|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 23, 2017 13:20:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on May 23, 2017 17:20:25 GMT -6
Not sure if I'll read the book or not (I'd rather read the stories than read about someone else reading the stories), but I'm in agreement with many of his "discoveries" on his blog regarding his experience with the Appendix N material.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 23, 2017 17:42:13 GMT -6
I haven't read it cover to cover, but it makes the same mistake that a lot of Appendix N analysis makes when it tries to link books in Appendix N to specific ideas and mechanics in D&D. The connections are as often as not errors of pattern-matching; D&D didn't pull that directly from its literary antecedents.
It has a bit of charm in its enthusiasm, but there's a lot of rambling, for instance in Jeffro's attempt to score points against Star Wars by comparison to things in A Princess of Mars that are, frankly, cliches. There's never any reflection on how a lot of the authors, including Burroughs, wrote with such transparent formulas that you could see the tracks in the story halfway through. (That doesn't mean Burroughs isn't a fun read, but you have to put that aside to enjoy him.) So I mean, I wouldn't at all equate it to a work of serious history like Playing at the World.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 20:00:07 GMT -6
I will agree that a lot of what ERB and REH wrote became clichés after they were imitated repeatedly by later authors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 20:05:02 GMT -6
Not sure if I'll read the book or not (I'd rather read the stories than read about someone else reading the stories), but I'm in agreement with many of his "discoveries" on his blog regarding his experience with the Appendix N material. Having read almost all of the stories, I am looking forward to seeing someone else's take on it. Perhaps this will motivate me to read the few that I've yet to read. |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on May 23, 2017 20:47:10 GMT -6
The connections are as often as not errors of pattern-matching; D&D didn't pull that directly from its literary antecedents. Granted, it COULD be that, I suppose. But how do you know it is? Remember, these are not random fantasy classics. These were chosen by the original authors/designers of D&D as being influential. So, given, that, if you find a "pattern-match," shouldn't the presumption be that it was an influence? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 21:06:08 GMT -6
The connections are as often as not errors of pattern-matching; D&D didn't pull that directly from its literary antecedents. Granted, it COULD be that, I suppose. But how do you know it is? Remember, these are not random fantasy classics. These were chosen by the original authors/designers of D&D as being influential. So, given, that, if you find a "pattern-match," shouldn't the presumption be that it was an influence? Hi oakesspalding, I quite agree with you on this, these books were not listed as a whim. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 9:15:17 GMT -6
Remember, these are not random fantasy classics. These were chosen by the original authors/designers of D&D as being influential. Appendix N is just a list of authors and books that Gary liked. They are inspirational reading, not the "literary history of D&D". These works were, at the time, contemporary fantasy. D&D wasn't a game about "classic fantasy", that's just all they had at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on May 24, 2017 22:13:13 GMT -6
Appendix N is just a list of authors and books that Gary liked. They are inspirational reading, not the "literary history of D&D". These works were, at the time, contemporary fantasy. D&D wasn't a game about "classic fantasy", that's just all they had at the time. Jeffro would (and has) strongly disputed that they were merely authors and books that Gygax "liked." I don't think he is on this board, otherwise I would let him speak for himself. So, I'll try. It's more than just what he liked, as Gygax explains for himself. He claims that the Appendix N authors were "of particular inspiration to him" for "all the fantasy work I have done." I think that plausibly makes the Appendix N books, "a literary history of D&D," especially when you see all of the interesting similarities. Why wouldn't it? Here is Gygax's original introduction to Appendix N: Inspiration for all of the fantasy work I have done stems directly from the love my father showed when I was a tad, for he spent many hours telling me stories he made up as he went along, tales of cloaked old men -who could grant wishes, of magic rings and enchanted swords, or wicked sorcerors and dauntless swordsmen. Then too, countless hundreds of comic books went down, and the long-gone EC ones certainly had their effect. Science fiction, fantasy, and horror movies were a big influence. In fact, all of us tend to get ample helpings of fantasy when we are very young, from fairy tales such as those written by the Brothers Grimm and Andrew Long. This often leads to reading books of mythology, paging through bestiaries, and consultation of compilations of the myths of various lands and peoples. Upon such a base I built my interest in fantasy, being an avid reader of all science fiction and fantasy literature since 1950. The following authors were of particular inspiration to me. In some cases I cite specific works, in others, I simply recommend all their fantasy writing to you. From such sources, as well as iust about any other imaginative writing or screenplay you will be able to pluck kernels from which grow the fruits of exciting campaigns. Good reading! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 4:59:32 GMT -6
