# How tokien ruined modern fantasy



## warlord (Sep 4, 2004)

1.Uberelves now people think elves have to be demigods.
2.Legolas
3. dwarves hate elves
4.that alll dwarves are axe-weilding elf haters
5.he made everyone think gnomes suck
6. he made rangers gods
7. he created the half-orc barbarian
8.made halflingsa fat crybabies like sam gamgee
10. made gobilnoids universal cannonfodder


----------



## Gez (Sep 4, 2004)

Is that a troll, or... ?


----------



## Agamemnon (Sep 4, 2004)

Yes, it's a troll. Everyone else knows that Tolkien practically created modern fantasy.


----------



## Filby (Sep 4, 2004)

Since I have loved Tolkien's works since I was a small child and continue to re-read them today, I feel a burning need to defend the good professor against this troll's uneducated, inflamatory claims (which, I might note, are posted in the wrong forum).

But since he _is_ a troll, I know that to answer him at all is letting him win.

Hold me back. Please.

Oh, and it's Tolkien. With an "l". If you're going to bash the man, at least spell his name correctly.


----------



## warlord (Sep 4, 2004)

Ok sorry I mispelled the Professor's name but he created Legolas the forerunner of the elf as a bow shooting, dual longsword weilding prettyboy. And its not like I haven't read his books I have and I even liked them its just that he permently sterotyped fantasy so you Tolkien fanboys have to wake up and step into modern fantasy ruled by the Heroes of the Lance and Drizzit Do'Urden.


----------



## Agamemnon (Sep 4, 2004)

No, no, no, no, no!

You have Salvatore to "thank" for Drizzt and Weis & Hickman for Dragonlance. Saying Tolkien is responsible for them is like saying the caveman who first picked up a stick is responsible for the hydrogen bomb. Both weaponry and fantasy have evolved from their original concepts.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 4, 2004)

As the saying goes, Warlord, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Tolkein didn't even create fantasy as a genre- its been around for a loooooong time.  And many of his characters are actually archetypes drawn from other, earlier literary forms, like the classical epics European folklore.  There's even a book or two about the writers who influenced Tolkein.

What Tolkein did was:

1) present epic/mythical/fairytale conventions in the form of a novel, and a well-written, readable one at that.  A good deal of what most people think of as "Tolkein-esqe" actually came from European folklore and the great epics of classical literature.  In a way, Tolkein "codified" European folklore.

2) create a world that was self-contained and deeply detailed, including languages.  He was able to do so because he was a scholar of literature.

What some people call "modern fantasy" is little more than pulp/action fiction dressed up in the conventions of fantasy.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  Tolkein's work sometimes suffers because he used a slower pace than even most novels of the day- an artifact of epic liturature that seeped into his work.  There are fantasy novels that lose none of the depth and richness of Tolkein's work, but don't have the pacing that many readers can find plodding.

Not intending to badmouth the genuine artists within the modern fantasy subgenre, but much of what I've read of it only rises to the level of the teenaged reader.  The faster pace and higher action content of modern fantasy sometimes hides a lack of character development and deeper concepts.  The goals and motivations of the main characters are simply...simple.  They are often derivative of the work of writers like Tolkein, Howard, LeGuin and others.

While the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance novels may be enjoyable escapism, I wouldn't call them literature.  They are definitely proving grounds for future talent, but even with that, you're not likely to find even those writers' best work in a franchised setting from a gameworld.

If you REALLY want to attack Tolkein's work, please don't compare it to that stuff.  Try comparing it to the works of authors who aren't under the aegis of a movie or game company franchise- someone who has carved out their own little niche of the fantasy market.  C.S. Lewis, C.J. Cherryh, Stephen Donaldson, Terry Brooks, H.P. Lovecraft, Gordon Dickson, Michael Moorcock, Mary Gentle, Tanith Lee, Clive Barker, Fritz Lieber, the abovementioned Howard and LeGuin, and the list goes on.


----------



## BOZ (Sep 5, 2004)

*wonders what this thread is doing here*


----------



## warlord (Sep 5, 2004)

So mabye you can argue Tolkien didn't create modern fantasy but he has sterotyped elves for enternity everywhere I look I see Legolas ripoffs that is a problem. PS. Boz this thread is here  because I didn't know where else to put it.


----------



## BOZ (Sep 5, 2004)

well, let's try it here.  somehow, i don't think the homebrews forum under the Creature Catalog is the best place for this discussion.


----------



## Pozatronic (Sep 5, 2004)

I honeslty do not know why I'm responding to this, but it seems that maybe, warlord, you're not mad at Tolkein so much as you are  mad at Peter Jackson, the director of the LOTR movies? Maybe? I don't know...

   Samwise a crybaby? Oh man. Did you read the books? Did you see the movies?


----------



## francisca (Sep 5, 2004)

So, Tolkien created his own world, with his own rationale for the way it, worked, created certain tensions and notions about races.  Then all kinds of other people picked up those notions and ran with them.  And it's Tolkien's "fault" that everyone copies his ideas.

Uh-huh.

Nice logic.

Step this way so you may have some acid dumped on you, Mr. Troll. (a non-Tolkien stereotype...)


----------



## Delemental (Sep 5, 2004)

warlord said:
			
		

> So mabye you can argue Tolkien didn't create modern fantasy but he has sterotyped elves for enternity everywhere I look I see Legolas ripoffs that is a problem.




(Sigh) I shouldn't waste time on a troll, but...

Wouldn't this then be the fault of those modern fantasy writers who continue to use the image of elves that Tolkien created, oh, several decades before any of these modern writers picked up a pen?

It would be like saying Arthur Conan Doyle "ruined" modern mystery novels because he created the "stereotype" of the lone investigator solving puzzles with obscure clues and deductive reasoning, and that everywhere you look you see Sherlock ripoffs.

(Not being a literary scholar, I'm sure that there are probably authors that predate Sir Doyle which use a similar convention, but the analogy holds even if it's not techincally accurate).

You can't fault the originator of a trend for its continuation.

