit (a minor book in any case) was the influence there would be a bit silly.

Excuse me, but on that point you are 100% incorrect. Tolkien was an enormous influence on Lewis' fiction writings. The men were close friends. I have eaten at the very table in an oxford pub they and a few others (calling themselves 'the inklings') would regularly go to, discuss writing and go over oneanothers drafts. Timeframe of the publication of The Hobbit is beside the point in this particular case.

Tolkien claimed to have based the term orc on Beowulf as you say, but 'orke' was in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'reminiscent of giant or ogre' a hundred and fifty years before Tolkien. From Wikipedia:

I suspect he wasn't lying. He did teach Beowulf at Oxford you know.

Clerics, priests with long robes, paladins, all briming with light and good at healing. Big impossible stuff hapening. Demons, corruption. Witches, seduction. Great epic stories. You name it.

Not to mention the most popular version of angel(pristine guy/gal with white feathery wings).

Well, sure. The Bible was probably a signifigant influence on Tolkien, even if not wholly consciously. He was a relativley devout christian.

That seems unlikely to me. Whilst Gygax certainly grew tired of the focus on Tolkien and his elves and dwarves are not exactly the same as Tolkien's, he did say that he added them because of the popularity of Tolkien. The trouble he had with the Tolkien estate over hobbits/halflings is I think more likely the reason he sought to disassociate D&D elves and dwarves from their Tolkien analogues.

That's what I figure as well.

But it's clearly Tolkien's massive popularisation of the Fantasy genre that got the whole DnD thing going (thank God!)

Also agreed. I think in terms of influence on games we should also consider the types of games most play and what has influenced individual DM's in terms of their current world/character creation. As evidenced alone by the fact that even we dedicated geeks who post on message boards about it haven't read many of the folks mentioned (I've read only Anderson and Vance) but I'd bet nearly every person on the boards, in every section, has read or seen LotR. That's an important factor in how influential an author has been on gaming.

Raum

2008-09-26, 05:06 PM

I suspect he wasn't lying. Who said anything about lying?

Hoggmaster

2008-09-26, 05:47 PM

We must also remember that Tolkien was first and foremost a scholar not a professional author (although some professors of mine were authors first, educators second). The primary writings (those concerning us in our forum here) were developed to give a mythology to the languages he created. Myths are the essence of a language. They cause the language to breathe and live.

I have read all of the OP's list of book save the Jack Vance novels. Keep meaning to read Vance but real life and a slight case of ADD usually takes over.

Tolkien's impression on modern fantasy (not refering to D&D because that opens other boxes best left unopened) is undeniable but not solitary. The best modern fantasy, in my opinion, tends to not utilize Tolkienesque paradigms (linear quest, deus ex machina, et al.) but it is rather hard to find (modern) fantasy that disassociates itself from Tolkien. Most authors I have read tend to follow the old 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' methodology of writing.

Old_Man

2008-09-26, 06:22 PM

...even we dedicated geeks who post on message boards about it haven't read many of the folks mentioned...

That is because kids today spend too much time playing the Nintendos and the Youtubes instead of reading. :smallwink:

Anderson, Leiber, Howard, and Vance are on my 'must read' list, and you will certainly see their influence in gaming (especially D&D), but first read the works of Edmund Spenser (if you can; I prefer Mary Macleod's modern version of Spenser), William Morris, Lord Dunsany, George MacDonald, Eric R. Eddison, the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Anderson, Lewis Carroll, and James Branch Cabell to see how they were influenced.

The average gamer (and the average game designer) will probably not read everything from the 100 greatest fiction authors list, but D&D was developed over time by many people, not just Gygax. The more you read, the more you will see the origins of different aspects of the game.

Tolkien has the popular advantage because his books have been made into several movies over the past 30 years. I read the Hobbit before and after the 1977 film and will probably read it again before and after the 2011 version. The only reason I reread Job: A Comedy of Justice this year was that I had forgotten that I had read it in 1984. (Yes, I meant Heinlein not Cabell.) If it were made into a movie, I might reread it on purpose... just like his 'other' movie/book. Then maybe Heinlein would be as influential in fantasy as he is in space infantry combat games.

Although, I believe that the Holy Bible, Homer, and Shakespeare are even more influential than any of the above.

