Chapters and Authors in Jeffro Johnson's Appendix N

[cadriel]

Jun 1, 2017 13:27:52 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

SO WHAT? Everyone accepts that. If your objection is merely to the subtitle, "A Literary History of D&D," then okay. But with respect, why do you think you keep needing to say it? I got it the first time you said it.

Because people keep banging on about Appendix N. It's a trope I object to and Jeffro's book plays into it. I mean, there's a podcast called "Sanctum Secorum" where they literally talk about "Appendix N" and the DCC RPG and other things have put Gary's list on a pedestal. Hell, I'm even guilty of this, having used Appendix N for a tournament on my blog. But I do try and push back, for a few reasons.

First, I think some of the authors on Appendix N are downright terrible, particularly Lin Carter and August Derleth, while others like Gardner Fox or Fred Saberhagen I could do without. Second, because I want to push back against the notion that the list forms a coherent genre or even the best list of authors of its type, when it doesn't have Clark Ashton Smith or C.L. Moore or Henry Kuttner or Karl Edward Wagner or a half-dozen other authors I would place on it. And third, because I think the full list is of at best marginal value for understanding D&D. I do think that the short list ("de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt") is useful for understanding Gary Gygax, though.

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2017 14:40:44 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

Jun 1, 2017 14:25:51 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

Is the world of Gore overrun by endless varieties of aquatic creatures?

In the little brown books plus the three supplements, the only mention of slaves or slavery in the context of human slaves being held by human masters is, wait for it...in Blackmoor.

There are six mentions of slaves in The Temple of the Frog adventure. The Brothers need slaves and trade slaves for some reason or another.

Also, in the section on diseases, there's a brief mention of the effect of diseases on slaves (it's a bit different from the effect of diseases on soldiers).

I think we have a match.

I'm not trying to make any kind moral or anti-Arneson point here, but is seems like, for the purposes of gaming, Arneson was "into" slavery (Gor influence?), while Gygax was not.

I haven't read through the Temple of the Frog for ages and I had quite forgotten about that. I use slavers IMC and my players will do anything to take them out. They make great bad guys, the players hate them worse than the monsters.

[oakesspalding]

Jun 1, 2017 15:17:04 GMT -6 cadriel said:

Jun 1, 2017 13:27:52 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

SO WHAT? Everyone accepts that. If your objection is merely to the subtitle, "A Literary History of D&D," then okay. But with respect, why do you think you keep needing to say it? I got it the first time you said it.

Because people keep banging on about Appendix N. It's a trope I object to and Jeffro's book plays into it. I mean, there's a podcast called "Sanctum Secorum" where they literally talk about "Appendix N" and the DCC RPG and other things have put Gary's list on a pedestal. Hell, I'm even guilty of this, having used Appendix N for a tournament on my blog. But I do try and push back, for a few reasons.

First, I think some of the authors on Appendix N are downright terrible, particularly Lin Carter and August Derleth, while others like Gardner Fox or Fred Saberhagen I could do without. Second, because I want to push back against the notion that the list forms a coherent genre or even the best list of authors of its type, when it doesn't have Clark Ashton Smith or C.L. Moore or Henry Kuttner or Karl Edward Wagner or a half-dozen other authors I would place on it. And third, because I think the full list is of at best marginal value for understanding D&D. I do think that the short list ("de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt") is useful for understanding Gary Gygax, though.

Well, I'm speaking for myself, not the author, obviously, but this is how I see it.

1. Jeffro certainly gives some of the authors bad reviews, and, personally, that's one of the things that makes the book fun for me. I'm sure he would agree that there are authors not included that are better than some of the authors that are included. And, of course, it's just a list that Gygax put together in 1976 and then again in 1979 for a deadline. So those 29 authors aren't even necessarily reflective of the absolute most perfect or accurate list in terms of influence on Gygax. If you asked me to put together a list right now of the 29 authors who most influenced me in my conception of the ideal D&D world or whatever, I'm sure it would be at least slightly wrong, if you see what I mean. And, of course there may be authors like Smith or Moore that influenced Gygax or D&D at some remove, or are nevertheless worthwhile, that either he never read (you can't expect him to have read all the worthwhile fantasy classics) or for some reason didn't see fit to include. But I don't see that as that as a big a deal. No one is asserting the contrary.