Appendix N is just a list of authors and books that Gary liked. They are inspirational reading, not the "literary history of D&D". These works were, at the time, contemporary fantasy. D&D wasn't a game about "classic fantasy", that's just all they had at the time. Jeffro would (and has) strongly disputed that they were merely authors and books that Gygax "liked." I don't think he is on this board, otherwise I would let him speak for himself. So, I'll try. It's more than just what he liked, as Gygax explains for himself. He claims that the Appendix N authors were "of particular inspiration to him" for "all the fantasy work I have done." I think that plausibly makes the Appendix N books, "a literary history of D&D," especially when you see all of the interesting similarities. Why wouldn't it? Here is Gygax's original introduction to Appendix N: Inspiration for all of the fantasy work I have done stems directly from the love my father showed when I was a tad, for he spent many hours telling me stories he made up as he went along, tales of cloaked old men -who could grant wishes, of magic rings and enchanted swords, or wicked sorcerors and dauntless swordsmen. Then too, countless hundreds of comic books went down, and the long-gone EC ones certainly had their effect. Science fiction, fantasy, and horror movies were a big influence. In fact, all of us tend to get ample helpings of fantasy when we are very young, from fairy tales such as those written by the Brothers Grimm and Andrew Long. This often leads to reading books of mythology, paging through bestiaries, and consultation of compilations of the myths of various lands and peoples. Upon such a base I built my interest in fantasy, being an avid reader of all science fiction and fantasy literature since 1950. The following authors were of particular inspiration to me. In some cases I cite specific works, in others, I simply recommend all their fantasy writing to you. From such sources, as well as iust about any other imaginative writing or screenplay you will be able to pluck kernels from which grow the fruits of exciting campaigns. Good reading! Well said oakesspalding, well said. Also just to be clear, when Gygax mentions 1950 that is the year he started reading science fiction and fantasy literature, he is not saying that he did not read things written before that date. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 25, 2017 8:04:55 GMT -6
Granted, it COULD be that, I suppose. But how do you know it is? Remember, these are not random fantasy classics. These were chosen by the original authors/designers of D&D as being influential. So, given, that, if you find a "pattern-match," shouldn't the presumption be that it was an influence? Ernie Gygax said of Appendix N, "These are just the novels that Dad had on the wall in his den." ( Sanctum Secorum podcast, quote around 2:11) There are a few places where D&D obviously steals from - particularly The Lord of the Rings and Three Hearts and Three Lions. But when people start to try associating X mechanic with Y putative literary antecedent, without documentation of clear inspiration, it's as likely to have come from wargaming or movies or history or some other source in parallel. Treating Appendix N as the key to D&D is a poor way to do D&D history. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 9:46:06 GMT -6
Granted, it COULD be that, I suppose. But how do you know it is? Remember, these are not random fantasy classics. These were chosen by the original authors/designers of D&D as being influential. So, given, that, if you find a "pattern-match," shouldn't the presumption be that it was an influence? Ernie Gygax said of Appendix N, "These are just the novels that Dad had on the wall in his den." ( Sanctum Secorum podcast, quote around 2:11) There are a few places where D&D obviously steals from - particularly The Lord of the Rings and Three Hearts and Three Lions. But when people start to try associating X mechanic with Y putative literary antecedent, without documentation of clear inspiration, it's as likely to have come from wargaming or movies or history or some other source in parallel. Treating Appendix N as the key to D&D is a poor way to do D&D history. With all due respect to Ernie, I really don't believe that his interview proves that his father was lying in the Introduction to Appendix N. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 14:37:01 GMT -6
With all due respect to Ernie, I really don't believe that his interview proves that his father was lying in the Introduction to Appendix N. Nobody is suggesting that Gary lied. Just that the list is simply inspirational and not the basis of D&D. Sure, an idea from a book here or there might have been plucked to create a monster, magic item, or spell, or even a whole adventure plot. But that doesn't mean that these books hold some special power today, 40 years later. For example, Gary used Vance's idea about spells being memorized to create a simpler mechanic to replace Dave's more complicated item-based spell system. But that doesn't mean that Gary sat down to design a "Vancian" magic system nor does it mean that we can learn anything of significant about D&D's spell system by reading Vance. Memorization is an idea to explain a game mechanic that was designed primarily for simplicity, not genre emulation. I'd go so far as to say that the spells, items, and monsters in OD&D/AD&D hold no special significance other than being an example of how such create such things. You can, and should, remove them all and replace them with spells, items, and monsters of your own creation that have meaning to you and your players. Why let Gary do your imagining for you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 14:47:23 GMT -6
