The Campaign Builder's Guild

Off the bat, I'll be the first to admit that I've been pretty terrible at posting the last year, but hopefully I can remedy that. For my absence, to make a long story short, I will wholeheartedly blame grad school. However, that is not to say that the CBG and world-building is no longer interesting. Quite the opposite. Without boring you all with the details, I've read a fair share of French post-structuralism the last year - Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, Barthes - and it occasionally got me thinking about the theory of discourse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse#Structuralism) and how it applies to how we approach fantasy. For instance, why are elves, dwarves, and orcs so pervasive? Why are most settings placed within a medieval time-frame? Why is magic so pervasive? Why is Tolkien seen as the cornerstone of modern fantasy? Why are orcs and goblins usually bad guys? Whyare orcs and goblins so prevalent anyway? I obviously have my own opinions on this matter, but I would like to think of what other people think on the status of modern fantasy.

*As a side note, I think we here at the CBG are far ahead of the curve when it comes to being creative - Steerpikes Cadaverous Earth, L. Crayon's Jade Stage, Crow's Broken Verge, and the awesome but ill-fated Lexicon project to name only a few - but I suppose I'm speaking more about fantasy in general here, so I hope no one takes offense to me ranting about something they have in their setting, as I am guilty as much as the next world-builder of falling into convention. 

Good questions.  Here's a stab at a few answers (or the beginning of answers)...

Quote from: LeetzFor instance, why are elves, dwarves, and orcs so pervasive?

They're prominent in Tolkien, who's a major early source for D&D; along with Halflings/Hobbits these are basically Middle Earth's "core races."  Tolkien's popularity amongst fantasy readers has enshrined/calcified these creatures in the collective imagination.  One could also make the argument (perhaps) that the listed three in particular exemplify aspects of the human psyche.  Certainly they resonate with a variety of mythological and cultural tropes that permeate modern culture.  I'm sure there's massive amounts of Tolkien scholarship dedicated to reading the three races in terms of the geopolitical landscape of the mid-twentieth century, as well.

Quote from: LeetzWhy are most settings placed within a medieval time-frame?

This is an interesting one.

Firstly, within the gaming community specifically, the reason is partly historical, I think.  D&D grew out of Chainmail, an expressly medieval wargame.  In fact, the first "dungeon crawl" was reportedly a scenario in which the players' forces infiltrated a medieval keep via the cellars and dungeons.  D&D still looms large, and its roots are distinctly quasi-medieval.

Secondly, fantasy grew in part out of the Gothic romances and other genres that specifically hearkened back to a medieval past as part of a reaction against the perceived sterility of Enlightenment rationalism.  The prodigies, monsters, sorcery, miracles, demons, superstitions, horrors, and wonders of the Gothic and of fantasy were associated closely with the medieval mindset, in contrast to the Neo-Classical philosophies of the Enlightenment.  Since the medieval period has become associated as a time of "unreason" and superstition, it's a natural setting for fantasy.

Quote from: LeetzWhy is Tolkien seen as the cornerstone of modern fantasy?

A tough question to answer.  In essence, I'd say that it's because Tolkien is read widely even outside of fantasy circles, but that's not really an answer (why is Tolkien read widely and not Leiber or Vance?).  Moorcock would probably say it's because The Lord of the Rings flatters the bourgeois values and nostalgia the reading public desired, comforting and consoling readers with easy answers rather than challenging them; The Lord of the Rings tends to affirm the established moral/political status quo rather than call it into question.  It champions conservative power-structures like the monarchy and Roman Catholic moralism, is deeply suspicious of progress, and avoids sexuality pretty much altogether, as opposed to more radical fantasy that interrogates and problematizes power-structures and institutions (Gormenghast comes to mind - or A Song of Ice and Fire).  Reeling from the nastiness of the second world war and longing for a simpler time, the reading public found Tolkien's tale comforting; rather than forcing them to address the problems of classism, racism, and traditionalism that were prevalent in their culture, the text exalts the typical middle class way of life, from the idealized servant/master relationship of Frodo and Sam to the paternalistic, fatherly wisdom of Gandalf to the benevolent absolutism of Aragorn.

Added to this, Tolkien's prose is pretty readable and pedestrian, compared to the baroque excesses of someone like Lovecraft, Peake, or even Howard, or the rich, stilted strangeness of Vance.  All of these factors may have gone into LoTR's popularity.  I actually like The Lord of the Rings quite a lot - I thint there's much, much more to love than there is to revile - but it's not un-problematic, and its influence on modern fantasy hasn't always been for the good.

Quote from: LeetzWhy are orcs and goblins usually bad guys?  Why are orcs and goblins so prevalent anyway?

For one thing, they're a nice archetypal Other onto which we can project our (conscious or subconscious) racist/xenopohobic aggresions - still familiar enough not to stray into alienating unfathomableness (Orcs are hateable; Cthulhu is not), but different enough - and ugly enough - that killing them en masse doesn't invite as many troublesome ethical quandries.

Why is Tolkien the cornerstone of Fantasy? Because between the Hobbit and LotR, he has sold over 250 millions copies of his books. Very little from that early era can touch what Tolkien accomplished, heck very little from today can top that. The only Fantasy series that has sold more is Harry Potter! Tolkien tapped into something special with those books, something that even the likes of C.S. Lewis, Jack Vance, Moorcock, Le Guin, Hoard, et al, simply did not, or could not. There's so much to love about Middle-Earth, from its non-human, humanoid species, its wondrous depth, its expansive linguistics, its solid story telling, its enjoyable prose, its good vs. evil premise, its journey of friendship through adversity, to everything above and more. It's almost primal, in a way.

I remember something R.A. Salvatore said when he was at a con, it was that he discovered Fantasy through Tolkien. He fell in love with the genre and proceeded to devour all the other books that were released at that time, which amounted to a shelf in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section. It's about that time when he found D&D.

I think if you put Warhammer Fantasy and D&D up as the "I found fantasy, then I found this game" you would capture a huge swathe of the Fantasy reading public, especially the writers. D&D and Warhammer Fantasy are intensely derivative from Tolkien, complete with Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Goblins, Halflings, Ents, Ogres, Trolls and all the other races Tolkien helped to cement into our minds.

Most people fall in love Tolkien. They then play games that blatantly borrow from his works. Years ater, a small segment of those readers/players become authors. Their views of Fantasy are going to be defined, in large part, by either an adoration of- or a denial of Tolkien, both of which further cement Tolkien's per-eminance in the genre.

The idea that Fantasy is medieval goes back to the founders of the genre, most of whom wrote about simpler, more pure times (i.e. Medieval), which just harkens back to the romanticization of the Medieval period (and revival of interest in that era) that had occurred in the 19th century.

Yes! I agree on all points, SP (Also, I figured this would be up your alley.) Especially your critique on Tolkien that he is somewhat of a reactionary in supporting traditional Anglo-Saxon ideals like monarchy, social hierarchy, and a religiously-tinged aversion to sex. But those critiques beg even more questions as to why a large portion of modern fantasy doesn't address such things as classism, sexism (I'm sure we can all agree that fantasy art is blatantly sexist, anything by Frank Franzetta, 80% of contemporary comic books, or bra armor) and, this is what irks me the most, racism in the form of moralized or ethically homogeneous races. I once wrote a paper in undergrad that tied the regions of Middle-Earth to WWI-WWII European nation states - Mordor is a clear allegory to Nazi Germany, Rohan is France, the Corsairs of Umbar are Ottoman Turkey, Haradwaith is the Orient as per Said, etc. The geographical placement even fits disturbingly well.

Now, don't get me wrong, their is something nostalgic and comforting about a Tolkeinesque fantasy, my entire 'Meatloaf Setting' is based upon that entire premise, more or less. However, do we, as the CBG as a whole, which I believe has an incredible level of intelligence and creativity compared to the world of prepackaged adventure modules and system-slaves, have a certain obligation to the push the limits of fantasy? There is a China Miéville quote which I think I will always remember. While I'm sure I'm butchering it, it was something along the lines of "Tolkien is a sore on the ass of fantasy." At first I completely disagreed, as I love Tolkien, as I'm sure much of us do. However, I think there is a point to his statement, in that the fantasy community (that's a huge essentialism, I know) is too strongly tied to the Tolkien tradition of Anglo-Saxon-Nordic nostalgia that focuses on kings and warriors and Big Bad Guys as opposed to the confronting and interpreting the modern human condition in all its nasty and complicated shades, which is what good art forms should do. And isn't world building just another art
form?

[EDIT] I also agree with all you say EE, but I also feel that as great, and I mean great in all senses of the word, as the LoTR is that we shouldn't press forward into the new and uncomfortable. Indeed, I would argue that Tolkien's version of fantasy was intensely shaped by his own experiences in the World Wars and transition into the late modern era. I don't see why our fantasy can't incorporate issues of our own experiences in today's world. Tolkien is amazing, he has his faults, but is amazing nonetheless, but what I'm really asking is why it seems so difficult for the fantasy community as a whole to break ties with Middle-earth and forge something new and unique to our time.

Quote from: LeetzI'm sure we can all agree that fantasy art is blatantly sexist, anything by Frank Franzetta, 80% of contemporary comic books, or bra armor

Actually I'd tend to defend Frazetta to a certain extent.  Though sometimes he paints women in positions of vulnerability and subservience (http://scifiward.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FrankFrazetta-Conan-the-Adventurer1.jpg), many of his paintings depict woman in postures of power (http://imgs.abduzeedo.com/files/articles/frank_frazetta/1.jpg), mastery (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-TFM-_z_bK7g/TYtyUeCKkxI/AAAAAAAAAKM/U48dGLs6ArM/s640/f42.jpg), and capability (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nvlC7dHtqsA/S7SF9NuPDqI/AAAAAAAAAC4/c2UzjoKi5kY/s640/frank_frazetta_beautybeast_jpg.jpg).  While his female subjects are usually unclothed or barely clothed and certainly sexualized, so are many (http://www.frankfrazetta.org/images/frank_frazetta_thedisagreement.jpg) of his male subjects (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xB_jn7B4qDE/TtR7CdTZS2I/AAAAAAAAJgU/I49KPAfsuD4/s400/frank_frazetta_tarzanandtheantmen.jpg).  The nakedness of Frazetta's subjects is, to me, more about celebrating and affirming human power, beauty, and strength than about demeaning or blithely objectifying the female gender.  Moreover, both Frazetta's men and women, though depicted with a great deal of sensuality, aren't rendered in a way that conforms strictly to prevailing cultural ideals in every sense.  His male figures are muscular, but they tend more towards a certain lithe, "natural" physique rather than the grotesque muscularity of body-builders; his female figures are never stick-thin, but nor do they possess the asburd breasts of many bosomy comic-book heroines.  Is there an erotic element to Frazetta's art?  Unmistakably. Is it sometimes problematic?  On occasion, perhaps, but by and large I think the reaction against Frazetta's fantasy work is tied to the kind of knee-jerk anti-pornography feminism that tends to object to any aesthetic depiction of female, unclothed bodies - as opposed to sex-positive feminism, which can embrace such imagery as empowering in its own way.

Frankly (oooh... bad pun) I think there's more room for a post-colonial critique of Frazetta's work - an awful lot of "noble savages" and other "exotic," stereotyped figures populate his paintings.  Although, granted, that's frequently a function of what he's illustrating, the source material itself, rather than his presentation of it.

Quote from: LeetzTolkien is a sore on the ass of fantasy

"A wen on the arse of fantasy" I believe were his words.  He has since recanted this opinion to a great extent: firstly because he discovered a wen refers only to boils of the face, and secondly because he's come to feel  (http://www.omnivoracious.com/2009/06/there-and-back-again-five-reasons-tolkien-rocks.html)that Tolkien is actually pretty amazing in many ways (among other things he particularly praises Tolkien's monster-making).

Quote from: LeetzHowever, I think there is a point to his statement, in that the fantasy community (that's a huge essentialism, I know) is too strongly tied to the Tolkien tradition of Anglo-Saxon-Nordic nostalgia that focuses on kings and warriors and Big Bad Guys as opposed to the confronting and interpreting the modern human condition in all its nasty and complicated shades, which is what good art forms should do.

Personally I'm less attached to a proscriptive definition of what art should or shouldn't do - I think, for example, that's there's plenty of great art that says very, very little about the modern human condition (a great deal of Lovecraft, for example, who is obviously profoundly disinterested in people altogether).  But certainly fantasy can be used radically, rather than nostalgically; it can interrogate the status quo as well as upholding it, and there's value in fantasy that does that.

If you get away from D&D/Warhammer/Tolkien/Series-from-the-80's, the Fantasy genre has largely moved on. A Song of Fire and Ice doesn't really have that many Tolkein-isms (although I have only read the first book and watched the TV show). Harry Potter did contain Goblins and Elves but they are nothing like their kin from Middle-Earth. The Red Sonja and Conan comics are not Tolkien-ish either. Very little in Rokugan is inspired by Tolkien.

I think Video Games are much more guilty of ripping LotR off than literature these days, especially the core 3 races (Humans, Elves and Dwarves) and a heavy focus on good vs. evil.

There haven't been that many Fantasy TV shows recently but The Legend of the Seeker did not feel like Tolkien. Neither does Game of Thrones, Merlin, The Last Airbender, Robin Hood, Samurai Jack, Xena, Hercules, etc.

When you think about it, a lot of fantasy has diverged into more modern settings, with things like Buffy, Angel, Twilight, True Blood, Dark Shadows, Vampire Diaries, Being Human, Charmed, Highlander, the Adams Family, Lost, etc. They've merged fantasy with modernity to create an entirely different sub-genre. Having said that, many would not consider these to be proper Fantasy since they lack a non-modern setting, which, I suppose, is due to Tolkien's shadow.

Then you have Anime, which draws from a completely separate background than western literature. The foundations are different enough so that when they do borrow from the west, it often leads to cool/unique interpretations (Slayers, Those Who Hunt Elves, Code Geass, Berserk, Claymore, Escaflowne , Lodoss War, etc.).

Superheroes also embrace Fantasy, especially through the likes of Thor, Wonder Woman, Hercules, Zatana, Demon Knights, etc.

Then you have Wuxia but outside of a small number of films, they don't have much sway in the West. Hmm, I suppose there are a lot of Samurai and Kung Fu movies though many of those lean towards Historical Fiction and non-fantasy action flicks.

If you want to get technical, Star Wars is a Fantasy flick with a sci-fi veneer (so, Sci-Fantasy).

Understanding a lot of the 'why' of what we do, or an industry and a movement,  often creates a better 'what' we end up producing.

Gygax tried hard to convince us that he was not using Tolkien as his primary influence, but I think this was partially to increase his fan base and also because his early stuff drew a lawsuit threat (he had ents instead of treants, etc).  Tolkien was also using a cultural zeitgeist; as his stuff is, as mentioned heavily drawn from his background and what he taught.

Tolkien's use of language should not be underestimated either, nor his use of the Hobbits as his 'speaking voice'.  The reader's ability to grow with them and identify with them as sort of outsiders in the greater, deeper world was incredibly well done. 

All that said and acknowledged, I think Tolkien's influence has hit a certain point and is now diminishing in the hobby.  Although people often like to have a certain level of predictable touchstones in their game, you can have a game with no elves.  Or no hobbits.  or no orcs.

Quote from: Elemental ElfWhen you think about it, a lot of fantasy has diverged into more modern settings, with things like Buffy, Angel, Twilight, True Blood, Dark Shadows, Vampire Diaries, Being Human, Charmed, Highlander, the Adams Family, Lost, etc.  Having said that, many would not consider these to be proper Fantasy since they lack a non-modern setting, which, I suppose, is due to Tolkien's shadow.

I think this is partly true, though it should be noted that Tolkien didn't invent the idea of a "secondary world" by any stretch of the imagination.  Elfland, Newhon, Hyperborea etc all existed well before Middle Earth.  Tolkien's world is of unusual depth in the sense that much of it "exists" beyond the pages of his stories, though.

Interestingly, I think the bulk of your examples would generally be classified more as horror rather then fantasy (Highlander and perhaps Lost aside).  Horror and the Gothic have always been hybrid genres and, in a sense, gave birth to fantasy - or, looked at another way, fantasy can be seen as an umbrella term that includes horror.  I think, though, that the specifically horrific nature of the works you cited helps to explain the fact that they're set in the real world, since horror is frequently about the eruption of the strange and alien into the quotidian (not, of course, always).  Your examples are also all television based - television and film have typically shied away from fantasy in favour of SF and horror, with a handful of exceptions.

I think Tolkien's legacy is much more tangible in the literary world, though that is beginning to wither to.  Big series like Shannara, the Inheritance Cycle, and the Wheel of Time, which I think were all fairly Tolkien-derivative to a greater or lesser extent, are either finished or finishing.  It seems like Tolkienism is gradually being replaced as the pre-eminent fantasy template with various gritty quasi-historical stuff (The First Law trilogy, A Song of Ice and Fire, The Black Company, etc).

Quote from: Lord VreegGygax tried hard to convince us that he was not using Tolkien as his primary influence, but I think this was partially to increase his fan base and also because his early stuff drew a lawsuit threat (he had ents instead of treants, etc).

This is so true!  It's impossible to take Gygax seriously when he spouts this silliness.  Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Wizards, secret doors, dragons - come on, Gary.  Sure D&D has a lot of other sources, but did the early monster manuals ever stat out Shoggoths, Night-Gaunts, Deodands, Sandestins, or sentient rats?  Nope.  Balrog rip-offs, treents, Orcs, Goblins, and Worgs though?  Of course!

Ah.  Yes. 
The Black Company.  Few books have had more to do with the GS game system, and in the creation of at least one of the major mythic cycles.  And I was one of those guys who caught Martin as he first came out, and the grittiness of both have the feel I always look for.  The magic of the Black Company always was interesting, as well.

To an earlier point, Tolkein's work was deeper and multilayered, with the poetry and prophecy well done, and it did catch fire in the sixties and seventies, and it was a grateful respite from the desperate cultural clashes of the day.  It was in every house I went to, and in the early 80s, my high school had 2 semesters of it (which I actually helped teach, which is another story). 

""The impulse is being called reactionary now, but lovers of Middle-earth want to go there. I would myself, like a shot. For in the end it is Middle-earth and its dwellers that we love, not Tolkien's considerable gifts in showing it to us. I said once that the world he charts was there long before him, and I still believe it. He is a great enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams and twilight fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live, a green alternative to each day's madness here in a poisoned world. We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers—thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams."
― Peter S. Beagle, from the forward

You can see the cultural response of the time.  Despite the other real titans of that time (Herbert's Dune was not mentioned, Pohl, Delany, and of course Zelazny), none of them had this kind of penetration.

Quote from: Lord VreegDespite the other real titans of that time (Herbert's Dune was not mentioned, Pohl, Delany, and of course Zelazny), none of them had this kind of penetration.

Unless I'm mistaken, those authors are more in the '60s and '70s than the late '30s through to the '50s (when The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were published), but I do take your point, especially since Tolkien's texts rose to real cultural prominence in those later decades.  The question is, why this degree of penetration?  How can it be explained?  Here are just a few theories:

1) The Lord of the Rings is just intrinsically, aesthetically superior to other works of fantasy at the time.  I don't think this is the case at all, but I think some people think this.  Is The Lord of the Rings (1954-1955) vastly superior to The Dying Earth (1950), Titus Groan (1946), Gormenghast (1950), The Once and Future King (1938-1941), earlier works like The Worm Ouroboros (1922) or The King of Elfland's Daughter (1924), or later ones like Stormbringer (1965) or The Chronicles of Prydain (1964-1968)?  Some may prefer it to those works, but I think it's a big stretch to say it's just "better" aesthetically.  Many of those texts are the stylistic equals of Tolkien, and they often have just as many (or more) horrors, wonders, engaging themes, strange creatures, fantastic kingdoms, etc.  These are powerful, original, fantastic works, and many in my mind are every bit the equal of Tolkien's texts; while all of them have major followings, they've got nothing on Tolkien's sales or cultural penetration, and I don't think it's because they're simply inferior works.  

2) The rich secondary world-building Tolkien used for Middle Earth inclines itself to the formation of an obsessive fandom, a community of readers who come to revere not only the texts themselves but the greater world behind them.  I think there's a lot of merit to this possibility.  The appendices of The Lord of the Rings, the maps, the invented languages - all of these things encourage a type of fandom and appreciation that the other texts don't, at least not to the same degree.

3) The Lord of the Rings flatters the cultural values of the time in which is was published.  The reading public seized on The Lord of the Rings because its prose style and themes confirm what it wanted to hear.  Its heroes are traditionally "moral" characters and the text presents a simplistic ethical binary with stark and mostly obvious distinctions between good and evil, with little room for ambiguity (in my mind, the books' greatest moments are the places it rises above this crude dichotomy - in the presentation of characters like Boromir and Gollum, for example).  The story is about defending the unquestioned status quo rather than striving for progress or fighting against the injustices of the pre-existing system; when corruption is present it's either highly individualized (Denethor) or totally external (Sauron), it's never the fault of a fundamentally unjust society (at last not a human/hobbit/elven one).   Tolkien's prose is often evocative, but it's rarely very challenging, encouraging a wide readership.

Well, we WERE talking About why he hold in the gaming world, which started in the 70s.   That is the time-relevancy connection.  My comments about cultural penetration are predicated on the idea that the early part of the hobby was also a very, very pro Tolkien time.


I do think your nod to the depth and breadth of Middle Earth is well thought out for some markets, as is the frankly multi level appeal....kids and teens grokked it on its base level, but there were levels below it.   And as I said, the viewpoint taken, from the hobbits, was brilliant.  Better, perhaps not, but accessible on many levels, yes.

After I posted, I was thinking along the same lines in that many of my examples could very well be seen as Horror, rather than Fantasy. I believe the blanket term is Speculative Fiction (though I seriously doubt many non-nerds would know to call it that), which covers Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Horror. I'm not sure what constitutes the difference between the two, especially as they converge. Are the terms really necessary? I mean one of my favorite Sci-Fi movies (Alien) could easily be called Horror as it has all the hallmarks of a horror (scary beast, constrained location, lack of information, fight-or-flight, lots of death, etc.).