I'll leave it to others to point out the contributions Tolkien has made to the fantasy genre (which includes, in some opinions, the very existence of the genre).


----------



## Sir Elton (Sep 5, 2004)

Actually, I can argue that J.K. Rowling messed with Modern Fantasy in the same vein that Tolkien did.  What Tolkien did was simply:

 Create a commentary on the 1st World War that didn't offend anyone. He did it through an imaginary world that grew out of his invented languages and the desire that England would have a National Myth.  Although personally, I always thought that Robin Hood and King Arthur was their "National Myth."  And I have a good argument for both. 

 He also created a masterpiece on Military Theory.  The Lord of the Rings is a Military Disertation on the idea that to win, all you need to do is to achieve the Objective.  Something he learned from World War 1 at the battle of the Somm (or whatever).

 However, the writing was so powerful that many tried to imitate Tolkien, but they don't have the depth of Experience that Tolkien had with war.  Well, except for Robert Jordan, since he is a Vietnam Veteran.  Although you say that Modern Fantasy was messed up by Tolkien, you should watch more Japanese Anime.

 You'll see more Star Wars influence in Japanese Fantasy Anime than you would Tolkien influence.  If anything, Star Wars had a bigger impact on today's fantasy than Tolkien has.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 5, 2004)

Delemental said:
			
		

> I'll leave it to others to point out the contributions Tolkien has made to the fantasy genre (which includes, in some opinions, the very existence of the genre).




Except authors like Robert E. Howard and Fritz Lieber were writing popular pulp fantasy stories over 20 years before LotR was published.


----------



## Galethorn (Sep 5, 2004)

warlord said:
			
		

> 1.Uberelves now people think elves have to be demigods.
> 2.Legolas
> 3. dwarves hate elves
> 4.that alll dwarves are axe-weilding elf haters
> ...




Now, I'm bored, and just got a discount set of troll-proof armor, so I thought I'd answer this as thoughtfully as possible. Everying is IMHO, and of course, YMMV when taking each point with a grain of salt, and all that rot.

So,

1. Before LOTR, the Hobbit, etc., there were only two kinds of elves; tiny, evil fay creatures, and norse demigod-like beings. That's it. They were the only ones. Now, there were a few mythical creatures/races (such as the celtic 'sidhe') which are somewhat like what we now know as elves, but there wasn't even the slightest connection between the two before Tolkien.

2. He's only bad in the movies, I say. In the books, he only had one knife, and he didn't go surfing down things, nor was he portrayed as a pretty-boy. For the Legophiles, blame Jackson.

3. You're probably right about that one, it is his 'fault', but I don't think it's that bad a thing compared to, for example, the default in D&D is that Celestials 'hate' Demons, clerics 'hate' undead, and druids 'hate' civilization.

4. Already answered this in part, but...
Would you agree that all paladins are evil-hating sword-wielders? Are all mind-flayers tentacle-wielding brain-eaters? Are all beholders eye-wielding everything-haters?

5. But they do! Or at least I think they do, in their current form. Now, if you make them short, nature-centric dwarves with narrower shoulders and pointy hats, then they're not so bad. But annoying tinkerers with spiky hair and a badger-fetish? Bleh, I'll take my game elsewhere.

6. No, he made rangers, period. Before LOTR, rangers were one thing, and one thing only (not counting the modern park-tending variety); soldiers who went on long patrols, and did a lot of traveling through the wilderness, and happened to use a lot of guerilla warfare. Now, to say that he made rangers godlike would be like saying he made magic rings the centerpiece of all fantasy to follow. They're not, and rangers haven't become the be all, end all character type either. And besides, they've been the most misinterpreted and poorly represented class in D&D since 1e. Except maybe the monk...who taught Friar Tuck martial arts?

7. He did no such thing. In fact, he actually invented the entire concept of the orc completely. Look as hard as you can; you won't find any pre-tolkien creature known as an orc, barring the 'ork', which was a large sea-monster. As for them being hulking brutes...well, that's not his fault; it's everybody else's for making their orc/half-orcs like the big, dumb, beefy ones instead of the small, nasty ones that liked stabbing each other's backs, and poisoning things.

8. He made them that way, and all other interpretations (which you may blame/thank the creators for) came _after_ he made the whole _short guy without a beard_ concept up. Like most of the things you've mentioned, this could be blamed more on the people who made their stuff up afterwards than Tolkien himself. Sort of like the blaming the greeks; they ruined modern society! 1. They made spartans into spear-wielding turk-haters, 2. They made math, and I hate geometry! etc.

9. You forgot number nine, but I'll answer either way; Step 3: Profit!

10. I'm not even going to answer that one because you made me so mad with 9...

So, to blame Tolkien for ruining modern fantasy would be like blaming Copernicus for the snarkiness of modern cosmology.

In conclusion, you're a troll. And no, you don't have lame, writhing hair, and an aversion to fire and acid; you're Morgoth's mockery of the ents, in the same way that the orcs were a mockery of elves.
---------------------

Anyway...uhhh...yeah...that started out pretty uninflamitory, but I couldn't stand it after number 5...well, I'm going to go work on writing up my "short, nature-centric dwarf with narrower shoulders and a pointy hat" version of the gnome...and while I'm at it, I'll go burn an effigy of Drizzt.

My hat for drau know no limpit.

Yes, I meant 'limpit'. Heh, limpit


----------



## JVisgaitis (Sep 5, 2004)

Tolkien gave Legolas a bow and a knife, not two long swords. You can blame a lot of the typical fantasy mold on people being afraid to try something different. We're on somewhat of a crusade to bring new light to what I think is a genre in need of a facelift.

Check out violetdawn.com, it might be something your interested in. You'll get nothing but agreement from me that modern fantasy is downright boring, but please cut the good professor some slack.


----------



## mojo1701 (Sep 5, 2004)

I'm surprised you haven't blamed your parents for telling you that Santa Claus' elves are all wrong, too. That people can't have imaginations, and can't stray from the beaten path.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2004)

Re: Assertion that Tolkein created the Orc:

Not quite...