With all due respect to Ernie, I really don't believe that his interview proves that his father was lying in the Introduction to Appendix N. Nobody is suggesting that Gary lied. What other reason would the Ernie quote be provided for then? Just that the list is simply inspirational and not the basis of D&D. Inspirational and part of the history of D&D, no one said it is the basis of D&D, but it is clearly part of the history of D&D. Sure, an idea from a book here or there might have been plucked to create a monster, magic item, or spell, or even a whole adventure plot. Absolutely! But that doesn't mean that these books hold some special power today, 40 years later. No one is claiming that, we are saying they can still serve as inspiration today and in the future. For example, Gary used Vance's idea about spells being memorized to create a simpler mechanic to replace Dave's more complicated item-based spell system. Absolutely! But that doesn't mean that Gary sat down to design a "Vancian" magic system nor does it mean that we can learn anything of significant about D&D's spell system by reading Vance. That is an unproven assumption. Memorization is an idea to explain a game mechanic that was designed primarily for simplicity, not genre emulation. No one is saying it is genre emulation, whatever, that is supposed to mean, however, the inspiration came directly from Gary reading Vance. I'd go so far as to say that the spells, items, and monsters in OD&D/AD&D hold no special significance other than being an example of how such create such things. You can, and should, remove them all and replace them with spells, items, and monsters of your own creation that have meaning to you and your players. Why let Gary do your imagining for you? No one is disputing that. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 25, 2017 17:04:11 GMT -6
Thanks, foxroe, me too. cadriel, and @hedgehobbit, I think the problem comes in the over seriousness of the title. The title does sound like it is claiming to give a history. But I am having fun reading it. Reading it for me is more like reading one gamer's take on some of the literature that D&D tried to game. I always learn from other folks, so, no big whoop. |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on May 25, 2017 17:16:42 GMT -6
With respect to everyone (including me) this seems to be shaping up to be one of those silly, partly semantic arguments that cannot really ever be definitively settled or "won." Which doesn't mean I don't stand behind my opinion 100%.  But just to keep it going (!), it seems to be that Jeffro in Appendix N is doing precisely the same thing that Jon Peterson did in Playing at the World. But Jeffro focuses on the literature whereas Peterson focused on everything (including a bit of the literature). Jeffro intentionally did not read Playing at the World before he wrote Appendix N, but it's useful to note that in the parts that overlap, Jeffro and Jon came to pretty much the same conclusions. You can rarely know for sure where anyone got anything, but it's useful, interesting and fun to look at the possible/probable antecedents, especially when, in the case of Appendix N, the author practically gave them to you on a platter. One of the services that Jeffro provides is showing how the Tolkien influence was less than it might seem on the surface. Many of the monsters are there, but not much else. |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on May 25, 2017 17:20:06 GMT -6
And I think the title is appropriate. What else would you call it - "A 356 Page Analysis of the Books that the Founder of D&D Happened to Have Lying Around on his Shelf"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 18:13:12 GMT -6
I find the title to be completely appropriate. It is indeed a shame that Arneson never listed all of his literary influences, those would also be part of the literary history of D&D through Blackmoor the original game. We do know some of the movies that influenced Arneson and those are part of the cinematic history of Blackmoor and by extension D&D. I think we are being entirely too narrow in our definition of what history is. Any creative endeavor is a sum of all the influences that the creative person brings to the table in the way that the creative person brings those influences to bear on the new creation and are in fact a part of the history of that creation. IMO this is not something that is disputable.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 26, 2017 7:26:37 GMT -6
I find Jeffro's ideas fairly repulsive. For instance, bashing Star Wars on the grounds that it is not sexist enough (as he does in his paean to A Princess of Mars) is the kind of thing that would make me throw the book violently if it were in print. It makes me feel unseemly for liking the adventure literature that I like.