Let's see what Wikipedia defines as "Fantasy": Fantasy is a genre of fiction that commonly uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary plot element, theme, or setting. Many works within the genre take place in imaginary worlds where magic and magical creatures are common. Fantasy is generally distinguished from the genres of science fiction and horror by the expectation that it steers clear of scientific and macabre themes, respectively, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three, all of which are subgenres of speculative fiction.

And Horror: Horror fiction, horror literature and also horror fantasy is a genre of literature, which is intended to, or has the capacity to frighten its readers, scare or startle viewers/readers by inducing feelings of horror and terror. It creates an eerie and frightening atmosphere. Horror can be either supernatural or non-supernatural. Often the central menace of a work of Horror fiction can be interpreted as a metaphor for the larger fears of a society.

Given these definitions, can we really call Twilight horror? It doesn't really try to scare you, in fact it goes out of its way to explain, rationalize and humanize the supernatural. Though he may not be the best written character, Edward (the vampire) is not definitely not Dracula, and tries his best to protect the woman he loves even though it causes himself and his family great anguish and puts everything he holds dear in peril. By the second movie, the only scary thing was seeing the BBEGs do bad things to normal people (which is a common trope for establishing evil people's evil credentials). The books could be seen as macabre, I suppose, but they have (what I assume a young girl would find to be) a happy ending, nor does it necessarily dwell on the darker aspects of the supernatural (save for inner teen-age turmoil/angst).


One could argue that Terry Brooks came out of the "Tolkien Generation" of the 70's (like so many other authors), while Christopher Paolini was so young that he was unduly influenced by LotR and Star Wars. Robert Jordan definitely doesn't fit into this categorization easily, although his first book was written (though not published) way back in 1984 (which is just 7 years after Shannarra's first book).

I definitely agree that Fantasy seems to be heading in more of a less-fantastical-grittier direction, although there has always been a market for those kinds of stories. I wonder if the love of low fantasy isn't being influenced by the meteoric rise of post-apocalyptic movies and TV shows where the heroes are down to earth and approach challenges in a fairly realistic manner? There's clearly a very large market for that kind of fiction, which could easily be leading authors down the low fantasy river.

My inclination would be to say that during the good times, people like high fantasy and during the bad, they prefer low but I don't think that would hold true given that the late 70's and early 80's were bad economically and yet it birthed so much high fantasy.

Quote from: Lord VreegGygax tried hard to convince us that he was not using Tolkien as his primary influence, but I think this was partially to increase his fan base and also because his early stuff drew a lawsuit threat (he had ents instead of treants, etc).

Quote from: SPThis is so true!  It's impossible to take Gygax seriously when he spouts this silliness.  Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Wizards, secret doors, dragons - come on, Gary.  Sure D&D has a lot of other sources, but did the early monster manuals ever stat out Shoggoths, Night-Gaunts, Deodands, Sandestins, or sentient rats?  Nope.  Balrog rip-offs, treents, Orcs, Goblins, and Worgs though?  Of course!

Ah but how many of those "Tolkien" creations can be used under the guise of "they're from mythology!" rather than "I am blatantly stealing from another author's work!"?  

Elves, Dwarves, Wizards, Magic Doors, Dragons, Walking-Trees, Goblins, evil Wolves, etc. are all very generic, even if Gygax was borrowing heavily from LotR.

I wonder some times what Sci-Fi would look like today if it had the equivalent of a LotR. Would we be busting open our copies of Stars and Aliens, while crating the wondrously complex history of the Andromeda Galaxy, where Humans, Vulcans, Klingons and Romulans all live and thrive?

Sounds silly right?

Sometimes I think D&D is the same way.

Why doesn't each and every Fantasy work create its own unique species, the way Sci-Fi does?

Is the reason that Sci-Fi so under represented in the RPG market because it does not have a common set of touchstones, the way Fantasy does with Elves, Dwarves, etc.? Why is Fantasy the dominant medium for RPGs? Sci-Fi and horror are generally much more popular in mass media, so why do RPGs buck the trend? Is it simply due to D&D? Does the mere presence of common ideas/frameworks allow for the easier mingling of people between tables (an Elf is generally an Elf, unless you are playing in a setting that inverts the stereotype (like Dark Sun))? Perhaps we live in a futuristic society, so escaping to one only slightly more advanced seems less enjoyable than traveling back to a more romanticized time of Dragons, Knights and Damsels?

Quote from: Lord VreegWell, we WERE talking About why he hold in the gaming world, which started in the 70s.   That is the time-relevancy connection.  My comments about cultural penetration are predicated on the idea that the early part of the hobby was also a very, very pro Tolkien time.

Yeah, you're quite right.  Which is sort of interesting because D&D emerged pretty much directly after Vietnam, and The Lord of the Rings is, in some sense, kind of pro-war, at least in a certain way.  You might think Vietnam would have turned people off that kind of thing and there'd be a backlash.  Maybe because Vietnam was a complex, morally ambiguous war and LotR hearkens back to WWII and its perceived moral starkness?

Quote from: Elemental ElfElves, Dwarves, Wizards, Magic Doors, Dragons, Walking-Trees, Goblins, evil Wolves, etc. are all very generic, even if Gygax was borrowing heavily from LotR.

Well, sort of, but there are lots and lots of other magical/mythological creatures that Gygax & co don't priviledge compared to those, and I think LotR is responsible here for their prevalence.  Pre-Tolkien, the word "Elf" (which Tolkien regretted at times) was connected more with Victorian/Celtic fairies when they appeared in fantasy fiction.  Dwarves certainly didn't have much prominence pre-Tolkien, and certainly didn't resemble their current incarnations all that much, mythological Norse Dwarves being decidedly more sinister than Tolkien's Dwarves.  I mean, sure, a lot of Tolkien's stuff existed before, but it hadn't attained the same generic status that it currently has.

Quote from: Elemental ElfIs the reason that Sci-Fi so under represented in the RPG market because it does not have a common set of touchstones, the way Fantasy does with Elves, Dwarves, etc.? Why is Fantasy the dominant medium for RPGs? Sci-Fi and horror are generally much more popular in mass media, so why do RPGs buck the trend? Is it simply due to D&D? Does the mere presence of common ideas/frameworks allow for the easier mingling of people between tables (an Elf is generally an Elf, unless you are playing in a setting that inverts the stereotype (like Dark Sun))? Perhaps we live in a futuristic society, so escaping to one only slightly more advanced seems less enjoyable than traveling back to a more romanticized time of Dragons, Knights and Damsels?

This is an incredibly good question.

>>One could argue that Terry Brooks came out of the "Tolkien Generation" of the 70's (like so many other authors), while Christopher Paolini was so young that he was unduly influenced by LotR and Star Wars. Robert Jordan definitely doesn't fit into this categorization easily, although his first book was written (though not published) way back in 1984 (which is just 7 years after Shannarra's first book).

...Robert Jordan's first book is essentially Book 1 of the LoTR. Escape from the shire (the little town), Green Man Tom Bombadil and and all that. Of course, these are also long-time European literature touchstones that harken back to coming of age in the middle ages and going into the scary world beyond the dale, but I cannot see book 1 of Jordan's Wheel of Time Series as anything BUT a trip to Mordor...

Onto the larger question.

>>For instance, why are elves, dwarves, and orcs so pervasive? Why are most settings placed within a medieval time-frame? Why is magic so pervasive?

Others have touched on this, but to state it in my own words:

Cultural touchstones. Shorthand. It's like reading David Foster Wallace or Thomas Pynchon or Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. You have a history with these creatures, just like a college student has a history with Western Civ. Plato. Socrates. Caesar. You don't need to write a footnote or a paragraph explaining why they're important if they're in your philosophical essay. You connect with readers just by making an allusion to them. Their names have connotations. Calling on them creates a feel with a reader. So too is it with dwarves and orcs, etc.

This is not to say that is the only reason dwarves, etc. are so popular- the comment about dwarves, elves, etc. being aspects of the human psyche is one I've also heard before and perhaps on a very basic (not basic-simple, but basic-primal) level that may be why people can relate to these creatures. But I think that my explanation above is a very thorough explanation of why it may be.

And of course, commercialization of Tolkien is certainly a big factor as well. :) Knock-offs just make sense.

Quote from: Light Dragon...Robert Jordan's first book is essentially Book 1 of the LoTR. Escape from the shire (the little town), Green Man Tom Bombadil and and all that. Of course, these are also long-time European literature touchstones that harken back to coming of age in the middle ages and going into the scary world beyond the dale, but I cannot see book 1 of Jordan's Wheel of Time Series as anything BUT a trip to Mordor...

Oh yeah, totally!  Moiraine is pretty much a gender-swapped, sexy Gandalf.  Trollocs are very similar to Orcs - Orcs being twisted Elves, Trollocs being twisted humans.  Myrdraal are unmistakably Nazgul.  The books do diverge a lot later on... and promptly begin riffing from Dune instead (Aiel = Fremen so hard, Rand, as the messianic Westerner with powers forbidden to men who comes in and leads the desert people to victory, etc).  There's a lot of originality in WoT, but its source material and inspirations shine through strongly.  It's less obvious or egregious than, say, Eragon, of course.

I love Shadar Logoth to absolute bits, though.

Quote from: Light DragonTheir names have connotations. Calling on them creates a feel with a reader. So too is it with dwarves and orcs, etc.

This is very true, but why dwarves and orcs and not other folkloric creatures?  Why not catoblepases, onocentaurs, hekatonkheires, scorpion men, or woodwoses?  Why are mermaids better known than kelpies or vodyanoi or shellycoats?  Gnomes more common than salamanders and undines?  Such creatures have mythological and historical pedigrees too, yet some monsters survive in the popular mindset and others fade.  Why do some monsters accrue the connotations and history they've attained while others don't?

The word "Orc," incidentally, had very little cultural/historical significance before Tolkien.  There are almost no other mentions of "Orcs" in Western literature - Beowulf's original Old English mentions "Orcs" as evil spirits condemned by god (or possibly sea-monsters), and there might be a few very scattered examples of "orke" as a term in folklore, but apart from Blake's totally different use of the term and perhaps a very vague association with the Roman Orcus, "Orc" had pretty much no resonance for the mid-twentieth-century reader.  Tolkien wasn't exploiting a cultural touchstone with Orcs, he was fashioning one.

Quote from: SPThis is very true, but why dwarves and orcs and not other folkloric creatures?  Why not catoblepases, onocentaurs, hekatonkheires, scorpion men, or woodwoses?  Why are mermaids better known than kelpies or vodyanoi or shellycoats?  Gnomes more common than salamanders and undines?  Such creatures have mythological and historical pedigrees too, yet some monsters survive in the popular mindset and others fade.  Why do some monsters accrue the connotations and history they've attained while others don't?

The word "Orc," incidentally, had very little cultural/historical significance before Tolkien.  There are almost no other mentions of "Orcs" in Western literature - Beowulf's original Old English mentions "Orcs" as evil spirits condemned by god (or possibly sea-monsters), and there might be a few very scattered examples of "orke" as a term in folklore, but apart from Blake's totally different use of the term and perhaps a very vague association with the Roman Orcus, "Orc" had pretty much no resonance for the mid-twentieth-century reader.  Tolkien wasn't exploiting a cultural touchstone with Orcs, he was fashioning one.

Catoplepi.  That's the plural.  I'm sure of it.

And 2 points to add here...

1)Tolkien uses elves and dwarves as heroic protagonist races.  I think one of the reasons for their and gnomes popularity is that they are accessible as sort-of human, especially in how they are used in Lotr and even more so as they have been used in gaming.  This is why they became player races in the earlier, sunnier part of the industry.
Orcs were used pretty brilliantly, as they were shown to be pretty much irredeemably evil.  I have a lot more trouble with the 'Cruel Haradrim'....

2) Names do have meaning.  I found later on that having different names versions of things, even if they were very similar or slightly changed from those used in books.  And what do these things call themselves?  And why? 
I'll be honest, I sort of wince every time I see a new setting just plop in elves, dwarves, and orcs, without even thought as to what they are, where they come from, what they call themselves and why.

 

Quote from: EE? Why is Fantasy the dominant medium for RPGs? Sci-Fi and horror are generally much more popular in mass media, so why do RPGs buck the trend?

This is actually part of a much larger cultural trend.  While SF has been much more popular in all mediums for well over a century (and perhaps longer), that trend has shifted over the last few decades.  Sci Fi and horror, which are certainly two separate things, are all sitting and watching the Fantasy Genre eclipse them not only in gaming, but in the literary world as well.

http://markcnewton.com/2009/12/03/why-sf-is-dying-fantasy-fiction-is-the-future/
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/41302-why-is-fantasy-so-much-more-popular-than-scifi
http://www.writersofthefuture.com/writingcontestnews/2012/01/15/on-the-growth-of-fantasy-and-the-waning-of-science-fiction-by-brad-torgersen/428

So once could look and call gaming part of the trend, perhaps we could say that part of the magic of D&D and RPGs is that they showed up at the right time to take advantage and then move in the direction that that they were actually part of pushing. Traveller and others certainly tried. 

Quote from: Lord VreegCatoplepi.  That's the plural.  I'm sure of it.

Apologies  :P

Quote from: Lord VreegOrcs were used pretty brilliantly, as they were shown to be pretty much irredeemably evil.  I have a lot more trouble with the 'Cruel Haradrim'....

This is interesting, as I have way less of a problem with the Haradrim.  Haradrim are basically just men who happen to have been subjugated/seduced by Sauron, not all that different from what happened in Numenor (Jackson's movie humanizes them even more).  They're not essentially evil, they've been recruited for the efforts of imperialism.  Yes, of course there's an Orientalist undertone to the Haradrim that does show its age, but I still don't get the feeling they're intrinsically evil, just raised in a cruel culture.  I don't think it's racist to see some cultural practices as cruel.  Ancient Sparta was cruel.  Rome could be monumentally cruel.  That doesn't mean Greeks and Italians are intrinsically cruel people.  The cruelty of those cultures arose out of particular historical contexts.  It's mentioned the Haradrim lived in poverty, and Sauron offered them wealth.  This is a pretty understandable motive, if an "ignoble" one in some sense, but hey, if my family were starving to death in the desert and some guy offered me enough money to feed them if I joined his army... well...

Middle-Earth Orcs, on the other hand, are essentially evil - it's literally in their blood and bones.  This is somehow more excusable in something like a powerful, supernatural Demon (say a Balrog), but when it's a race of creatures with a society and kingdoms and tribes and everything, it strays into problematic territory, because underlying Orcs there's a defamiliarized racist logic at work - members of certain peoples are "born bad," are intrinsically bad at a biological level, and thus can be killed without any moral hangups.  Orcs are subhuman, atavistic, degenerate - they're irredeemably "fallen" and corrupted in a fundamental way.  This is exactly the logic of real-world racism, and it's a bit disturbing to see it at play.

Interesting aside for Tolkien experts: does anyone know where Orcs go when they die?  Elves go to the Halls of Mandos and are bound to the world for all of time, while Men (and, we can assume, Hobbits?) go to a "more mysterious fate" beyond Arda.  Where do Orc fëar go?  The Void?

As the true origin or the Orcs was never fully determined, but was a moving point in Tolkien's cosmology, it is hard to determine their fate, to pass out of the Circles of the World and into commune with Eru or to end in the halls of a particular Valar.  It is made pretty clear that Melkor, or evil, cannot create, but only pervert.


See, the Haradrim bothered me from a much more typical, reactionary level.  "Why are the only ones fallowing the lord of evil (and someone that was obviously that lord of evil) perverted creatures, undead, and black people?"  I mean, really....I am a Tolkien lover, but this always drove me nuts, as aware as I am about the when and where Tolkien had lived through.


Now, to be perfectly dissembling, I enjoyed 'solving', or at least working with these issues in my own works.  Both of them, and more.  

Quote from: LordVreeg2) Names do have meaning.  I found later on that having different names versions of things, even if they were very similar or slightly changed from those used in books.  And what do these things call themselves?  And why?  
I'll be honest, I sort of wince every time I see a new setting just plop in elves, dwarves, and orcs, without even thought as to what they are, where they come from, what they call themselves and why.

This is a bit of a conversational backtrack (and for that, I apologize), but I think this right here is probably not so much of a common thing in fantasy literature as it is in nonprofessional fantasy gamewriting, and it's because of system.

Our market's still dominated by Dungeons and Dragons (and its various spinoffs: Pathfinder, etc.). It's how most new gamers are introduced to the hobby-- or at least, that was certainly true when I started up, even if there are broader options now. (It's certainly still true if we're talking specifically about fantasy gaming.) Many people who get started writing nonprofessional game settings for private use and internet postings do so because their group is playing D&D/Pathfinder/etc., and they want to put a custom spin on that.

Doing so carries with it a lot of assumptions. If I'm looking at a set of D&D books and thinking "I'm going to make up a world for this game to take place in", there's a lot of things that world, by default, needs to include because the game includes them. Everybody's first worldbuilding effort, assuming D&D as their starting point, probably includes many of the staples: elves and dwarves, +1 swords, an arcane/divine magic dichotomy, polytheism, and a bunch of other things. It's easy to make minor alterations (e.g., "I don't like bards so I am omitting them, and I'm not a fan of elves but one of my players is, so I'm stuck with them but I'm going to change them around to make them more interesting," etc.) but it's hard to make numerous or significantly impactful changes without making huge, sweeping changes to the base game, which makes an already complicated and intimidating project much more so. And many of us, when we are novices, don't understand the scope of our decision-making power to do so. (Speaking for myself, I had no clue.)

Vreeg, I know you're firmly on the record as to where you stand with this (as I may paraphrase from memory: "make the system fit the setting, or else the setting will perforce fit the system"), so I want to be clear that I'm not trying to debate you, as I don't think we disagree. I'm just extrapolating based on something you mentioned in a prior post.

I take appropriate pride in my work, and while I don't always think it is as interesting as some others occasionally make it out to be, the Jade Stage became much more interesting as a setting when I gave up on trying to use D&D mechanics with it. There are still the hallmarks present that let you know it was originally a D&D reskin (elves and dwarves, polytheism, etc.), but ditching those detailed mechanics allowed me flexibility to really change a lot of things in much more complex ways (magic that's not based on classes or an arcane/divine divide, for instance), and totally avoid a lot of problems that D&D takes for granted (philosophical implications of revealed divinity, political effects of on-demand resurrection and prophecy, what to do with all those goddamned magic items that are assumed by default to exist, etc.)

I think a lot of these design elements are analogous to five paragraph essay form, or cake mix from a box, or automatic transmission, etc.-- they're an easy and common way to get started with a new activity because they provide structure, and some people keep using when they are established and experienced, and others ditch them in favor of having more control over more variables.

Long post, I know.

Quote from: SteerpikeMiddle-Earth Orcs, on the other hand, are essentially evil - it's literally in their blood and bones.  This is somehow more excusable in something like a powerful, supernatural Demon (say a Balrog), but when it's a race of creatures with a society and kingdoms and tribes and everything, it strays into problematic territory, because underlying Orcs there's a defamiliarized racist logic at work - members of certain peoples are "born bad," are intrinsically bad at a biological level, and thus can be killed without any moral hangups.  Orcs are subhuman, atavistic, degenerate - they're irredeemably "fallen" and corrupted in a fundamental way.  This is exactly the logic of real-world racism, and it's a bit disturbing to see it at play.

There was a segment on this topic on Ken Hite and Robin Laws' podcast (http://www.kenandrobintalkaboutstuff.com/index.php/episode-31-love-gerald-ford/) some time back. This is a pretty good podcast if you haven't already heard of it, and this episode has a segment on iconic vs. dramatic characters that I found incredibly interesting also.

This ends my short digression, probably?

More catching up on the thread after a week of vacation! I don't even care about the triple post anymore!

Quote from: LordVreeg
Understanding a lot of the 'why' of what we do, or an industry and a movement,  often creates a better 'what' we end up producing.

This is why I love this kind of thread in particular, and this community in general. I love these conversations for their own sake, but also for the positive effect they produce on my own output-- the dedicated artisan examines their tools closely.

Quote from: Steerpikea gender-swapped, sexy Gandalf

Welp, that'll disturb me for a good, long while. Thanks, Steerpike!

I always aim to disturb!   :grin:

And thanks for the podcast recommendation.

Quote from: lcVreeg, I know you're firmly on the record as to where you stand with this (as I may paraphrase from memory: "make the system fit the setting, or else the setting will perforce fit the system"), so I want to be clear that I'm not trying to debate you, as I don't think we disagree. I'm just extrapolating based on something you mentioned in a prior post.

I take appropriate pride in my work, and while I don't always think it is as interesting as some others occasionally make it out to be, the Jade Stage became much more interesting as a setting when I gave up on trying to use D&D mechanics with it. There are still the hallmarks present that let you know it was originally a D&D reskin (elves and dwarves, polytheism, etc.), but ditching those detailed mechanics allowed me flexibility to really change a lot of things in much more complex ways (magic that's not based on classes or an arcane/divine divide, for instance), and totally avoid a lot of problems that D&D takes for granted (philosophical implications of revealed divinity, political effects of on-demand resurrection and prophecy, what to do with all those goddamned magic items that are assumed by default to exist, etc.)

Lc, we rarely disagree.

And this is one of those places we are totally in agreement, and I think it goes with the whole post-posse.

D&D got their first.  And the rules have a number of implied setting pieces, some of those we have mentioned.  I went the same route, creating a ruleset to match up with the setting and game I wanted to play.  I would only disagree with the phrase, "ditching those detailed mechanics allowed me the freedom", since I don't thing the complexity is good or bad or relevant to the point.  I am firmly on record, it is true, and I feel that this back-door approach to the same problem just supports that muchly repeated Ideal (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/60581028/Vreegs%20Rules%20of%20Setting%20and%20Game%20Design).  

To really break away from those hoary tropes, it is best to do so with rules that underpin the setting you are creating.  

I did my best to write that post with language that avoids making value judgments. I may not have been entirely successful!

With complexity, as with any other aspect of a creative work, everybody has their own preference and it is difficult to talk about objective "good" and "bad". That's not what I mean to do.

