Appendix N: The Literary History of D&D by Jeffro Johnson

[geoffrey]

May 29, 2017 7:56:32 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

( I still enjoy "the Beverly Hillbillies."

“The Civil War was when the Yankees invaded America.” -Granny Clampett

[Deleted]

May 29, 2017 8:02:44 GMT -6 MormonYoYoMan said:

Me Too - well, my grandparents, not yours. "Jethro" would have fit right in with my cowboy/migrant cotton-and-fruit-picker Grandpa Claude.

As to Jeffro, I need to get to his book, so I can disagree with his Dejah Thoris premise. It'll be fun AND low carb!

I never once as a child thought about the way that ERB's characters dressed or didn't dress, it all fit with the setting and was not on my radar as something to think about, I read for the adventure and now 50+ years later, I still read for the adventure. These constant accusations that someone who wrote 70, 80, 90, 100 or more years ago was racist or sexist are tedious and boring. Should women be treated with respect, that is what my mother and father both taught me and they were born right before the middle of that era. My grandmothers and my mother were (and my wife is) strong people who didn't take a backseat to anyone. Strong character is attractive and leads directly to being respected. You should respect people and people should be worthy of respect, it is a two way street and some both deserve and earn a lack of respect due to their own lack of character.

But yeah, I expect to disagree with Jeffro on a number of things when I read his take on books that I have read, some of them over 50 years ago. I may have to go back and re-read some of them. I have so far been finding that books I loved at 7, 8, 9, or 10 I still love.

[Deleted]

From the book:

Vance wrote:

At one time a thousand or more runes, spells, incantations, curses, and sorceries had been known. The reach of grand Motholam—Ascolais, the Idle of Kauchique, Almery to the South, the Land of the Falling Wall to the East—swarmed with sorcerers of every description, of whom the chief was the Arch-Necromancer Phandaal. A hundred spells Phandaal personally had formulated—though rumor said that demons whispered at his ear when he wrought magic. Pontecilla the Pious, then ruler of Grand Motholam, put Phandaal to torment, and after a terrible night, he killed Phandaal and outlawed sorcery throughout the land. The wizards of Grand Motholam fled like beetles under a strong light; the lore was dispersed and forgotten, until now, at this dim time, with the sun dark, wilderness obscuring Ascolais, and the white city Kaiin half in ruins, only a few more than a hundred spells remained to the knowledge of man. Of these, Mazirian had access to seventy-three, and gradually, by strategem and negotiation, was securing the others.

Jeffro wrote:

Considered in the light of the stories in this collection, it’s absolutely staggering. While the real-world development of Dungeons & Dragons mirrors this source material in that a few odd spells are named after the wizard that developed them, there really is a lot more going on here. Not only has Jack Vance constructed a detailed far future science-fantasy setting, but he has also crafted an apocalyptic origin story to account for its magic system. His true genius lies in how he established an extremely hard upper limit to the number of available spells in his world. The spell-casters in his tales all hunger after more and greater knowledge precisely because they have so little at their disposal. They pursue it with every ounce of cunning they can muster. But about the only way most of them can get it is by taking it from their rivals!

Such a premise has not been explored overmuch in either fantasy or gaming. Indeed, games are naturally focused more on how exactly the rules mechanics work; the settings are often whatever they need to be in order to make the game playable and accessible. There is often no real economy of magic or magical knowledge, and players are often granted new powers automatically whenever the requisite number of experience points are obtained.

I will stop there, what is there not to like, I have no problem with his writing or presentation; however, I will point out that in July of 2015 I made a lot of changes to the rules of my campaign and one of those changes is that out of all the first level spells the magic-users only get four(4) of them and have to acquire the others during game-play. When the achieve the acquisition of 2nd level spells they only get three (3) of them from the entire list and have to acquire the others during game-play and so on. I implemented this right after re-reading some Vance. I also implemented something similar for clerics but from a completely different perspective relative to their piety and commitment.

I was going to stop, but on the next few pages of the book he highlights some features of OD&D that either come from Vance or were thought of independently, either way the same idea.