  Orcneas in _Beowulf_. An Orc-giant derived from the word orcus.
     - Oxford English Dictionary

    "... His term orcneas, a hybrid composed of a Latin word for "infernal demon" and a Germanic word for the walking dead, epitomizes the dual perception of the monsters."
     - Fred C. Robinson _Beowulf and the Appositive style_ 1985 page 83

     "eotenas ond ylfe ond orcneas
      swylce gigantas" -Old english

     "etins and elves and orcs
      such giants" -translation
           - Beowulf lines 112-13

    "A different word orc, alluding to a demon or ogre, appears in Old English glosses of about AD 800 and in the compound word orcneas ("monsters") in the poem Beowulf. As with the Italian orco ("ogre") and the word ogre itself, it ultimately derives from the Latin Orcus, a god of the underworld. The Old English creatures were most likely the inspiration for the orcs that appear in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy."
     - Encyclopedia Britanica

Orcus, in Roman mythology, was an alternative name for Pluto, Hades, or Dis Pater, god of the land of the dead. The name "Orcus" seems to have been given to his evil, punishing side, as the god who tormented evildoers in the afterlife.

Pliny the Elder wrote of orcs in his Historia naturalis, describing a sea monster with large teeth. In Orlando Furioso, an epic by Ludovico Ariosto, the name of "orc" was given to a sea monster that captured the damsel Angelica, and was fought by the hero Rogero riding a hippogriff. It is this use of the word that gave us the word orca as one name for the killer whale (now known by the scientific name orcinus orca).

From this usage, the word "orc" made it into English by being borrowed by Michael Drayton in his Polyolbion, an epic poem about Brutus the Trojan and the mythical founders of Britain, and also appears in the epic poem Paradise Lost, by John Milton. William Blake names one of the characters in his complex mythology "Orc"; Blake's Orc, a proper name, seems to be the embodiment of creative passion and energy, and stands opposed to Urizen, the embodiment of reason.

Even the influential have influences.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Sep 5, 2004)

I think he meant Tolkien created orcs as we now know them, not that he originated the word.

And I think he may be right.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Sep 5, 2004)

Umm, dude...  Tolkein virtually _created_ the entire fantasy genre.  Without his scribblings, there would likely be no ENWorld on which for you to post your criticism...  *grimaces*...


----------



## DragonLancer (Sep 5, 2004)

I'm not keen on JRRT's books myself. Far too ponderous and slow for my tastes, but without his books I doubt we would have the D&D we have today (if at all). Regardless of what some may say, what he came up with inspired many fantasy authors and games designers.


----------



## warlord (Sep 5, 2004)

I stand by my reasons most of you are Tolkien fanboys who can't accept change. Also he didn't create the orc he stole it from mythology in fact almost everything in LOTR is stolen from mythology. And he madew elvese bow obssesed that is enough reason for me to have thias thread. Hobbits are fat crybabies all they do is sit holes smoke and eat six meals a day. They are inferior to Kender and halflings in everyway. For that guy who said I have no #9 here it is 9. Sauron, and tolkien didn't make elves tall he stole them from celtic mythology


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 5, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> I'm not keen on JRRT's books myself. Far too ponderous and slow for my tastes, but without his books I doubt we would have the D&D we have today (if at all). Regardless of what some may say, what he came up with inspired many fantasy authors and games designers.




Tolkien wasn't as big of an influence on D&D as many people believe, actually.  Gary Gygax has said so himself.  Here is an exerpt from Gamespy's recent interview with Gygax.

*GameSpy:* When you were writing and creating the first scenarios and monsters and magic system for Dungeons & Dragons, what influences did you draw from? 

*Gygax*: Mainly Robert E. Howard, L. Sprague DeCamp, and Fritz Lieber. The magic system is based on Vance's work. 

(Snip)

*GameSpy:* How profound an influence was Tolkien on the creation of the world? 

*Gygax:* Not that much, although he certainly assisted in popularizing it because I did put Tolkien-esque things in there. I'm not a big Tolkien fan, though. I did love the movies, but I yawned through the books. I found them very droll and very dull. I still don't give hoot about Hobbits. 

*GameSpy:* That's interesting, because most people who look at Dungeons and Dragons tend to think that Tolkien was a much heavier influence than apparently he was. 

*Gygax:* [Laughs] I've been reading fantasy since 1950. 

*GameSpy:* So much of the game came from these pulp authors? 

*Gygax:* Yes.​
While many later D&D products would borrow heavily from Tolkien, his works were not a big influence on Original Dungeons & Dragons.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Sep 5, 2004)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> I'm not keen on JRRT's books myself. Far too ponderous and slow for my tastes.




You and I concur precisely on this one.  I've tried to read them, but I just find the drolling descriptions and meticulous attention to the innocuous to be far too tedious.


----------



## DragonLancer (Sep 5, 2004)

> Tolkien wasn't as big of an influence on D&D as many people believe, actually. Gary Gygax has said so himself. Here is an exerpt from Gamespy's recent interview with Gygax.




Aye. I've read that. But I still think whether he was a big influence or not on people like EGG, Tolkien and Middle Earth have been major influences on a lot. 

As I say, I didn't get on with the books too well (took me 10 years to finsh the LotR from beginning to end   ), but the epic story and world have influenced a lot of what I have done in homebrews and adventures.


----------



## DragonLancer (Sep 5, 2004)

Faerl'Elghinn said:
			
		

> You and I concur precisely on this one.  I've tried to read them, but I just find the drolling descriptions and meticulous attention to the innocuous to be far too tedious.




I found the first book ok, but the Two Towers and Return of the King were just as you describe them.


----------



## dreaded_beast (Sep 5, 2004)

I know this is a touchy subject, but IMO, calling the original poster a "troll" and laying down the sarcasm may not be the best way to get your point accross. Although the original poster may have expressed his opinion in a less than tactful manner, the original poster may actually have some interesting things to contribute before everyone jumps on the "troll bandwagon".

Anyways, I've only read Tolkien once or twice, mainly for HS. I can't really remember much except for what I saw in the recent movies, which I enjoyed immensely. Tolkien ruining fantasy? No, I don't think he did, but I believe he had a great influence, one way or another.