|
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on May 26, 2017 8:58:08 GMT -6
I find Jeffro's ideas fairly repulsive. For instance, bashing Star Wars on the grounds that it is not sexist enough (as he does in his paean to A Princess of Mars) is the kind of thing that would make me throw the book violently if it were in print. It makes me feel unseemly for liking the adventure literature that I like. Jeffro, of course, never says any such thing. "Not sexist enough" is your label. I should also point out that Jeffro spends a paragraph of the book favorably citing you and your blog. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 26, 2017 9:21:39 GMT -6
Jeffro, of course, never says any such thing. "Not sexist enough" is your label. I should also point out that Jeffro spends a paragraph of the book favorably citing you and your blog. He complains that Princess Leia wasn't in a metal bikini until Return of the Jedi, and that a better space princess would have worn nothing but skimpy outfits like Dejah Thoris. I have a daughter to raise, I can't put up with that stuff, man. Although I hadn't caught the reference to my blog. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 10:43:02 GMT -6
If it's easily done, would one of you mind pasting in what Jeffro specifically said on this subject (with enough context to evaluate, if possible)?
|
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on May 26, 2017 12:56:19 GMT -6
If it's easily done, would one of you mind pasting in what Jeffro specifically said on this subject (with enough context to evaluate, if possible)? Here's the entire chapter. It's pretty clear which paragraph was, so to speak, accused. Cadriel believes (I think it's fair to say) that the scenes featuring Princess Leia in a "slave girl costume" are sexist, or at least, believing that "the absence of this sort of thing" (sexiness? sexy costumes? sexy slave girl costumes?) in the first two films was a "glaring omission" is sexist. I don't. And I also have a young daughter, by the way. But given the third paragraph (and huge amounts of the rest of the book), it simply isn't the case that the author believes that a "better space princess would have worn nothing but skimpy outfits like Dejah Thoris." I think the context of his funny quip - "the battered paperbacks are a much better deal" - if you can call it that, is clear, especially given the references to the popularity of the costume among fandom, among other things. Presumably Star Wars fandom is sexist, too. Frankly, I'm surprised that Jeffro hasn't yet been called a "racist" for citing Robert E. Lee. (Actually, I'm sure that he has. Pinning bad political labels on Jeffro has become a sort of blood sport among a certain segment of ideologically inclined reviewers.) Chapter 5: A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs Even as a kid, I always understood that there was something portentous about the Barsoom series paperbacks on the shelf at the library. Nevertheless, I’d always passed them over for books by authors that got more credit as being “grandmasters” of science fiction. I just couldn’t take Edgar Rice Burroughs’s books seriously at the time. That’s a shame, really, because, without at least some familiarity with his work, it’s hard to truly grasp what’s happened in the past hundred years of science fiction. He casts an imposing shadow. Not only did he originate the “sword and planet” genre, but he was also a direct influence on creators ranging from Ray Bradbury to James Cameron. And though the way John Carter jumps around might be somewhat underwhelming by today’s standards, it was serious business back when Jerry Siegel was developing a character that could leap tall buildings with a single bound. There is a similar connection to the iconic Star Wars movie poster by Tom Jung. I’m sure you recall it. Luke is raising his lightsaber in a combination of triumph and rage, his robes spilling open to reveal a perfectly chiseled chest, his left foot on the top of a hill of some alien Iwo Jima, a maelstrom of space battle erupting in the sky above him. The two robots practically cower behind him. Leia cocks her chest to one side affording a more pronounced view of her cleavage, one hand on her hip and with a slit going up her dress that will not quit. There is a brazenness to her pose, to be sure, but also something else. I think every great gangster knows this on some level, but her standing with Luke, aligning herself with him like that, and being as alluring and provocative as she is, she multiplies Luke’s intimidation factor even as she subtly upstages him. It is a dynamite combination that positively sizzles. Unfortunately, it presents a forceful, epic tone that is not at all to be found in the movie itself. You see, it wasn’t until George Lucas realized that he couldn’t do Flash Gordon that he even cast his gaze upon Burroughs’s influential Mars series. When he finally came across them, he was so smitten with the Frank Frazetta covers that he actually wanted to hire him to make the poster. The resemblance is no accident, and it invites comparison. In a sense, Star Wars comes in the exact same packaging as the John Carter series, but it’s clear that Lucas was unable to fully translate the content of those books into cinematic form. Consider this: "And the sight which met my eyes was that of a slender, girlish figure, similar in every detail to the earthly women of my past life. She did not see me at first, but just as she was disappearing through the portal of the building which was to be her prison she turned, and her eyes met mine. Her face was oval and beautiful in the extreme, her every feature was finely chiseled and exquisite, her eyes large and lustrous and her head surmounted by a mass of coal black, waving hair, caught loosely into a strange yet becoming coiffure. Her skin was of a light