One thing this book does is make me want to know more about the influences on Arneson from books, movies, folklore, myth and fairy tales. What was the game like before Gygax wrote it down and why was it that way? If only more of these questions had been asked while Arneson was alive and if only the corrupt and unethical court enforced gag order had not been put in place.

[oakesspalding]

May 29, 2017 2:44:26 GMT -6 @rafael said:

See, I wouldn't throw you under the subway train like I am doing, if you didn't come here to mark territory:

Trying to shame or guilt people into taking back their criticism won't work here, so STOP calling user strangebrew a bad critic for reacting with casual neglect. If you think your book deserves more than casual attention, earn it.

And mind you that we here are still polite, if direct about our criticism. We don't say, "yeah, sure, a GURPS dude who started a blog about 'Car Wars' and then tried a new, low-effort publishing venue with the 'OSR' frate trane". We don't say that.

You yourself give a good summary of the feedback your book gets from other people in the RPG community:

jeffro.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/more-feedback-on-appendix-n/

The word to sum things up from that post is: "Meh."

Now, that could be because the scene harbors you whatever amount of bad blood; or, it could because your book really isn't what you hoped it would be.

My advice, given how impolite and bully-like your responses have been so far: Write about stuff you know more about. And get a more competent editor.

That's got to win some sort of award for one of the most personally nasty posts I've ever seen on this board, and by a "moderator," of all things. What the hey? This was from someone who has from time to time stepped in to lower the heated tone on a few threads (as was his job).

What causes this?

jeffro "marked his territory" in a direct but polite way. Granted his sudden appearance caused a bit of awkwardness, but that was only because a few posters had been trashing him and his book freely, and now had to face the fact that there was a real person right there. Jeffro then got slightly annoyed when another poster made a slightly annoying assumption that he wasn't slightly annoyed. So, he replied directly but still fairly politely. That's it. That's all he did. In return he got the above.

A few points. The "it's just a bunch of blog posts put together" is such a cowardly and stupid put down. It's basically meaningless, but sounds like it has meaning, and it's difficult to counter since the essays did appear on a blog. But there are blog posts and there are blog posts, as everyone knows.

@rafael , the self-declared enemy of "cherry-picking" cherry-picked one post where Jeffro politely reported on a few good/quasi-tepid reviews of Appendix N. But there have been a number of other excellent reviews by "big names" in the RPG community. Some of them are contained in the Amazon reviews section, some elsewhere. My own impression is that aside from the expected hostility from some ideological quarters, the book has received about as good a reception as any book of its kind.

Appendix N carries a great introduction from a well-known science-fiction and fantasy author. And, as some of you may know, Jeffro was nominated for a Hugo Award, largely (I think) on the strength of Appendix N (when it was still in blog entry form).

It would be interesting to hear from Rafael about his qualifications or accomplishments. And, no, pretentiously throwing around Joseph Campbell references doesn't count.

But back to the above attack. With respect to everyone, I'll ascribe it to temporary grumpiness. We've all been there. Or at least I have. When it last happened - I used a four-letter word to snark against an anti-OSR video, or some such - I apologized to a moderator who graciously and politely made a "no worries" sort of comment, while remarking that he wanted to keep the tone of the board on the straight and narrow. Exactly so.

"[T]here are more civil ways to express opposing views," he said on the thread.

The moderator was, of course, Rafael.

[Deleted]

May 29, 2017 11:10:16 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

That's got to win some sort of award for one of the most personally nasty posts I've ever seen on this board, and by a "moderator," of all things. What the hey? This was from someone who has from time to time stepped in to lower the heated tone on a few threads (as was his job).

What causes this?

jeffro "marked his territory" in a direct but polite way. Granted his sudden appearance caused a bit of awkwardness, but that was only because a few posters had been trashing him and his book freely, and now had to face the fact that there was a real person right there. Jeffro then got slightly annoyed when another poster made a slightly annoying assumption that he wasn't slightly annoyed. So, he replied directly but still fairly politely. That's it. That's all he did. In return he got the above.

A few points. The "it's just a bunch of blog posts put together" is such a cowardly and stupid put down. It's basically meaningless, but sounds like it has meaning, and it's difficult to counter since the essays did appear on a blog. But there are blog posts and there are blog posts, as everyone knows.