Just now I saw an "Appendix N" (it was tagged that way) blog post at Swords and Stitchery about Smith, even though he wasn't on the list. In some ways, there's a larger "Appendix N" that doesn't precisely track the actual list. So, I think it lifts all boats. To be honest, before I checked again, I had thought that Smith was on the list.

2. I don't think Jeffro would group them all together into the same genre unless that term is used loosely. But that doesn't mean you can't make many useful generalizations about the authors, books and era in general, always keeping in mind that there are exceptions and outliers and so on. A number of these exceptions and outliers are referenced in Appendix N.

3. Your third point is just one of those things that I guess people will have to disagree on. But I think what is missed, too, is that Appendix N is more than a chronicle of influence, but also a sort of method or lens by which to analyze D&D, including both the mechanics and its vibe. As long as it's not done in a cultish way, I see nothing wrong with that. And I just don't see Jeffro or anyone else being cultish about it. But I guess that's a matter of opinion.

With respect, I think it's unfair to accuse the author, or others, of putting Gygax on a pedestal. But he was the author (in terms of actual writing) of the three little brown books, and he drew up this list, and a lot of people think it's useful to take another look at quasi-forgotten authors by making use of the list, etc., etc. Again, I guess it's just something to agree to disagree about, but it seems perfectly natural to me. I certainly don't see it as quasi pernicious or obscurantist or whatever.

I'll shut up now because I feel like I may be doing the same thing I said one shouldn't do - make the same point over and over.

[MormonYoYoMan]

Jun 1, 2017 15:17:04 GMT -6 cadriel said:

Jun 1, 2017 13:27:52 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

SO WHAT? Everyone accepts that. If your objection is merely to the subtitle, "A Literary History of D&D," then okay. But with respect, why do you think you keep needing to say it? I got it the first time you said it.

Because people keep banging on about Appendix N. It's a trope I object to and Jeffro's book plays into it. I mean, there's a podcast called "Sanctum Secorum" where they literally talk about "Appendix N" and the DCC RPG and other things have put Gary's list on a pedestal. Hell, I'm even guilty of this, having used Appendix N for a tournament on my blog. But I do try and push back, for a few reasons.

First, I think some of the authors on Appendix N are downright terrible, particularly Lin Carter and August Derleth, while others like Gardner Fox or Fred Saberhagen I could do without. Second, because I want to push back against the notion that the list forms a coherent genre or even the best list of authors of its type, when it doesn't have Clark Ashton Smith or C.L. Moore or Henry Kuttner or Karl Edward Wagner or a half-dozen other authors I would place on it. And third, because I think the full list is of at best marginal value for understanding D&D. I do think that the short list ("de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt") is useful for understanding Gary Gygax, though.

Was Karl even in print to have been included in the bookshelves of Gary, who was reading 2nd hand paperbacks from mid-1950s to maybe 1971? He was still "just" a local boy at the comics swaps in Edwin Murray's backyard in 1977, though he'd been published by then. Still he was so new as a professional writer, that we kidded him about not being able to find his book (books?) and had him autographing Popeye magazines.

As for Gar Fox - Well, there might still be enough Fox fans to outnumber you. We were as grateful as he, when the comics field spit him out, because he finally had time to commit to his "Adam Strange with gonads" novels. (Commander Craig, IIRC)

[cadriel]

Jun 1, 2017 16:51:41 GMT -6 MormonYoYoMan said:

Was Karl even in print to have been included in the bookshelves of Gary, who was reading 2nd hand paperbacks from mid-1950s to maybe 1971? He was still "just" a local boy at the comics swaps in Edwin Murray's backyard in 1977, though he'd been published by then. Still he was so new as a professional writer, that we kidded him about not being able to find his book (books?) and had him autographing Popeye magazines.

As for Gar Fox - Well, there might still be enough Fox fans to outnumber you. We were as grateful as he, when the comics field spit him out, because he finally had time to commit to his "Adam Strange with gonads" novels. (Commander Craig, IIRC)

Wagner was definitely there with Death Angel's Shadow in 1973 which was the same year as Hiero's Journey. Bloodstone was out in 1975, and Dark Crusade in 1976. Darkness Weaves was 1978 but so was Swords Against Darkness III, so not too late. 