I do think, though, that since we're a setting-writing community, we self-select for certain parameters when we join up. There's a recent renaissance of classic-style games that are well-made and quite enjoyable riffs on classic D&D ideas (Castles and Crusades, Dungeon World, etc.) but to my understanding, it's not their settings that make them interesting, but the gameplay, the wink-and-a-nod nostalgia, etc. A game with a very "classic-style" setting is not good or bad in and of itself, but I would not be surprised to find confirmed that most people who visit this site have preferences that run more exotic.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
I did my best to write that post with language that avoids making value judgments. I may not have been entirely successful!

With complexity, as with any other aspect of a creative work, everybody has their own preference and it is difficult to talk about objective "good" and "bad". That's not what I mean to do.

I do think, though, that since we're a setting-writing community, we self-select for certain parameters when we join up. There's a recent renaissance of classic-style games that are well-made and quite enjoyable riffs on classic D&D ideas (Castles and Crusades, Dungeon World, etc.) but to my understanding, it's not their settings that make them interesting, but the gameplay, the wink-and-a-nod nostalgia, etc. A game with a very "classic-style" setting is not good or bad in and of itself, but I would not be surprised to find confirmed that most people who visit this site have preferences that run more exotic.

I agree.  I have both, I created a d20 retroclone to play my easy, quick bronze-age stuff.  Because it IS fun to do those things.  But that is not where my effort goes.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon...and while I don't always think it is as interesting as some others occasionally make it out to be...

I will defend Jade Stage with knives

 

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: EE? Why is Fantasy the dominant medium for RPGs? Sci-Fi and horror are generally much more popular in mass media, so why do RPGs buck the trend?

This is actually part of a much larger cultural trend.  While SF has been much more popular in all mediums for well over a century (and perhaps longer), that trend has shifted over the last few decades.  Sci Fi and horror, which are certainly two separate things, are all sitting and watching the Fantasy Genre eclipse them not only in gaming, but in the literary world as well.

http://markcnewton.com/2009/12/03/why-sf-is-dying-fantasy-fiction-is-the-future/
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/41302-why-is-fantasy-so-much-more-popular-than-scifi
http://www.writersofthefuture.com/writingcontestnews/2012/01/15/on-the-growth-of-fantasy-and-the-waning-of-science-fiction-by-brad-torgersen/428

So once could look and call gaming part of the trend, perhaps we could say that part of the magic of D&D and RPGs is that they showed up at the right time to take advantage and then move in the direction that that they were actually part of pushing. Traveller and others certainly tried.  

Interesting links. They site many of the same ideas I was thinking about when I asked the question.

I think its sad that Sci-Fi is dying as a genre, or at the very least, stagnating but I understand why. The shift from men to women readers strikes me as a bit odd, what the heck are men doing these days? Is it just TV and Video games for them? Why are books becoming an increasingly less interesting entertainment medium for the male gender?

At any rate, I cannot name any big Sci-Fi systems other than the big two (40k and Star Wars). Sure there was Traveler, d20 Future, etc but none of them found the market penetration of the aforementioned two, or D&D. It also strikes me as a bit interesting that the two big Sci-Fi Worlds/Systems that dominate the RPG industry are, essentially, Fantasy settings wrapped up in the accouterments of Sci-Fi. Perhaps Fantasy is just the better vehicle for the RPG medium?

I don't feel like I am really well read enough in the genre to make statements about this.  Even regarding Tolkien, I feel unqualified.  I've only read each of the LotR series and the Hobbit once, and don't feel I gleaned as deep an understanding of what was at work in his writing as Steerpike and Vreeg have.  I do want to say that I have found this discussion fascinating to read about, though.

QuoteThis is very true, but why dwarves and orcs and not other folkloric creatures?  Why not catoblepases, onocentaurs, hekatonkheires, scorpion men, or woodwoses?  Why are mermaids better known than kelpies or vodyanoi or shellycoats?  Gnomes more common than salamanders and undines?  Such creatures have mythological and historical pedigrees too, yet some monsters survive in the popular mindset and others fade.  Why do some monsters accrue the connotations and history they've attained while others don't?

They have connotations because they are used in the popular literature. You may as well ask why Socrates and Plato and why not Mencius, the Legalists, and Al-Ghazili. It's the same reason that America used to focus on "Western Civ", by giving the populace a cultural touchstone, you create a common culture, something to talk about and to relate to.
Perhaps Tolkien simply wrote a good story. That's all it takes to become ingrained in the psyche. Tolkien wrote, and people read and they thought about what they read and other people copied. Plato copied Socrates, Aristophanes spoofed him, Rome followed him, Caesar studied him, and the rest is history. So too, with the folkloric creatures that Tolkien used. He created a standard "western civ" grouping of characters that were then capitalized on by the likes of Brooks, et. al.

Regarding "hekatonkheires" at least, if you look at another culture you can see that they are indeed touchstones. I'm sure phoenix or sparkletwist can correct me or expand here, but they always reminded me of Vedic and Buddhist hell creatures.

So essentially, tolkien became the bible. People liked him and people knew what you were talking about when you said dwarf- "aahh, gruff guy"; "ent/treant" - "ahh, walking tree" and people had shared feelings related to those creatures, feelings that new authors could draw on without writing a 1000 page history of the creatures. They could then focus on building the plot and the characters instead of getting sucked into creating a 1000 page history that no one would read (belgarath the sorcerer and polgara the sorceress, I'm looking at you [by the way, I enjoyed those novels much better than the Belgariad itself, but I fear they were not popular at all-they actually reminded me more of some science fiction than fantasy in the loooong view of history that they took].

The key with fiction is character. Some people make due with plot-driven tales, but the real money is in character; and anything that allows writers to focus more on dialogue and character than backstory is generally good.

Some authors (Mieville), however, are adept at putting backstory and history in the background without alienating readers. He doesn't have the benefit of touchstones, he goes for the weird. This alienates people in a way that RA Salvatore talking about "dark elf this and that..." doesn't. People feel comfortable with his characterizations, they have a history that goes beyond the trilogy. The dwarf, the elf, they're like the doctor, the priest. They're 'types' like the 1800's chap-book penny-book literature had types, plug and play. And that's satisfying for readers.

Quote from: Light DragonYou may as well ask why Socrates and Plato and why not Mencius, the Legalists, and Al-Ghazili.

These are also good and important questions!  All I'm saying is I think the reason some things become "cultural touchstones" in the first place and others don't isn't arbitrary, and is worth discussing.  Sometimes it might just be historical accident, but there are likely other factors at play.

Quote from: Light DragonPerhaps Tolkien simply wrote a good story. That's all it takes to become ingrained in the psyche.

I don't think it's that simple.  There are lots of good, sometimes brilliant authors whose ideas haven't been nearly as ingrained in the popular pysche as Tolkien.  My contention is basically that Tolkien's success isn't just on the merits of his story (which, while considerable, aren't leaps and bounds ahead of some other fantasy authors), its intertwined in the political and cultural context in which Tolkien's works were received.  Not to say that his works would have achieved the same degree of success if they weren't well written - I think they are.

Quote from: Light DragonSo essentially, tolkien became the bible. People liked him and people knew what you were talking about when you said dwarf- "aahh, gruff guy"; "ent/treant" - "ahh, walking tree" and people had shared feelings related to those creatures, feelings that new authors could draw on without writing a 1000 page history of the creatures. They could then focus on building the plot and the characters instead of getting sucked into creating a 1000 page history that no one would read

I agree this is what happened, but the question is partly why this happened with Tolkien and not, say, with Vance or Leiber or Dunsany or even Lovecraft (increasingly Lovecraft has his own "Bible," of course, but that wasn't always the case).  I think it has a lot to do with the nature of Tolkien's world-building and the very specific nature of the story he wrote in conjunction with the particular moment in Western history that text was being received, though I'd certainly be open to other theories (psychoanalytic or whatever).  And I think it has a lot to do with his style.  I get that some of the tropes Tolkien employs were already cultural touchstones pre-Tolkien, but hey, Dunsany uses lots of the same cultural touchstones (like Elves/Fairies, Gods, Goblins) and his stuff is barely read anymore, despite being unspeakably beautifully written at times.

Quote from: Light Dragonbelgarath the sorcerer and polgara the sorceress, I'm looking at you [by the way, I enjoyed those novels much better than the Belgariad itself, but I fear they were not popular at all-they actually reminded me more of some science fiction than fantasy in the loooong view of history that they took].

I see them (along with the Riven Codex) kind of like the Silmarillion, rather than proper entries into the series in a certain sense - they're more like companion pieces.

Totally incidentally, Eddings' utter disdain for Tolkien is hilarious.  No one does snark quite like Eddings...

Quote from: Light DragonThe key with fiction is character. Some people make due with plot-driven tales, but the real money is in character; and anything that allows writers to focus more on dialogue and character than backstory is generally good.

I don't disagree, though it's interesting to think about in conjunction with Tolkien, some of whose characters are brilliant and others which are pretty darn flat.  Also, of course, it depends on what you mean by "money."  If you mean, like, actual money, then Dan Brown (whose characters are uniformly awful) offers a good counterexample to this statement.  If you mean "quality," I'm more inclined to agree, though I wonder where this leaves us with people like Lovecraft or Ashton Smith, who write gorgeously atmospheric stories and novellas but whose characters are usually pretty weak.

What about C. S. Lewis?

He was friends with Tolkien. Lewis created a fairly detailed fantasy world full of themes, story concepts and ideas that are similar to Tolkien's.

So why is Tolkien the bedrock of Fantasy and not Lewis? Why are we playing with Elves and Orcs instead of Lions, Mice and Fawns? 

Quote from: Elemental_Elf
What about C. S. Lewis?

He was friends with Tolkien. Lewis created a fairly detailed fantasy world full of themes, story concepts and ideas that are similar to Tolkien's.

So why is Tolkien the bedrock of Fantasy and not Lewis? Why are we playing with Elves and Orcs instead of Lions, Mice and Fawns? 

I was mentioning this in a thread I just posted. Part of it, I think, is that elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, etc, are all basically humans. They all have two arms, two hands, two legs, two feet, and so on. It's easy in a statistical way to make a human, and then tweak it enough to the point where it's an elf, or a dwarf. Give elves favored classes in wizard, give dwarves shorter running distance, halflings and gnomes have -2 strength because there smaller than everyone else. But once again there all bipedal sapiens.

A lion on the other hand is another beast entirely (pun half intended). It has four legs, is way more stronger than a human, and can easily kill a man within a minute. So what can you do statistically to even out the balance? Make it so they can't use weapons? give them huge penalties for wearing armor? Make it more difficult for them to put on armor?

So that's partly the reason we all play as elves and dwarves. Because it's easier to balance a human and a dwarf stat wise, than say a human and a dwarf elephant. The fact is, the d20 system was never designed in mind for anyone that wanted to play as anything but a bipedal with hands.

Quote from: Elemental ElfSo why is Tolkien the bedrock of Fantasy and not Lewis? Why are we playing with Elves and Orcs instead of Lions, Mice and Fawns?

A few things:

1) The Narnia books are much more child-oriented.  The Lord of the Rings books, being very long, bloody, and often pretty creepy and dark are somewhat more adult than the Narnia series; though Narnia still has a bit of blood and battle, and it has its creepy moments (The Silver Chair takes the cake in my book), the characters are still basically children most of the time and the books are individually relatively short.

2) Tied to this, Narnia's allegorical message is incredibly heavy-handed, where as Tolkien's texts are determinedly anti-allegorical.  Sure things can be read into Tolkien's texts (lots of things), but in Lewis' they're spelled out for those passingly familiar with Christianity.  It doesn't help that Lewis' particular brand of Christianity is often deeply unpleasant, misgoynistic and bullying.  While I think someone reading Tolkien's texts wouldn't necessarily be fully aware of the values those texts are expressing or reinforcing - the values they may or may not be responding to - it's almost impossible to read Lewis' texts and not recognize the overtly Christian allegory.

3) Tolkien's secondary world-building ("subcreation") is richer.  In effect we "buy" Tolkien's world more than we do Lewis'.  It feels more like a real place because of all the background information which exists for its own sake rather than as part of a moral lesson.

Quote from: Elemental_Elf
What about C. S. Lewis?

He was friends with Tolkien. Lewis created a fairly detailed fantasy world full of themes, story concepts and ideas that are similar to Tolkien's.

So why is Tolkien the bedrock of Fantasy and not Lewis? Why are we playing with Elves and Orcs instead of Lions, Mice and Fawns?  

That's an interesting question.

I could offer conjecture that Lewis had relatively lower traction because his books are targeted at a younger audience, and were less appealing to adult readers.

Or that while both authors were influenced by religion (and Tolkien's mythos includes pretty clear analogues of god, angels, demons, and so on), Lewis's work is more naked religious allegory and the religious elements are more central to the story. (Perhaps this created a sense that Tolkien was more involved in creating a new thing, while Lewis was more involved in restating an already-familiar story.)

Or that, in drawing from themes of Norse and Celtic mythology, Tolkien was drawing from "strong stock" while Lewis drew from "weaker stock" by way of talking animals and so forth. Maybe one set of symbols is more culturally relevant somehow (in which case, it'd be interesting to consider the reasons why), or maybe this is just another way of saying "Lewis wrote for kids, so adults were less moved".

Jeez, Steerpike, posted 1:13 apart. :yumm:

Does that naked religiosity necessarily matter in a time when people were overwhelmingly Christian? It's an issue today but back then? Not nearly as much.

I think the kid-centric viewpoint has more to do with Narnia not becoming per-eminent than most other arguments  (and all the issues that go with that (simpler story telling, less world building, less grit, etc.), all of which appeal to teen-age boys and adults).

Having said that, I still find it odd that Fantasy parrots  so closely to Middle-Earth. Why weren't Minotaurs a common PC race, or Mice? Is a Narnia-style Minotaur that much more powerful in-game than an Orc? Dragonlance pulled it off with ease. And what of Fawns? They are just people with goat legs. Why are they not common? Considering pixie-sized races have not gained wide acceptance, I suppose there is something inherent to the size of anthropomorphic mice that prevents them from becoming popular (no DM likes dealing with oddly sized characters who can do weird things(from a human's perspective, like racing up into the BBEG's pants and stealing the MacGuffin key from his pocket)).

Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Does that naked religiosity necessarily matter in a time when people were overwhelmingly Christian? It's an issue today but back then? Not nearly as much.

I don't know, which is why I'm just spitballing ideas. (I also don't know that it's true that people decades ago were more likely to be Christian, as opposed to nonbelievers being more strongly pressured by society to be silent about their dissent, but that's a whole 'nother conversation, and not a particularly relevant one probably.)

Honestly I think the specific religious content is less of a factor than is Narnia's really close correspondence to stories of moral instruction that most of the population is already highly familiar with. Tolkien dealt with moral themes in the process of his story-- there's a lot of capital-G-Good vs. capital-E-Evil, themes of temptation and redemption, downfall caused by giving into selfish and base desire, etc.-- but it's not Bible Stories with Wizard Jesus in the same transparent, moralizing way that Lewis wrote Bible Stories with Lion Jesus.

(ed: Here, just picking a non-religious example of a moral fable we've all known since we were kids, to try to make the point that the religious aspect isn't the relevant aspect.)
I mean, I could probably do a straight rewrite of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and come up with a really interesting and compelling setting to put it in, and people would still say "man, this is just The Boy Who Cried Wolf with time-traveling space merfolk, I already know that story, and I don't need that moral preached to me again."

Part of my bias is that, as a young kid, I devoured Tolkien's work and loved it, and I devoured Lewis's work and loved it. And now that I am an adult, I still love Tolkien, but I can't read Lewis anymore. To my eye, it did not age well at all. (It was like that time in college when my friends decided to go track down episodes of the Transformers cartoon we watched as kids, and we realized it was really, really bad, and we had just been too young to know when we were originally fans.) One author still has things to say to me that I want to hear; the other does not. Not to draw inappropriate conclusions or anything, but that experience is at least consistent with broader trends about which opus seems to have more cultural clout these decades later-- maybe something about Tolkien's work just ages better, and that's the crucial ingredient of his ideas' popularity?

QuoteConsidering pixie-sized races have not gained wide acceptance, I suppose there is something inherent to the size of anthropomorphic mice that prevents them from becoming popular (no DM likes dealing with oddly sized characters who can do weird things(from a human's perspective, like racing up into the BBEG's pants and stealing the MacGuffin key from his pocket)).

There's probably a lot of truth in this, definitely.

But any time we ask "why is [thing] not more common?" we risk wading into a morass. Sometimes we have answers that seem fairly clear ("why aren't just-as-wide-as-your-nose moustaches more common?") and sometimes matters of taste are less clear ("why aren't bellbottoms more common?") There's a common cognitive trap about externalizing one's own preferences: "I like [thing]" becomes "[thing] deserves to be more common", and that can lead to pretty confusing perspectives.

Animal-character settings have gained a lot of traction, and I don't think they'll ever be as big as the Tolkien-inspired stuff, but there's still Mouse Guard, and Shard, and the Redwall and Watership Down hacks for FATE or whatever that I am totally certain someone has made and posted on the internet somewhere.

Minotaurs have been pigeonholed as monsters to be hunted and slaughtered for millennia. You can thank that asshole, Theseus. That's a hell of a lot of cultural momentum to talk about overcoming, when you ask an apparently simple question like "why not minotaurs as a PC race?"

Lucky for you we are in something of a golden age of deconstructing all this baggage within genre fiction, or so it currently seems to me. It has never been a better time to be an iconoclast.

On the iPad, and traveling, so not Cutting and pasting....
But this is another place lc and I are in accord.  I loved both growing up and into my twenties, but I find Lewis transparent and obvious, whereas Tolkien's depth, after literally many dozen re reads, is still useful.

I have mentioned the hobbits as the reader's lens a few times, and I am going to point it out again.  The fellowship has been copied again and again, but the interactions remain fresh, as does the incredibly granular yet palpable and logical growth of all the hobbits.   I think this is one secret to the connection readers get.

I think a few times we've mentioned the depth of Tolkien' s works, but I also want to point out the way Tolkien lightly touches things, as opposed to knocking readers over the head with it....

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

Quote from: Elemental_ElfConsidering pixie-sized races have not gained wide acceptance, I suppose there is something inherent to the size of anthropomorphic mice that prevents them from becoming popular (no DM likes dealing with oddly sized characters who can do weird things(from a human's perspective, like racing up into the BBEG's pants and stealing the MacGuffin key from his pocket)).

There's probably a lot of truth in this, definitely.

Animal-character settings have gained a lot of traction, and I don't think they'll ever be as big as the Tolkien-inspired stuff, but there's still Mouse Guard, and Shard, and the Redwall and Watership Down hacks for FATE or whatever that I am totally certain someone has made and posted on the internet somewhere.

Speaking of animal-character settings let's not forget Bunnies and Burrows, the Watership Down RPG, which came out in 1976 and presented all at once the first published instance of non-humanoid PCs, the first detailed 'martial arts' system, and the first attempt at some kind of skill system.

I played that when it came out...that was modeling Watership Down, an amazing book I still keep next to the bed at the Maine house, is pertinent to the literary part of the convo....

Quote from: Elemental ElfDoes that naked religiosity necessarily matter in a time when people were overwhelmingly Christian? It's an issue today but back then? Not nearly as much.

It's not just the message - which, apart from being Christian, is very conservatively Christian and groan-inducingly moralistic - it's that the message is so obvious, the texts to didactic.  This in itself is unappealing.

So, yeah, exactly what Luminous Crayon said...

I come extremely late in the conversation but I thought I would post my thoughts.

QuoteFor instance, why are elves, dwarves, and orcs so pervasive?

Well. I've never really been one for the standard thing we see everywhere. As you can see in my works (Plaguelands and Primeval, whom links lie in my signature), I usually focus a lot on humans. In real life, the human being is so fascinating, and so diverse -linguistically, physically, culturally, psychologically, by gender, by affections- that I see no use in burdening my works with additional races which will also be equally diverse, or nearly so.
I also seem to get a calling to do something different. Perhaps it is a point on which I fail, but having read others works on here, I can say with confidence that both my imaginary worlds seem to dissociate themselves from those of the very creative minds we find in this community as well as the mainstream fantasy worlds out there.

QuoteWhy are most settings placed within a medieval time-frame?

There's something interesting from the technological level of the medieval times. It is crude, yet not exactly primitive; and it is not instantaneous on a large scale, yet quicker than the means employed in more primitive times. And here I speak of technologies in general, not any particular domain such as weapons, or transport, or tools.

My Plaguelands world is certainly medieval-inspired, but not my Primeval. So I don't feel any particular calling to the medieval time-frame.

A suggestion I would make here is that perhaps, the writer, knowing many questions -mostly concerning technicalities of the time- will arise, decides to use such a time-frame so as to learn. It's curiosity. Curiosity is what first brought me to D&D, ages ago.

---

Man just follows the ambitious anyways. Sheeps aren't only found in fantasy world-creation, but in all domains.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Does that naked religiosity necessarily matter in a time when people were overwhelmingly Christian? It's an issue today but back then? Not nearly as much.

I don't know, which is why I'm just spitballing ideas. (I also don't know that it's true that people decades ago were more likely to be Christian, as opposed to nonbelievers being more strongly pressured by society to be silent about their dissent, but that's a whole 'nother conversation, and not a particularly relevant one probably.)

Honestly I think the specific religious content is less of a factor than is Narnia's really close correspondence to stories of moral instruction that most of the population is already highly familiar with. Tolkien dealt with moral themes in the process of his story-- there's a lot of capital-G-Good vs. capital-E-Evil, themes of temptation and redemption, downfall caused by giving into selfish and base desire, etc.-- but it's not Bible Stories with Wizard Jesus in the same transparent, moralizing way that Lewis wrote Bible Stories with Lion Jesus.

(ed: Here, just picking a non-religious example of a moral fable we've all known since we were kids, to try to make the point that the religious aspect isn't the relevant aspect.)
I mean, I could probably do a straight rewrite of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and come up with a really interesting and compelling setting to put it in, and people would still say "man, this is just The Boy Who Cried Wolf with time-traveling space merfolk, I already know that story, and I don't need that moral preached to me again."

So, as a society, hitting upon the themes/stories/parables from the bible is viewed as weak writing but authors doing the same except with Tolkien, get a pass? What makes derivative works of Tolkien more acceptable, at least culturally, than derivative works of the Bible?  