@rafael , the self-declared enemy of "cherry-picking" cherry-picked one post where Jeffro politely reported on a few good/quasi-tepid reviews of Appendix N. But there have been a number of other excellent reviews by "big names" in the RPG community. Some of them are contained in the Amazon reviews section, some elsewhere. My own impression is that aside from the expected hostility from some ideological quarters, the book has received about as good a reception as any book of its kind.

Appendix N carries a great introduction from a well-known science-fiction and fantasy author. And, as some of you may know, Jeffro was nominated for a Hugo Award, largely (I think) on the strength of Appendix N (when it was still in blog entry form).

It would be interesting to hear from Rafael about his qualifications or accomplishments. And, no, pretentiously throwing around Joseph Campbell references doesn't count.

But back to the above attack. With respect to everyone, I'll ascribe it to temporary grumpiness. We've all been there. Or at least I have. When it last happened - I used a four-letter word to snark against an anti-OSR video, or some such - I apologized to a moderator who graciously and politely made a "no worries" sort of comment, while remarking that he wanted to keep the tone of the board on the straight and narrow. Exactly so.

"[T]here are more civil ways to express opposing views," he said on the thread.

The moderator was, of course, Rafael.

Sorry, Oakes, but there you're fundamentally wrong, and you're helping to Mr Johnson to build his Strawman argument that his book is not well received by some because of some ongoing "warfare" and implied personal agendas - when the reality is just, some of us read it, and were not satisfied. How is this possibly a problem?! - Now, some, me included, probably didn't phrase our criticism the same way we would have as if we sat opposite him in a coffee shop over a latte - but let's not forget that we were customers casually evaluating a product that we paid for.

Now, Mr Johnson has to know that; and for him to pretend to take offense in such casual behavior, and to try to go after his critics in a personal fashion ("tee hee, you can't know what I was thinking of when I wrote this"), I think that's the poorest response he could possibly have given. And that's indeed where I take my gloves off, even as a moderator, because we can either nurture random Strawman debates, about how Mr Johnson does not deserve these kind of responses, and essentially reprimand people for speaking out freely.

- Or, Mr Johnson could, in a more calm fashion, address the points of criticism that were made in this thread that were more than marginal. But he doesn't, because this way, he makes sure that we will talk about all sorts of things - except to have a sober talk about the actual content of his book, and he can pretend to be the wronged party.

You know, it's a problem the hobby, and, in my perception, the OSR community in general, has developed: That you have justify to not be buying; that criticism is looked at as a political statement. "If you're giving me a bad review, you're marrying Lorraine Willians" is our grognardy version of "if you drive alone, you're driving with Hitler". It's only with us that the fault of a bad product is with the buyer, not with the seller. ...And in that sense, to follow some of the assumptions you made in the above text, why don't we all get together, and watch "The Phantom Menace" as many times as it needs us to like it? Because I'm surely not technically qualified to criticize a movie director, either?

I say all this in all civility; I just didn't like the book very much, and I took it very, very badly that Mr Johnson, as accomplished a man as he is, came here and tried to make things personal; "end of story".

[Deleted]

I don't know Jeffro from Adam, and I don't feel strongly about his book based on what little I know about it (though it seems interesting and I may read it).

But Jeffro didn't come here and make anything personal. He initially objected to comments that consisted of little more than attempted mind-reading and the attribution of thoughts or motives to him that had no apparent basis in fact. And he only appeared after a couple of commenters had criticized his book in rather harsh terms without really engaging with it in any substantive way. (Some people around here seem to think that stating a conclusion vehemently, accompanied by lots of adjectives and adverbs, is a rational argument. It's not.)

I have no problem with negative reviews; I think good negative reviews are sorely lacking in the OSR, which could really benefit from some constructive negativity. But there's a right and a wrong way to go about it. And what's happening in this thread mostly is the wrong way, at least if you are interested in persuading others.

[Deleted]

May 29, 2017 15:58:28 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

I don't know Jeffro from Adam, and I don't feel strongly about his book based on what little I know about it (though it seems interesting and I may read it).