----------



## Dragon-Slayer (Sep 5, 2004)

Don't forget that Tolkien also read the works of (and from some accounts was influenced by) early twentieth century fantasists like Lord Dunsany, William Morris and Eric Rucker Eddison. Of these Dunsany (in my opinion) is the best for campaign inspired mayhem.


----------



## David Howery (Sep 5, 2004)

Gygax can claim what he wants, but the whole idea of elves/dwarves/halflings being actual people instead of mystical mysterious demi-god types comes from Tolkien.  For that matter, one wonders what D&D would be like if Tolkien hadn't had such a strong influence on modern fantasy.  Maybe something along the lines of REH or Arthurian mythos... no demihumans, all the PCs would be human, and elves/dwarves and the like would be monsters.  There wouldn't be halflings at all (did Tolkien invent these, or get the idea from all the 'little people' mythos of Ireland etc.?).  Rangers would be likely to be absent, although I suppose there might be some type of woodsman PC.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 5, 2004)

Let's address each of your points: how would they look without Tolkien?


			
				warlord said:
			
		

> 1.Uberelves now people think elves have to be demigods.
> 2.Legolas
> 3. dwarves hate elves
> 4.that alll dwarves are axe-weilding elf haters
> ...




Whereas prior to Tolkien, elves had to either make toys at the North Pole, or help that poor old cobbler make shoes all night.
Uh, yeah.  What's your point?  Oh, looking below you apparently either are confusing Legolas with Drizzt, or projecting the movie Legolas (who never dual-wields, but who otherwise I guess maybe fits) into the book inappropriately.
Whereas before Tolkien, dwarves either were elves, or simply short people.
Actually, in Tolkien not all elves are axe-weilding elf haters, so that's just flat out wrog.
To Tolkien, the gnomes was an alternate name for the Noldor, who hardly sucked.
Umm, no he didn't.  He made the king a hero, though.
So what?  He also created orcs.
Actually, only Sam Gamgee was like Sam Gamgee.  Nor was he fat nor a crybaby.
Uh, where's nine?
Tolkien had no goblinoids.
If you're going to show up on a fantasy message board and bash Tolkien, at least make the pretense of knowing what the heck you're talking about.  You're not going to get a whole lot of respect otherwise.

Oh, and check out that shift key.  There's one on either end of your keyboard.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2004)

I've read the books twice.  The first time was before I read the great epics like _the Illiad_ or_ Beowulf_, and so I found portions of the LOTR cycle pretty tedious.

AFTER I found out about Tolkein's war experiences, as well as having read the epics, I understood the cycle much better- I understand why he wrote the way he did- it is an echo of the epic style as translated into the novel form.

The influence of other writers in D&D is plain to see, IF you've read the right stuff.  Some of the magic items in the game come directly from Jack Vance' _Dying Earth_ books, like Ioun Stones.  Multiclassing probably exists because characters like Conan, Grey Mouser, and Fafhrd are so clearly not single classed characters.  And if the standard D&D cosmology of multiple Prime Material planes doesn't have elements of both Michael Moorcock's multiplanar structure in his _Eternal Champion_ stories as well as eastern religions, I've been hoodwinked.

Ogrork the Mighty- please reread that quote from Britannica.


> "A different word orc, alluding to a demon or ogre, appears in Old English glosses of about AD 800 and in the compound word orcneas ("monsters") in the poem Beowulf. As with the Italian orco ("ogre") and the word ogre itself, it ultimately derives from the Latin Orcus, a god of the underworld. The Old English creatures were most likely the inspiration for the orcs that appear in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy."
> - Encyclopedia Britanica




Did he change them?  Yes.  But he would undoubtedly be aware of the origins of the word, and probably chose it to get the resonance of "monsters" from _Beowulf_.

As for our troll:


> I stand by my reasons most of you are Tolkien fanboys who can't accept change. Also he didn't create the orc he stole it from mythology in fact almost everything in LOTR is stolen from mythology. And he madew elvese bow obssesed that is enough reason for me to have thias thread. Hobbits are fat crybabies all they do is sit holes smoke and eat six meals a day. They are inferior to Kender and halflings in everyway. For that guy who said I have no #9 here it is 9. Sauron, and tolkien didn't make elves tall he stole them from celtic mythology




He needs to do his homework.

1)  Tolkein never claimed to create anything in the LOTR books ex nihilo except the various languages.  Almost everything was based on European and classical mythology/epic liturature.  So your claim about celtic elves or things "stolen from mythology" is a non-issue, and one Tolkein himself might agree with.  Tolkein didn't invent- he reshaped retold, and _popularized_.

2)  The "bow obsession" is NOT a Tolkein theme.  That aspect of RPGs came more from subsequent writers, game designers, and movies like_ Hawk the Slayer_, although you will also find mention of elvish or fey archers in European folklore.

3)  Given that haflings are as blatant a ripoff of hobbits as can be, right down to the 1st Edition's PHB & MM giving them a heightened resistance to magic...something that is an important plot point in the LOTR books, the statement "They are inferior to Kender and halflings in everyway." is truly laughable.

I WILL say this in defense of our troll, however:  I sorely wish that the big book stores would devote less space to the multiple printings of LOTR and books about LOTR and more space to other classic fantasy series, like _Earthsea_, _Eternal Champion_, _Fafhrd & Grey Mouser_, _Amber_ etc.  I went shopping for some of those the other day (for a birthday gift).  The various printings of LOTR took up an entire 5' x 5' section of shelving, whereas I had to special order what I was looking for.

That overcommitment to only one of so many classics of the genre can definitely skew the perceptions of those looking in from outside.

Of course, that is NO excuse for Warlord's...misperceptions.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 5, 2004)

David Howery said:
			
		

> Gygax can claim what he wants, but the whole idea of elves/dwarves/halflings being actual people instead of mystical mysterious demi-god types comes from Tolkien.  For that matter, one wonders what D&D would be like if Tolkien hadn't had such a strong influence on modern fantasy.  Maybe something along the lines of REH or Arthurian mythos... no demihumans, all the PCs would be human, and elves/dwarves and the like would be monsters.  There wouldn't be halflings at all (did Tolkien invent these, or get the idea from all the 'little people' mythos of Ireland etc.?).  Rangers would be likely to be absent, although I suppose there might be some type of woodsman PC.