As for Fox, I mean, there were certainly worse authors of "barbarian" fantasy and I understand that had a certain appeal to a certain crowd. Not my cup of tea.

[MormonYoYoMan]

This is the point I wanted to make: Jeffro's book is a bunch of reviews of books that you may or may not like, but that were favorites of and influences on the closest that we have as an editor of the Little Brown Booklets. Not an icon, not a diety, but the guy who typed the notes that we pretended were organized rules. He's the guy you're mad at, not Jeffro and not the authors of the books on the list.

It might have been anyone. Arguably, it should have been someone else. But he was the person typing. To all appearances, you've been angry, very angry, and verbally attacking in white hot anger.

Somebody reviewed some books that a typist/self-editor felt had inspired his avocation. That couldn't infuriate a man. The anger could only have been triggered by and fired at the guy who came up with the list.

Say so. Don't shoot the reviewer.

[peterlind]

I have been reading Jeffro's Appendix N book and have been enjoying it so far. I started playing D&D with OD&D in '77 and picked up the DMG when it first came out. I do not remember Appendix N being much of a big deal among gamers back then, though. However, before reading Appendix N, I had not read Leiber or Vance, among some of the other authors on the list. Vance turned out to be my favorite author, so I greatly appreciate the extra thought that Gygax gave to his readers to include this material in an appendix to his DMG. I suggest that Gary Gygax provided this list of works by "fine authors" not necessarily for their literary qualities, but for their inspirational qualities, which are not necessarily the same thing. . . Nevertheless, they are enjoyable to read. So I appreciate the enthusiasm and insights that Jeffro brings to the Appendix N book.

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2017 20:07:30 GMT -6 MormonYoYoMan said:

This is the point I wanted to make: Jeffro's book is a bunch of reviews of books that you may or may not like, but that were favorites of and influences on the closest that we have as an editor of the Little Brown Booklets. Not an icon, not a diety, but the guy who typed the notes that we pretended were organized rules. He's the guy you're mad at, not Jeffro and not the authors of the books on the list.

It might have been anyone. Arguably, it should have been someone else. But he was the person typing. To all appearances, you've been angry, very angry, and verbally attacking in white hot anger.

Somebody reviewed some books that a typist/self-editor felt had inspired his avocation. That couldn't infuriate a man. The anger could only have been triggered by and fired at the guy who came up with the list.

Say so. Don't shoot the reviewer.

Thank you for saying succinctly what I have suspected, regarding this whole overblown topic. Hero worship, antihero upbraiding, and demagoguery are far too commonplace and incendiary in this hobby.

I have greatly enjoyed Mr. Johnson's book, Appendix N. It features no incendiary characteristics. Posts here have.

[DungeonDevil]

I think I'll drop in to add my 2 coppers. I have been surveying all the posts about this guy's books and wonder where this ferocious clamour comes from. I think the people who get hot under the collar about his hobby are likely on the spectrum, having no capacity to place things firmly in context of a functional adult life. Maybe certain parties have domestic issues and are projecting their grief on this one guy's opinions. Yup, that's what they are: OPINIONS. Take a deep breath, step back for a moment and get your priorities together! Pull your heads out of your arses! (eyeroll)

Appendix N is a terrific springboard to fuel our imaginations as refs, and to encourage our kids to be more literate in this decidedly anti-literate age. I try to steer kids away from the currently-popular sources of ideas (video games, comic books, Netflix, cartoons) and urge them to delve into the deep well of literature, a mere drop of which we see manifested in Appendix N. Many will ignore this Old, but a few may heed my advice.

Carry on.

[oakesspalding]

Appendix N (the book) is inspiring. But it's also depressing. Jeffro often reminds us that not only were most of these books available in libraries (sometimes) and bookstores in the 1960's and probably 1970's, but many of them were available in drugstores!

Now, only a few are in bookstores. Plus, of course, there are hardly any bookstores.

That some are available on the internet in hard or virtual copies, at least for those in the know, is some consolation, I guess.

But drugstores...

[DungeonDevil]

Now, only a few are in bookstores. Plus, of course, there are hardly any bookstores.

"What were you doing in that strange, small box, daddy?"
"It's called a telephone booth, honey."
"What's a telephone booth?"
"It's a place where you can call someone via landline. I was ringing the bookstore at the mall."
"What's landline? What's a bookstore? What's a mall?"
"Go bother your mother!"
"WHAT'S A BOOK???"