But Jeffro didn't come here and make anything personal. He initially objected to comments that consisted of little more than attempted mind-reading and the attribution of thoughts or motives to him that had no apparent basis in fact. And he only appeared after a couple of commenters had criticized his book in rather harsh terms without really engaging with it in any substantive way. (Some people around here seem to think that stating a conclusion vehemently, accompanied by lots of adjectives and adverbs, is a rational argument. It's not.)

I have no problem with negative reviews; I think good negative reviews are sorely lacking in the OSR, which could really benefit from some constructive negativity. But there's a right and a wrong way to go about it. And what's happening in this thread mostly is the wrong way, at least if you are interested in persuading others.

Well said @dungeonmonkey, IMO jeffro is decidedly not the one that made things personal and is not the one that is out of line.

[Deleted]

OK, I have now read this book from cover to cover and IMO it is an excellent book and has well laid out arguments. I have read the vast majority of the books listed in Appendix N and I am quite happy with the accuracy of the reviews and the conclusions that were drawn. These books in Appendix N are crucial to having the cultural background to truly understand and appreciate all that OD&D is, was, and can be. This book is filled with excellent advice for refs/DM's/GM's. The personal slurs noted above are IMO only possible if there is an agenda behind them.

There is no Straw-man here, there is indeed an agenda behind the insults and the unfounded accusations that are leveled at the author of this and authors of other books. None of this means I think that Jeffro is a saint for he is not, but any criticism of him based on this book is completely illegitimate.

I may at some point write a review and post it, but I have many other things ahead of that to write. Again it is a great book and I encourage everyone to buy it and read it. Quite frankly now that I have read the book, I feel like this, if you don't like it IMO that fact should embarrass you.

[oakesspalding]

Here is the Introduction to Appendix N, written by five-time Hugo Award Nominee, Nebula Award nominee and recent Dragon Award Winner, John C. Wright: "All these worlds are yours. You have merely to claim them."

"Imagine if you had lived in a house for decades, as had your father before you, and grandfather, and you thought you knew all its halls and chambers. Idly, some rainy day, or when the snow has covered all the roads, you take up a lantern and go to see what is stored in those old boxes in the cellar, or where that one small door you never opened before leads.

You pry the door open, and it groans on rusted hinges, and beyond are caves of wonder, heaped with treasure. Here, like a column of fire, stands a strange genii and other spirits bound to serve your family. They are willing to carry you whirling through the air like an autumn leaf, in less time than it takes to gasp in awe, to far and fabled lands beyond the cerulean ocean, to elfish gardens of dangerous glamor, to jeweled mountains, alabaster cities, or perfumed jungles dreaming in the moonlight where ancient fanes to forgotten gods arise. The genii explains that all these things are yours, your inheritance. You have merely to claim them.

Or, to make the image more true to life, let us say that you are exploring the attic, and you find a handcrank connected to an orrery, worked by a silver key you have always worn but never heretofore found to fit any lock. Turning the crank, you move the model of planets on their epicycles back to an earlier position: trumpets blare and lamps blaze, and now parts and opens the dome of what you had, until now, thought was the sky above your house.

You find yourself in the middle of larger heavens than you knew, with gem-bright suns of many colors, constellations rearing, moons and worlds like colored ornaments, and bearded stars in the high depths of space like runners with torches. And there are worlds beyond those worlds.

Here you find your grandfather, in armor of gold with a sword of white fire, still young and strong, and discover him to be a sorcerer prince, or a dark elf, or a warrior angel, whose ichor runs in your veins as well. All this explains that strangeness that has haunted you all your life.

So it is with all readers and fans of science fiction and fantasy, weird tales and amazing stories who have never looked at the older books from which the younger books spring up. These are tales from beyond the shelves you know, realms unexplored yet oddly familiar.

Jeffro Johnson was the man with that silver key to unlock the older heavens or call up the genii you inherited from the past. It started simply enough: he wrote a series of columns taking as his theme the books listed in Appendix N of the older rules for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons written by Gary Gygax.

And the list is nothing exceptional: nearly anyone alive in those days (as I was) and was familiar with fantasy or science fiction reading of the time (as I was) asked to compile a list of the essential books and authors would, no doubt, have issued nearly the same list. The world was smaller in those days, and we who read science fiction were a breed apart, in our own quarter, and a bookish fan could have read or been familiar with all the talented writers in the field, and the many of the untalented.