Gygax never said that D&D had no Tolkien influences, rather that D&D was only marginally influenced by Tolkien.  Pulp authors like Howard, Lieber, and Vance were much bigger in their influence in the game.

Elves, halflings, and dwarves as playable, human-like races is definately a Tolkien influence, but apart from that there really isn't much Tolkien in OD&D; the concept of adventurers pillaging dungeons and gaining treasure were a common premise in the stories by REH and Fritz Lieber, and the magic system is straight out of the novels of Jack Vance.

As you mentioned, if LotR had never been published, then its likely that demihuman races would be absent from the game, at least initially.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 5, 2004)

warlord said:
			
		

> I stand by my reasons most of you are Tolkien fanboys who can't accept change.



It would be a lot easier to accept this as an opinion that merited some discussion if you didn't turn around and point towards hack authors like Salvatore and series like Dragonlance, who simply riff off Tolkien, as the new inspired fantasy.    Or if you actually had an argument instead of what you did do: post completely incorrect "facts" about _Lord of the Rings_ and then spout nonsense like that when challenged.


			
				warlord said:
			
		

> Also he didn't create the orc he stole it from mythology in fact almost everything in LOTR is stolen from mythology.



No he didn't.  He didn't create the _word_ orc, but that's the easiest part anyway.  He created the concept of the orc whole cloth.


			
				warlord said:
			
		

> And he madew elvese bow obssesed that is enough reason for me to have thias thread.



Are you sure you've read the books?  Legolas _had_ a bow, and was a good shot, but no where else is it implied that any the elvese people  are "obsessed" with the bow.


			
				warlord said:
			
		

> Hobbits are fat crybabies all they do is sit holes smoke and eat six meals a day. They are inferior to Kender and halflings in everyway.



Words fail me.  Why don't you go post this stuff somewhere on Usenet where you can get a proper response to this level of ignorance?


			
				warlord said:
			
		

> For that guy who said I have no #9 here it is 9. Sauron, and tolkien didn't make elves tall he stole them from celtic mythology



Celtic mythology has no elves, it has the _tuatha de danaan_ who devolved into the Sidhe, who don't really have that much in common with Tolkien elves anyway.  Tolkien was quite obviously not very interested in Celtic mythology anyway; he was an _anglo_phile through and through.  Heck, he didn't even have any use for the Normans for crying out loud.


----------



## Bran Blackbyrd (Sep 5, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> As you mentioned, if LotR had never been published, then its likely that demihuman races would be absent from the game, at least initially.




I think they probably would have made it in anyway, though perhaps not quite in the same form. If you think about it though, if you're going to include different classes (which is what the demi-humans originally were in D&D) giving them names everyone is familiar with is a natural. Everyone, even people who have never read Tolkien or D&D have heard of elves, gnomes, dwarves and such; I know that was the case with me waaaay back in the day.
Though their stats in the game might have been different to an extent.


----------



## Galethorn (Sep 5, 2004)

Ahem, it seems people didn't read the most important part of my post;



			
				Galethorn said:
			
		

> Everying is IMHO, and of course, YMMV when taking each point with a grain of salt, and all that rot.




And, as for the new #9, well, I think it's been answered well already.

Aaaaand, as for being afraid of change, I think you've got _me_ wrong at least. I'm not afraid of change; I love change, but I don't love what things seem to be heading towards. I didn't get uppity when the concept of _good_ orcs first came to me. I didn't cringe and hide in a corner when halflings went on the atkins diet and got ADD. No, It's not fear of change, it's that I liked my fantasy the way it was. Now, I did start ignoring new things when dinosaurs, ninjas, robots, and _ubersweet katanas_ became the common fare for new gaming developments, but I didn't tell other people they shouldn't play the game that way. Now, don't think of me as some guy who's been sitting around in the basement since '78 playing D&D with his now balding friends; technically, I can't even *be* nostalgic, you know, since I'm only 17.

So, I'm not a nostalgic old-schooler, and I'm not afraid of change, but I think D&D has done far more to 'ruin' modern fantasy than Tolkien could have if he wanted to. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! Oh, wait, you don't like the whole hobbit thing, what with the pipe-smoking and all...well, put that in your...coke(?) and drink it...!

Oh, sorry for bandying about the T-word. I was concerned by the spelling and gramar, combined with the fact that it appears this was in the wrong forum...combined with your...well, lemme put it this way; whether you know it or not, what you're saying is flame bait. It's like slapping a tiger with a pork chop!

But again, you have to remember not everything I say is completely serious. You're probably not a bad person, and it's within all of your rights to state your opinion, but you managed to do it in a very...inflaming manner.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 5, 2004)

warlord said:
			
		

> 1.Uberelves now people think elves have to be demigods.




Having read the Silmarillion, I can say this is _not_ true. Not only does the human Beren, who has _no elven ancestry whatsoever_ kick Noldor "demigod" behind (two Calaquendi!), but only the Calaquendi get uber powers. (Plus, Beren survived the torture, the Calaquendi did not.) I can count the number of Calaquendi left on Middle Earth with one hand: Galadriel, Glorfindel. And we're not even sure about the second one. _Maybe_ Cirdan, but I doubt it. (I'll check up on that.) Elrond only seems uber 'cuz he's got that powerful Elven ring, which lost it's power (so Elrond ran away). A character whose power is based solely on a magic item? I think _that_ is a legitimate complaint about JRR.



> 2.Legolas




Okay, what's wrong with him, other than the Drizzt-like movie version? He wasn't better than everyone else. Yes he had good eyesight and a good sense of balance, but Aragorn could out-track him anyday of the weak, despite being a lot younger. And you know why? Elves aren't uber, unless they're Calaquendi.