Quote from: Luminous CrayonPart of my bias is that, as a young kid, I devoured Tolkien's work and loved it, and I devoured Lewis's work and loved it. And now that I am an adult, I still love Tolkien, but I can't read Lewis anymore. To my eye, it did not age well at all. (It was like that time in college when my friends decided to go track down episodes of the Transformers cartoon we watched as kids, and we realized it was really, really bad, and we had just been too young to know when we were originally fans.) One author still has things to say to me that I want to hear; the other does not. Not to draw inappropriate conclusions or anything, but that experience is at least consistent with broader trends about which opus seems to have more cultural clout these decades later-- maybe something about Tolkien's work just ages better, and that's the crucial ingredient of his ideas' popularity?

I'm a bit younger than you (grew up in the 90's) but I recently had a similar experience with Beast Wars (the CGI version of Transformers where they turned into animals rather than vehicles). I remember being a kid and LOVING Beast Wars! I had a whole bunch of the toys growing up, including the expensive Megatron/T-Rex and Optimus Primal/Gorilla (side note, Optimus was renamed Primal for the show). However, upon viewing it recently (late 20's), I find the show boring, poorly paced and very child-oriented. However, Dexter's Lab recently popped up on Netflix and I still find that show to be quite enjoyable because it has a fair bit of depth in the writing that has aged quite well.

This conversation draws me to a book I recently read - The Companions - which is the latest Drizzt book. It was a really fun read, well crafted and well executed. However, it was definitely written at the teenager reading level. I wonder if, in 40 years, people will look back on those 30+ books as being passe or or will they be remembered fondly as hallmarks of D&D-style fantasy. Will R. A. Salvatore's works be viewed as kindly as Tolkien's or disparagingly as Lewis'. There is much to admire about the Drizzt books but, at its heart, it is a story of a man who rejects his birth society and adopts the culture of another, foreign one. Will that theme eventually feel as trite as Lewis' religiousness?

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

QuoteConsidering pixie-sized races have not gained wide acceptance, I suppose there is something inherent to the size of anthropomorphic mice that prevents them from becoming popular (no DM likes dealing with oddly sized characters who can do weird things(from a human's perspective, like racing up into the BBEG's pants and stealing the MacGuffin key from his pocket)).

There's probably a lot of truth in this, definitely.

Animal-character settings have gained a lot of traction, and I don't think they'll ever be as big as the Tolkien-inspired stuff, but there's still Mouse Guard, and Shard, and the Redwall and Watership Down hacks for FATE or whatever that I am totally certain someone has made and posted on the internet somewhere.

Minotaurs have been pigeonholed as monsters to be hunted and slaughtered for millennia. You can thank that asshole, Theseus. That's a hell of a lot of cultural momentum to talk about overcoming, when you ask an apparently simple question like "why not minotaurs as a PC race?"

The legends of the Minotaur was of one such creature. Fantasy authors have long striven to make them a true species. So, in a way, that represents a lot of growth for the creature.

Speaking of RPGs and creatures, does it strike anyone else as odd that Gnolls have become so iconic, when other anthros have not? It is especially odd given how much of the fluff I have read for Gnolls by third parties really doesn't create a complex Hyena-like culture, and thus could be easily dropped into other predator Anthro Tribes (like Wolf-Men). Catfolk are a very popular species in other games, I remember fondly the Leonin from Mirrodin and the Char from Guild Wars.

Were there any works of fiction from the era before RPGs that had a Rat-Man species? Warhammer has the Skaven, D&D Wererats and Rokugan Nezumi, all of which have common disreputable/dirty/plague/thief themes (well the Nezumi are perceived to have those themes by the Rokugani but are, in truth, an inversion of them). Obviously this all harkens back to "rat" but I'm curious if there actually is a literary root that designers are drawing inspiration from (the way people do with Dwarves via Tolkien).

Quote from: Luminous CrayonLucky for you we are in something of a golden age of deconstructing all this baggage within genre fiction, or so it currently seems to me. It has never been a better time to be an iconoclast.

I don't think you need to be in any particular era to make iconoclasm popular, you just need to be a good writer with a solid idea. Look at Dark Sun, very popular setting in 2E and garnered more than enough support from fans to be revived in 4E, which is something that even very iconic settings failed to pull off (even when they had big anniversaries (i.e. Dragonlance).

I wonder if the resurgence of animal RPGs has to do more with nostalgia (which is hugely popular right now) more than iconoclasm (which, admittedly is also very popular right now).

That's a meaty post and I'm half-asleep already, so I'm going to hit what I can and get to bed.

QuoteSo, as a society, hitting upon the themes/stories/parables from the bible is viewed as weak writing but authors doing the same except with Tolkien, get a pass? What makes derivative works of Tolkien more acceptable, at least culturally, than derivative works of the Bible? 

That's not what I'm saying at all. Shakespeare hits upon Biblical references all the time; literature all over the place is full of them. But there's a difference between "hitting upon the themes/stories/parables from the bible" and writing a straight-up Biblical allegory. In my personal opinion, Lewis's main problem is that he's writing with an overt religious agenda that he's not skillful enough to manage gracefully, but this isn't the "C.S. Lewis Sucks Megathread" so I'll try to get back on topic.

There are plenty of shitty Tolkien derivatives on the market too, of course. That's not even related to the point, though, which is about why Tolkien threw a rock into a pond and it made a huge splash and Lewis threw a rock into a pond and it made a tiny splash. I don't think religious allegory is the only reason (or even necessarily the primary one) so I don't really care that much about defending it. This isn't even close to being a conversation about Tolkien knockoffs being culturally sanctioned, it's about considering different possible reasons why they might be common.

QuoteSpeaking of RPGs and creatures, does it strike anyone else as odd that Gnolls have become so iconic, when other anthros have not? It is especially odd given how much of the fluff I have read for Gnolls by third parties really doesn't create a complex Hyena-like culture, and thus could be easily dropped into other predator Anthro Tribes (like Wolf-Men). Catfolk are a very popular species in other games, I remember fondly the Leonin from Mirrodin and the Char from Guild Wars.

This is really an interesting point. I don't really know a lot about it (I didn't even consciously realize gnolls were supposed to be hyenamen) but I am going to assume that having a catchy name is a big key to success here (and if they were called "hyenamen" instead of "gnolls", we would never talk about them outside of the "hey, remember when the first edition of the Monster Manual was full of ridiculous crap like hyenamen?" context.)

I wonder if this is a simplicity/consistency of design issue (related to Love of Awesome's earlier point about "bipeds with hands") that makes an anthropomorphized animal species easier to deal with or more palatable than straight-up lions and tigers and bears.

QuoteLook at Dark Sun, very popular setting in 2E and garnered more than enough support from fans to be revived in 4E, which is something that even very iconic settings failed to pull off (even when they had big anniversaries (i.e. Dragonlance).

And I think it goes without saying that Dark Sun is absolutely the bomb, for sure.

Quote from: SteerpikeIt's not just the message - which, apart from being Christian, is very conservatively Christian and groan-inducingly moralistic - it's that the message is so obvious, the texts to didactic.  This in itself is unappealing.

So, yeah, exactly what Luminous Crayon said...

Based on what they say about brevity, I am apparently witless as well as soulless. :yumm:

Quote from: SteerpikeWhat makes derivative works of Tolkien more acceptable, at least culturally, than derivative works of the Bible?

I'd maintain they're not especially acceptable.  The vast bulk of Tolkien ripoffs are pretty awful.  Of Brooks' novels, for example, I'm a much bigger fan of his Word & Void series, the prequel to Shannara, than Shannara itself.  Like I said before, I like Tolkien, but his influence on the fantasy genre hasn't always been a good thing.

And, as LC says, allusions are different than allegory, of course.

Quote from: Elemental ElfWere there any works of fiction from the era before RPGs that had a Rat-Man species?

This is a good question... the only thing I can think of off the top of my head are the intelligent rats that dwell under Lankhmar.

Quote from: EESo, as a society, hitting upon the themes/stories/parables from the bible is viewed as weak writing but authors doing the same except with Tolkien, get a pass? What makes derivative works of Tolkien more acceptable, at least culturally, than derivative works of the Bible?

No, the key is in your term above, 'weak writing'.  It's not that Lewis is a bad writer, but his writing is transparent in it's derivation, compared to Tolkien's more refined uses and attempt to refuse the to dip into allegory.  In the same vein, most of the dozens of derivative Tolkien books have the same issues. 

Quote from: EEWill R. A. Salvatore's works be viewed as kindly as Tolkien's or disparagingly as Lewis'. There is much to admire about the Drizzt books but, at its heart, it is a story of a man who rejects his birth society and adopts the culture of another, foreign one. Will that theme eventually feel as trite as Lewis' religiousness?

My guess is the latter.
I will put a bottle of Dead Arm on it.

Quote from: EEThe legends of the Minotaur was of one such creature. Fantasy authors have long striven to make them a true species. So, in a way, that represents a lot of growth for the creature.

Speaking of RPGs and creatures, does it strike anyone else as odd that Gnolls have become so iconic, when other anthros have not? It is especially odd given how much of the fluff I have read for Gnolls by third parties really doesn't create a complex Hyena-like culture, and thus could be easily dropped into other predator Anthro Tribes (like Wolf-Men). Catfolk are a very popular species in other games, I remember fondly the Leonin from Mirrodin and the Char from Guild Wars.

Were there any works of fiction from the era before RPGs that had a Rat-Man species? Warhammer has the Skaven, D&D Wererats and Rokugan Nezumi, all of which have common disreputable/dirty/plague/thief themes (well the Nezumi are perceived to have those themes by the Rokugani but are, in truth, an inversion of them). Obviously this all harkens back to "rat" but I'm curious if there actually is a literary root that designers are drawing inspiration from (the way people do with Dwarves via Tolkien).

Not sure about the literary side, but I do recognize the urge that most of us have after a while to make some sense of the races we use and create origin stories, histories, and cultures.  As we mature in outlook and creative ability, It is very common to deepen and link with other histories and intertwine and logicize (yet another word spell check does not recognize, *sigh*) in terms of the setting as a whole.

This has frankly been a personal joy for me.  There was a certain Gnoll-heavy Ogrillite tribe the Steel Isle guys allied with that was a lot of fun, and that presented us with a lot of great gaming moments.  But more than good moments, these moments came about from having a more sophisticated understanding of the tribal cultures to create better interactions, compared to 'humanoid-evil alignment, slaughter them'  mentality.

This has been a great thread that I've barely been able to keep up with! But it seems like most of us are in the same boat. So now the big question is how do 'fix' the somewhat stagnant fantasy zeitgeist? (Assuming it needs fixing at all.)

There's a few ways that people can encourage further change in the fantasy zeitgeist.  As fantasy consumers, buying works that break with tradition and passing by books that simply reiterate well-worn tropes is a pretty direct way of influencing things, albeit an individually small one.

As a scholar, I try to explore concepts in radical fantasy and weird fiction (I've got some forthcoming publications on Mieville).  Others in the field can, of course, do likewise, instead of writing endless essays on Tolkien (editors are tired of these anyway).

As gamers, we can resist the hegemony of vanilla D&D by playing alternate games and/or playing games set in alternate, non-Tolkienian worlds.  I still play Pathfinder but one of my games is set in the Planescape universe which sort of looks like what would happen if John Milton, Charles Dickens, and Michael Moorcock dropped acid together and built a campaign setting.  The other is set in a 14th century, famished, plague-ridden, bandit-haunted fantasy version of the Holy Roman Empire full of ghosts and weird relics and ruins infested with deformed flesh-eating child-demons (ironically probably closer to what early editions of D&D likely envisioned as the implied world than current settings reflect).

As creators, we can build worlds that either do away with the standard tropes altogether or cleverly subvert them in some way.  So the former is something like Clockwork Jungle or Salacious Angel's ever-bizarre, ever-poetic work, while the latter is exemplified by stuff like Jade Stage (wait, Elves keep Goblin slaves?!).

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Light DragonYou may as well ask why Socrates and Plato and why not Mencius, the Legalists, and Al-Ghazili.

These are also good and important questions!  All I'm saying is I think the reason some things become "cultural touchstones" in the first place and others don't isn't arbitrary, and is worth discussing.  Sometimes it might just be historical accident, but there are likely other factors at play.

Perhaps I am too much of an existentialist here, but I think historical accident and the snowball effect of people's own projections of their own ideas is a large part of why many things happen. (aside: would that almost Marxist thought be reconcilable with the Great Man theory of History? Is there a contradiction here where one could believe in snowball effects but also believe in the power of one person to change history? Not necessarily I would postulate... but that's off topic at the moment).

To take an extreme argument and to ignore the other arguments that probably explain parts of the truth, here's my take.

Dwarves, Orcs, etc. have meaning because people chose to give them meaning.
They have no meaning in and of themselves.
People project their own meaning onto them.
But why these monsters? And why these particular imaginings of these monsters.
People liked Tolkien's tale, so they read it and told others about it... the plot. The story, the characters. The monsters were there, but at first, there was the tale.
Then they repeated it and it grew to be hyped.
The more people talked about it, the more of a shared experience it became, like the Illiad or the Odyssey.
Then, even if the book was poor, the fact that one could share it with others who were just like you (reject kids who read comic books, etc.)... made it more important.
So then people started copying and building on its mythos.
And then DnD came and other stories.
Once those came out, these monsters who were copied by authors who knew the Lord of the Rings quite well and who wanted to cash in on that experience became the standard monsters and the standard conceptions until it spread like a virus, repeating and repeating until the people's experiences of those monsters became the important thing.
Even though the books aren't necessarily 'great' by literary standards (I would say more but I fear it will cause this topic to digress- I think we can all agree that Tolkien isn't a penman on the level of the cleverness of phrase of Faulkner or some of David Foster Wallace's non-addled pieces, though).
One popular book sets the tone and the stage. It's not necessarily because of what the monsters are, but because of what the book is- and that is popular.

Easy counter to what I state- so why Tolkien and not anyone else?
Perhaps the answer to that is Gary Gygax and roleplaying.
DnD was based in large part on Tolkien.
It allowed people to experience T's world.
And to build other worlds.
These proto-storytellers then told other stories.
Which had the same type of monsters in them. No matter how small your town, you had the same monsters. You could move and find a DnD group and it's the same monsters.

Then you have the proliferation of mass media which tends to show the same types of monsters...
and then you have your standardization, your commoditization problem.
People start seeing movies in the very late 70s and 80s with the same goblins, dwarves, etc.
And that's the way they have to look, because well, that's how they look in the most popular book that everyone's read and now that's how they look in all the myriad tacky fantasy movies of the 80s.

Lovecraft didn't have that luck. He died before TV was a thing.
He died before images were standard.

Same with Dunsany. I don't recall fritz leiber having many weird creatures in Lankhmar... and personally I found Vance unapproachable.

Quote
I see them (along with the Riven Codex) kind of like the Silmarillion, rather than proper entries into the series in a certain sense - they're more like companion pieces. Totally incidentally, Eddings' utter disdain for Tolkien is hilarious.  No one does snark quite like Eddings...

Ah yes, how could I forget the Rivan Codex! I recall Eddings constant insults and diatribes against his fans within. He is quite an angry person. one wonders though, does his wife share his vitriol... remember she essentially co-wrote all his books, she just didn't get title credit.

Quote
I don't disagree, though it's interesting to think about in conjunction with Tolkien, some of whose characters are brilliant and others which are pretty darn flat.  Also, of course, it depends on what you mean by "money."  If you mean, like, actual money, then Dan Brown (whose characters are uniformly awful) offers a good counterexample to this statement.  If you mean "quality," I'm more inclined to agree, though I wonder where this leaves us with people like Lovecraft or Ashton Smith, who write gorgeously atmospheric stories and novellas but whose characters are usually pretty weak.

Well, you do have me there at Dan Brown and the thriller novel writers.
If I recall properly, there are successful Character novels and successful Plot novels. Getting published, I seem to recall that almost all the recommendation books said go for character novels.

I think though that Dan Brown might offer a good example of what I state above about Tolkien as being more chance lucky than a sign of the times.
One could argue that Brown's Da Vinci code is a sign of the times... but couldn't it be a sign of the times at any time? So what purpose is that argument.
Instead, I'd argue it's a good example of marketing- just like Lord of the Rings. It caught on and got re-read and it became a thing.

Harry Potter wasn't the first child wizard... harry potter wasn't even necessarily the best written child wizard... but he replicated. He had buzz- just like emerging bands rely on buzz to win big.
The best bands don't always become stars, but the ones who can best market themselves do, because they become a thing. People project their thoughts on them and define them and when enough people do that, then they become a cultural icon and people have to refer to them as that one thing-because if they don't then others are confused. Thus did goblins and orcs become locked into one image. To define them as different from the herd is to risk confusion and alienation.

Quote from: Elemental_Elf
What about C. S. Lewis?

He was friends with Tolkien. Lewis created a fairly detailed fantasy world full of themes, story concepts and ideas that are similar to Tolkien's.

So why is Tolkien the bedrock of Fantasy and not Lewis? Why are we playing with Elves and Orcs instead of Lions, Mice and Fawns? 

Possibly because Gary Gygax didn't base his game around Narnia. :p.

1974 DnD
1977 Advanced DnD
1978 Lord of the Rings Movie

Late 1970s LoTR craze...

Is it just a Coincidence that the two both got big at the same time? I think not. They thrived on one another and made each other the cultural touchstones that they are.

This conjunction of events- of the ability to read, to talk about, and then to play IN the world - the shared experience of culture- is what solidified the monsters as they were. It's like the youtube with minecraft phenomenon.
Then, retailers would only sell things they understood- they understood that goblins, dwarves, etc. made money.
So you had best make your story like something they knew sold, rather than a risk.
And the images became reinforced again and again.
Historical accident.
:)

>>how do 'fix' the somewhat stagnant fantasy zeitgeist? (Assuming it needs fixing at all.)

I don't see an inherent need to fix it, nor do I see it as stagnant. We have mieville after all, and the burgeoning steampunk invasion- there are tons of steampunk books released in the past 3-4 years.

Is there anything wrong with the standard tropes? Anything can be boring if done the same way time and time again- that's what hack writing is. And if you don't buy hacks, then you're promoting different ideas. Also, do what Phoenix did and write your own novels :)

But today we see more variety in fantasy than we have seen.

In the 1980s it was tolkien copy after tolkien copy. Now we have Song of Ice and Fire and a bevy of other novels taking fantasy in different directions. A greater variety of ideas can be published now than ever before.

Also, as an aside, don't forget L. Frank Baum and Oz... that predates Tolkien and Lewis.

I'll freely admit I am not well read in the "Boy Wizard" genre of literature but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a work that is better than Harry Potter (and still appeal equally to children and adults).

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: EEWill R. A. Salvatore's works be viewed as kindly as Tolkien's or disparagingly as Lewis'. There is much to admire about the Drizzt books but, at its heart, it is a story of a man who rejects his birth society and adopts the culture of another, foreign one. Will that theme eventually feel as trite as Lewis' religiousness?

My guess is the latter.
I will put a bottle of Dead Arm on it.

Perhaps Tolkien is too high of a standard but you really believe the Drizzt books will be viewed with the same disdain that people view Lewis' work?

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: EEThe legends of the Minotaur was of one such creature. Fantasy authors have long striven to make them a true species. So, in a way, that represents a lot of growth for the creature.

Speaking of RPGs and creatures, does it strike anyone else as odd that Gnolls have become so iconic, when other anthros have not? It is especially odd given how much of the fluff I have read for Gnolls by third parties really doesn't create a complex Hyena-like culture, and thus could be easily dropped into other predator Anthro Tribes (like Wolf-Men). Catfolk are a very popular species in other games, I remember fondly the Leonin from Mirrodin and the Char from Guild Wars.

Were there any works of fiction from the era before RPGs that had a Rat-Man species? Warhammer has the Skaven, D&D Wererats and Rokugan Nezumi, all of which have common disreputable/dirty/plague/thief themes (well the Nezumi are perceived to have those themes by the Rokugani but are, in truth, an inversion of them). Obviously this all harkens back to "rat" but I'm curious if there actually is a literary root that designers are drawing inspiration from (the way people do with Dwarves via Tolkien).

Not sure about the literary side, but I do recognize the urge that most of us have after a while to make some sense of the races we use and create origin stories, histories, and cultures.  As we mature in outlook and creative ability, It is very common to deepen and link with other histories and intertwine and logicize (yet another word spell check does not recognize, *sigh*) in terms of the setting as a whole.

This has frankly been a personal joy for me.  There was a certain Gnoll-heavy Ogrillite tribe the Steel Isle guys allied with that was a lot of fun, and that presented us with a lot of great gaming moments.  But more than good moments, these moments came about from having a more sophisticated understanding of the tribal cultures to create better interactions, compared to 'humanoid-evil alignment, slaughter them'  mentality.

Well nothing is worse than "They bad, we good, so we kill!" mentality. It has never rung true for me. Sure some races are just evil in D&D (Demons, Devils, tainted creatures) but to run around and assume every tribe of Orcs is evil always seemed silly to me on an anthropological level. To me the battles between Orcs and Men were derived more from a place of cultural intolerance and ignorance, than anything else. Humans claim all the best farm land, leaving only the mountains and bogs to the Orcs, so of course the latter is going to develop a spiteful, raiding culture. Its just logical. That doesn't make them evil, per se, just different.

Quote from: Light Dragon
>>how do 'fix' the somewhat stagnant fantasy zeitgeist? (Assuming it needs fixing at all.)

I don't see an inherent need to fix it, nor do I see it as stagnant. We have mieville after all, and the burgeoning steampunk invasion- there are tons of steampunk books released in the past 3-4 years.

Is there anything wrong with the standard tropes? Anything can be boring if done the same way time and time again- that's what hack writing is. And if you don't buy hacks, then you're promoting different ideas. Also, do what Phoenix did and write your own novels :)

But today we see more variety in fantasy than we have seen.

In the 1980s it was tolkien copy after tolkien copy. Now we have Song of Ice and Fire and a bevy of other novels taking fantasy in different directions. A greater variety of ideas can be published now than ever before.

We're living in a real Renaissance of fiction right now due in no small part to the democratization of the internet, self publishing, eBooks and crowd sourcing. Every medium is really benefiting from this shift in how we, as a society, are able to consume the media we love.