But like the man who explores his own basement and find a treasure trove, or opens his ceiling and finds the heavens rolled back like a scroll, Jeffro Johnson made an astonishing discovery: the things he had been told about the old books, the old pulps, the old days were misleading, or even false.

Because there was good stuff here!

Like a single spark in the dry leaves, other columnists and other readers began to reread the Appendix N books, and find that sense of wonder some writers seem willfully to wish to extinguish. Some modern books, sadly, are like a Xerox of a Xerox, and the freshness of the original is lost. Some are written in rebellion against ideas and themes in older works, but the nature of the rebellion is hidden from any reader to whom the old worlds are closed.

The genres were not demarked so clearly then, and the guards at the borders separating one kingdom from another were won't to nod and sleep, or wave through the wonder-hungry traveler without checking his papers. Works written in established worlds, Star Trek and Star Wars or Warhammer backgrounds, were utterly unknown.

Now imagine that there are some (they are rare, but they are real) whose mission is to bar you from those books, and see to it that you never enjoy the luxuries of your inheritance, or drink from the winebottles your grandfather laid down in his cellar long ago. All fashion of sneering accusation spills from these Grand Inquisitors, most of it senseless, telling you either that the artistic tastes or the personal flaws of those writers or those times render their work unfit.

Ignore the Thought Police. Read. Decide. Learn to enjoy what you enjoy. Because the heritage belongs to us all. And who knows? You may find the books that your favorite author read as his favorite books when he was young. All these worlds are yours. You have merely to claim them."

[strangebrew]

Oh boy. I told myself I'd walk away, but I just can't quit y'all.

In this thread I made two claims:

1. The book in question is fundamentally different from Playing at the World. After reading the chapter that was quoted by oakesspalding , I found the comparison 'slightly annoying' and pointed out they are fundamentally different. oakesspalding understood my point and referenced other writing of his to clarify what he meant by 'precisely,' and that was that.

In voicing my opinion, I described my reaction to the chapter - I thought it "read as a dude ranting about his opinions and preferences (essentially a long blog post) with a (f)ew cringe-worthy lines thrown in." This was a bit dismissive, as I admitted, and the reference to 'blog post' was to contrast it to PatW. Blog posts aren't bad, but they are generally informal, subjective, personal, etc, things that PatW is not.

My reaction was not to the book as a whole (which I obviously haven't read), or to Jeffro as a human being (who I obviously haven't met), but to the chapter that was posted (which I did read). That's just how I felt about it, take it or leave it, agree or disagree.

@theperilousdreamer took my reaction to the chapter that was posted as being "character assassination," possibly "libel" and "slander" (though to be fair I'm still not entirely sure who he was talking about here), and "the second worst insult you can use here in the USA" (absolutely astounding - again, I'm not sure which word he's even referring to here, and I am an American as well). Was my comment in poor taste? Arguably yes. Was it fair? Arguably no, though it was my honest reaction to the chapter which was posted, so I think it was fair but entirely subjective.

2. jeffro was not bothered by my comment. This was an assumption of mine, and it was incorrect, or may have been incorrect. Either way, it was an inappropriate overreach on my part, and I apologize for that. Best of luck with the book, Jeffro.

[Deleted]

Kudos and an Exalt to John C. Wright.

Now imagine that there are some (they are rare, but they are real) whose mission is to bar you from those books, and see to it that you never enjoy the luxuries of your inheritance, or drink from the winebottles your grandfather laid down in his cellar long ago. All fashion of sneering accusation spills from these Grand Inquisitors, most of it senseless, telling you either that the artistic tastes or the personal flaws of those writers or those times render their work unfit.

Ignore the Thought Police. Read. Decide. Learn to enjoy what you enjoy. Because the heritage belongs to us all. And who knows? You may find the books that your favorite author read as his favorite books when he was young. All these worlds are yours. You have merely to claim them."

I love the optimism, because the enemies of mankind are not rare, they are legion and all too real.

[oakesspalding]

Yeah, @theperilousdreamer, I'm embarrassed to say I haven't read any of his work, but now I want to. I like his "elfish."

