So there I was, reading, gathering up inspiration for my new inquisitor entourage and what do I stumble upon? well yes, an Image.
Now most of us know who Andy Chambers is, he's one of the lifers that got out from under Nottinghams thumb, he's one of the chosen few who developed games for Games Workshop back in the day, just google the guy and read his wikipedia.
Ah I digress, where was I? Ah yes, images. yes I did find an image, and well, considering both games depicted come from Andy's chambers of horror, well. I'll just let you lot judge on yer own.
It's not a hidden piece of knowledge that Starcraft and 40k were similar. I believe that Blizzard and GW had a deal to develop a game based on 40k, and GW backed out (this may have been something similar with WHFB and Warcraft), but yes they do look similar.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I expected MUCH more out of this thread title. Maybe, you know, an actual retrospective view of Andy Chambers as a game designer and not an over-used comparison of Starcraft and WH40k.
pretre wrote: Hey look! It is this thread... again...
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I expected MUCH more out of this thread title. Maybe, you know, an actual retrospective view of Andy Chambers as a game designer and not an over-used comparison of Starcraft and WH40k.
Thanks for the epic comic. Sums ups reaaaaaally well my feelings about this thread
It's almost as if the creators of starcraft were nerds, and would have drawn inspiration from other nerd things they liked. Including, but not limited to Warhammer 40k.
Good god I loved Andy Chambers. Like I loved Phil Anselmo and James Hetfield. He took away the scary, confusing chaos of teenage life and replaced it with the cool, cool chaos of 40K and heavy metal.
Alfndrate wrote: It's not a hidden piece of knowledge that Starcraft and 40k were similar. I believe that Blizzard and GW had a deal to develop a game based on 40k, and GW backed out (this may have been something similar with WHFB and Warcraft), but yes they do look similar.
It was actually the first Warcraft game, Warcraft: Orcs & Humans. It was supposed to be a Warhammer title but Games Workshop pulled out and it was re-branded as Warcraft.
pretre wrote: Hey look! It is this thread... again...
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I expected MUCH more out of this thread title. Maybe, you know, an actual retrospective view of Andy Chambers as a game designer and not an over-used comparison of Starcraft and WH40k.
I've never got Penny Arcade. Do those guys just not try to be funny or what?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ahem. Everything is a ripoff of something else. You cant find an original idea anymore.
I would argue that you can. Whether or not its good, however, is a completely different story.
To me, an original work is defined by the whole and not by what it takes inspiration from. Wh40k takes inspiration from numerous sources, but in the end they make a unique and interesting setting that has its own identity. Same with Starcraft. YMMV
That's a good point. *Everything* in 40k is essentially a staple of western fiction, but it fits together seemlessly and it seems to work. The only area it really falls down, imo, is in things that were NOT stolen directly from existing fiction. Like the necron - robots...but also skeletons? And tau - aliens, but also fish...and with amazing technology. Also communists.
Actually, skeleton death robots isn't out of sci-fi; it does pop up now and again (see: Terminator). Egypt being visited by aliens is a common theory, and fish aliens also present in Sci-Fi (See: The mon calamari)
The Tau don't really come across as communist to me...feudal, progressive and oligarchical sure, but not really commy.
They have more in common with the US than with Soviet Russia.
Really? The Necronytr are some of my favorite hunks of 40k fluff. The old school especially. Almost high tech zombies, and endless tide of death and destruction.
But yeah I mean Space Marines are the big trope from 40k and are actually a trope originator for much of the modern concept, they themselves are straight from Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers and if you watch the film of the same title you can take the amusing inference that Verhoven may have taken some of his impressions of the Imperial Guard and given it to the Mobile Infantry.
Testify wrote: And tau - aliens, but also fish...and with amazing technology. Also communists.
Communism in its various iterations has always been a runing trend in sci-fi, actually. From early 20th century utopians to Roddenberry's Federation or Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Dispossessed" to the recent works of Kim Stanley Robinson or Iain M. Banks, a stream of authors have imagined societies based on the principles of socialism, usually made possible by means of advanced technology.