Look at Comic books, specifically Image Comics, they are pumping out some of the most amazing books right now. One that has really struck me is East of West, which is a real treat to those who adore world building. Every page builds up this unique and interesting world that is a blend of future and wild west. A comic like this would never have been created under the big two's labels because it is the kind of story that is constructed over the long haul and takes many issues to really get going, which are two things the quick money loving companies truly dislike.

Point being, we the people now have the ability to allow creators to create that which we always yearn for but never receive from the big, risk adverse companies.

Quote from: Light DragonPeople liked Tolkien's tale, so they read it and told others about it... the plot. The story, the characters. The monsters were there, but at first, there was the tale.
Then they repeated it and it grew to be hyped.

Again, I agree that this happened.  I just think there are reasons for it.  This doesn't mean we have to impart "intrinsic meaning" to the text or its creatures.  It could have everything to do with the context in which the texts were written, for example (post-war, nostalgic, middle class, pining for moral simplicity), and what they "read into" certain texts - although I think there has to be something in the text, even if it's just the illusion of meaning, that such a reading latches onto.

The D&D theory is, in part, a good one.  Though The Lord of the Rings was already hugely popular throughout the '60s, D&D certainly helped to further sediment its tropes as part of "standard fantasy."  Still, I don't think D&D can be singled out as the reason for LotR's overall popularity and dominance.  As much as the LotR's influence is strong, lots of other authors influenced D&D who aren't nearly the figure that Tolkien is.

Quote from: Light DragonHistorical accident.

Seems to me the opposite.  You traced a nice line of influence through LotR and D&D that shows distinctly causal cultural connections, not random or accidental ones.  Again, the reason Gygax responded to LotR strongly isn't arbitrary either.

Quote from: Light Dragonpersonally I found Vance unapproachable.

This is kind of exactly my point.  There's something either in the texts or in the readers or both that responds to certain works and not others.  When I read Vance it feels like reading something written in another age, another time, more like reading a medieval romance than a modern novel.  His language is challenging, odd, bizarre.  Despite his considerable influences and his prolific literary output - and even his influence on D&D - he remains unknown to many readers while Tolkien flourishes.

Think of it this way.  If it were basically chance and pure accident that determines a works' popularity, Vance should be famous: he's written dozens and dozens of novels so, statistically, one of them should heve "made it big."  Tolkien wrote four novels, some short stories, and a bit of poetry.  The public definitely responded to something in Tolkien (or saw something of themselves in his texts) in a way they didn't to Vance.  This doesn't make Vance inferior aesthetically, but it does help to account for the cultural penetration of Tolkien over Vance.

Quote from: Light DragonInstead, I'd argue it's a good example of marketing- just like Lord of the Rings. It caught on and got re-read and it became a thing.

This strikes me as supporting the "sign of the times" thesis - broadly speaking, the historicist thesis - rather than contradicting it.  How does someone like Dan Brown gain popularity?  Through the marketing engine that is late-twentieth-century publishing (and, of course, by writing a "page-turner" - the language, again, matters).  Dan Brown's books certainly wouldn't have succeeded in other times or places!  They're far too anti-religious, for one thing, to have flown to the extent that have now in much of the ninteenth-century or earlier decades of the twentieth.  The insinuation that Christ had children with Mary Magdalene alone would have alienated large swathes of the religious reading public in other eras.

Harry Potter is another great example of a text that "fits" the cultural context of the time.  The liberal values of Harry Potter are everywhere: Hermione's agitation for the House Elves, the race politics of Muggles vs non-Muggles as well as hybrid creatures like centaurs and werewolves, the anti-authoritarian critique of the increasingly fascist Ministry of Magic, the depiction of a society giving up its freedoms in the name of security, even the struggle of the valiant but impoverished Weasleys against an unfair economic system built around old money.  All of these values are immensely resonant with the Western world from 1997-2007.  Add to this Rowling's engaging style, strong structural abilities, workmanlike but effective language, use of archetypal tropes and myths, and the edifice of modern publishing and merchandising, and the reasons for the series' success become pretty clear, I think.

Quote from: Elemental ElfPerhaps Tolkien is too high of a standard but you really believe the Drizzt books will be viewed with the same disdain that people view Lewis' work?

Isn't Salvatore pretty widely disdained as it is?  Like, Salvatore has fans and all, but most of those fans recognize Salvatore's works as a kind of guilty pleasure, not as serious literary fantasy.

Frankly I think people right now have more reverence for Lewis than Salvatore, and while Lewis' works will probably still be read for a long time I doubt Salvatore's will by many.  In my mind Lewis' works are seen as flawed classics by most, while Salvatore's are seen as basically pulpy fluff.

Quote from: Elemental ElfTo me the battles between Orcs and Men were derived more from a place of cultural intolerance and ignorance, than anything else. Humans claim all the best farm land, leaving only the mountains and bogs to the Orcs, so of course the latter is going to develop a spiteful, raiding culture. Its just logical. That doesn't make them evil, per se, just different.

I applaud this attitude absolutely, although it's worth noting it definitely isn't Tolkien's, where Orcs are definitely Evil with a capital E, at an intrinsic, racial level.

Quote from: Steerpike
Again, I agree that this happened.  I just think there are reasons for it.  This doesn't mean we have to impart "intrinsic meaning" to the text or its creatures.  It could have everything to do with the context in which the texts were written, for example (post-war, nostalgic, middle class, pining for moral simplicity), and what they "read into" certain texts - although I think there has to be something in the text, even if it's just the illusion of meaning, that such a reading latches onto.

I still think that's reading too much into it. That's assigning your values and what you think the world is about when what's really happening is that a lot of individuals are making selfish decisions that advance their own existential natures. Now, these individual decisions do tend to form cultural movements that are a sign of the times- as you state a post-war, nostalgic, middle-class world, and at the heart of the 'movement' there may be an individual who is influential who holds those values. But what really matters are not the values themselves, but what matters is that the decision makers influence others- who then follow because they're simply following. They're following because their friends read the book (friendship value), they're following because they want to talk about a book (belonging value), and it is these basic (some would call them universal) values that matter rather than the values that are a sign of the times.

QuoteStill, I don't think D&D can be singled out as the reason for LotR's overall popularity and dominance.  As much as the LotR's influence is strong, lots of other authors influenced D&D who aren't nearly the figure that Tolkien is.

But those authors didn't have the readership. Lankhmar was popular, but not 'that' popular. Lovecraft indeed was coming into his renaissance, but once again- people who played DnD had pretty much all been exposed to LoTR. Had they been exposed to these other fantasy influences?

Quote

Quote from: Light DragonHistorical accident.

Seems to me the opposite.  You traced a nice line of influence through LotR and D&D that shows distinctly causal cultural connections, not random or accidental ones.  Again, the reason Gygax responded to LotR strongly isn't arbitrary either.

It's arbitrary on the macro level- the influencers chose this idea over another. I'll agree that it may not be arbitrary on the individual level- with the starting moving forces- Gygax was charismatic, or at least his core supporters were. And that's what mattered. Personal inter-relationships rather than the core ideas themselves. A glib word is better than a 'good' idea...If you get enough people supporting a concept, then it's the one that works- and people support a concept because of personal reasons that many times have little to do with the 'meaning' of the concepts as interpreted through the lens of history.

Quote
Harry Potter is another great example of a text that "fits" the cultural context of the time.  The liberal values of Harry Potter are everywhere: Hermione's agitation for the House Elves, the race politics of Muggles vs non-Muggles as well as hybrid creatures like centaurs and werewolves, the anti-authoritarian critique of the increasingly fascist Ministry of Magic, the depiction of a society giving up its freedoms in the name of security, even the struggle of the valiant but impoverished Weasleys against an unfair economic system built around old money.  All of these values are immensely resonant with the Western world from 1997-2007.  Add to this Rowling's engaging style, strong structural abilities, workmanlike but effective language, use of archetypal tropes and myths, and the edifice of modern publishing and merchandising, and the reasons for the series' success become pretty clear, I think.

I'll add a caveat first that when I read the books none of those signs of the times 'resonated' with or spoke to me, but I acknowledge that I am likely an outlier and I perhaps have some difficulty in understanding why others read. You make a good argument and it is true that many people read books that 'speak to them.' I don't, but many people do. I actually was not too impressed by Rowling's language or her structure. I liked her overall theme, but much of it was dull- just like the second half of the second book of the lord of the rings- rather poor reading and other than Hermione, a group of non-engaging characters- much like Ender's Game.

While your argument is good- I will counter by saying that Harry Potter worked because it's a good news story. Working mother, unemployed, writes a fantasy novel that's decent. Let's put that on the 6 O'Clock. People want to support her, they buy the books. Kids read the books, like the fact it's about someone their age going through struggles they might face in school or it's a modern fairy tale. Kids talk about the books and make it into something more than it is. They become obsessed with it and talk more- and they make it a movement... not because the book's great but because the story behind the book is great.

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfPerhaps Tolkien is too high of a standard but you really believe the Drizzt books will be viewed with the same disdain that people view Lewis' work?

Isn't Salvatore pretty widely disdained as it is?  Like, Salvatore has fans and all, but most of those fans recognize Salvatore's works as a kind of guilty pleasure, not as serious literary fantasy.

There is a lot of disdain generated by the books but a lot of that is derived from so many people wanting to make carbon copies of Drizzt in their home campaigns. Don't get me wrong, Salvatore's work is definitely in the category of what my AP English Teacher would call "Trash Novels", meaning books that you read because you enjoy them, then throw them away. However, he has sold 15 million books in the USA alone and that has to count for something.

Intrinsically, I'm not sure how much better, from a literary standpoint, Lewis' works are from Salvatore's work. Part of me wonders if "being a classic" does not simply  involve good writing but good timing. The fact that Lewis helped define a portion of the Fantasy genre is a definite boon to him when compared to Salvatore, who was inspired by the works of Tolkien and Lewis. I would definitely be interested to see how the popularity of books would be affected if they were released earlier/later in time. Like your comment on Dan Brown, how much is becoming successful have to do with creating a good work than being released in a time in which society is ready to embrace it? Look at Lovecraft, fairly unpopular in its day but now that culture has evolved, his works have become much beloved.

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfTo me the battles between Orcs and Men were derived more from a place of cultural intolerance and ignorance, than anything else. Humans claim all the best farm land, leaving only the mountains and bogs to the Orcs, so of course the latter is going to develop a spiteful, raiding culture. Its just logical. That doesn't make them evil, per se, just different.

I applaud this attitude absolutely, although it's worth noting it definitely isn't Tolkien's, where Orcs are definitely Evil with a capital E, at an intrinsic, racial level.

Well that's because Tolkien's Orcs were "cursed", in a similar vein to the way Warcraft's and the Elder Scrolls' Orcs were. However, in general, I don't think Orcs are associated with being cursed so much as just being barbarous and brutish now-a-days (or their curse is something that is merely background fluff or something they fight to overcome). Orcs are less capital E evil and more little e evil because their culture is misunderstood or viewed as being primitive/thugish/vile.

Speaking of how Fantasy is less and less Tokien-like, look at two of the most popular Fantasy video Game Franchises - Warcraft and Elder Scrolls. Both of them have a similar Tolkien-ish backstory but the end result is totally different. In Warcraft, the Orcs wind up becoming the de-facto good guys of the franchise as they found a multi-cultural society that believes in redemption, which is contrasted with the pig-headed racism of the Alliance races. In Tamriel, Orcs are scorned as brutes but, due to that, become a militant race of people who join the Imperial Legion in droves. In so many ways Orcs in Tamriel fill the vacuum left by the absence of Dwarves.

Quote from: Light DragonThat's assigning your values and what you think the world is about when what's really happening is that a lot of individuals are making selfish decisions that advance their own existential natures.

I think this comes down to a difference in how we see human nature as functioning.  I'm not much one for free will; I'm not especially convinced that anyone actually makes decisions as a rational, self-interested agent.  I tend to be pretty much in line with the metaphysical determinists.

I suppose I could attempt to reconcile our views by putting it this way - I think a large number of individuals at a particular point in history happened to share a particular set of values (approximately, of course, not exactly the same values), and that some of these values can be read into or reflected by The Lord of the Rings as opposed to other works of the time, such as, say, Gormenghast or The Dying Earth.  I think this had something (but certainly not everything) to do with the series' success.
 
I probably also tend to ascribe more weight to the structure and form of the texts themselves than you do, perhaps.

Quote from: Light DragonIt's arbitrary on the macro level- the influencers chose this idea over another.

I'm not convinced the choices early D&D designers made in terms of literary influences were arbitrary.  For example, they used Vance's spell system and not Tolkien's.  Why?  If it was an entirely arbitrary choice - that is, wholly random or on a whim - there would no real reason for choosing one over the other.  I think there are real reasons they chose Vance's spell system over Tolkien's: Vance's spells were far more codified and internally consistent than Tolkien's, the memorization system naturally allows for a resource-management element in the context of the roleplaying game, Vance's spells were named which inclines them for translation into a rules-set, etc.

Quote from: Light DragonBut those authors didn't have the readership. Lankhmar was popular, but not 'that' popular. Lovecraft indeed was coming into his renaissance, but once again- people who played DnD had pretty much all been exposed to LoTR. Had they been exposed to these other fantasy influences?

Right, I agree with you here.  That's what I meant: you can't really trace LotR's popularity primarily to D&D, because otherwise, by that token, all of its other source materials should also have been popularized by the game.  But perhaps I misunderstood your earlier contention?

Quote from: Light DragonYou make a good argument and it is true that many people read books that 'speak to them.' I don't, but many people do.

I should add that I don't think many people are aware of the cultural and political forces that may be shaping their responses to a particular text.  As a species we are generally painfully unaware of the motivations for most of our actions the bulk of the time.

Quote from: Light DragonWhile your argument is good- I will counter by saying that Harry Potter worked because it's a good news story. Working mother, unemployed, writes a fantasy novel that's decent. Let's put that on the 6 O'Clock. People want to support her, they buy the books.

Totally with you here - Rowling's story forms a kind of paratext to the Harry Potter novels that added powerfully to their cache.  But her story, too, strongly appeals to particular political and cultural values.  In a different time, when a different series of values were in circulation - and in different economic climates, of course - her story wouldn't have generated the same appeal.  "Divorced mother sells books about witchcraft targeted to children" would not have flown in other centuries.  The adverse reaction to Rowling by some especially backwards Christian conservatives holds testament to this.

Quote from: Elemental ElfHowever, he has sold 15 million books in the USA alone and that has to count for something.

Right, I agree, but Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyer have sold brilliantly as well, and very few people hail them as literary geniuses.  They're certainly popular, though, and their ideas and images have achieved a great deal of cultural prevalence, there's no question there.

Quote from: Elemental ElfOrcs are less capital E evil and more little e evil because their culture is misunderstood or viewed as being primitive/thugish/vile.

It's been very interesting to see them evolve, I agree.  One could mount the argument that this transition has a lot to do with modern political correctness and an awareness of racism in media.  It's particularly  prominent in the Warcraft franchise, as you point out, as the Orcs there really transform from one extreme to the other - and I highly doubt that when the first Warcraft game was made the creators had any intention of supplying Orcs with that kind of arc.

Quote from: EEPerhaps Tolkien is too high of a standard but you really believe the Drizzt books will be viewed with the same disdain that people view Lewis' work

If Salvatore is lucky.
Lewis actually has a decent following, but we are comparing him here to his Inkling and converted partner, Prof. Tolkien.  I mean, he did have a few movies made of his stuff, and his work is good, but transparent.

Quote from: EE

Quote from: LVNot sure about the literary side, but I do recognize the urge that most of us have after a while to make some sense of the races we use and create origin stories, histories, and cultures.  As we mature in outlook and creative ability, It is very common to deepen and link with other histories and intertwine and logicize (yet another word spell check does not recognize, *sigh*) in terms of the setting as a whole.

This has frankly been a personal joy for me.  There was a certain Gnoll-heavy Ogrillite tribe the Steel Isle guys allied with that was a lot of fun, and that presented us with a lot of great gaming moments.  But more than good moments, these moments came about from having a more sophisticated understanding of the tribal cultures to create better interactions, compared to 'humanoid-evil alignment, slaughter them'  mentality.

Well nothing is worse than "They bad, we good, so we kill!" mentality. It has never rung true for me. Sure some races are just evil in D&D (Demons, Devils, tainted creatures) but to run around and assume every tribe of Orcs is evil always seemed silly to me on an anthropological level. To me the battles between Orcs and Men were derived more from a place of cultural intolerance and ignorance, than anything else. Humans claim all the best farm land, leaving only the mountains and bogs to the Orcs, so of course the latter is going to develop a spiteful, raiding culture. Its just logical. That doesn't make them evil, per se, just different.

And this is what makes the hobby tick, and actually grow.   Tolkien's work was one version of a fantasy world, and one that used a pretty strict racial alignment system.  But not every game needs that or want it. 
As we grow up, sometimes our games change, or new tastes are added on.  Alignment systems, especially racial alignments, reduce pc responsibility for their actions and rob them of a level of free will.  It's a heavy thought, but it is behind some of the changes that people make.  Just as many games get less super-heroic (sometimes), and more gritty and deadly (sometimes), many people add in more realistic ambiguity.
Again, as to my example above, the PCs in Steel Isle, when they ran into the Trine Guldana, ended up in a fight.  But the PCs allowed the Trine to surrender, formed an alliance, and ended up working together for the rest of the time.  The Trine Guldana is currently working with the Farmers of the Southern Quarter.

Quote from: SPHarry Potter is another great example of a text that "fits" the cultural context of the time.  The liberal values of Harry Potter are everywhere: Hermione's agitation for the House Elves, the race politics of Muggles vs non-Muggles as well as hybrid creatures like centaurs and werewolves, the anti-authoritarian critique of the increasingly fascist Ministry of Magic, the depiction of a society giving up its freedoms in the name of security, even the struggle of the valiant but impoverished Weasleys against an unfair economic system built around old money.  All of these values are immensely resonant with the Western world from 1997-2007.  Add to this Rowling's engaging style, strong structural abilities, workmanlike but effective language, use of archetypal tropes and myths, and the edifice of modern publishing and merchandising, and the reasons for the series' success become pretty clear, I think.

Props.  Major props.  You nailed the cultural lock and key that Rowling Bolted onto a detailed and consistent 'coming of age' tale.  I will also say that the blending of detective 'who done it' and the back story of Tom Riddle and the Judas-like Snape all made this MUCH more than the children's book it started as.

Quote from: LDBut those authors didn't have the readership. Lankhmar was popular, but not 'that' popular. Lovecraft indeed was coming into his renaissance, but once again- people who played DnD had pretty much all been exposed to LoTR. Had they been exposed to these other fantasy influences?

you are having major 'chicken and the egg' issues.  The Causality of D&D causing the popularity but then professing that it was already more popular than the other writers is compartmentalizing the example from trhe actual, larger cultural dynamic.  Both D&D/RPGs and Tolkien benefited, while helping each synergistically, by a larger cultural movement away from SF into this era where Fantasy is the burgeoning superpower.
Which, by the way, while I like fantasy better slightly, I think is part of a horrible cultural pendulum swing in our society.  The greater reasons for this removal from reality as opposed to trying to grapple with scientifically produced possible futures frightens me anthropologically. 

Quote from: LDI'll add a caveat first that when I read the books none of those signs of the times 'resonated' with or spoke to me, but I acknowledge that I am likely an outlier and I perhaps have some difficulty in understanding why others read. You make a good argument and it is true that many people read books that 'speak to them.' I don't, but many people do. I actually was not too impressed by Rowling's language or her structure. I liked her overall theme, but much of it was dull- just like the second half of the second book of the lord of the rings- rather poor reading and other than Hermione, a group of non-engaging characters- much like Ender's Game.

While your argument is good- I will counter by saying that Harry Potter worked because it's a good news story. Working mother, unemployed, writes a fantasy novel that's decent. Let's put that on the 6 O'Clock. People want to support her, they buy the books. Kids read the books, like the fact it's about someone their age going through struggles they might face in school or it's a modern fairy tale. Kids talk about the books and make it into something more than it is. They become obsessed with it and talk more- and they make it a movement... not because the book's great but because the story behind the book is great.

LD, I don't think 95% of the people who read and enjoyed (at any level) realize when something they read is grabbing onto their cultural totems.  That is one of the points, a better author has a lighter touch with these things.  I won't argue Rowling's writing ability with you as I am not crazy with her verbiage or pacing either, but I think your analysis is too thin to hold water.  I actually think SteerPike has latched onto the major reason for her cultural penetration.

Quote from: SPI think this comes down to a difference in how we see human nature as functioning.  I'm not much one for free will; I'm not especially convinced that anyone actually makes decisions as a rational, self-interested agent.  I tend to be pretty much in line with the metaphysical determinists.

I suppose I could attempt to reconcile our views by putting it this way - I think a large number of individuals at a particular point in history happened to share a particular set of values (approximately, of course, not exactly the same values), and that some of these values can be read into or reflected by The Lord of the Rings as opposed to other works of the time, such as, say, Gormenghast or The Dying Earth.  I think this had something (but certainly not everything) to do with the series' success.
 
I probably also tend to ascribe more weight to the structure and form of the texts themselves than you do, perhaps.

Much more of a Compatibilist.  Existentialism requires responsibility for one's actions, and I am still, at heart, purely existential.  I have, however, agreed that the zeitgeist and the subconscious mind combine and actually create many of our perceptions BEFORE they are analyzed on a conscious level. 

Quote from: SPI'm not convinced the choices early D&D designers made in terms of literary influences were arbitrary.  For example, they used Vance's spell system and not Tolkien's.  Why?  If it was an entirely arbitrary choice - that is, wholly random or on a whim - there would no real reason for choosing one over the other.  I think there are real reasons they chose Vance's spell system over Tolkien's: Vance's spells were far more codified and internally consistent than Tolkien's, the memorization system naturally allows for a resource-management element in the context of the roleplaying game, Vance's spells were named which inclines them for translation into a rules-set, etc.

Ha.
Tolkien's magic was made to be inscrutable and quasi-religious. It's the biggest reason why ICE's gorgeously mapped and carefully researched Tolkien stuff flopped, that the magic system of the bastardized Rolemaster was antithetical to the feel of Tolkien's world.  And so much of Tolkien's magic was tied into items, Staffs, rods, swords, rings... Making a game out of it was going to be, um....hard.