[Deleted]

May 29, 2017 18:30:20 GMT -6 strangebrew said:

Snip

@theperilousdreamer took my reaction to the chapter that was posted as being "character assassination," possibly "libel" and "slander" (though to be fair I'm still not entirely sure who he was talking about here), and "the second worst insult you can use here in the USA" (absolutely astounding - again, I'm not sure which word he's even referring to here, and I am an American as well).
Snip

Thank you for clearing up the parts that I snipped. As to my comments:
I first said:"FWIW I see nothing in the quoted chapter that warrants the insults of "dude," "ranting," and "cringe-worthy."" in response to your post.

Then another very negative post not by you was made and I posted this in response to it and other things that have been posted around the web about both books, it was not directed specifically at you.

Maybe its just me, does anyone else find it to be both amusing, perplexing and terribly sad that both the new book Appendix N: The Literary History of D&D by Jeffro Johnson (which is about Gygax and his inspirations) and the new book Dave Arneson's True Genius by Rob Kuntz are both being received by a lot of people with hostility, disdain, derision, slander and libel. Is there really only a One True Version that is allowed and all other opinions and viewpoints are to be silenced? I am glad to see books being written that shed more light on things and I don't feel a need for those books to contain only things I agree with or to have a title that is acceptable to me.

If anyone wants a book with an approved by them title and approved by them contents, then go write it and publish it. I would likely buy it and give it a look. So if you don't like these books, fine don't like them, don't buy them, don't read them. But when someone goes to great lengths to silence and censor a book, it makes me wonder what the agenda is.

"the second worst insult you can use here in the USA" is calling a man a "dude" because this word calls in to question his character as a man and carries the meaning that he is not a man, but something much less and it calls into question his fitness to be allowed around children. I can't define it for you anymore than that without running afoul of political correctness.

[jeffro]

May 29, 2017 18:30:20 GMT -6 strangebrew said:

Oh boy. I told myself I'd walk away, but I just can't quit y'all.
2. jeffro was not bothered by my comment. This was an assumption of mine, and it was incorrect, or may have been incorrect. Either way, it was an inappropriate overreach on my part, and I apologize for that. Best of luck with the book, Jeffro.

Well if you put it that way, you leave me no choice but to say that whatever regretful misunderstanding may or may not have occurred is both forgiven and forgotten.

And to be clear, I mean that with not one iota of snark or condescension. 

But thank you and good luck to you in your gaming and so forth as well.

[Deleted]

May 29, 2017 15:58:28 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

But Jeffro didn't come here and make anything personal. He initially objected to comments that consisted of little more than attempted mind-reading and the attribution of thoughts or motives to him that had no apparent basis in fact. And he only appeared after a couple of commenters had criticized his book in rather harsh terms without really engaging with it in any substantive way. (Some people around here seem to think that stating a conclusion vehemently, accompanied by lots of adjectives and adverbs, is a rational argument. It's not.)

I suggest you reread the posts he made earlier; it's not quite so. Also, do you think that the way he himself engaged in the discussion was aiming at de-escalation? - I, for my part, don't think so.

Just imagine how this discussion would have gone had he ignored the less coherent criticism, and focused on the constructive parts.
How would this discussion have gone, had he started with "hey, I'm the guy who wrote this, and I chose to stick to the DMG version of Appendix N because..."? - That's the trick. I didn't set the tone, he did.

May 29, 2017 15:58:28 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

I have no problem with negative reviews; I think good negative reviews are sorely lacking in the OSR, which could really benefit from some constructive negativity. But there's a right and a wrong way to go about it. And what's happening in this thread mostly is the wrong way, at least if you are interested in persuading others.

The general problem with negative feedback inside the OSR stems from a systemic problem the community has developed because of the big role we cede to imagined partisanships, and perceived "big picture" personal agendas.

And the problem that we create in consequence is that we have found, over all those years, no reasonable way to deal with what happens when someone attempts to build a hype, but people don't react as he or she had expected: Because we so strongly associate negativity with partisanship and hidden agendas, we have developed this bewildering attitude of SUSPECTING of anyone not engaging in unhinged praise: Either, we say, he or she has to be an ignoramus, or an agent provocateur.