> 3. dwarves hate elves




Good. We wouldn't want them all to be a big happy family 

The Silmarillion explains this... twice. The dwarves have no love for nature and there was that fight over a magic item. Frankly I didn't like the second reason, but whatever...



> 4.that alll dwarves are axe-weilding elf haters




In the Hobbit, the dwarves wield mattocks as well. Plus, some even wield swords.



> 5.he made everyone think gnomes suck




They do suck. They're only good for making munchy mages.



> 6. he made rangers gods




Faramir had _his_ behind kicked. Plus, Tolkien's rangers didn't have any spellcasting or TWF crud, you can blame TSR and WotC for that.



> 7. he created the half-orc barbarian




I saw no raging orcs or half-orcs in Tolkien's work.



> 8.made halflingsa fat crybabies like sam gamgee




This one is hard to counter.



> 10. made gobilnoids universal cannonfodder




He did the same thing to humans. And elves - in the Silmarillion. I mean, really, you should read about the Battle of Unnumbered Tears.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2004)

> The Silmarillion explains this... twice. The dwarves have no love for nature and there was that fight over a magic item. Frankly I didn't like the second reason, but whatever...




Well, the second part is a conceptual lift from the _Neibelungenlied_ a.k.a. Wagner's _Ring Cycle_ of operas and Teutonic legends.



> Quote:
> 8.made halflingsa fat crybabies like sam gamgee
> 
> This one is hard to counter.




Sam represents the Everyman, the salt-of-the-earth yeoman without whom great deeds don't get done.  He may be somewhat of a groveler, but that would have been at least STEREOtypical behavior of a "commoner" in the presence of his "betters" in the age in which LOTR was written and the age LOTR echoes.  He's the working-class average Joe who makes civilization possible.

Some might consider Sam the true hero of the story, and LOTR ultimately the story of the power of the Everyman...but I think that may be a bit of a hard sell.  But this much is true...Without Sam, Sauron wins.  Without the Everyman, the Hero can't complete his tasks.



> Quote:
> 10. made gobilnoids universal cannonfodder
> 
> He did the same thing to humans. And elves - in the Silmarillion. I mean, really, you should read about the Battle of Unnumbered Tears.




EVERYONE was cannonfodder.  The great battles of LOTR are intended to be echoes of the brutality of WW1 and WW2, in which war had been stripped of the illusions of chivalry or any other window dressing about honor and glory that had accreted over the centuries of civilization, and was revealed to be all about dying in the mud in a trench.


----------



## The Spectrum Rider (Sep 5, 2004)

warlord said:
			
		

> 1.Uberelves now people think elves have to be demigods.
> 2.Legolas
> 3. dwarves hate elves
> 4.that alll dwarves are axe-weilding elf haters
> ...




It is not Tolkien's fault that so many subsequent writers have copied the details of his books rather than coming up with something more creative on their own. Many of the things you list showed up in his books for the first time - they were certainly not stereotypes then. They only became stereotypes because others writers kept repeating them, over and over.

And even in his books, the races were not as "stereotyped" as you seem to think. Not all his elves were bowmen. (Did Elrond ever touch a bow? How about Galadriel?) The conflict between elves and dwarves was a specific part of his imagined history, and, by the end of The Lord of the Rings, Gimli and Legolas are the closest of friends (to the point that Gimli actually passes over the sea with Legolas). He didn't even *have* gnomes as they exist in D&D - he sometimes used the word "gnome" for a particular group of his elves, but that's all; he hardly was in a position to make everybody think that "gnomes suck." 

As for Sam and the other halflings, you couldn't be more wrong. I think you simply missed the point of the whole book.

You, and everybody else, are free to create novels and D&D settings in which elves and dwarves get along just great, halflings are tough as leather an unsentimental, and "goblinoids" (Tolkien didn't have "goblinoids;" he had orcs, who were sometimes called goblins) write poetry and add a touch of class to civilized life. 

Don't blame JRRT if you don't.

In the meantime, try reading Perdido Street Station by China Mieville. Or The Anubis Gates by Tim Powers. Or Zelazny's Amber series. There's tons of fantasy out there without bow-wielding uberelves. Again, it's not Tolkien's fault if you can't find it.

The Spectrum Rider

The Spectrum Rider


----------



## warlord (Sep 5, 2004)

It's me again the 16 year old target of tolkien fanboy hate. He did make gnomes suck by not including them so people over look them a so comical because of the whole lawn ornement thing. I also have read fafhrd and grey mouser and I have no problem with that its just with tolkien as you can see people worship him as a god and his word is law. So when someone challenges this they call me a troll and I may be a troll but I am a troll with a message expand your herizons Tolkien fanboys read Conan, Dracula, Frankenstein or anything by H.P. Lovecraft and step out of your world and into a new like the realms of horror explored in many of the books I mentioned.


----------



## Gez (Sep 5, 2004)

By this reasonning, he also did make the goliath, the tabaxi, the kobold, the aasimar, the tiefling, the genasi, the lizardman, the gnoll, the darkcreeper, the beholder, the illithid, the skum, and the sphinx suck by not including them. Moron.

If you want to blame people for "making gnome suck", lay the blame squarely where it should be: Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman. DragonLance is where it was once and for all decided that all short races are annoying "comic relief."


----------



## Scarbonac (Sep 5, 2004)

warlord said:
			
		

> It's me again the 16 year old target of tolkien fanboy hate. He did make gnomes suck by not including them so people over look them a so comical because of the whole lawn ornement thing.





That's just deranged. He's at fault _because he didn't actually use them_...?




> I also have read fafhrd and grey mouser and I have no problem with that its just with tolkien as you can see people worship him as a god and his word is law. So when someone challenges this they call me a troll and I may be a troll but I am a troll with a message expand your herizons Tolkien fanboys read Conan, Dracula, Frankenstein or anything by H.P. Lovecraft and step out of your world and into a new like the realms of horror explored in many of the books I mentioned.