Quote from: SPIt's been very interesting to see them evolve, I agree.  One could mount the argument that this transition has a lot to do with modern political correctness and an awareness of racism in media.  It's particularly  prominent in the Warcraft franchise, as you point out, as the Orcs there really transform from one extreme to the other - and I highly doubt that when the first Warcraft game was made the creators had any intention of supplying Orcs with that kind of arc.

I also believe it is part of the positive side of Cultural correction and Political Correctness (meant with all the New Left connotation).  I totally agree that it was totally what spurred me to make the racial adjustments as part of an overarching theme in my work.  And it was most assuredly not meant when world of warcraft started. 
And the opposite is Dragon Age's Darkspawn, a reattempt to create races that can murdered without compunction. 

Isn't the sudden meteoric rise of Zombies due in no small part to the fact that we have, culturally, humanized almost every other common bad guy race to the point where they are all just tortured souls who don't really want to kill but are lead to do so by their cursed nature and humanity's racism?

Undead are the last safe thing to kill without feeling bad.
*BRAINS*

Quote from: Lord VreegMuch more of a Compatibilist.  

Fair enough.  I'm a compatabilist when it comes to political liberty or non-metaphyisical free-will, and I agree with the compatabilists that, in a certain sense, "free will" isn't coherently defined.  I think that's because it's a kind of impossible idea.  So, basically, I understand and respect the compatabilist position, and really I think it's just determinism seen from a different angle.  The people I don't understand at all are the metaphysical libertarians, the ones that want some kind of "agent" - either something spooky and dualist and separate from the physical or that somehow appeal to randomness as providing room for free will.

Quote from: Lord VreegThe greater reasons for this removal from reality as opposed to trying to grapple with scientifically produced possible futures frightens me anthropologically.

Ooh now we're getting contentious!  You might be interested to know (if you don't already) that this is exactly the position of renowned literary critic Frederic Jameson, who considers fantasy a kind of inherently reactionary and escapist genre, a pablum for the masses, while science fiction deals with "reality."

I tend to disagree pretty strongly.  I think fantasy has the ability to present us with a defamiliarized version of reality that can make us question and examine our cultural assumptions (sometimes, again, without always realizing it), and I think the imaginative process underlying fantasy is kind of intrinsically liberating.  All cultural activities have a ludic element, an element of play, and fantasy exemplifies this tendency, while simultaneously allowing us a way to explore our own unease with reality and society, with its problems and power structures.  A Song of Ice and Fire, for example, can be read as a critique of patriarchal power while grappling with moral issues that resist reduction into binary terms (the books are certainly not about Good vs. Evil).  The books refuse to sanitize things like the horrors of war and can be pretty sceptical about things like codes of honour and chivalry, so in a sense they're doggedly anti-escapist, confronting the reader again and again with atrocity, pain, suffering, death.

I mean, sometimes fantasy is just kind of escapist drek, although even then I'd argue it inadvertently expresses other important things and serves useful functions beyond just escapism.

This isn't to say that the only value in fantasy is the extent to which it is "about" something other than itself.  Aesthetic objects can have value simply as aesthetic objects.

Quote from: Lord VreegAnd so much of Tolkien's magic was tied into items, Staffs, rods, swords, rings... Making a game out of it was going to be, um....hard.

Yeah, would have been seriously messy.

Quote from: Elemental ElfIsn't the sudden meteoric rise of Zombies due in no small part to the fact that we have, culturally, humanized almost every other common bad guy race to the point where they are all just tortured souls who don't really want to kill but are lead to do so by their cursed nature and humanity's racism?

Not a bad theory, that!

Quote from: SPOoh now we're getting contentious!  You might be interested to know (if you don't already) that this is exactly the position of renowned literary critic Frederic Jameson, who considers fantasy a kind of inherently reactionary and escapist genre, a pablum for the masses, while science fiction deals with "reality."

I tend to disagree pretty strongly.  I think fantasy has the ability to present us with a defamiliarized version of reality that can make us question and examine our culutral assumptions (sometimes, again, without always realizing it), and I think the imaginative process underlying fantasy is kind of intrinsically liberating.  All cultural activities have a ludic element, an element of play, and fantasy exemplifies this tendency, while simultaneously allowing us a way to explore our own unease with reality and society, with its problems and power structures.  A Song of Ice and Fire, for example, can be read as a critique of patriarchal power while grappling with moral issues that resist reduction into binary terms (the books are certainly not about Good vs. Evil).  I mean, sometimes it is just kind of escapist drek, although even then I'd argue it inadvertantly expresses other important things and serves useful functions beyond just escapism.

This isn't to say that the only value in fantasy is the extent to which it is "about" something other than itself.  Aesthetic objects can have value simply as aesthetic objects.

No, you miss my real issues.

I have no issue as to the power and possibility of Fantasy.  I have an issue with the decline of Science Fiction, and our cultural relationship with Science.
Again, let's use Tolkien, or, more correctly, Peter S. Beagle's preamble, when he talks about part of the attraction of LotR being ties to the change in the term 'progress' losing it's level of holiness, and the term 'escape' becoming less comically obscene.  Please note that we speak of both here, as did Beagle.

I worry about our devolvement into the have and have not of technology, where a small group of technomancers understand enough about our society's tools and mechanized base and 99% of the population is ignorant as to how and what is happening.  I see the reduction of science fiction tied to a cultural negativity about science that stems from ignorance and the fear of ignorance.  A larger, "I feel stupid for not knowing so I will just hit buttons on my cell phone while not knowing what makes it work". 
Science fiction, at it's best, celebrates progress through science, but I fear that there is a cultural subconscious push-back. 

That's a very interesting answer!

Quote from: Lord VreegScience fiction, at it's best, celebrates progress through science, but I fear that there is a cultural subconscious push-back. 

How do you feel about cyberpunk and other dystopian science fiction - Brave New World, Oryx and Crake, The Hunger Games, A Canticle for Leibowtiz, etc?  These works are pretty ambivalent about science.

I've got to agree with Lord Vreeg on this one.  Science Fiction greats all take logical extentions of science into futuristic (or alternate present-day settings, based on different developments), but they all, at their heart, revel in science, scientific method, and a celebration of advancement.  Cyberpunk and dystopian stories, like Brave New World, focus on the human condition and how things go wrong because of change.  They express and revel in a fear of change, rather than what could be.  While some of them do serve as warnings, I still find there to be a fundamental difference between Robert Heinlein's Revolt in 2100 and Orwell's 1984.  Even Dune and Helstrom's Hive, as dark as they are, revolve around scientific method and extrapolations from science rather than how fundamentally messed up society/humanity is.

Dune is an interesting example because I feel it's only a hairsbreadth from science fantasy.  Prana bindu and the weirding way, the Voice, sexual imprinting, simulfow and genetic memories, precognition - these aren't really science at all, they're magic dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb.

Perhaps one of the reasons I'm less pessemistic about science fiction is that I tend to see generic distinctions as being pretty fluid.

Here is where I think I can actually contribute to this topic.  I wonder if maybe the drift away from sci-fi and towards fantasy has something to do with our feeling of alienation from our own world.  With the internet, real face-to-face human interaction is being replaced by computer screens.  While this leads to a trend to broadcast our thoughts, we are essentially moving in the direction of the self-centeredness and being very inside ourselves.  Fantasy is a means of getting away from a world that looks increasingly pessimistic.  Technology seems to be making us less human, and we aren't as excited by the possibilities the future holds in ways we used to be in the 60s.  The world today does not look the way we imagined it would in the 50s & 60s.  In some ways we are MORE advanced but in a lot of ways we are "behind schedule."  We have no moon colonies, and no mass space travel.  We've only recently started exploring Mars in any detail, and there is no clear picture of when we will be able to send PEOPLE there.   

In addition, though, the world is so divided, and American culture has become very loudly and prominently divided on every issue: Republicans vs. Democrats, Christians vs. Muslim, America vs. "Terror" (as ridiculous as it is to try and fight an emotion), and debates over racism, sexism, ableism, over transgender issues, over "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice," as well as "class warfare," religious and secular debates, gun control, and so forth.  Nowadays EVERYONE has an issue that they are passionate about, and want to fight for, or want to tell people they fight for.

Fantasy allows people the means to create a world, that you have shaped the way you want.  You can paint a picture of your personal utopia, or use it to critique the positions of your opponents, or both.  It can be a way of escaping, that by creating a new world, still allows for discourse on the subjects people are passionate about.  It allows us to see something we like or don't like, and can cheer on, or jeer at in an exciting and entertaining context, that allows us to romanticize the heroes who are not the politicians we have become so jaded with.

I think it is felling of stagnation, and a disdain for the present, combined with a lack of cultural lack of true optimism for the future that has driven us more towards escapist fantasy, and away from science fiction.

Quote from: SPDune is an interesting example because I feel it's only a hairsbreadth from science fantasy.  Prana bindu and the weirding way, the Voice, sexual imprinting, simulfow and genetic memories, precognition - these aren't really science at all, they're magic dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb.

Perhaps one of the reasons I'm less pessemistic about science fiction is that I tend to see generic distinctions as being pretty fluid.

So is star wars, so is Lord of Light, so are many of them.  Hell, Shanarra is actually a future earth.

the only thing that makes dune feel this way is a certain fearless blending and in many places (as with Lord of Light) a science so far advanced it seems like magic.  I still see it on the shelf as Science Fiction, and that is the point I am making.
Perception.

Science is becoming one of the great Have and Have nots, like knowledge, health and money.  I feel that people either feel very positively about it, or are vaguely ashamed.  And this has been part of the attitudinal change about progress.  Anyone else do a lot of reading about the Robber Barons, and their place in American history?  Are the heroes or villains?  did they spur on and fund invention and the moden age?  Or did they do so, but to the detriment of most of the population?  And we are going through a similar time now, and I think this is part of the cultural puzzle.  Certainly I won't claim it is all of it, culture is large and can contain many critical flaws....

Quote from: Seraphine HarmoniumYou can paint a picture of your personal utopia, or use it to critique the positions of your opponents, or both.

This is a very interesting point, as historically - at least in the twentieth-century - most "utopian" fiction has been science fiction, at least to my knowledge.  Perhaps an increased pessimism towards technology in general, and a critique of the idea of "progress," have mitigated this.  I'm curious though - could you give an example of a utopian fantasy novel written in the last hundred years?  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just can't really think of any.

Quote from: Lord VreegI feel that people either feel very positively about it, or are vaguely ashamed.

I think I probably feel both at once.  I'm pretty optimistic about the sorts of things technology could do for us, and there are certainly many ways that technology is a very, very, very good thing - saving lives, spreading prosperity, positively impacting culture, etc.  But enthusiasm has to be tempered with an understanding of the real consequences our use of technology has and is wreaking - from environmental damage (not just greenhouse gas emission but the vast amount of electronic waste now accumulating as everyone scraps their phones, laptops, desktops, printers etc every few years) to the use of exploitative labour in computer manufacturing to the digital violation of privacy on the part of governments against their own people.

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Lord VreegScience fiction, at it's best, celebrates progress through science, but I fear that there is a cultural subconscious push-back. 

How do you feel about cyberpunk and other dystopian science fiction - Brave New World, Oryx and Crake, The Hunger Games, A Canticle for Leibowtiz, etc?  These works are pretty ambivalent about science.

I feel the key ingredient is that classically, Science Fiction aims to take one or more bits of scientific progress or technology (real or hypothetical) and extrapolate its effects on a society. Then you get to explore the implications of a thing. I feel like most of the concepts that feel-- to me-- like Sci-Fi can be summed up in terms of a what-if scenario that the story then explores: what if robots demanded rights? what if we found a cure for old age? what if we discovered life on mars?

The key thing that creates the distinction in my mind is often that sci-fi feels like the camera is focused on society while fantasy feels like the camera is focused on one or a few key individuals.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
The key thing that creates the distinction in my mind is often that sci-fi feels like the camera is focused on society while fantasy feels like the camera is focused on one or a few key individuals.

By that logic, all my purported fantasy settings are actually sci-fi. Interesting - I've never thought of it that way, though I guess I never made a direct distinction between them in the first place.

Quote from: Weave

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
The key thing that creates the distinction in my mind is often that sci-fi feels like the camera is focused on society while fantasy feels like the camera is focused on one or a few key individuals.

By that logic, all my purported fantasy settings are actually sci-fi. Interesting - I've never thought of it that way, though I guess I never made a direct distinction between them in the first place.

Yeah I'm not sure that is a satisfying way to distinguish them.

Tangent: Star Wars is often considered "Science Fantasy."  How would you guys say Science Fantasy is distinguished from Science Fiction?

Quote from: Humabout>>Science Fiction greats all take logical extentions of science into futuristic (or alternate present-day settings, based on different developments), but they all, at their heart, revel in science, scientific method, and a celebration of advancement.

Which Science Fiction greats? At least, which greats since the 1990s? Most modern Sci-Fi I've read is pretty negative or dystopian at worst, or at best it focuses on the human condition... in a usually negative fashion that creates a dread of advancement.

Chris Bunch, who wrote military sci-fi wrote entertaining pieces that were generally positive... but at the series' core, it was about the collapse of galactic governance, a launch into the dark ages, so at its heart- it was concerning, not enlightening. The books were good, but they had an undertone of disappointment and loss because you know that the series' heroes are damned and have to make the best they can with what very little they have.

It's difficult though, to make a sci-fi tale that is unabashedly positive towards science without creating a tacky Edisonaide. I've written a number of sci-fi shorts, and the better shorts are the dystopian or at least disturbing ones. (note: none of either type have managed to be published, but I have received a few good rejection letters with notes for improvement :)).

Note: after a bit more reflection and reformulating, I hope to respond in a succinct (non-rambling) way to Steerpike and Lord Vreeg.

Good Sci-Fi asks questions and makes the audience think.

Trash Sci-Fi is mindless (but enjoyable) entertainment.

Positive or negative doesn't really matter, so long as it is thought provoking.

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Lord Vreeg
Science fiction, at it's best, celebrates progress through science, but I fear that there is a cultural subconscious push-back.

How do you feel about cyberpunk and other dystopian science fiction - Brave New World, Oryx and Crake, The Hunger Games, A Canticle for Leibowtiz, etc?  These works are pretty ambivalent about science.

well, first of all, we had been talking about larger authors and cultural penetration.  And this is a splinter of a declining movement, and I could leave it at that.  But it is not what I really think. 
Dystopian Science Ficiton deals often with the negative possibilities of technology to some degree, but if that was the only difference, then the Empire in Star Wars would be dystopian.  And Dystopian works have always been part of the genre, with Iron Heel from Jack London and Farenheit 451 joining Orwell.

My feeling on Dystopian works is that they still pay homage to the possibilities of progress through Science, butfrom a cautionary angle.  They nornally expand upon issues that are current, and use technology as a multiplier; as a cautionary take oif what can happen if we let government/corporations/religions/ hkeep going the way they are they will use our attempts towards progress to control us, and technology will aloow them to do it. 
But I don't see them as blaming science, so much as I see them blaming society.

Quote from: Light DragonWhich Science Fiction greats? At least, which greats since the 1990s? Most modern Sci-Fi I've read is pretty negative or dystopian at worst, or at best it focuses on the human condition... in a usually negative fashion that creates a dread of advancement.

I haven't read anything I'd consider "great" from the 1990s to present.  I've had a horrible time finding anything that could count as "literature" as opposed to slop thrown out to make a buck.  (I think that's part of what has impressed me about ASoFaI, although that's clearly fantasy.)  Harlen Ellison, Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C Clark, Frank Herbert - these were masters and wrote stories of literary value that won't be forgotten a week after the movie adaptation leaves the theaters.

Quote from: Light DragonChris Bunch, who wrote military sci-fi wrote entertaining pieces that were generally positive... but at the series' core, it was about the collapse of galactic governance, a launch into the dark ages, so at its heart- it was concerning, not enlightening. The books were good, but they had an undertone of disappointment and loss because you know that the series' heroes are damned and have to make the best they can with what very little they have.

It's difficult though, to make a sci-fi tale that is unabashedly positive towards science without creating a tacky Edisonaide. I've written a number of sci-fi shorts, and the better shorts are the dystopian or at least disturbing ones. (note: none of either type have managed to be published, but I have received a few good rejection letters with notes for improvement :)).

Note: after a bit more reflection and reformulating, I hope to respond in a succinct (non-rambling) way to Steerpike and Lord Vreeg.

Are you familiar with The Revolt in 2100 or any of Heinlein's stories involving Jeremiah Sutter?  They are quite pessimistic and cautionary, but they still express an optimism insofar as such things won't last.  I would suggest that Heinlein expressed a lot of pessimism toward people throughout his novels, but these are not the hopeless, dismal, self-indulgent pity-fests of Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep.

And a note on "Science Fantasy."  The best I can figure, it's just fantasy set in the future.  Star Wars is a wonderful example.  There is no science there.  At. All.  It's just a futuristic fantasy series with space samurai and sound in vacuum.  Science Fiction, at its core, stems from logical extrapolations from science and an attempt to adhere to the possibilities presented by current understanding of science.  Without the injection of scientific rigor, it's not "science" anything.  At best, it's fantasy, and at worst, it's nonsense.

You know what was a good Sci-Fi show? The newer Battlestar Galactica. To me that was good sci-fi as it asked questions (about racism, AI, faith, god, etc.), made the audience think AND had endearing characters (i.e. best of both worlds).  

When it comes to fantasy, I can't think of many Fantasy movies/shows/books/games that really made me think about the world around me.

Look at the episode The Outcast from Star Trek The Next Generation. It dealt with a species whose culture was genderless and abhorred gender and viewed it as deviant. One of this species identified as female and fell in love with Commander Riker. Her society punished her with  "Psychotectic therapy" to "cure her" of her gender identity and return her to what society saw as "normal." Clearly this is an analogue to the LGBT community's struggles with society not accepting them and the ways society punishes/cures them. It is thought provoking and makes you question how our own society deals with the LGBT community (especially for back in the early 90's).

That is good (if a bit ham-fisted) sci-fi .

I totally agree.  BSG was great, excluding the total cop-out final episode.  The entire Star Trek franchise is renowned for pushing social issues (probably excluding Voyager, but I think most trekkers try to pretend that show didn't happen).  One of the things I love about Heinlein was the way he used science fiction to explore social norms and mores.  It forces the reader to really examine why he thinks the things he does.

You're right that there doesn't seem to be much fantasy lit that does the same thing.  Perhaps it stems from many fantasy stories' attempt to create a mythos (or just be entertaining, as is the case with the more pulp fantasy books).

Quote from: Humabout
I totally agree.  BSG was great, excluding the total cop-out final episode.  The entire Star Trek franchise is renowned for pushing social issues (probably excluding Voyager, but I think most trekkers try to pretend that show didn't happen).  One of the things I love about Heinlein was the way he used science fiction to explore social norms and mores.  It forces the reader to really examine why he thinks the things he does.

You're right that there doesn't seem to be much fantasy lit that does the same thing.  Perhaps it stems from many fantasy stories' attempt to create a mythos (or just be entertaining, as is the case with the more pulp fantasy books).

To me, that's unsurprising, as you're talking about what I consider definitional to those genres.

To me: Sci-fi is about using speculative fiction to hold a lens up to society, and the fact that much of it is "futurey" is largely coincidence. Fantasy is about the unfolding of a characters' mythic arc, and the fact that much of it is "magickey" is largely coincidence.

Most (not all) examples make more sense when you ignore the coat of paint on the surface and examine the structure. (Like why Star Wars is fantasy and not sci-fi, even though it has robots and outer space and etc. It's because the actual story being told is about a reluctant nobody, driven by destiny, trained by wizards, wielding his father's magic sword, trying to defeat a dark lord corrupted by metaphysical evil. The robots and planets and spaceships are structurally incidental to the whole thing.)

I think it is more common for a work that is basically sci-fi to incorporate dramatic character arcs (assuming a facet of fantasy) than it is for a work that is basically fantasy to really critically examine an aspect of society (assuming a facet of sci-fi). This is probably because characters are the way in which authors invest readers in their work. (Interestingly, it's different for roleplaying game settings, in which the most interesting characters are ideally the ones created by players, so setting authors often just try to make room for that dramatic character arc without actually building it.)

I think that most fantasy settings that examine societal issues don't really invite critique of those issues, they're just borrowing the emotional weight of things that readers/players/viewers are already familiar with. The Empire in Star Wars is laden with symbols of fascism, but that's not to invite viewers to think about fascism, it's just so we'll know who the unambiguous bad guys are. The slavery in the Jade Stage functions similarly, and the elves' species-wide incapability of empathy is not present so much to explore the societal implications of a species without empathy but rather to emphasize that these people are distant, alien, and unsympathetic. It's a direct route to producing a desired set of reactions, since we know what symbols are usually connected with what reactions.

The best fantasy example I can think of that actually does step toward sci-fi in the "lens on society" sense of the idea is Discworld, which is really so much of a pastiche that I'm not sure what the actual correct genre classification actually is, or if one exists.

Quote from: Humabout
I totally agree.  BSG was great, excluding the total cop-out final episode.  

The final episode only really had 1 bad part, IMO. The rest of it was pretty darn good... Ok 2 bad parts.

[spoiler]The first bad one was where everyone just decided to "go native" and join the human tribe AND that tribe just accepted the outsiders. The second bad part was at the very end where Baltar calls god "he" instead of "she". I was really hoping Kara was more of a Jesus-like "mortal form of God" not just some Angel. [/spoiler]

Quote from: HumaboutThe entire Star Trek franchise is renowned for pushing social issues (probably excluding Voyager, but I think most trekkers try to pretend that show didn't happen).  One of the things I love about Heinlein was the way he used science fiction to explore social norms and mores.  It forces the reader to really examine why he thinks the things he does.

Voyager is best known for its Borg episodes and survival in unknown territory stories but, in reality, they did just as much social commentary. The problem with it was that many of the things they discussed were re-treads of what TNG did (which, to many, was a glaring weakness of the show).

Heinlein is a great example of what Sci-Fi can, and should, be. It's about looking at yourself and the world around you and questioning everything (i.e. the foundation of Science).