...And, obviously, that's a paradise for content creators that embrace this sort of factioneering: Because where else can you sell a product, and dismiss any form of criticism as political?!

May 29, 2017 17:52:35 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

The personal slurs noted above are IMO only possible if there is an agenda behind them.

Which one, I would have to ask? - Because either, I am the Manchurian Moderator, and Frank Mentzer programmed me at RopeCon '11 to bring down all D&D before the Red Box, or --- my reaction could have been genuine. ("Mentzerian Candidate"?)

May 29, 2017 17:52:35 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

Quite frankly now that I have read the book, I feel like this, if you don't like it IMO that fact should embarrass you.

*Sigh.* What was to be demonstrated.

[jeffro]

May 29, 2017 18:48:12 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

Yeah, @theperilousdreamer , I'm embarrassed to say I haven't read any of his work, but now I want to. I like his "elfish."

John C. Wright is someone that has been practically steeped in Appendix N literature and is one of a very few contemporary authors that could (at least by my reckoning) manage to earn a place in the list.

If you like Lord Dunsany, C. L. Moore, and Poul Anderson and have bemoaned the fact that no one would ever write like they did again then you owe it to yourself to check him out.

If you would like to know more, I have reviewed his The Parliament of Beasts and Birds, Iron Chamber of Memory, Swan Knight's Son, and Feast of the Elfs.

If you have children, you will want to leave Swan Knight's Son out somewhere where they might stumble upon it and read it. (Though I guess the print omnibus is not yet out. Look for it!) If they are younger, you will want to read it out loud.

If you can't stand whatever it is that happened to the whole idea of elves during the eighties (thanks in no small part to D&D in general and Forgotten Realms in particular), then you'll especially want to see what he's doing. For people that want specifics about this, please check the links as I have pull quotes from his work that illustrate what I'm talking about.

Full disclosure: we have been on the same podcasts together, we both have the same publisher, and he is the sort of person for whom people saying "this guy writes like the Appendix N days never stopped" is the highest praise conceivable. Somewhere along the way we seem to have become friends.

[strangebrew]

May 29, 2017 18:50:44 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

"the second worst insult you can use here in the USA" is calling a man a "dude"

Ahh, okay. You must be aware that, to most English-speakers in the USA and abroad, the meaning of this word has shifted to basically meaning "guy," "man," or "mate?" At or least familiar enough with this modern, far more common usage to assume that I'm using it in that manner and not in its original, nearly archaic sense? 

Edit: some quit research finds no relation to 'dude' and anything worse than 'city-dweller' or something like that. I can make assumptions about what you're getting at based on your comments about "less than a man" and "political correctness," but I feel as though I've wasted enough time on this overly dramatic, manufactured outrage as it is.

[Deleted]

May 29, 2017 19:05:54 GMT -6 @rafael said:

May 29, 2017 15:58:28 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

But Jeffro didn't come here and make anything personal. He initially objected to comments that consisted of little more than attempted mind-reading and the attribution of thoughts or motives to him that had no apparent basis in fact. And he only appeared after a couple of commenters had criticized his book in rather harsh terms without really engaging with it in any substantive way. (Some people around here seem to think that stating a conclusion vehemently, accompanied by lots of adjectives and adverbs, is a rational argument. It's not.)

I suggest you reread the posts he made earlier; it's not quite so. Also, do you think that the way he himself engaged in the discussion was aiming at de-escalation? - I, for my part, don't think so.

Just imagine how this discussion would have gone had he ignored the less coherent criticism, and focused on the constructive parts.
How would this discussion have gone, had he started with "hey, I'm the guy who wrote this, and I chose to stick to the DMG version of Appendix N because..."? - That's the trick. I didn't set the tone, he did.

1.  You're moving the goalposts.  I did not say that Jeffro was trying to deescalate the situation; I said that he objected to comments that were reasonably objectionable and did so without resorting to personal insult. You say my characterization is wrong, but don't explain how or why. So I there's not much I can address in reply.

2.  You're mind-reading again by speculating about what motives lay behind Jeffro's comments rather than addressing their content.  Online communication is hobbled because our body language is absent.  "!@#$% off" can be said in a number of ways, not all of them offensive, for example.  Absent some very plain indicia of bad faith, it's not constructive to worry about the evil that lurks in other commenters' hearts.  Focusing on what people actually write helps keep things from becoming personal. (If a disagreement focuses on my motives, rather than what I wrote, how can I not take it personally?)