I'm willing to lay odds that most of us have read all of those authors, plus manymany more. What about Burroughs? Gardner Fox? Leigh Brackett? Peter S. Beagle? Michael Moorcock? Elizabeth Moon? Shakespeare? Tanith Lee? Andre Norton? Jack Williamson? Any translation of Beowulf, The Prose Edda, the Mahabharata or The Epic of Gilgamesh?


Kid, don't teach your Gramma to suck eggses, ya dig?

Oh, and yeah, I'm a High Priest of Tolkien, Gondor Chapter. We sacrifice copies of _The Crystal Shard_ and any _Drangonlance_ books via the Sacred Shredder on his birthday and on alternate St. Swithen's Days.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 5, 2004)

Personally, I blame Shakespeare. I don't see gnomes mentioned in any of his works and the stereotype of elves that he created in _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ inspired later authors to ascribe all kinds of uber-powers to them that would seriously inflate the racial Level Adjustment of the race in any decent role-playing game.

Actually, when I think about it, I blame Homer for not mentioning gnomes in the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_, too.

No, wait. I think the blame for everything wrong with modern fantasy can be placed solely on the head of Ung the caveman, who explained that the evil spirits who killed his friend shot arrows "like Olf, from other tribe". If he had mentioned Nom instead, things could have been so different.


----------



## Agamemnon (Sep 5, 2004)

Just a couple of minor points.

1) Tolkien was not a "scholar of literature", he was a professor of Anglo-Saxon. He was a man interested not necessarily in books, but in the English language and mythology entwined to it.

2) Linking The Lord of the Rings into any kind of military strategy is a leap of logic too extreme for my liking, and certainly not one the author intended. He does, after all, state his case very clearly in the prologue, saying the book is not metaphorical, allegorical or topical, even going as far as to say he detests allegory.

The book and its themes are _applicable_ to real-life phenomena, but are not inspired by or intrisincally linked to them.

3) I have read Shakespeare, Dracula, Frankenstein, Guy Gavriel Kay's savagely beautiful Fionavar Tapestry trilogy, parts of Iliad and far too many books on mythology. Calling people such as myself ignorant because we don't choose to loathe JRRT for various nonsensical reasons is folly beyond mortal ken.


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 5, 2004)

*re*



			
				warlord said:
			
		

> It's me again the 16 year old target of tolkien fanboy hate. He did make gnomes suck by not including them so people over look them a so comical because of the whole lawn ornement thing. I also have read fafhrd and grey mouser and I have no problem with that its just with tolkien as you can see people worship him as a god and his word is law. So when someone challenges this they call me a troll and I may be a troll but I am a troll with a message expand your herizons Tolkien fanboys read Conan, Dracula, Frankenstein or anything by H.P. Lovecraft and step out of your world and into a new like the realms of horror explored in many of the books I mentioned.




Are you really this dense? I am a diehard Tolkien fan boy as just about anybody that has seen me post on Tolkien topics will attest to. Yet, I still manage to read other authors such as H.P. Lovecraft, George R.R. Martin, Thomas Mallory and many other authors you don't even mention. I still like Tolkien best after reading all these other authors. 

Tolkien is numero uno. He may not have invented fantasy. He may have robbed all his concepts from previous works of literature and poetry. He may write in a droll and descriptive manner that others don't like. He is still the KING OF FANTASY. His works continue to sell better than other fantasy works. They are classics that have withstood the test of time and outlived the life of the author. They inspire future generations of authors not only to create similar works, but dissimilar works based on their own imaginings of an exciting fantasy world. 

Tolkien is from an objective standpoint perhaps the greatest fantasy author of all time. His magnum opus inspired the greatest fantasy movie of all time. They popularized fantasy when it was not much more than a collection of pulp novels, fairy tales, and European myths. Very few people have influenced the fantasy genre as much as Tolkien. His works will continue to be read by a large audience when a sixteen year old like yourself is ninety (if you even reach that ripe old age).


----------



## Scarbonac (Sep 5, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> His magnum opus inspired the greatest fantasy movie of all time.




_Hawk The Slayer_?


----------



## Thotas (Sep 5, 2004)

As has been mentioned already, Gygax and pals stole stuff from everything they'd read, and they read a lot more than Tolkien.  The myth that D&D began as a straight D&D lift came from people who'd only read Tolkien so they didn't know any better.  Sadly, the power of suggestion being what it is, many people who should know better have bought into that ... nodding their heads and saying "yep" when they see a Tolkienesque element.  

Others here have mentioned that the magic comes from Vance, and that Ioun stones do, too.  Hmm, didn't know about the stones.  Never been able to finish reading anything by Jack Vance, so I don't start anymore.  My favorite example of how someone other than JRRT should have been able to sue Gary into poverty is Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", which has characters that are clearly the original Paladin, Nixie, Gnome (called a "Hill Dwarf", but the big nose and foresty dwellings are no coincidence) and Troll.  When I read the novel, my one bit of confusion was why the Swanmay wasn't stolen too ... a month later, the 1e MM-2 came out, there she was.  Anderson is also the only place I've seen the word "drow" in a source prior to D&D, in a book called "The Broken Sword".

Exposition about Law vs. Chaos is, of course, the influence of Moorcock.  Everyone knows that.  

The 1e DMG has a section that lists Vance, Anderson, Moorcock, Howard, and several others as it's sources.  The creators of the game never claimed to have come up with themselves, and they never claimed to use a single source.  And they told you to go ahead and change all the stuff you didn't like, whether it was the stuff they stole or not.  

As for the origin of the Tolkien orc ... he surely knew about the orcneas of Beowulf, but I've always been a bit suspicious of another source.  There was a tribe in Ireland of old called the Orcs, and JRRT, an englishman who was surely exposed to certain stereotypical ideas about the Irish, portrays the orcs as a bunch of lazy, stupid drunks who are always ready for a fight.  And if my suspicions are right, that makes me 1/4 orc.


----------



## skinnydwarf (Sep 5, 2004)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Yes, it's a troll. Everyone else knows that Tolkien practically created modern fantasy.