Quote from: HumaboutYou're right that there doesn't seem to be much fantasy lit that does the same thing.  Perhaps it stems from many fantasy stories' attempt to create a mythos (or just be entertaining, as is the case with the more pulp fantasy books).

Look at Star Trek, it has a wondrously complex mythos that has been created over the course of 50 years via 5 TV shows (6 if you count the Animated Shows) and 12 movies. When you really get down to it, there are precious few other fictional worlds that have as much generated content. Star Wars definitely is up there, since the books are all considered canon (err... well an acceptable level of canon). Forgotten Realms and middle-Earth are probably up there as well. Point being, most fictional universes have a clear start point and a clear end point in terms of new content and the products life cycle.

Fantasy, to me, could just as easily focus on social issues as Sci-Fi. In fact the way Fantasy could deal with racism, class-ism, privilege, the downtrodden, the environment, etc. could be very compelling and quite interesting. Yet, for some reason, Fantasy sticks to just being entertainment. Maybe it is a case of people not supporting those kinds of stories in Fantasy, thus discouraging authors from writing them (and instead taking their ideas and writing Sci-Fi or pseudo-historical fiction).

Quote from: Luminous CrayonTo me: Sci-fi is about using speculative fiction to hold a lens up to society, and the fact that much of it is "futurey" is largely coincidence. Fantasy is about the unfolding of a characters' mythic arc, and the fact that much of it is "magickey" is largely coincidence.

It cannot be mere coincidence for Sci-Fi to be the questioning genre and Fantasy to be the mindless entertainment genre. I understand why Sci-Fi does what it does (it just makes sense), what I do not understand is why Fantasy does not tread into the social commentary area (in the way Sci-Fi does). Fantasy is rife with lots of interesting ways to discuss real world, societal issues yet, at the end of the day, it stubbornly refuses to do so. Do people just want to see heroic heroes slaying Dragons? Is that all Fantasy is good for? Why can't we delve into class warfare and intolerance? Why must we always read about larger than life heroes performing heroic acts?

Quote from: Luminous CrayonMost (not all) examples make more sense when you ignore the coat of paint on the surface and examine the structure. (Like why Star Wars is fantasy and not sci-fi, even though it has robots and outer space and etc. It's because the actual story being told is about a reluctant nobody, driven by destiny, trained by wizards, wielding his father's magic sword, trying to defeat a dark lord corrupted by metaphysical evil. The robots and planets and spaceships are structurally incidental to the whole thing.)

I've commented on this fact before to other Star Wars fans and there is a lot of negative re-action to this concept that Star Wars is just a Fantasy setting that has been gussied up with Sci-Fi elements. You could take the entire story and, with minimal edits, make it into a perfectly solid medieval fantasy movie. I think a lot of people refuse to see it that way because they have been lured in by the glitz of the sci-fi elements and refuse to see the forest for the trees.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonI think that most fantasy settings that examine societal issues don't really invite critique of those issues, they're just borrowing the emotional weight of things that readers/players/viewers are already familiar with.

That sounds like a cop-out. If authors wanted to, they could easily examine societal issues in a profound and meaningful way. Instead they just harken back to well tread archetypes and stereotypes to push character-driven stories.

Quote from: HumaboutAnd a note on "Science Fantasy."  The best I can figure, it's just fantasy set in the future.  Star Wars is a wonderful example.  There is no science there.  At. All.  It's just a futuristic fantasy series with space samurai and sound in vacuum.  Science Fiction, at its core, stems from logical extrapolations from science and an attempt to adhere to the possibilities presented by current understanding of science.  Without the injection of scientific rigor, it's not "science" anything.  At best, it's fantasy, and at worst, it's nonsense.

Right, yeah - this is what I was trying to say about Dune - it is a whisper away from this when you actually look at it.  About the only thing I "buy" at all are drugs being used to make human computers and the really basic brute stuff like shields and atomics.  But anything the Bene Gesserit and Guild Navigators do, while sounding sciencey, is pretty much dressed-up mysticism.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonTo me: Sci-fi is about using speculative fiction to hold a lens up to society, and the fact that much of it is "futurey" is largely coincidence. Fantasy is about the unfolding of a characters' mythic arc, and the fact that much of it is "magickey" is largely coincidence.

Speaking of Dune, that novel is kind of an interesting example given your definitions here.  The novel is very much the story of Paul, his coming of age, his training, and his ascension (it's all incredibly mythic and such - prophecies and chosen ones and all that), but as a consequence of his social standing and powers, he radically reshapes several societies whose ways of life the novel spends a great deal of time examining, and in later novels the very ecosystems of planets are altered as a result of his decisions and the decisions of his son.  So depending on how you look at it, I think, Dune either messes with your rubric or sits right in the middle between science fiction and fantasy.

I'm also curious what you make of A Song of Ice and Fire, which while very character-driven focuses a great deal of its time on exploring the power structures of medieval societies and often depicts their overthrow and disruption.  It's definitely invested not only in using such power structures to give its stories emotional heft but to force readers to examine them.

Do you feel, in essence, that "proper" or "real" science fiction is necessarily a more didactic genre, LC?  Naturalism in space?

Quote from: HumaboutYet, for some reason, Fantasy sticks to just being entertainment.

If you haven't read Miéville, man, you gotta.  Also Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun, most of Neil Gaiman's work, Vandermeer's Ambergris series (especially Finch), and of course A Song of Ice and Fire spring to mind as works that tackle all sorts of sociopolitical themes - religious conflicts, class conflicts, economic woes, racial oppression, queer sexuality, the nature of power etc.

Of those, I've read ASoIaF, and as good as it is, it really doesn't do anything to examine society.  It focuses on the struggles of individual characters within a more sociopolitically realistic setting than most fantasies.  It isn't asking any questions, though.  It isn't examining anything, really. Just focusing on the individual struggles of each person within unfolding events that take on the typically mythic scope of most fantasies.

Re: EE,

Well, I don't agree with language like "cop-out" and "mindless entertainment." I'm talking about two different story structures, I'm not making value judgments about one being better than the other.

I assume that the reason sci-fi often lines up with societal issues and fantasy often lines up with heroic journey stories is that technology has its effects on the societal level and magic is typically a will-made-manifest reflecting the mastery of an individual.

Pyrokineticism is a sign of the inner strength of the person who can manipulate fire with his mind; that's an element of a character. Getting free energy by magically binding fire spirits and using them to power industry, that's technology dressed up as magic, with a societal effect. If that's glossed over and not really explored, it's a background detail that gives you some flavor but doesn't meaningfully impact genre. The more we start to investigate issues that arise as a result (what happens when you take a society and give them limitless energy for free? is it exploitative to make use of spirits in this way? etc.) the more we start to develop science fiction genre elements.

Re: Steerpike,

QuoteSpeaking of Dune, that novel is kind of an interesting example given your definitions here.  The novel is very much the story of Paul, his coming of age, his training, and his ascension (it's all incredibly mythic and such - prophecies and chosen ones and all that), but as a consequence of his social standing and powers, he radically reshapes several societies whose ways of life the novel spends a great deal of time examining, and in later novels the very ecosystems of planets are altered as a result of his decisions and the decisions of his son.  So depending on how you look at it, I think, Dune either messes with your rubric or sits right in the middle between science fiction and fantasy.

There are all sorts of in-between cases and difficult calls to make, obviously. This is a continuum, not an either/or thing.

I'm not familiar with Dune (I know, I know, stop throwing tomatoes), but it sounds like you are describing a fantasy arc, just one where massively powerful characters are knocking planets around. The degree to which it shades into sci-fi, I would say, corresponds to the degree to which those changes and their consequences are explored (separate from their direct relationship to Paul and co.), but that's not a thing I can know without reading the book(s).

Rama travels to Kishkindha, deposes the king of the monkeys, and installs a new monarch, but the Ramayana is still fantasy because the focus of the story is on the journey of Rama and his friends, not on how Kishkindha's society shifted due to regime change foisted upon the monkeys by an itinerant avatar of Vishnu. The Death Star blew up Alderaan not so we could discuss the political impact of the existence of such terrible weapons, but so we could know how evil and dangerous the Empire is before the heroes go wreck their day.

Things that start to straddle the line are things like The Matrix (I've only seen the first one), which I would classify as primarily fantasy because of its concern with Neo's character arc, but with some minor sci-fi elements. Not because of the machines or the predicament of humanity; those are just the backdrop for Neo's enlightenment and overcoming of the lie of reality (he is basically a Christ-figure in a Hindu mythos). Rather, because in a few places, we start to examine the question of whether the rebellion against the machines is the right thing to do. We start to wonder-- why not take the blue pill? There's the one traitorous freedom fighter who rejects his enlightment, preferring the pleasant lie to the difficult truth. That's starting to play up the muted sci-fi themes in this story.

The other things that stump me are things like Kurt Vonnegut's novels, which don't seem to have much weight in either category. I want to call things like Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhouse Five sci-fi as a matter of instinct, and they're both using impossible themes (Ice-9, a form of sortakinda time travel, aliens) to comment on the horror of war and weapons of mass destruction, but there's something about how that stuff is used that feels... different. I dunno. Maybe I'm overthinking it.

QuoteI'm also curious what you make of A Song of Ice and Fire, which while very character-driven focuses a great deal of its time on exploring the power structures of medieval societies and often depicts their overthrow and disruption.  It's definitely invested not only in using such power structures to give its stories emotional heft but to force readers to examine them.

It's fantasy with some political elements. Or maybe it's a political drama with some fantasy elements. The parts that function as fantasy are a different style of fantasy without any Joseph Campbell kind of arc, and there are multiple protagonists, no moral absolutes, etc.

I've only read the first four books, so no spoilers, please.

To my eye, ASoIaF is a highly character-driven story, and a lot of the societal issues are there to show the stakes of politically-involved characters' actions in a morally grey world. The main spotlight of the story is on a large number of individual character arcs, some of which are typical of fantasy characters. Some characters have powerful dramatic arcs which are not fantasy arcs (Ned Stark, Robb Stark, etc.). Dany has, so far, a textbook-perfect fantasy arc. Not only does she feature a bunch of stock-standard fantasy elements (exiled heir, special lineage, dragons), the shape of her arc is one of overcoming adversity, building confidence and autonomy, and asserting moral character. Bran is probably well on his way to a similar fantasy arc, and Stannis is probably still doing the same sort of thing in reverse, in classic Faustian style.

I think the missing element for science fiction is something speculative. It can't be sci-fi because of the question: what would society be like if it were a medieval kingdom with corrupt nobles in charge?, because that is a thing which has existed historically and the question doesn't cover any new ground. It can't be sci-fi because of the question: what would society be like if dragons were real?, because even though that is a real and immediate thing for the people Danerys is hanging out with, that's not really the scope of the story, and the dragons are there to support Dany's fantasy arc. (Maybe something like Dragonriders of Pern comes closer to addressing that question in a sci-fi context? I don't remember, it's been like 20 years and I only ever read one of those.)

QuoteDo you feel, in essence, that "proper" or "real" science fiction is necessarily a more didactic genre, LC?  Naturalism in space?

I don't think sci-fi needs to be naturalistic at all (even though it often is.) I think science fiction seems more classically sci-fi when it poses a hypothetical and then starts exploring the societal (often ethical) implications of it. So maybe that makes it didactic, I dunno.

Quote from: LCI think that most fantasy settings that examine societal issues don't really invite critique of those issues, they're just borrowing the emotional weight of things that readers/players/viewers are already familiar with.

Just a quick scribble to say I agree, that it is very hard to set up players in a game that utilizes cultural and societal issues regularly.  Normally, the best you can get is turning stuff around slightly to make the PCs see the difference, and few times, they do.  I DO remember when I started making Bugbears feisty and hyper-intelligent and very, very sarcastic...and suddenly the Players started making friends with them...(this is pre Celtricia)..and I know I was onto something.

Quote from: SteerpikeRight, yeah - this is what I was trying to say about Dune - it is a whisper away from this when you actually look at it.  About the only thing I "buy" at all are drugs being used to make human computers and the really basic brute stuff like shields and atomics.  But anything the Bene Gesserit and Guild Navigators do, while sounding sciencey, is pretty much dressed-up mysticism.

Ok, you've mentioned this twice, and I need to mention a few things we might be forgetting.

Dune may not be as high-science as some, but it deals with science quite a bit, actually.  The whole idea of Mentats was due to the prohibition on 'thinking machines', so it was very unique in that it tried to show a different spin on since without AI or Robotics.

It also dealt with the Ecology of Arrakis heavily, with the function of the spice, the worms, the water, all tied together, with the stillsuits, the genetic adaptation of the fremen, water and the way water affected the soclal class systems, etc.  Spice harvesters, spotters, worms and wormsign, also should be included.

Who groupings of science were created, under the Holtzman effect, which explained shields, suspensors, and the spacecraft travel.

Genetics are mentioned quite a bit, with the Bene Gesserit programs, the various houses, the fremen...


So, year, the effects of prophecy and feudal politics and the coming of age bits are all god points.  But Dune is most certainly SCIENCE fiction.

Quote from: Humaboutit really doesn't do anything to examine society.

I completely disagree here.  Yes, it focuses on individuals to tell its story (pretty much any novel does this, even the most resolute, hard SF - SF has characters too!).  Ice and Fire examines a wide range of issues from a variety of perspectives.  First and foremost, it breaks down the idea of binary morality, posing all manner of ethical questions.  Do the ends justify the means?  Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?  Which is more important: family or duty?  Is it better to always stick to principles, even if it means others will get hurt, or is it alright to bend or break your principles for a greater good?  Are ideals foolish, or indispensable?  How should justice be administered and how can justice be abused?  Characters like Jaime Lannister, with his constant struggle between knightly honour, duty to the realm, duty to the king, duty to his father, (forbidden) love of his sister, fraternal love of his brother, and pure selfishness, illustrates a lot of these struggles.  So do people like Ned Stark, Davos Seaworth, Catelyn, Jon, etc.  The series is continuously putting its characters in ethical dilemmas in order to examine these questions.

Much of the series is about power and its various uses and abuses, the institutions that support it and uphold it.  More than one character has long speeches about the nature of power and how it is wielded.  Characters like Tywin, Varys, Littlefinger, Tyrion, Joffrey, Stannis, Dany, Margaery, Cersei, Viserys, the Queen of Thorns - the rulers, basically - all engage with these questions.  We are frequently shown examples of characters contending for power, struggling to maintain power, examining their power, exerting their power.  Through the struggles of these characters within the detailed, semi-historical political institutions the books present, many questions are raised.  What is the nature of power?  How is is gained, transferred, distributed, lost?  Does power always corrupt?  How can power be undermined?  Is power merely an illusion?  How are power and money related?  How are power and violence related?  How are power and faith related?  How are power and sex related?  How are power and knowledge related?

The series is deeply interested in questions of gender.  Multiple societies with different constructions of gender are presented, like the egalitarian Wildlings and the patriarchal Seven Kingdoms and others across the Narrow Sea.  A diverse array of female characters (Arya, Cersei, Brienne, Dany, Asha) defy gender-boundaries in different ways.  The texts are also obsessed with bodies and how those bodies are socialized, especially when they're disabled, maimed, or deformed.

Just scratching the surface... there's lots, lots more to talk about in those texts.

Quote from: Lord VreegGenetics are mentioned quite a bit, with the Bene Gesserit programs, the various houses, the fremen...

Right, but it's like fantasy genetics - stuff about genetic memories and breeding programs to create a precognitive, mystic messiah.  It has nothing to do with real genetics, it just invokes genetics to make itself sound credible.

Same with space travel in Dune: it's pure fantasy.  Prescient space-fish-things use their psychic/magic powers to travel through space at impossible speeds.  The Holtzman Effect is a great example of what I mean.  It sounds sciencey, and I think Herbert throws the word quantum in there to describe "foldspace," but it's totally vague and unexplained, like hyperspace or the Ethereal Plane.  It's not really based in actual physics or science at all, it just sort of invokes scientific terminology broadly to make itself sound realistic.  I have no problem with this whatsoever, but it's not proper science, it's fantasy with a thin sheen of science dabbed on for looks.

The ecology of Arrakis is pretty interesting, although anyone with much knowledge of actual ecology can tell you it doesn't really make a whole ton of sense unless there are some primary producers hiding somewhere that we don't know about (tricky in a planet without precipitation... never a drop of rain on Arrakis).

I'll totally admit that the stillsuits and wormsign are cool and credible, and like I said I can buy mentats (human computers) and atomics and stuff, but the vast majority of the cool stuff in Dune is just made up with almost no basis in real science.  Now, we can just say that it's future science that we don't understand, which is fine and I'm totally cool with, but we can't pretend it has a proper basis in known, actual science.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Dune-Unauthorized-Exploration/dp/1933771283
Tell you what, I'll let you know how it goes.

It's not future science, it is alternate science.  It is not supposed to be far in our future, it is far in A future.  Not to say you are wrong, but I think you are holding Dune to rigor beyond most science fiction.  It's not like SnowCrash or Neuromancer explained more science, it was just less alien.

Quote from: SPAre ideals foolish, or indispensable?  How should justice be administered and how can justice be abused?  Characters like Jaime Lannister, with his constant struggle between knightly honour, duty to the realm, duty to the king, duty to his father, (forbidden) love of his sister, fraternal love of his brother, and pure selfishness, illustrates a lot of these struggles.  So do people like Ned Stark, Davos Seaworth, Catelyn, Jon, etc.  The series is continuously putting its characters in ethical dilemmas in order to examine these questions

I tend to find this true to my feelings and a decent answer to how a game can also force PCs to answer very, very difficult situations without true 'answers'.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
Re: EE,

Well, I don't agree with language like "cop-out" and "mindless entertainment." I'm talking about two different story structures, I'm not making value judgments about one being better than the other.

I assume that the reason sci-fi often lines up with societal issues and fantasy often lines up with heroic journey stories is that technology has its effects on the societal level and magic is typically a will-made-manifest reflecting the mastery of an individual.

Pyrokineticism is a sign of the inner strength of the person who can manipulate fire with his mind; that's an element of a character. Getting free energy by magically binding fire spirits and using them to power industry, that's technology dressed up as magic, with a societal effect. If that's glossed over and not really explored, it's a background detail that gives you some flavor but doesn't meaningfully impact genre. The more we start to investigate issues that arise as a result (what happens when you take a society and give them limitless energy for free? is it exploitative to make use of spirits in this way? etc.) the more we start to develop science fiction genre elements.

I apologize, I was being a bit provocative with my language (bad habit from other forums).

I do not think a Campbellian Journey  and thought provoking stories are necessarily the equivalent of oil and water. You can take hard hitting issues and make them a key point in a heroes journey. You don't necessarily need to have hard science to deliver a message to your audience. However, all too often, Fantasy jut turns into a character driven narrative where the kind of introspective nature that defines classic Sci-Fi are rebuffed before ever being allowed the chance to thrive.

EDIT: I think ASoF&I is a good example of thought provoking Fantasy but it doesn't go quite far enough in my opinion. Still it is leagues ahead of other books in its genre.

QuoteI do not think a Campbellian Journey  and thought provoking stories are necessarily the equivalent of oil and water. You can take hard hitting issues and make them a key point in a heroes journey. You don't necessarily need to have hard science to deliver a message to your audience.

I have no disagreement with any of this.

I've been describing a particular type of story structure as a classical science fiction story structure, but I do not think it's accurate to say that's the only kind of "thought provoking story" or "hard hitting issue" or "message to your audience."

Quote from: Lord VreegIt's not future science, it is alternate science.  It is not supposed to be far in our future, it is far in A future.  Not to say you are wrong, but I think you are holding Dune to rigor beyond most science fiction.  It's not like SnowCrash or Neuromancer explained more science, it was just less alien.

Actually this is kind of my point.  I'm not making a case for "harder" science fiction or more rigor.  I could, as easily, pick on Snow Crash or Neuromancer.  The former is full of a lot of Sumerian myth and dubious cognitive linguistics, for example.  Lots and lots and lots of science fiction can be characterized in similar terms.  Basically, I think we shouldn't make hard distinctions between science fiction, fantasy, and horror: I think these generic labels actually aren't especially useful most of the time, rarely reflect reality, and reify categories that have encouraged the ghettoization of speculative fiction as a whole (even the term "speculative fiction" does this - as if all fiction weren't speculative).  I think generic labels have far, far more to do with marketing and money than they have to do with actual differences between types of texts.   I think we should embrace hybridity and fluidity, that we should blur and deconstruct and sometimes just flat-out ignore generic boundaries rather than entrenching them.  In my experience, many of the most interesting texts out there (like Dune, or, as LC points out, Vonnegut) are those that defy, mess with, refute, or shatter generic categorization.

EDIT: Another way of putting this is that I think a great deal of the time the supposed differences between SF and fantasy are primarily cosmetic rather than substantive, i.e. more a matter of appearance than structure.

George R.R. Martin has a great quote about this:

Quote from: On Generic DistinctionsInterviewer: Originally you were more inclined to write science-fiction. What prompted you to move to fantasy, and how did The Song of Ice and Fire come about?

George R. R. Martin: I don't think I really did 'move' per se. If you go all the way back, I've always written science-fiction, I've always written fantasy, I've always written horror stories and monster stories, right from the beginning of my career. I've always moved back and forth between the genres. I don't really recognise that there's a significant difference between them in some senses. I mean, the furniture is different. One has spaceships and one has horses; one has ray guns and one has swords. But it's all still what Faulkner called "the human heart in conflict with itself". He said that was the only thing worth writing about and I've always agreed with that. It's about the people, and the rest is just the furniture and the setting.

Quote from: SPActually this is kind of my point.  I'm not making a case for "harder" science fiction or more rigor.  I could, as easily, pick on Snow Crash or Neuromancer.  The former is full of a lot of Sumerian myth and dubious cognitive linguistics, for example.  Lots and lots and lots of science fiction can be characterized in similar terms.  Basically, I think we shouldn't make hard distinctions between science fiction, fantasy, and horror: I think these generic labels actually aren't especially useful most of the time, rarely reflect reality, and reify categories that have encouraged the ghettoization of speculative fiction as a whole (even the term "speculative fiction" does this - as if all fiction weren't speculative).  I think generic labels have far, far more to do with marketing and money than they have to do with actual differences between types of texts.   I think we should embrace hybridity and fluidity, that we should blur and deconstruct and sometimes just flat-out ignore generic boundaries rather than entrenching them.  In my experience, many of the most interesting texts out there (like Dune) are those that defy, mess with, refute, or shatter generic categorization.