3.  Addressing your response on its own terms, by the time Jethro arrived you already had:

- said that "Johnson shows he has no clue what he is talking about";

- stated that his book "essentially cherry-picks the facts on the matter yet again, in order to fabricate a catchy sales pitch for itself"; and

- opined that he was unqualified to write the book based on speculation ("Johnson has obviously read 'The Hero's Journey', and 'The Writer's Journey', and a few more standard books of genre theory, but that's not enough for a work like this one").

So you had called him a clueless, unqualified fabricator. That's not the only less than civil criticism that had been lobbed at Jeffro before he arrived either. The idea that Jeffro "set the tone," rather than you (and others) is contrary to the facts.  On this record, it was his obligation to deescalate the situation? You're obliged to be courteous and substantive; he's not required to persuade you to be so. It is not reasonable to call someone a clueless, unqualified fabricator and then complain that he's not engaging with your ostensibly more constructive criticisms.  Would you try to engage with a stranger who treated you in this fashion?  I wouldn't.

(I don't mean to be on a soapbox.  I struggle to be courteous on occasion and appreciate when folks help me rein in my unconstructive behavior.)

[Deleted]

May 29, 2017 22:06:38 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

(I don't mean to be on a soapbox.  I struggle to be courteous on occasion and appreciate when folks help me rein in my unconstructive behavior.)

You're not coming off as soapbox-y, and given how this discussion has evolved, it's probably worth bringing things together again in a more civilized way.

3...

You would be right - if this wasn't a vertical argument, to begin with. My statements regarding Mr Johnson's person are clearly related to my - casual - evaluation of his book. For comparison: "George Lucas has no business making movies!" - is an equally d**ning statement, but even so, we all know that it doesn't really deal with who George Lucas is, right? Now, for George Lucas to engage in such an argument would be very, very stupid, because he has already won it - he IS in the movie-making business, and he can easily rebuke anyone who tells him he should not be. However, even if we eventually will inevitably arrive at the conclusion that Mr Lucas is, in fact, a very competent movie maker, that doesn't devaluate the general context on which the first, negative generalization was made.

2...

Yet, *I* have to face accusations of pursuing a "hidden agenda" - not from you, I think, but from others, for, in a nutshell, disagreeing with them. Who's doing the mind-reading there? - Not me, I think.

Now, are you saying that Mr Johnson's comments are not, whatever, passive-aggressive, or are you saying that he is well within his right to be aggressive? Because here, you seem to defend both.

1...

Yeah, I didn't explain things in-depth, because I don't want to get on *my* soapbox. I can do so, though; With his very first post, Mr Johnson already excludes me from the discussion he wants to have:

May 27, 2017 14:18:32 GMT -6 jeffro said:

Everybody else, if you have any questions about this project I am happy to answer them.

He singles me out on a comment he knows is contestable, because it constitutes negative categorization. So, he opens a vertical discussion he knows I cannot win in a conventional way - because, indeed, I don't know what books he's read.

...And that brings us three pages into this thread, where people are arguing, but nobody quite knows about what: "What exactly did the dissenters criticize about the book we wanted to be talked about in a solely positive way? -Doesn't matter!!! How dare they dissent?!" - And think that's a very bad thing, because we're making product reviews a matter of loyalty.




And, in general, as to the continued insinuations by some hardcases that people who disagree with them must be "enemy agents with a secret agenda", well, my agenda for the immediate future is going to be that I will overthink my general involvement here. This thread, quite frankly, was about a bridge too far for me. Because, ladies and gentlemen, I might be many things, but I'm not your d**n zoo keeper. You know, in the oldschool community, you sooner or later learn to live with all this nerdy paranoia, but these petty wars that people wage to get their products endorsed, I find them simply appalling.

[Finarvyn]

I think that this book merits a thread and that there is some positive discussion to be had. I think that this thread has run its course, however, and has derailed to the point where it probably needs to be locked.

Please start a new thread where we can discuss the book without all of the mud-slinging.