[Finarvyn]

Jun 2, 2017 21:27:19 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

Appendix N (the book) is inspiring. But it's also depressing. Jeffro often reminds us that not only were most of these books available in libraries (sometimes) and bookstores in the 1960's and probably 1970's, but many of them were available in drugstores!

Now, only a few are in bookstores. Plus, of course, there are hardly any bookstores.

That some are available on the internet in hard or virtual copies, at least for those in the know, is some consolation, I guess.

But drugstores...

You've just hit on one of the things that makes getting old suck for me. I had planned on going to GenCon to see Roger Zelazny the year my daughter was born. It happened that his appearance was scheduled on my wife's birthday so I didn't go, but then I found out later on that it would have been a wasted trip because he had died earlier in the summer. That same daughter is now old enough to legally drink, so Zelazny has been gone for more than two decades. He was one of my favorite authors, along with Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and J.R.R Tolkien. You can find lots of Tolkien books on the B&N shelves, and occasionally a Howard anthology or so, but many of the old guard have faded to the point where nothing can be found in a new-book bookstore.

My high school buddies all read the same fiction, much of which also happens to be on the Appendix N list, but today's gamers seem to have less exposure to those authors and those stories. My current gaming group know Tolkien only through the movies, only know Burroughs through the movies, only know Conan through the movies. Their reading list is so very different, which is why (I believe) that so many modern D&D campaigns have such a different feel from the older ones. That is one reason that I applaud Goodman Games and their attempt to bring the classic literature feel back through their DCC RPG. And that is why I applaud Jeffro Johnson for writing a book that reviews the old Appendix N authors and maybe will encourage younger D&D players to give those stories a try.

It makes me very sad to see the old authors and their "old school" style fade into obscurity. Nice post, oakspalding.

[geoffrey]

I finished re-reading Alan Dean Foster's Splinter of the Mind's Eye last night. I hadn't read it since before my daughter was born 12 years ago, so I had forgotten much of it.

Splinter of the Mind's Eye was written in 1976 and published in Feb. 1978. It is the very first sequel to Star Wars.

Jeffro Johnson complains that, unlike in the John Carter books, the main character in the Star Wars movies (Luke) does not get the girl (Leia), and (for the most part) the girl wears too much clothing. As an antidote, read Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Han, Chewbacca, and the Falcon are not even in the book (though they are mentioned in passing twice). There are a lot of sparks, attraction, and physical contact between Luke and Leia in the book. Leia's clothing gets ripped a couple of times. Luke pulls his lightsaber (as John Carter did his sword) and wades into a massed combat.

Splinter of the Mind's Eye takes us closer to Star Wars's pulp roots than do the later movies and the later Star Wars books. Clear you mind of all things Star Wars, forgetting everything you know. Then read back-to-back the 1976 Star Wars novelization (which was ghost-written by Alan Dean Foster) and Splinter of the Mind's Eye. It is a refreshing take on Star Wars, a much older take. Both books were written in 1976, before the first movie was even released.

[ritt]

Re: Slavery

The two fantasy campaigns I run both have slavery as a major element of the setting. This isn't because I think slavery is cool or desirable or because I'm "Into" it (Jesus Christ, No. No, no, no.) but because slavery (and indentured servitude, and serfdom, both basically barely-disguised slavery) was an everyday part of life for the overwhelming vast majority of human history. Also, these are adventure games, and adventure is fueled by conflict, and utopias (Or even just functioning, just, equal societies) kind of suck for generating conflict.

[geoffrey]

You're right, ritt.

Perhaps the single most humorous thing in an RPG book that I own is the following boxed statement on page 24 of Necromancer's City State of the Invincible Overlord:

The practice of slavery and torture and other vile activities is not surprising, given that the City State is a lawful evil place. That being said, Necromancer Games and Judges Guild do not condone such practices in real life. The City State of the Invincible Overlord is a game setting; elements such as slavery, torture, evil beings and monsters are presented as challenges for player characters to face, nothing more.

That is priceless. I'm trying to imagine the nonexistent readers of this book getting to page 24 and breathing a sigh of relief: "Whew! Thank goodness for that. I was thinking that the authors and publishers condoned slavery and torture in real life!"