Some of those very same authors have also written extensively about the dilemmas a superior, enlightened and seemingly benevolent society has to face when meeting less advanced civilizations or ideological/cultural deviants (Iain M. Banks in his "The Culture" series of novels, "Left Hand of Darkness" by ms. Le Guin or the Federation in Star Trek. It was also a running theme in soviet authors, i.e. "Hard to be a God" by the brothers Strugatsky).
pretre wrote: Hey look! It is this thread... again...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I expected MUCH more out of this thread title. Maybe, you know, an actual retrospective view of Andy Chambers as a game designer and not an over-used comparison of Starcraft and WH40k.
Bolded Quoted for truth. Incidently that comic is TERRIBLY written. It reads like it has not been proof read at all (middle panel in particular).
Testify wrote: And tau - aliens, but also fish...and with amazing technology. Also communists.
Communism in its various iterations has always been a runing trend in sci-fi, actually. From early 20th century utopians to Roddenberry's Federation or Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Dispossessed" to the recent works of Kim Stanley Robinson or Iain M. Banks, a stream of authors have imagined societies based on the principles of socialism, usually made possible by means of advanced technology.
Some of those very same authors have also written extensively about the dilemmas a superior, enlightened and seemingly benevolent society has to face when meeting less advanced civilizations or ideological/cultural deviants (Iain M. Banks in his "The Culture" series of novels, "Left Hand of Darkness" by ms. Le Guin or the Federation in Star Trek. It was also a running theme in soviet authors, i.e. "Hard to be a God" by the brothers Strugatsky).
The Tau borrow influences from all of the above.
I have heard of literally none of them and i would consider myself a sci fi/fantasy nerd.
LeGuin? No, I haven't heard of him/her. Roddenberry is quite easy, and I do think I know who those three masters you're talking about are but I've always heard them called the "Big Three" or the "Three Pillars."
Three Masters or Three Grandmasters are also common terms depending on who you hang around. Every nerd or nerdette should read Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke. No exceptions.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Three Masters or Three Grandmasters are also common terms depending on who you hang around. Every nerd or nerdette should read Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke. No exceptions.
Are Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, and George R.R Martin worthy substitutes?
Oh, and Frank Herbert and Phillip K Dick.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Three Masters or Three Grandmasters are also common terms depending on who you hang around. Every nerd or nerdette should read Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke. No exceptions.
Are Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, and George R.R Martin worthy substitutes?
Oh, and Frank Herbert and Phillip K Dick.
No. That's like asking if Rick Riordan is a substitute for C.S. Lewis. Rick is good but C.S. Lewis is classic.
And George R.R. Martin is a fantasy writer isn't he
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Three Masters or Three Grandmasters are also common terms depending on who you hang around. Every nerd or nerdette should read Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke. No exceptions.
Are Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, and George R.R Martin worthy substitutes? Oh, and Frank Herbert and Phillip K Dick.
No. That's like asking if Rick Riordan is a substitute for C.S. Lewis. Rick is good but C.S. Lewis is classic.
And George R.R. Martin is a fantasy writer isn't he
Yes, but he didn't specify what type of nerd And Frank Herbert and Phillip K. Dick aren't classics ?
Oh I see, the "Big Three" predates Frank Herbert. That makes sense.
They are. But in scifi there is a very special appreciation for the Big Three as the great innovators of the genre during its golden age. Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, and Issac Assimov were literary masters, and there is no substitute.
That said you don't have to like them. I can personally say I never much liked reading Clarke's work. *ducks into cover before being lynched*
I actually liked chewing through Clarke's 2001 cycle, but by the goddess was it a dry read in places. Doesn't it stop it being an excellent piece of work and very technically competent but bloody hera that got long in places. Very similar to Kubrick's film adaption actually.
Heinlein was more my speed and Starship Troopers remains my personal favorite novel. I even had chapters from the boot camp portion smuggled to me while I was in boot camp.
Asimov is where I go for a look at the future, all three had incredible foresight and vision and a critical eye for humankind as it was during a very turbulent time for our species, great social and scientific change was the backdrop to a massive conflict fought primarily with money and glaring more then anything else.
The other authors CthulusSpy listed are all excellent as well...
Hmmm it brings up a thought though, who would be the three pillars of the fantasy genre?
Tolkien obviously, his novels literally changed fantasy forever... I think an argument for Anne McCaffrey... hmmm Terry Pratchett maybe? I seem to recall him being young enough to be influenced by the first two though...
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think fantasy ever really had the "watershed" moment science fiction experienced in the early 20th century.