Well, this was not the point I was getting, but one I am ok with to some degree, but also one I warn against going too far with, as labels are dangerous but agreed upon definitions are the source of actual discourse.  Much of what I enjoy about LC's commentary is that he pedals cleverly on the roads with the most clarity, byways the farthest away from value judgments. and paths of strict comparison. Things move along briskly.

Still, I am quite pleased with this conversation as a whole.  And your point is well taken when I apply it to the campaigns that seem the most literary-ready.  They dwell much in shadowy ambiguity, giving the moments of stark coherence special weight.  The strangeness and often surface contradictions give way to sudden understanding. 

Quote from: Lord VreegWell, this was not the point I was getting, but one I am ok with to some degree, but also one I warn against going too far with, as labels are dangerous but agreed upon definitions are the source of actual discourse.

I agree, but I don't think generic distinctions serve this purpose well.  The labels don't reflect the things they're labeling, and no one agrees on what should be labeled what or how the labels should be distributed.  Rather than speaking generally or generically I think we should speak more in particulars.  Rather than speaking of genres we should speak of tropes, of individual texts rather than broad types, of particular stories rather than sweeping structures, of content rather than category.

http://www.futurity.org/algorithm-lets-thoughts-control-the-cursor/?utm_source=Futurity%20Today&utm_campaign=8380a6701d-November_2111_21_2012&utm_medium=email

BTW,  favorite source of 'that future feeling'.

Quote from: SPI agree, but I don't think generic distinctions serve this purpose well.  The labels don't reflect the things they're labeling, and no one agrees on what should be labeled what or how the labels should be distributed.  Rather than speaking generally or generically I think we should speak more in particulars.  Rather than speaking of genres we should speak of tropes, of individual texts rather than broad types, of particular stories rather than sweeping structures, of content rather than category.

well, we have done a decent job of finding where certain very popular texts straddle.  Though by many definitions I see, you could call them all Fantasy and assign a 'Science/futuristic Involvement %'  I mean, hell, the OP title defines a conversation about one such 'broad Type'.  But sure, I can give this one some more rope and see how it hangs.

I think more specific labels would be better than over-broad labels. Sci-Fantasy, Hard Science, Medieval Fantasy, Steampunk, Cyberpunk, Low Magic, High Magic, Tween Pop Horror Comedy, etc.

Labels that give you a better description of what the book/movie/game/show is about rather than being stuffed into an ill-fitting meta-header.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

QuoteI do not think a Campbellian Journey  and thought provoking stories are necessarily the equivalent of oil and water. You can take hard hitting issues and make them a key point in a heroes journey. You don't necessarily need to have hard science to deliver a message to your audience.

I have no disagreement with any of this.

I've been describing a particular type of story structure as a classical science fiction story structure, but I do not think it's accurate to say that's the only kind of "thought provoking story" or "hard hitting issue" or "message to your audience."

If all you are doing is going to Cool Location Y to fetch MacGuffin X to defeat Bad Guy Z, then you probably aren't doing anything more than creating entertainment (which can be good or bad).

If you are going to spend a significant portion of the book dealing with the ramifications of toxic Elemental Fire Sludge that is devastating the environment but which also keeps the Flames of Urookoo alight (which serves as the seal that prevents demons from entering the material plane), then I think you have something deeper and more philosophical going on, even if the overall plot structure can be boiled down to "Go there, get that, defeat him."

I won't deny that there are many ways to speak to your audiences. By far one of the best approaches I have seen is classic Sci-Fi. I was merely ruminating on why those classic kinds of stories have not popped up in what is otherwise a Fantasy tale - and gained the same cultural and market penetration - of more generic fantasy literature (which focuses more on characters and save the world from the bad guy kind of plots.

QuoteI won't deny that there are many ways to speak to your audiences. By far one of the best approaches I have seen is classic Sci-Fi. I was merely ruminating on why those classic kinds of stories have not popped up in what is otherwise a Fantasy tale - and gained the same cultural and market penetration - of more generic fantasy literature (which focuses more on characters and save the world from the bad guy kind of plots.

That's an interesting question, and I have two theories about it.

Firstly and more generally, I feel that any kind of media product that seeks to start deep conversations about serious issues is always going to have less market penetration than a lighthearted, entertaining romp, because media consumers need to think harder about denser material to derive the enjoyment from it. I don't think that aspect of this has anything to do with genre or themes or issues; it's just that easy entertainment is easier than challenging entertainment.

Secondly and more specifically, if we're still talking about my loose genre groupings of sci-fi as dealing with societal issues and fantasy as dealing with a character's development over the course of an adventure arc, things line up the way they do because of how magic is almost always handled.

I'll elaborate on that second one.

If you need to fry an adversary in a setting full of technology, you can do so by Having A Spacegun. If you need to fry an adversary in a setting full of magic, you can do so by Being A Wyzzarde. Technology, such as Having A Spacegun, is generally transferable; you can go buy a Spacegun or plunder one from Space Pirates or whatever, they're not hard to come by. Magic, such as Being A Wyzzarde, is generally not transferable-- at least not easily; you might have to be from a certain bloodline to become a Wyzzarde, or undergo much strenuous tutelage from some crochety elder Wyzzarde, or undertake an epic quest to immerse yourself in the magic pond at the foot of Wyzzarde Mountain, or all three of those things. You almost never just pick magic up at the store like a loaf of bread (unless you're already a Wyzzarde shopping at Wyzzarde-mart, or unless mass-manufacture of magic is a technique where someone's trying to make their magic seem more like tech, whatever, you get the idea).

At any rate, the magic a character commands is almost always more a fundamental part of a character than the technology they have access to. If you're writing a sort of classical adventure tale with the big dramatic character arc, you get certain advantages by writing it in a world with magic that you don't get by writing it in a world with technology.

If you want your protagonist to use magic, Becoming A Wyzzarde is often a more dramatic or interesting (or at the very least, more exhausting) than Acquiring A Spacegun, and Being A Wyzzarde is more likely to let you easily tie in themes of prophecy, fate, powerful lineage, and so forth. If you want your protagonist not to use magic, that can become a deficit to overcome-- being the underdog to whom the flashy powers are forever inaccessible due to the character's nature. If the protagonist's disadvantage is Not Being A Wyzzarde, he or she has got to compensate by becoming a badass; if the disadvantage is Not Having A Spacegun, why not just go get one. If you want your antagonist to use magic, that helps put a face on your villain and localize a problem specifically in this one individual-- the villain who captains a Battle Starcruiser feels different from the villain who knows a Death Curse, and sometimes can be tied more directly, through those methods, to a sort of metaphysical Evil that gives your hero the motivation and the moral permission to go forth and kick ass.

Obviously this is a whole post made up of generalizations and oversimplifications and the best works elaborate and subvert huge swaths of all of these ideas. But if the question is about why a preponderance of literature connects certain story types to certain genres/idioms, I think we have a peanut-butter-and-chocolate situation here: some things just naturally go together.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonFirstly and more generally, I feel that any kind of media product that seeks to start deep conversations about serious issues is always going to have less market penetration than a lighthearted, entertaining romp, because media consumers need to think harder about denser material to derive the enjoyment from it. I don't think that aspect of this has anything to do with genre or themes or issues; it's just that easy entertainment is easier than challenging entertainment.

I'd usually agree with you in general, although Game of Thrones and the ascendency of dark cable TV in general with shows like Orange is the New Black, Breaking Bad, Dexter, House of Cards etc are begining to complicate this trend.  There seems to be a growing appetite for mature shows that explore the more sinister aspects of the human pysche and the more unpleasant parts of our society.

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Luminous CrayonFirstly and more generally, I feel that any kind of media product that seeks to start deep conversations about serious issues is always going to have less market penetration than a lighthearted, entertaining romp, because media consumers need to think harder about denser material to derive the enjoyment from it. I don't think that aspect of this has anything to do with genre or themes or issues; it's just that easy entertainment is easier than challenging entertainment.

I'd usually agree with you in general, although Game of Thrones and the ascendency of dark cable TV in general with shows like Orange is the New Black, Breaking Bad, Dexter, House of Cards etc are begining to complicate this trend.  There seems to be a growing appetite for mature shows that explore the more sinister aspects of the human pysche and the more unpleasant parts of our society.

Don't forget all the awesomely dark series on BBC like Luther, Copper, and Sherlock Holmes (the one with Barbarian Cucumber).

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Luminous CrayonFirstly and more generally, I feel that any kind of media product that seeks to start deep conversations about serious issues is always going to have less market penetration than a lighthearted, entertaining romp, because media consumers need to think harder about denser material to derive the enjoyment from it. I don't think that aspect of this has anything to do with genre or themes or issues; it's just that easy entertainment is easier than challenging entertainment.

I'd usually agree with you in general, although Game of Thrones and the ascendency of dark cable TV in general with shows like Orange is the New Black, Breaking Bad, Dexter, House of Cards etc are begining to complicate this trend.  There seems to be a growing appetite for mature shows that explore the more sinister aspects of the human pysche and the more unpleasant parts of our society.

. I find all of this more similar to LotR, in that once the means is there, the content follows.   
I don't see there being a growing appetite, I see there being a willingness to spend budget dollars now that there is a proven audience.  One of the positive sides of technology.

Quote from: Steerpike
I suppose I could attempt to reconcile our views by putting it this way - I think a large number of individuals at a particular point in history happened to share a particular set of values (approximately, of course, not exactly the same values), and that some of these values can be read into or reflected by The Lord of the Rings as opposed to other works of the time, such as, say, Gormenghast or The Dying Earth.  I think this had something (but certainly not everything) to do with the series' success.

I would not disagree that a group of individuals could share values; I also argue that in evaluating what determines items that are a 'hit' or not is more dependent upon charismatic individuals motivating others to read and stimulating buzz, rather than the general 'quality' or even in many cases, the general correspondence of values to popular work.
 

QuoteI probably also tend to ascribe more weight to the structure and form of the texts themselves than you do, perhaps.

Likely true. You are the English expert, so if you did not value the structure and form of texts, then you'd be out of a job I would think. Unless, I suppose, you went to teach Philosophy of Language or a similar course. :)

Quote

Quote from: Light DragonIt's arbitrary on the macro level- the influencers chose this idea over another.

I'm not convinced the choices early D&D designers made in terms of literary influences were arbitrary.  For example, they used Vance's spell system and not Tolkien's.  Why?  If it was an entirely arbitrary choice - that is, wholly random or on a whim - there would no real reason for choosing one over the other.  I think there are real reasons they chose Vance's spell system over Tolkien's: Vance's spells were far more codified and internally consistent than Tolkien's, the memorization system naturally allows for a resource-management element in the context of the roleplaying game, Vance's spells were named which inclines them for translation into a rules-set, etc.

I am not convinced that your rebuttal addresses my statement. I will try to clarify. Arbitrary on the macro level means that while the influencers themselves had reasons for choosing one thing over another, the later-adopters follow the influencers because the influencers are important rather than the strength of their ideas. A completely trash idea of course will not be adopted, but an idea that works just well enough will be adopted. It's like in engineering with design and iteration. Choosing one just good enough model closes off certain other choices that one could take. Choosing a 3 pin rather than a 4 pin plug will close off certain engineering choices. This does not mean there is anything less inherently popular than the 4 pin, it just means that Company A went with the 3 pin.

Quote

Quote from: Light DragonYou make a good argument and it is true that many people read books that 'speak to them.' I don't, but many people do.

I should add that I don't think many people are aware of the cultural and political forces that may be shaping their responses to a particular text.  As a species we are generally painfully unaware of the motivations for most of our actions the bulk of the time.

I argue it depends on what you mean by 'aware.' If you mean a statement that people could articulate-then you win. I agree that people cannot always articulate why they do not enjoy something or why they prefer option A over option B; but stating that people are not 'aware' of why they act as they do smacks of cultural elitism. Someone who votes for Harper is very aware that they're voting for a politician who will do certain things; very much as someone who reads a book (rather than skimming) is very aware of what they like or do not like. They actively experience the positive and negative parts of the book and they have a feedback loop within themselves- e.g. "this book has a gay person. I don't like gay people." They are aware of why they disagree with what the book's politics appear to be. While they may not necessarily articulate why they like or do not like it, they are very aware that certain texts are entertaining and others are offensive.

I suppose, though, that you likely mean the third type of awareness... that of a cultural psychologist, or I forget the exact term, but a sociologist would also work for the term- someone who analyzes the cultural zeitgeist and the cultural clefts in society among different regions, socio-economic statuses and who believes very strongly in classifying people in boxes and putting labels on them and inventing things like 'races' and demographics to divide people. I dislike that type of distinction. I love statistics and I enjoy statistics that group people in boxes and predict how people will act. But these statistics themselves do not generate meaning. Meaning is not independent of the interpreter or the way in which the statistics are presented and are originally generated. In short, while I will agree that there are cultural trends and fads and political trends and fads, I argue that people make a conscious choice of some rather than others among those that they consider important to their being. Of course, people don't have the time to choose opinions on 'everything' and many opinions are half-formed, but people make active choices rather than being swept along by the course of history. (This I believe is the difference between the determinism you mention and the view of active free-will I espouse).

QuoteIn a different time, when a different series of values were in circulation - and in different economic climates, of course - her story wouldn't have generated the same appeal.  "Divorced mother sells books about witchcraft targeted to children" would not have flown in other centuries.  The adverse reaction to Rowling by some especially backwards Christian conservatives holds testament to this.

True enough that her story would have played different in a different time. That does not necessarily rebut my statement that the importance is what the influencers thing rather than the culture itself. Now, influencers are usually going to be the ones who are conformists. But sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are the ones who change culture. They make the culture. Their individual charisma is what matters, not the inherent value of any tome.

Quote from: Lord Vreeg
you are having major 'chicken and the egg' issues.  The Causality of D&D causing the popularity but then professing that it was already more popular than the other writers is compartmentalizing the example from trhe actual, larger cultural dynamic.  Both D&D/RPGs and Tolkien benefited, while helping each synergistically, by a larger cultural movement away from SF into this era where Fantasy is the burgeoning superpower.
Which, by the way, while I like fantasy better slightly, I think is part of a horrible cultural pendulum swing in our society.  The greater reasons for this removal from reality as opposed to trying to grapple with scientifically produced possible futures frightens me anthropologically. 

Popularity is not a 1-0 binary proposition. A single work can be more popular than another while still being a niche work.

QuoteLD, I don't think 95% of the people who read and enjoyed (at any level) realize when something they read is grabbing onto their cultural totems.  That is one of the points, a better author has a lighter touch with these things.

I suppose that either I have a greater faith in people's reasoning and rationality, or I have a wider definition of 'realization' with respect to that issue. When someone sees a work and they see a character as being a factory worker who struggles against an oppressive boss, who struggles with alcoholism, etc. and overcomes those issues, just like they face those issues in their own life, that is what I would see as understanding one's 'cultural totems.' On a more obvious level, a blatantly right-wing political space opera would appeal to a right-wing person, etc.

Quote from: Humabout

Quote from: Light DragonWhich Science Fiction greats? At least, which greats since the 1990s? Most modern Sci-Fi I've read is pretty negative or dystopian at worst, or at best it focuses on the human condition... in a usually negative fashion that creates a dread of advancement.

I haven't read anything I'd consider "great" from the 1990s to present.  I've had a horrible time finding anything that could count as "literature" as opposed to slop thrown out to make a buck.  (I think that's part of what has impressed me about ASoFaI, although that's clearly fantasy.)  Harlen Ellison, Ray Bradbury, Issac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C Clark, Frank Herbert - these were masters and wrote stories of literary value that won't be forgotten a week after the movie adaptation leaves the theaters.

Thanks for the answer. I could not think of any either. :)
I can name a number of sci-fi authors who I like, but I doubt anyone would consider them to be 'greats.' I'd take some issue with some of the masters you list, but I understand the rationale for the list.

Quote from: HumaboutAre you familiar with The Revolt in 2100 or any of Heinlein's stories involving Jeremiah Sutter?  They are quite pessimistic and cautionary, but they still express an optimism insofar as such things won't last.  I would suggest that Heinlein expressed a lot of pessimism toward people throughout his novels, but these are not the hopeless, dismal, self-indulgent pity-fests of Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep.

Those tales (Revolt in 2100, etc.) sound worth checking out.

QuoteBasically, I think we shouldn't make hard distinctions between science fiction, fantasy, and horror: I think these generic labels actually aren't especially useful most of the time, rarely reflect reality, and reify categories that have encouraged the ghettoization of speculative fiction as a whole (even the term "speculative fiction" does this - as if all fiction weren't speculative).

I've given some thought over the ghettoization before. As I've visited libraries over time, I've come to appreciate the ghettoization more and more. Libraries that do not segregate science fiction are difficult to navigate to find a work that interests me. General fiction is a great wasteland of literature that reduces the benefit of a library, which is browsing a shelf and finding something that might be of interest. If I want a work that focuses on ideas and new things, I want a spec-fic work, and general fiction does not provide that. Faulkner's works or Twain's works, while interesting, don't tell me anything I couldn't find out from history. And I figure that people who prefer to read about history would prefer to not have to deal with skipping past book after book about some weird alien empire to get to their George Eliot.

If westerns, general fiction and sci-fi/fantasy were all grouped together, much more time would be wasted in finding 'similar' works that would appeal to a person. If someone wants to 'broaden' their interests, then they can browse the appropriate section, 'improving' themselves. I see no need to force people to wade through dross they don't want to deal with to discover what they desire.

Quote from: Light DragonIf westerns, general fiction and sci-fi/fantasy were all grouped together, much more time would be wasted in finding 'similar' works that would appeal to a person. If someone wants to 'broaden' their interests, then they can browse the appropriate section, 'improving' themselves. I see no need to force people to wade through dross they don't want to deal with to discover what they desire.

Basically, the only way I can justify genre distinctions is as a necessary evil for libraries and bookstores.  I get where you're coming from here.

Quote from: Light DragonI argue it depends on what you mean by 'aware.' If you mean a statement that people could articulate-then you win. I agree that people cannot always articulate why they do not enjoy something or why they prefer option A over option B; but stating that people are not 'aware' of why they act as they do smacks of cultural elitism. Someone who votes for Harper is very aware that they're voting for a politician who will do certain things; very much as someone who reads a book (rather than skimming) is very aware of what they like or do not like. They actively experience the positive and negative parts of the book and they have a feedback loop within themselves- e.g. "this book has a gay person. I don't like gay people." They are aware of why they disagree with what the book's politics appear to be. While they may not necessarily articulate why they like or do not like it, they are very aware that certain texts are entertaining and others are offensive.

I suppose, though, that you likely mean the third type of awareness... that of a cultural psychologist, or I forget the exact term, but a sociologist would also work for the term- someone who analyzes the cultural zeitgeist and the cultural clefts in society among different regions, socio-economic statuses and who believes very strongly in classifying people in boxes and putting labels on them and inventing things like 'races' and demographics to divide people. I dislike that type of distinction. I love statistics and I enjoy statistics that group people in boxes and predict how people will act. But these statistics themselves do not generate meaning. Meaning is not independent of the interpreter or the way in which the statistics are presented and are originally generated. In short, while I will agree that there are cultural trends and fads and political trends and fads, I argue that people make a conscious choice of some rather than others among those that they consider important to their being. Of course, people don't have the time to choose opinions on 'everything' and many opinions are half-formed, but people make active choices rather than being swept along by the course of history. (This I believe is the difference between the determinism you mention and the view of active free-will I espouse).

Well, I'm definitely not in favour of reifying social constructs like race in order to label and delimit people (even as, simultaneously, I'd contend that we need to understand "race" as a social construct in order to address the very real problems posed by things like discrimination).  But I was really talking more about a more general awareness at the level of consciousness and cognition.  That is, I think people may be conscious of some of their opinions, but they may not always understand the forces that shaped those opinions.  And there are plenty of times people may hold deep-seated prejudices while simultaneously denying that they hold such prejudices, even to themselves.  There are people, for example, who will tooth-and-nail deny being sexist one moment but then casually objectify a woman the next - people often don't realize, or aren't fully conscious of, what makes them tick.  And then there are all sorts of subconscious instincts and impulses and urges and desires that people have that they may or may not be fully aware or in control of, that may be guiding their choices without their full realization.  I think a lot of the time, reason and rationality come in after a choice has already been made, to justify the choice rather than to inform the choice.  There's evidence, for example, that our brains actually make choices a brief moment before we become fully conscious of having made those choices.

It's all very odd, but brains are weird, and we've gotten really good at pretending we're these lovely autonomous rational individuals who make choices on the basis of reason and logic, when in fact we're usually the opposite to some significant extent.

QuoteThat is, I think people may be conscious of some of their opinions, but they may not always understand the forces that shaped those opinions.

Restated, I can agree that people may not always understand all the influences that go into the formation of an opinion, but ultimately an opinion is theirs, their decision at a particular point in time, not a deterministic opinion wholly shaped by others. Certainly, some societies and sub-cultures have more common opinions, but at the root of each sub-culture is an individual with individually chosen opinions. (Based on what you said earlier about determinism, I think this may be a core dispute between us).

QuoteAnd there are plenty of times people may hold deep-seated prejudices while simultaneously denying that they hold such prejudices, even to themselves.  There are people, for example, who will tooth-and-nail deny being sexist one moment but then casually objectify a woman the next -

I'd like to add that some people define certain terms, like "sexist" differently. To them, a "sexist" would be doing something more than just "casual objectification." I realize that was just an example you gave, but the larger point I make is that one cannot read too much into terms that society defines or that you define when people are answering sociological surveys, or when a sociologist or cultural anthropologist is making classifications. The definition that matters and that the person should be judged by whether they are living up to is the definition that they give and the definition by which they understand the word to hold. I am a very strong believer of the evolution of terminology, of language, of "sub-cultural" specific terms, and of neologisms and I am highly suspicious of reading too much into sociological or cultural anthropological studies especially when even individual context is difficult to determine. One example of a tongue in cheek look at cultural anthropology is Miner's study of the so-called "Nacirema" culture, which I'm sure you have come across. :P