[Deleted]

Fascinating discussion. I suspect I'm showing my age when I suggest that there might be some hints of what DLA had in mind from what we used to call 'Sword and Sandal' movies from Hollywood on the Tiber, or the big-budget Toho epics that Dave loved. I dunno; it's a little sad for me to realize that a lot of what Gary, Dave, and Phil liked in literature is now pretty much forgotten. Going back to those ancient and musty tomes might provide some insights; they did for me, when I first met them.

Ah, well. The past is a strange country; we did things differently, there.

[Deleted]

These books are all a lot older than we are and we find them to be fascinating and by comparison most of what has been written over the last 25 years is pretty pale lifeless stuff. Everyone seems to be too scared to write anything good anymore.

[oakesspalding]

Well, I admit that I do have a bit of sympathy with people who worry about the "bad influences" of D&D - whether it's the occult or slavery or whatever.

On the other hand, here's the incomparable Leslie Fish on the issue of fantasy vs. reality in RPGs.

Note her snark, half-way through, about AD&D:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO0XSreGVHY

(I just took the lyrics away. They're fun but they helped create a post that was too long and too off the point for this thread. I encourage you to listen to the audio.)

[oakesspalding]

On this and the first thread, I stated multiple times that the Appendix N list was created by Gary Gygax as a list of books that influenced him. But, according to one original source, that's not precisely right.

Here is what Tim Kask had to say in a comment on an RPG Pundit blog post, almost exactly a year ago. The comment was subsequently referenced by Jeffro on his Jeffro's Spacegaming blog.

(XXX is a blogger and game designer at a now dormant blog.)

Here's Tim Kask:

While I agree with you that XXX is often a douchebag, and his reverence of Appendix N as though it were graven on tablets a bit absurd, many of you are missing the point, but some have hit the nail on the head.

I helped compile that list. They were not just Gary’s favorites. We both had nominations that did not make the list in the end.

We made that list for two reasons. The first was an encouragement to read; both Gary and I were sort of annoying in that regard.

The second was in response to a slew of questions that sort of boiled down to “Where are you (D&D) coming from?” We thought that if more people read Vance’s Dying Earth, for example, they would know where the memorizing your spells thing came from.

At that point in gaming history (sort of pretentious-sounding, I know) we were encouraging players to lift and modify things from books and movies; Appendix N was meant to serve as a starting point for good sources.

It is so d**ned easy to sit and pontificate about something we did 40 years ago, and quite frankly I am tired of people second-guessing and speculating on what we did without once asking anyone who was there.

[Deleted]

Jun 5, 2017 12:11:58 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

On this and the first thread, I stated multiple times that the Appendix N list was created by Gary Gygax as a list of books that influenced him. But, according to one original source, that's not precisely right.

Here is what Tim Kask had to say in a comment on an RPG Pundit blog post, almost exactly a year ago. The comment was subsequently referenced by Jeffro on his Jeffro's Spacegaming blog.

(XXX is a blogger and game designer at a now dormant blog.)

Here's Tim Kask:

While I agree with you that XXX is often a douchebag, and his reverence of Appendix N as though it were graven on tablets a bit absurd, many of you are missing the point, but some have hit the nail on the head.

I helped compile that list. They were not just Gary’s favorites. We both had nominations that did not make the list in the end.

We made that list for two reasons. The first was an encouragement to read; both Gary and I were sort of annoying in that regard.

The second was in response to a slew of questions that sort of boiled down to “Where are you (D&D) coming from?” We thought that if more people read Vance’s Dying Earth, for example, they would know where the memorizing your spells thing came from.

At that point in gaming history (sort of pretentious-sounding, I know) we were encouraging players to lift and modify things from books and movies; Appendix N was meant to serve as a starting point for good sources.

It is so d**ned easy to sit and pontificate about something we did 40 years ago, and quite frankly I am tired of people second-guessing and speculating on what we did without once asking anyone who was there.

I am not seeing where it really changes things more than a smidgen "if the list was created by Gary Gygax and Tim Kask together as a list of books that are inspirations for them and should be for you too, go read them and then go beyond this list, it is just a starting point for finding inspiration." That does not really change anything that most of us have said.