The only pillar for modern fantasy imo is Tolkien. The man didn't only write the greatest piece of fantasy literature of the 20th century, he even proposed the value of the genre, articulated its attributes, and argued for it to be taken seriously by a literary community that saw it as childish and having no artistic value.
If we were to consider the 'Pillars' of the Fantasy genre it's probably Tolkien and C.S. Lewis but mostly Tolkien.
Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, in that order. I'd also add another member of the Futurians, Frederik Pohl, but that might be out of personal fetish. I just loved "Gateway" and "The space merchants" too much
LordofHats wrote:If we were to consider the 'Pillars' of the Fantasy genre it's probably Tolkien and C.S. Lewis but mostly Tolkien.
I'm tempted to include Michael Moorcock, Jack Vance and Anne McCaffrey, too, as KalashnikovMarine suggests, but I feel that my pick of late 60s-to-mid-70s authors downplays Tolkien's influence in the genre.
You can handle yourself well in sci-fi without ever reading "20.000 leagues under the sea" or "The time machine" after all. Can't say the same about fantasy and Tolkien.
Oh, and @Testify, give Iain M. Banks a try. Start with "Consider Phlebas", "The use of weapons" or "The player of games". Will not regret it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: If Andy Chambers is still breathing why are we taking a retrospective look at him?
There's not much to discuss about the OP, really...
Agent_Tremolo wrote: I'm tempted to include Michael Moorcock, Jack Vance and Anne McCaffrey, too, as KalashnikovMarine suggests, but I feel that my pick of late 60s-to-mid-70s authors downplays Tolkien's influence in the genre.
You can handle yourself well in sci-fi without ever reading "20.000 leagues under the sea" or "The time machine" after all. Can't say the same about fantasy and Tolkien.
Yeah that's my thought. Just try to understand the origins of most high fantasy without understanding Tolkien. I dare someone to do it
How about Lord Dunsany and E.R. Eddison along with Tolkien?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: But yeah I mean Space Marines are the big trope from 40k and are actually a trope originator for much of the modern concept, they themselves are straight from Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
Are you joking? Other than the concepts of power armor and drop pods (which Heinlein originated), SM bear almost no resemblance to anything in ST. Obviously those are very important elements, but in terms of story, theme, and philosophy, there's no similarity at all.
And let's not forget that the only reason the "Starship Troopers" movie bears the title is because some studio exec found out the licensing was available...
The working title before that was "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine".
Mannahnin wrote: How about Lord Dunsany and E.R. Eddison along with Tolkien?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: But yeah I mean Space Marines are the big trope from 40k and are actually a trope originator for much of the modern concept, they themselves are straight from Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
Are you joking? Other than the concepts of power armor and drop pods (which Heinlein originated), SM bear almost no resemblance to anything in ST. Obviously those are very important elements, but in terms of story, theme, and philosophy, there's no similarity at all.
Bolded part is exactly what I was talking about, the concept of "Space Marines" as they are used in 40k and through out the rest originated in the form we know it now in Starship Troopers, especially with the concepts of power armor and "drop" troopers. The Federation of ST is a whole political spectrum away from the Imperium of man and the list really goes on. The 40k concept of the Space Marine as inspired by ST is what originated MORE in the same vein, building on the concept in the name of grimdark/gothicness. Genetically modified super soldiers, pauldrons you can pick up Dish network with, etc.
I can talk ST and Heinlein all day but we were poking at tropes, not story, theme, etc.
Kanluwen wrote: It is also fun to note that, per the DVD's commentary...
Paul Verhoeven did not even finish reading the book. He read like two chapters and give up.
That's because Verhoeven is a complete Donkey Cave and wanted to make his anti war movie, not make a Starship Troopers movie.
Personally other then title and some names the two aren't related by any common sense of the term.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That's because Verhoeven is a complete Donkey Cave and wanted to make his anti war movie, not make a Starship Troopers movie.
Personally other then title and some names the two aren't related by any common sense of the term.
I don't see how that makes him an donkey-cave, if he wants to tell his own story that's fine although it seems odd that he would use the name "Starship Troopers" when he doesn't care much for the original story anyways.
Mannahnin wrote: How about Lord Dunsany and E.R. Eddison along with Tolkien?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: But yeah I mean Space Marines are the big trope from 40k and are actually a trope originator for much of the modern concept, they themselves are straight from Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
Are you joking? Other than the concepts of power armor and drop pods (which Heinlein originated), SM bear almost no resemblance to anything in ST. Obviously those are very important elements, but in terms of story, theme, and philosophy, there's no similarity at all.