LibraryOgre

2008-09-26, 07:19 PM

Anderson, Leiber, Howard, and Vance are on my 'must read' list, and you will certainly see their influence in gaming (especially D&D), but first read the works of Edmund Spenser (if you can; I prefer Mary Macleod's modern version of Spenser), William Morris, Lord Dunsany, George MacDonald, Eric R. Eddison, the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Anderson, Lewis Carroll, and James Branch Cabell to see how they were influenced.

Alternative to reading Spenser:

Take a sharp stick. Jab it in your eye. Do that three or four times.

WhiteHarness

2008-09-26, 07:54 PM

Nonsense. I quite like the first book of The Faerie Queen. But only the first...
:smalltongue:

Alternative to reading Spenser:

Take a sharp stick. Jab it in your eye. Do that three or four times.

Yahzi

2008-09-26, 08:25 PM

James Branch Cabell
See... I wasn't even going to mention him. Although I love his stuff, I don't think it's very accessible to a modern audience. But it does have the same flavor as Vance.

Jayabalard

2008-09-26, 10:07 PM

Edit2: I can't believe I forgot C.S. Lewis. Half of the Chronicles of Narnia was published before LOTR, too. Considering the volume of pre-Hobbit fantasy, claiming The Hobbit (a minor book in any case) was the influence there would be a bit silly.THe first of the narnia books were written in 1949; Even though it was published much later, the lord of the rings had already been written at that time (between 1937 and 1949) Tolkien regularly read it at meetings of the inklings, so Lewis had heard quite a bit (if not all) of the story before he started writing the Narnia books.

Knaight

2008-09-26, 10:36 PM

nagora

2008-09-27, 05:56 AM

That and they were close friends, Lewis read the lord of the rings long before it was published and was the reason it got published. That said Narnia and Lord of the Rings didn't have a huge amount of influence on each other.
Indeed. Narnia's level of symbolic sophistication is far lower than LotR's and although the latter makes, I think, almost all the same moral points as the former, LotR is readable as an adult while re-reading Narnia is to despoil a childhood memory as the clumsy metaphors clunk into place. "Out of the Silent Planet" is the same.

Part of this may be Lewis's relatively late conversion (by JRRT) to Catholicism - he may simply have been inexperienced in thinking about these things - but I'm not sure on the timings so I may be wrong.

Certainly, I can't imagine Lewis (or anyone else) producing as powerful a vision/metaphor of the Christian afterlife as "Leaf by Niggle". Even as a militant and sarcy atheist I felt the spiritual power of that Tolkien story far beyond any of the folktales in the "Gospels". Mind you, it is also partly autobiographical, which may be why JRRT was able to put so much into it.

Satyr

2008-09-27, 07:29 AM

I always had the impression that Tolkien's influence on the development of fantasy literature was enormous. While I think that many of the topics he used where not really originally, he put these topics from older heroic sagas and tales into a condensed and easy consumable form.
The influence on the genre was big enough that I have sometimes the impression that good Fantasy is not based on Tolkien but on the emancipation from his works and the way he developed a fantastic scenario.
I also think that during the 60 years since the publication, the Lord of the Ring can still fulfill the role of the standard works. There are too many elements in it (lack of characterisation, infantile black and white morals) that makes it quite obvious that it may have the function of the genre's progentor, but there are many authors and books that are at least as good as Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings. George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire is one of the most obvious examples.

Matthew

2008-09-27, 09:43 AM

I don't think I would choose the word "infantile" to describe the moral outlook of the Lord of the Rings; it seems like a rather modern conceit, given that the morality is rooted in thousands of years of moral debate and philosophical discussion. The morality is intentionally constructed, but hardly infantile, or even simplistic. Given the sort of "epic" style that was attempted, the characterisation (or lack thereof) and moral exposition (as unconcerned with exploration as it may be), seems quite sophisticated and adult orientated to me.

The attempt to escape Tolkien's shadow is a laudable one, and speaks to either his enduring popularity or the skill of his writing, or perhaps both; the latter is quite subjective, so it is hard to be definitive. However, I feel that setting up Tolkien as a foil only further emphasises his influence on fantasy, and consequently fails in the objective of escape. Authors should be concerned only with their own writing, and not the degree to which it is differentiated from Tolkien.