I looked up both posts in question going back to the RPG Pundit blog post and I find it fascinating that the RPG Pundit completely fails to understand the purpose of Appendix N.

I find it equally funny that two pots are calling the kettle black.

[oakesspalding]

Jun 5, 2017 12:20:51 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

I am not seeing where it really changes things more than a smidgen "if the list was created by Gary Gygax and Tim Kask together as a list of books that are inspirations for them and should be for you too, go read them and then go beyond this list, it is just a starting point for finding inspiration." That does not really change anything that most of us have said.

It doesn't change things very much, but it is a bit of answer to the objection that the list was merely a momentary whim or whatever on Gygax's part, and, thus, has nothing much to do with D&D, or the history or literary history of D&D, etc.

It's also just interesting. I remember that blog post from a year ago, but I had forgotten Kask's comment.

[oakesspalding]

Jun 5, 2017 12:20:51 GMT -6 @theperilousdreamer said:

I looked up both posts in question going back to the RPG Pundit blog post and I find it fascinating that the RPG Pundit completely fails to understand the purpose of Appendix N.

I find it equally funny that two pots are calling the kettle black.

Well, as you can see from the posts and comments, there were all sorts of things going on there. And the "side" that the Pundit takes on this may have something to do with the particular personalities and their past opinions about other things, etc. I don't mean that condescendingly. I find the Puindit's writings and opinions interesting, useful and well-considered. And I agree with many of his self-described "rants." Just not this one.

I'd also forgotten that I wrote a comment on Jeffro's blog post, 363 days ago:

"That comments thread over at RPG Pundit is the awesomest ever. It should be framed with gold and put on a marble pedestal–along with Appendix N, of course. "

[cadriel]

Jun 4, 2017 16:05:32 GMT -6 @samsonandsolomon said:

These books are all a lot older than we are and we find them to be fascinating and by comparison most of what has been written over the last 25 years is pretty pale lifeless stuff. Everyone seems to be too scared to write anything good anymore.

I don't know, back in the 1950s Theodore Sturgeon wrote this:

I repeat Sturgeon's Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. is crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms.

With time, the better stuff tends to rise to the top, and people forget about the crap. Sturgeon was talking about the "golden age" of science fiction, and the period just after it, and saying that 90% of that was crap. The stuff that survives, and it's generally between 5% and 20% of the output, tends to be the material that has a lasting quality. (Appendix N is interesting in that it actually does contain bits of dross that would otherwise have failed this survival test.)

[Finarvyn]

Jun 4, 2017 8:18:55 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Clear you mind of all things Star Wars, forgetting everything you know. Then read back-to-back the 1976 Star Wars novelization (which was ghost-written by Alan Dean Foster) and Splinter of the Mind's Eye. It is a refreshing take on Star Wars, a much older take. Both books were written in 1976, before the first movie was even released.

An awesome observation, Geoffrey. I think that the problem with Star Wars discussions is that there are so many flavors of "Star Wars" and a person has to choose whether they are looking at a (1) movie canon only, (2) iv-v-vi movie canon only, (3) kitchen sink everything included, or (4) somewhere in between or something of your choosing. I ran an OD&D Star Wars game back before ESB came out, and its flavor was much more pulpy and followed the ideas of the novel (and first movie) along with Splinter of the Mind's Eye, and I agree that if you limit yourself to those books as source material it has a very different feel to it. Nice catch!

[Deleted]

Jun 5, 2017 14:51:59 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Jun 4, 2017 8:18:55 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Clear you mind of all things Star Wars, forgetting everything you know. Then read back-to-back the 1976 Star Wars novelization (which was ghost-written by Alan Dean Foster) and Splinter of the Mind's Eye. It is a refreshing take on Star Wars, a much older take. Both books were written in 1976, before the first movie was even released.

An awesome observation, Geoffrey. I think that the problem with Star Wars discussions is that there are so many flavors of "Star Wars" and a person has to choose whether they are looking at a (1) movie canon only, (2) iv-v-vi movie canon only, (3) kitchen sink everything included, or (4) somewhere in between or something of your choosing. I ran an OD&D Star Wars game back before ESB came out, and its flavor was much more pulpy and followed the ideas of the novel (and first movie) along with Splinter of the Mind's Eye, and I agree that if you limit yourself to those books as source material it has a very different feel to it. Nice catch!