Bolded part is exactly what I was talking about, the concept of "Space Marines" as they are used in 40k and through out the rest originated in the form we know it now in Starship Troopers, especially with the concepts of power armor and "drop" troopers. The Federation of ST is a whole political spectrum away from the Imperium of man and the list really goes on. The 40k concept of the Space Marine as inspired by ST is what originated MORE in the same vein, building on the concept in the name of grimdark/gothicness. Genetically modified super soldiers, pauldrons you can pick up Dish network with, etc.
I can talk ST and Heinlein all day but we were poking at tropes, not story, theme, etc.
But then why are you talking about Space Marines as being "straight from Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers"?
Why cherrypick the Drop Pods/Powered Armor bit?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That's because Verhoeven is a complete Donkey Cave and wanted to make his anti war movie, not make a Starship Troopers movie.
Personally other then title and some names the two aren't related by any common sense of the term.
I don't see how that makes him an donkey-cave, if he wants to tell his own story that's fine although it seems odd that he would use the name "Starship Troopers" when he doesn't care much for the original story anyways.
Because who's going to see "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine"?
H.P lovecraft deserves a mention for his contributions to early psychological horror and dark fantasy, I think.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: And let's not forget that the only reason the "Starship Troopers" movie bears the title is because some studio exec found out the licensing was available...
The working title before that was "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine".
Was there a plan involved, and was it in outer space?
I wouldn't associate him with the same genre as Tolkein though. Weird fantasy is fantasy but its kind of in its own category because it deals with very specialized themes that have only recently come into the modern fantasy genre. He is important for the Weird Fantasy though and definitely the Tolkien of his craft.
LordofHats wrote: I wouldn't associate him with the same genre as Tolkein though. Weird fantasy is fantasy but its kind of in its own category because it deals with very specialized themes that have only recently come into the modern fantasy genre. He is important for the Weird Fantasy though and definitely the Tolkien of his craft.
I haven't read any of his books but would HP fall under sci-fi as well?
Mannahnin wrote: How about Lord Dunsany and E.R. Eddison along with Tolkien?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: But yeah I mean Space Marines are the big trope from 40k and are actually a trope originator for much of the modern concept, they themselves are straight from Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
Are you joking? Other than the concepts of power armor and drop pods (which Heinlein originated), SM bear almost no resemblance to anything in ST. Obviously those are very important elements, but in terms of story, theme, and philosophy, there's no similarity at all.
Bolded part is exactly what I was talking about, the concept of "Space Marines" as they are used in 40k and through out the rest originated in the form we know it now in Starship Troopers, especially with the concepts of power armor and "drop" troopers. The Federation of ST is a whole political spectrum away from the Imperium of man and the list really goes on. The 40k concept of the Space Marine as inspired by ST is what originated MORE in the same vein, building on the concept in the name of grimdark/gothicness. Genetically modified super soldiers, pauldrons you can pick up Dish network with, etc.
I can talk ST and Heinlein all day but we were poking at tropes, not story, theme, etc.
But then why are you talking about Space Marines as being "straight from Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers"?
Why cherrypick the Drop Pods/Powered Armor bit?
I'm not saying Space Marines (40k faction) I'm saying Space Marines (overarching trope/concept) a primary example for which IS the 40k Space Marine
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That's because Verhoeven is a complete Donkey Cave and wanted to make his anti war movie, not make a Starship Troopers movie.
Personally other then title and some names the two aren't related by any common sense of the term.
I don't see how that makes him an donkey-cave, if he wants to tell his own story that's fine although it seems odd that he would use the name "Starship Troopers" when he doesn't care much for the original story anyways.
Because who's going to see "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine"?
LordofHats wrote: I wouldn't associate him with the same genre as Tolkein though. Weird fantasy is fantasy but its kind of in its own category because it deals with very specialized themes that have only recently come into the modern fantasy genre. He is important for the Weird Fantasy though and definitely the Tolkien of his craft.
I haven't read any of his books but would HP fall under sci-fi as well?
Sort of...his works are about as hard Sci-Fi as Wh40k. In fact, Wh40k actually takes a bit from the Cthulu Mythos.