reddish copper color, against which the crimson glow of her cheeks and the ruby of her beautifully molded lips shone with a strangely enhancing effect. She was as destitute of clothes as the green Martians who accompanied her; indeed, save for her highly wrought ornaments she was entirely naked, nor could any apparel have enhanced the beauty of her perfect and symmetrical figure. (Chapter VIII)" Star Wars fans got to see Princess Leia in a slave girl costume for a grand total of 150 seconds in Return of the Jedi. The absence of that sort of thing in the first two films was a glaring omission, and the outfit inspired by Frank Frazetta’s depictions of Dejah Thoris was perhaps an inevitable development. It so captured the imagination of fandom that it has made a mark on every major comic book and gaming convention since. But why settle for a fleeting glimpse of space princess majesty when you can have Dejah Thoris in an even skimpier outfit for a dozen book-length adventures? The battered old paperbacks are a much better deal…. Then there’s the fact that Leia is sort of a princess in name only. We find out later that she must have been adopted when she is retconned into being Luke’s sister. Eh, she was always more of the sassy space senator type to begin with, but Dejah Thoris is no counterfeit: she’s “the daughter of ten thousand jeddaks” and can trace her “ancestry straight back without a break to the builder of the first great waterway.” (Chapter XIII) Consider how the hero and heroine first encounter each other in A Princess of Mars: "As her gaze rested on me her eyes opened wide in astonishment, and she made a little sign with her free hand; a sign which I did not, of course, understand. Just a moment we gazed upon each other, and then the look of hope and renewed courage which had glorified her face as she discovered me, faded into one of utter dejection, mingled with loathing and contempt. I realized I had not answered her signal, and ignorant as I was of Martian customs, I intuitively felt that she had made an appeal for succor and protection which my unfortunate ignorance had prevented me from answering. And then she was dragged out of my sight into the depths of the deserted edifice. (Chapter IX)" I call this the “Darcy effect” after the leading man of Pride and Prejudice. When that icon of vintage romance novels first enters the scene, it is with an incredible insult to the effect that none of the local girls is worth dancing with. While this makes him look like an arrogant jerk to everyone in earshot, it all too predictably rockets him into Elizabeth’s attention. It’s yet another testament to the fact that nice guys finish last, but it’s nevertheless a classic opening gambit. Burroughs takes a similar tack in his tale but ups the ante by putting Dejah Thoris in a significant amount of danger as a direct consequence of John Carter’s initial snub. And unlike Mr. Darcy, John Carter retains his likability as a character because all of this is accidental, a consequence of his unfamiliarity with Barsoom’s cultures. Compare that to Luke and Leia. Luke is smitten with a pint-sized hologram of Leia. It’s kind of sappy for him to want to play her message over and over just so he can keep on ogling her. When Luke risks incomprehensible levels of danger to save her from her scheduled execution, her first words to him are a sarcastic put down: Aren’t you a little short for a stormtrooper? This is not the sort of situation that any young man would seriously aspire to be in. I’ve always identified with Luke and even wanted to be Luke when I was a kid, but he retains his “best buddy” status for the duration of the film franchise and never truly graduates to anything resembling a true leading man. Maybe I could never quite put my finger on the problem back in the day, but this really is frustrating. Granted, Lucas put together a fantastic cast that had great chemistry together, and whoever did the editing made sure everything ended up punchy and entertaining, but Burroughs knew how much more credible a romantic arc can be if it’s established early on that the hero has passed over plenty of chances to settle down: "So this was love! I had escaped it for all the years I had roamed the five continents and their encircling seas; in spite of beautiful women and urging opportunity; in spite of a half-desire for love and a constant search for my ideal, it had remained for me to fall furiously and hopelessly in love with a creature from another world, of a species similar possibly, yet not identical with mine. A woman who was hatched from an egg, and whose span of life might cover a thousand years; whose people had strange customs and ideas; a woman whose hopes, whose pleasures, whose standards of virtue and of right and wrong might vary as greatly from mine as did those of the green Martians. (Chapter XIV)" While it’s perfectly reasonable for a farm boy on a backwater world to be smitten with the first space princess to come along, the whole scenario in the film is decidedly less awe-inspiring than what’s implied by the movie posters. Edgar Rice Burroughs again provides the better deal. He doesn’t drop the ball as the romantic stakes grow ever higher, either. After John Carter’s close shave with death, the space princess inadvertently reveals her true feelings for him: “'Is she injured?'” I asked of Sola, indicating Dejah Thoris by an inclination of my head. 'No,' she answered, 'she thinks that you are dead.' 'And that her grandmother’s cat may now have no one to polish its teeth?' I queried, smiling. 'I think you wrong her, John Carter,' said Sola. 