I especially like the Humanx Commonwealth Universe books by Alan Dean Foster. It makes some great reading for a Traveller game.

[Deleted]

Jun 5, 2017 14:14:06 GMT -6 cadriel said:

Jun 4, 2017 16:05:32 GMT -6 @samsonandsolomon said:

These books are all a lot older than we are and we find them to be fascinating and by comparison most of what has been written over the last 25 years is pretty pale lifeless stuff. Everyone seems to be too scared to write anything good anymore.

I don't know, back in the 1950s Theodore Sturgeon wrote this:

I repeat Sturgeon's Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. is crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms.

With time, the better stuff tends to rise to the top, and people forget about the crap. Sturgeon was talking about the "golden age" of science fiction, and the period just after it, and saying that 90% of that was crap. The stuff that survives, and it's generally between 5% and 20% of the output, f to be the material that has a lasting quality. (Appendix N is interesting in that it actually does contain bits of dross that would otherwise have failed this survival test.)

Whether it contains dross or not, it doesn't make Johnson's book, covering what Gygax & Kask considered influential or in the same fantasy spirit of (A)D&D, into dross.

[cadriel]

Looking through some later entries, the book proves to be awash in the mythology and spurious history of the D&D game. For instance, there is the implication that the thief skills Hide in Shadows and Climb Sheer Surfaces come from the book Jack of Shadows by Roger Zelazny. This is a nice just-so story, and in fact it's one that Gygax himself perpetuated, claiming that the thief class came from a mix of Cugel the Clever with Shadowjack. However, it's unfortunately spurious. Actual historical research has shown that Gary Switzer, who was part of the scene at Aero Hobbies in Los Angeles, gave Gary the idea for the thief class, and that it came out of that variant. (More of this history is related on this very board.)

Reading the entry for Nine Princes in Amber is surreal. When Johnson says, "In the first place, few adventuring groups are going to play long enough to get to this stage of the game, so why bother laying all of this stuff out in such careful detail?" - it makes it seem like he's ignorant of the play style of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns - to a startling degree. The "domain game" was a huge part of those campaigns, and you can't read The First Fantasy Campaign without concluding it was majorly a wargame campaign. Complaining that no one ever gets to those levels is weird when the first two campaigns really were that way. This is ABC history of Dungeons & Dragons; charging for insights that call the way Greyhawk and Blackmoor were played, "crazy," is honestly a huge ask for me.

[jeffro]

Jun 5, 2017 14:14:06 GMT -6 cadriel said:

Jun 4, 2017 16:05:32 GMT -6 @samsonandsolomon said:

These books are all a lot older than we are and we find them to be fascinating and by comparison most of what has been written over the last 25 years is pretty pale lifeless stuff. Everyone seems to be too scared to write anything good anymore.

I don't know, back in the 1950s Theodore Sturgeon wrote this:

I repeat Sturgeon's Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. is crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms.

With time, the better stuff tends to rise to the top, and people forget about the crap. Sturgeon was talking about the "golden age" of science fiction, and the period just after it, and saying that 90% of that was crap. The stuff that survives, and it's generally between 5% and 20% of the output, tends to be the material that has a lasting quality. (Appendix N is interesting in that it actually does contain bits of dross that would otherwise have failed this survival test.)

Sturgeon's Revelation is not a concession that 90% of the pulp era was crap. It's an explanation of why the argument of people that pooped all over writers like Edgar Rice Burroughs, Otis Adelbert Kline, Manly Wade Wellman, C. L. Moore, Robert E. Howard, Edmond Hamilton, and Leigh Brackett was crap.

"With time, the better stuff tends to rise to the top, and people forget about the crap."

This is not true. Critics like Damon Knight and Joanna Russ propounded a very influential critical frame that changed what was published, altered what was discussed and the way it was talked about, and which authors were allowed into the de facto sff canon and which ones were read out.

If, for instance, you take it for granted that Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and Arthur Clarke are the "big three" of science fiction... then you have a view of the field that is more or less foreign to what the first wave of rpg designers would have taken for granted.