I wouldn't go that far, but I agree, the post is almost definetly a trolling post.  I like the part where he says Tolkien made halflings crybabies.  Since halflings did not exist before Tolkien invented them, I don't think it is possible he could have ruined them.  However, the fact that many fantasy worlds are populated by dwarves, elves, etc. is mostly due to Tolkien, although he did not invent *those* creatures.

Why don't I agree Tolkien invented modern fantasy?  Because modern fantasy existed before Tolkien.  Howard, Leiber, Vance and a host of others were writing great fantasy before Tolkien came along.  Tolkien set a lot of the stereotypes that followed, but he hardly invented the field.

This becomes more apparent when you see that so little fantasy being written today (outside of game-related fantasy) holds to these stereotypes.  How many fantasy books do you see now with a Tolkienesque world (again, not counting game-fantasy)?  Not as many as there used to be right after LoTR was published.

However I think Tolkien did strike a blow to modern fantasy in one way, though it was not his fault.  The damned trilogy/series that publishers are hooked on.  Sometimes I just want to read a whole story in one book- why do they all have to be trilogies or series?!  Oh yeah, profit.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 5, 2004)

Scarbonac said:
			
		

> _Hawk The Slayer_?




I love Hawk the Slayer, but I think he meant _Ladyhawke_.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 5, 2004)

So two things fall to me.

First, Tolkien did use "Gnomes" in the Lord of the Rings (although you may need to read the Silmarillion to really find out).  Galadriel is one.

Second, here at EN World we pride ourselves on not referring to others as "moron", "deranged", or the like, even if we are sure we have categorical proof and are only pronouncing the Truth.  Let's try to not throw sand around in Morrus' sandbox, okay?


----------



## driver8 (Sep 5, 2004)

Dragon-Slayer said:
			
		

> Don't forget that Tolkien also read the works of (and from some accounts was influenced by) early twentieth century fantasists like Lord Dunsany, William Morris and Eric Rucker Eddison. Of these Dunsany (in my opinion) is the best for campaign inspired mayhem.




Just to do a slight hijack, since the original posters post deserves no response IMHO, but..Lord Dunsany is incredibly overlooked. The King of Elflands Daughter is a great dark fairy tale, and luckily its been reprinted because of the popularity of Tolkien and fantasy.

Now if the publishers would only reprint Moorcock and Leiber in new editions...


----------



## warlord (Sep 5, 2004)

who ever said tolkien created the best fantasy movies ever is wrong George Lucas made the best fantasy movies ever all six of them. And I know Gygax didn't "create" everything in D&D but Tolkien has made so many people so narrow minded they just term people lkike me who have a different veiw a troll and dragonlance didn't scerw over gnomes canundrum was cool


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2004)

> Gygax can claim what he wants, but the whole idea of elves/dwarves/halflings being actual people instead of mystical mysterious demi-god types comes from Tolkien.




No, you can find examples of elves and dwarves as folks like us in a lot of European folklore.  They may be different, but "Markeson, you were right!  People are the same, everywhere!"

Warlord, some points:

1)  Use proper punctuation.  It will make your posts easier to read and definitely seem less "trollish."  Then, perhaps, you will get a little respect and fewer insults.

2)  Tolkien made no movies.  Movies were made from his work by Bass, Rankin, and Jackson, all after his death in 1973.

3)  The Star Wars series contains as many lifts and borrowed elements as any other piece of fiction.  The original movie _Star Wars_, while good, was based on an old B&W samurai film (I'm a little rusty, but it may have been _Seven Samurai_).  _Phantom Menace_, which truly sucked, was full of elements you could have picked up from watching the Discovery channel for a month in 2002-2003 (before they changed to their current format of people building hotrods & motorcycles-not that there's anything wrong with that).  Think I'm kidding?  Check out Star Wars Origins  (BTW: the site also does a great job revealing the influences on Tolkien's LOTR-including where *he* got ents and hobbits from, as well as other great sci-fi/fantasy works.)

Furthermore, the Star Wars movies are most accurately described as "Space Opera," a subset of Sci-Fi, not Fantasy.

4)  You can't blame Tolkien for the way people have flocked to his work.  It was groundbreaking.  That people really love his stuff is understandible.  But you can't say that he made people narrowminded just because he raised the bar a little.  Narowminded they may be, but they brought that to the table themselves.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 5, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The original movie _Star Wars_, while good, was based on an old B&W samurai film (I'm a little rusty, but it may have been _Seven Samurai_)




Hidden Fortress, actually, but most of Kirosawa's films influenced it in some way.

...I won't get involved in the topic at hand, though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2004)

THAT's right!  _Seven Samurai_ became _The Magnificent Seven_...which that site points out too.

Thanx!


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Sep 5, 2004)

I was going to reply to this thread when it got started, but I figured it'd be best if it just dropped off the face of the earth. As this hasn't happened, and people have pretty much said all that I was going to say, I have only one comment: give Warlord a break.

EDIT: I realized what I said probably won't be taken in the spirit it was meant. I don't mean to say that you are stupid or a fool for not liking Tolkien, even though that's what I literally said. I disagree with most of your points, and if you read the _Silmarillion_ and the mythoi Middle-Earth is in large part based on I think that you'll come to see the viewpoint of the Tolkien-o-philes like myself. 

As a sidenote, doesn't it suck when people dismiss you because of your age? I'm only 17 myself, and have occasionally hidden my age online so people don't ignore my opinions.


----------



## Trainz (Sep 5, 2004)

I highly recommend to verify Warlord's IP and compare it to those recorded on ENW and NL.

 If he's NOT a troll...

 I realize that most of your points don't really make sense and I find your attempts to provoke a reaction from us for example by calling us fanboys very insulting and feeble and I suggest that you cease doing that if you intend to spend any time at all on ENworld another thing people will think less that you're a troll if you punctuate your posts properly.


----------



## Alhazred (Sep 5, 2004)

Warlord, please punctuate your posts.  I know it's easier and faster to type without worrying about commas and periods, semi-colons and the like, but my tired old eyes need those breaks.  (*sigh* I'm only 25 and already I have tired old eyes.)


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 5, 2004)

Warlord, if you want to troll go elsewhere. We have no patience for it here.

Thread closed.


----------