'I do not understand either her ways or yours, but I am sure the granddaughter of ten thousand jeddaks would never grieve like this over any who held but the highest claim upon her affections. They are a proud race, but they are just, as are all Barsoomians, and you must have hurt or wronged her grievously that she will not admit your existence living, though she mourns you dead.' (Chapter XV) As Robert E. Lee famously said, it is “the forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.” With the sure knowledge that he has Dejah Thoris’s heart in the palm of his hand, John Carter demonstrates the kind of forbearance that fully establishes his character as the quintessential gentleman of Virgina. You can respect these characters and their relationship in a way that just doesn’t seem to happen very often in more recent space opera. But the story was just getting warmed up at that point. There were desperate treks across the wilderness to fulfill, deadly arena combats to fight, an epic air war in the martian skies that could rival the Battle of Yavin, sieges to break, and disastrously arranged marriages that had to be foiled at the last second. There’s plenty for movie makers to plunder, and it happens to this day, but there is one thing that this book does that highlights the most glaring deficiency in the Star Wars franchise. There just really isn’t that big of a payoff in comparison to this: “'I have done many strange things in my life, many things that wiser men would not have dared, but never in my wildest fancies have I dreamed of winning a Dejah Thoris for myself—for never had I dreamed that in all the universe dwelt such a woman as the Princess of Helium. That you are a princess does not abash me, but that you are you is enough to make me doubt my sanity as I ask you, my princess, to be mine.” “He does not need to be abashed who so well knew the answer to his plea before the plea were made,” she replied, rising and placing her dear hands upon my shoulders, and so I took her in my arms and kissed her." (Chapter XXV) I admit, I do wonder if the “Princess of Helium” talks in a high-pitched cartoon voice. And I’m completely at a loss to explain how a human and a Red Martian can procreate when the women on Mars all lay eggs. But it’s clear that John Carter’s military and diplomatic accomplishments rival those of Tolkien’s Aragorn: "Never before had an armed body of green warriors entered the gates of Helium, and that they came now as friends and allies filled the red men with rejoicing." (Chapter XXVI) That really nails down why Star Wars pales in comparison to this science-fiction fiction classic. Edgar Rice Burroughs not only gives us a space princess of unsurpassed quality, but he also shows us a man that is worthy of her. Lucas either fails to grasp the concept or else doesn’t even try. Now I love Star Wars, I really do. I grew up with the movies and treasured my Kenner action figures and their Darth Vader carrying case as much as any other boy my age. But I would have been much better served had some kindhearted adult known to introduce me to the John Carter series at some point. And I have to confess I’d probably feel somewhat more kindly toward the massively popular film franchise if not for the appropriation of Frank Frazetta’s style and the many people making strongly worded claims of its mythic potency. Seriously, though: what kind of epic myth is it where the guy doesn’t get the girl in the end? Much better, in my opinion, is The Lord of The Rings, in which not only does Arwen Evenstar give up her immortality for a man of renown, but even the humble Samwise Hamfast can settle down in Hobbiton as mayor-for-life with Rosie to keep him company and Elanor to sit on his knee. Edgar Rice Burroughs is practically on the same page as J. R. R. Tolkien here, and as far as happy endings go, they’re light years ahead of a big party with the Ewoks. Honestly, I don’t know what my expectations were going in here, but I’m fairly certain that Star Wars has lost more than a little of its luster for me as a result of my having read A Princess of Mars. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 16:22:19 GMT -6
Thank you, oakesspalding for posting that, I definitely want to get a copy now. Being naive about life is not really a good place to be IMO, better to know the good, the bad and the ugly and how to deal with it. I grew up on a farm with a lot of farm animals, my parents had a lot of teachable moments about every part of life. I think that served me well as I grew to adulthood. Learning the nuances of the time and place is important and knowing what is appropriate or inappropriate and why in any given situation is of great value to everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on May 26, 2017 22:43:03 GMT -6
But just to keep it going (!), it seems to be that Jeffro in Appendix N is doing precisely the same thing that Jon Peterson did in Playing at the World. But Jeffro focuses on the literature whereas Peterson focused on everything (including a bit of the literature). Jeffro intentionally did not read Playing at the World before he wrote Appendix N, but it's useful to note that in the parts that overlap, Jeffro and Jon came to pretty much the same conclusions. Having read PatW and the chapter you posted above, I think the comparison is doing Peterson's book a disservice. PatW was a meticulous work full of research and a lack of subjectivity (to the point where he only used contemporaneous interviews, since memories can't be trusted over time). This chapter reads as a dude ranting about his opinions and preferences (essentially a long blog post) with a new cringe-worthy lines thrown in. Might be a good book, but based on your sample I don't see how it compares to PatW in the way you describe ("precisely the same thing" - seems almost an opposite approach), nor that it contributes to the hobby in nearly the same way (which you didn't directly claim). |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on May 27, 2017 3:18:10 GMT -6