Appendix N is a time capsule that encapsulates what sff fandom was like before it was re-engineered from the top down. The assault on sff that Theodore Sturgeon alludes to went on for generations. Key gatekeeping positions were consolidated in the eighties and an imposing generation gap developed within fandom. There is a world of difference between the sff narrative people take for granted today and the sort of thing you'd read in the sff encyclopedias of the seventies.

Again, look at this statement: "With time, the better stuff tends to rise to the top, and people forget about the crap."

The authors we admire and remember are merely the result of impersonal forces...? This all goes down after the same fashion as the erosion the gradually sculpts the Grand Canyon over the centuries...? I'm afraid that this is the sort of "Just So Story" which sounds true and which no one will call you on... but which in fact is the exact opposite of the truth. A survey of sff history will uncover the fact that this is so in short order.

One more time: "With time, the better stuff tends to rise to the top, and people forget about the crap."

The people that discovered A. Merritt, Leigh Brackett, Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, and Roger Zelazny as a result of reading my book would beg to differ.

And the people that are going back and systematically looking at old pulp magazines are finding that the overall quality of the average pulp story far exceeds that of what was being put out in the seventies. The sff magazines of today that you'll find at the newsstand today are almost uniformly comprised of garbage.

Lovecraft was the last of his kind, really. Dunsany and A. Merritt along with him represent a caliber of writer that has not been seen since their day. Dunsany and Merritt are largely forgotten today, yes. But that doesn't mean they're crap. Nor does it mean that their obscurity is deserved.

It didn't just happened, either. But there is a school of thought and a brand of criticism that intentionally dethroned them and replaced them with lesser authors.

[oakesspalding]

Jun 5, 2017 18:18:13 GMT -6 cadriel said:

Looking through some later entries, the book proves to be awash in the mythology and spurious history of the D&D game. For instance, there is the implication that the thief skills Hide in Shadows and Climb Sheer Surfaces come from the book Jack of Shadows by Roger Zelazny. This is a nice just-so story, and in fact it's one that Gygax himself perpetuated, claiming that the thief class came from a mix of Cugel the Clever with Shadowjack. However, it's unfortunately spurious. Actual historical research has shown that Gary Switzer, who was part of the scene at Aero Hobbies in Los Angeles, gave Gary the idea for the thief class, and that it came out of that variant. (More of this history is related on this very board.)

Reading the entry for Nine Princes in Amber is surreal. When Johnson says, "In the first place, few adventuring groups are going to play long enough to get to this stage of the game, so why bother laying all of this stuff out in such careful detail?" - it makes it seem like he's ignorant of the play style of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns - to a startling degree. The "domain game" was a huge part of those campaigns, and you can't read The First Fantasy Campaign without concluding it was majorly a wargame campaign. Complaining that no one ever gets to those levels is weird when the first two campaigns really were that way. This is ABC history of Dungeons & Dragons; charging for insights that call the way Greyhawk and Blackmoor were played, "crazy," is honestly a huge ask for me.

1. The origin of the thief class, as partly related by daniel on these boards, four years ago, is perfectly consistent with the hypothesis that hide in shadows was based on Jack of Shadows. Gygax was given the idea for the thief in a phone call, but then changed or added a few things, including the percentage-based skill increases. And, unless I'm missing something, there's no evidence that hide in shadows was part of the original conception related to Gygax on that phone call. Indeed, the evidence seems to indicate the opposite:

Sept 26, 2013 15:40:22 GMT -6 daniel said:

The Thief as originally envisioned was a warrior who got ‘box-man” abilities. Sneaking, hiding, climbing were not abilities in his sole purview. But lock-picking was, and I think that makes sense.

2. Jeffro's toss-off comment wasn't directed at the "domain game" per se, but on the long and involved description of the procedure for attaining higher levels for the monk class - a long description, among other things, completely at odds with the short paragraphs on the domain game for fighting-men and clerics in Men & Magic. In Appendix N, Jeffro actually talks about the domain game at length, primarily in his chapter on Lest Darkness Fall by L. Sprague de Camp.

[cadriel]

Jun 5, 2017 18:42:58 GMT -6 jeffro said:

It didn't just happened, either. But there is a school of thought and a brand of criticism that intentionally dethroned them and replaced them with lesser authors.

I have no way to respond to this. You believe that there is a conspiracy to get people to read inferior books, I just can't help you with that. Publishing is a market much more than it is an ideology; this kind of literature isn't what sells.