But just to keep it going (!), it seems to be that Jeffro in Appendix N is doing precisely the same thing that Jon Peterson did in Playing at the World. But Jeffro focuses on the literature whereas Peterson focused on everything (including a bit of the literature). Jeffro intentionally did not read Playing at the World before he wrote Appendix N, but it's useful to note that in the parts that overlap, Jeffro and Jon came to pretty much the same conclusions. Having read PatW and the chapter you posted above, I think the comparison is doing Peterson's book a disservice. PatW was a meticulous work full of research and a lack of subjectivity (to the point where he only used contemporaneous interviews, since memories can't be trusted over time). This chapter reads as a dude ranting about his opinions and preferences (essentially a long blog post) with a new cringe-worthy lines thrown in. Might be a good book, but based on your sample I don't see how it compares to PatW in the way you describe ("precisely the same thing" - seems almost an opposite approach), nor that it contributes to the hobby in nearly the same way (which you didn't directly claim). Point taken. Here's what I wrote in my own blog post, referenced above: "Peterson was the neutral historian, a stance that was precisely appropriate for his task. I've read his 698 page book twice and think it's clearly the book of record on the overall historical topic, as well as being endlessly fascinating. But I can see how some (who might have a mild aversion to long history books or whatever) might call it "dry." Johnson's Appendix N is anything but, partly because the genre of Appendix N (it was for a while - still is? - number one in the Criticism and Theory category on Amazon) allows for and requires more in the way of opinions - an area in which Johnson does not disappoint - but also because, unlike the historian, Peterson, Johnson is writing as an active gamer, in part for active gamers." So, when I said, "precisely the same thing" on this thread, I didn't mean the approaches, tone or subject matter covered were the same, but that in analyzing the literary influences of D&D in terms of game mechanics and so on, Jeffro and Jon used the same methodology when it came to assessing influences. This was when the conversation was about the meaning of "influence," as opposed to whether princess Leia's costume was sexist. The chapter above, which I posted in response to cadriel's criticism, is one of the minority of chapters in the book that doesn't mention D&D or D&D rules mechanics. Jeffro quite openly states that most (all?) of the chapters were blog posts, as he slowly worked his way through the list. I had actually thought that the entire book would be like the above (which would have been fine with me) and was surprised that there was so much explicit discussion of D&D and gaming, but you'll have to read other chapters for that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 6:07:51 GMT -6
This chapter reads as a dude ranting about his opinions and preferences (essentially a long blog post) with a new cringe-worthy lines thrown in. FWIW I see nothing in the quoted chapter that warrants the insults of "dude," "ranting," and "cringe-worthy." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 6:40:51 GMT -6
Appendix N is just a list of authors and books that Gary liked. They are inspirational reading, not the "literary history of D&D". These works were, at the time, contemporary fantasy. D&D wasn't a game about "classic fantasy", that's just all they had at the time. Jeffro would (and has) strongly disputed that they were merely authors and books that Gygax "liked." No offense to you, personally, Brother Oakes - you know I always appreciate your input: But on this premise alone, Johnson shows he has no clue what he is talking about, in my opinion. I've read the book; it's not without entertainment value, but its premise is just plain wrong. Had Gygax written D&D ALONE, then, yeah, a list like Appendix N would be generally useful in a direct way, as a literary history. But he was not alone - because if had been, we wouldn't need all the Braunstein, Chainmail, and Blackmoor discussion any more, or would we? There are a few titles right away that I can name that demonstrably had a massive impact on D&D that the Appendix N doesn't list: - A. E. van Vogt, "The Voyage of the Space Beagle". - Robert Adams, "The Coming of the Horseclans". - John Norman, "Tarnsman of Gor", and "Nomads of Gor". - Robert Silverberg, "The Tower of Glass". ...And, obviously, there's that critical, almost comical underplaying of the importance of "The Lord of the Rings". Why so? - Because Mr Gygax didn't know about them, or considered them unimportant for his version of D&D, or rather AD&D - or, and don't underestimate that, because he had just lost a lawsuit against Saul Zaentz.  That doesn't necessarily mean that Mr Gygax was being completely untruthful - but it's an appendix of HIS D&D; he certainly does not speak for the entire generation of "the founding fathers". And the funny, yet terrible thing about this topic is that, pretty much since the publication of the AD&D DMG, most of these founding fathers have most decidedly - and consistently - spoken out against this version of D&D's literary tradition. Like, plainly said it wasn't so, and provided ample explanations, and proof. Yet, in 2017, we get a book that essentially cherry-picks the facts on the matter yet again, in order to fabricate a catchy sales pitch for itself. - What shall I say? The title makes me feel nostalgic, too. But that's about everything this book can offer; a catchy title.  |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on May 27, 2017 7:58:47 GMT -6
I'm not sure I disagree with a lot you said above, and I suspect Jeffro wouldn't either. That D&D was not simply dreamed up by Gygax is a given, as is the linked claim that Arneson read some books that Gary didn't. So what?
But you're being way too strong here. "doesn't necessarily mean that Mr Gygax was being completely untruthful"? Where do you get that? Gygax begins the introduction to Appendix N with: "Inspiration for all of the fantasy work I have done..." Note the "I". So where does "untruthful" enter into this at all? And there's Tolkien, right on the list, by the way.
D&D wasn't written or designed by an "entire generation of 'the founding fathers'". That's patently ridiculous. It was written by Gygax, based on rules developed by Gygax and Arneson, based on an idea by Arneson. Did other people have input, through play testing and so on, and via Chainmail, etc.? Of course, but again, so what? On one account, the name "Dungeons & Dragons' was coined by Gygax's daughter. Does that mean Gygax was lying or whatever because he didn't include his daughter's picture books in Appendix N?
As for Jeffro "cherry picking," that's also ridiculous. Jeffro simply takes the list of authors and books that Gygax gave in Appendix N and analyzes them. Looking at all and only those books on a list provided by Gygax - a list that since then has acquired an almost quasi-mythical status among gamers - is "cherry picking"? With respect, what does that word even mean to you?
As for the title, I find the continued bashing of it perverse.
And saying that Jeffro's book has NO VALUE AT ALL apart from that "untruthful" title - "that's about everything this book can offer; a catchy title" - is also perverse.
I find the strong hostility towards the book in some quarters to be almost inexplicable, unless it's all just about beating up on the sexist or whatever. After 35 years of talk about Appendix N, Jeffro was the first author to actually review all of those books in one place and discuss their relationship with D&D. Yet, according to you, that unique effort amounts merely to a "book that essentially cherry-picks the facts on the matter yet again" and apparently exists primarily to sell copies based on a misleading title.
And I should say, I'm not talking about mere disagreement over facts or opinions, but, rather, what seems to be out and out blanket dismissal. Again, and with respect, I just don't understand it.
Or perhaps it's really about Gygax.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 27, 2017 8:14:44 GMT -6
There are a few titles right away that I can name that demonstrably had a massive impact on D&D that the Appendix N doesn't list: - A. E. van Vogt, "The Voyage of the Space Beagle". - Robert Adams, "The Coming of the Horseclans". - John Norman, "Tarnsman of Gor", and "Nomads of Gor". - Robert Silverberg, "The Tower of Glass". ...And, obviously, there's that critical, almost comical underplaying of the importance of "The Lord of the Rings". We have to be a little careful here, to specify whether some of these sources were inspiration for D&D or AD&D. I know that AD&D is the source for "Appendix N" but a lot of the books there were also listed a year or two earlier in an article in Dragon magazine. (Issue #4, December 1976.) Even in the earlier article, Gary isn't specific as to which sources are OD&D and which are AD&D specific. For example, Coming of the Horseclans wasn't published until 1975 which means it can't have been an inspiration for OD&D. I've seen several sources quote this book as one of Arneson's inspirations for Blackmoor, but the dates don't work if you are considering the original campaigns. |
|
That doesn't necessarily mean that Mr Gygax was being completely untruthful - but it's an appendix of HIS D&D; he certainly does not speak for the entire generation of "the founding fathers". 