LordofHats wrote: I wouldn't associate him with the same genre as Tolkein though. Weird fantasy is fantasy but its kind of in its own category because it deals with very specialized themes that have only recently come into the modern fantasy genre. He is important for the Weird Fantasy though and definitely the Tolkien of his craft.
I haven't read any of his books but would HP fall under sci-fi as well?
Sort of...his works are about as hard Sci-Fi as Wh40k.
In fact, Wh40k actually takes a bit from the Cthulu Mythos.
Yeah was it the Necrons and/or Chaos, that had some HP inspiration?
LordofHats wrote: I wouldn't associate him with the same genre as Tolkein though. Weird fantasy is fantasy but its kind of in its own category because it deals with very specialized themes that have only recently come into the modern fantasy genre. He is important for the Weird Fantasy though and definitely the Tolkien of his craft.
I haven't read any of his books but would HP fall under sci-fi as well?
Sort of...his works are about as hard Sci-Fi as Wh40k.
In fact, Wh40k actually takes a bit from the Cthulu Mythos.
Yeah was it the Necrons and/or Chaos, that had some HP inspiration?
Both, actually. Though chaos takes a bit more, due to the presence of cults, mutation, madness, alternate dimensions...you get the idea.
LordofHats wrote: I wouldn't associate him with the same genre as Tolkein though. Weird fantasy is fantasy but its kind of in its own category because it deals with very specialized themes that have only recently come into the modern fantasy genre. He is important for the Weird Fantasy though and definitely the Tolkien of his craft.
I haven't read any of his books but would HP fall under sci-fi as well?
Technically all scifi falls under Speculative Fiction which is a sub-genre of fantasy but the academic classification of literary genre's is way different from what people commonly use. Bet yeah, HPL's work has lot of cosmic stuff in it and can be qualified as sci-fi depending.
Well it also depends on how you class Horror. I'd say Horror can stand apart on it's own enough to not get lumped in else where but from Frankenstein on, there's plenty of significant examples through out horror (especially once Lovecraft comes on the scene) where Scifi and Horror are walking hand in hand to one extent or another.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well it also depends on how you class Horror. I'd say Horror can stand apart on it's own enough to not get lumped in else where but from Frankenstein on, there's plenty of significant examples through out horror (especially once Lovecraft comes on the scene) where Scifi and Horror are walking hand in hand to one extent or another.
A medium can delve into several genres at once like Led Zeppelin they have songs that go into heavy metal, blues rock, hard rock, folk rock, etc.
LordofHats wrote: The only pillar for modern fantasy imo is Tolkien. The man didn't only write the greatest piece of fantasy literature of the 20th century, he even proposed the value of the genre, articulated its attributes, and argued for it to be taken seriously by a literary community that saw it as childish and having no artistic value.
If we were to consider the 'Pillars' of the Fantasy genre it's probably Tolkien and C.S. Lewis but mostly Tolkien.
So you disregard Homer, Arthurian Legend, The Grimm Tales, Shakespeare, Beowulf etc. And the thousand other century old folklore and mythology which they drew from? Tolkien did not invent Elves and Goblins. He didn't do much new at all besides create an extraordinarily popular example of a fantasy novel. Credit is due for that but to merit him as THE major inspiration for all modern fantasy is pretty ignorant.
So you disregard Homer, Arthurian Legend, The Grimm Tales, Shakespeare, Beowulf etc. And the thousand other century old folklore and mythology which they drew from? Tolkien did not invent Elves and Goblins. He didn't do much new at all besides create an extraordinarily popular example of a fantasy novel. Credit is due for that but to merit him as THE major inspiration for all modern fantasy is pretty ignorant.
Its more having to recognize that if we're going to go through ALL the roots of fantasy literature, we'll spend all our time talking about it. The modern fantasy story is the invention of Tolkien based on the works that preceded him but Tolkien's work is the point where we see fantasy become what it currently is. Hence why I use the term 'modern.'
Is Roddenberry that guy who was kept a million miles away from Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan, as the studios didn't want the sequel to be as succesful as the first Star Trek film
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That's because Verhoeven is a complete Donkey Cave and wanted to make his anti war movie, not make a Starship Troopers movie.
You're talking about the guy that made Robocop, so you be careful son.
How you do [a remake] now, you’d have to go into all of the digital world, and I’m not sure that would improve the soul of the movie, you know? The point of Robocop, of course, it is a Christ story. It is about a guy who gets crucified in the first 50 minutes, and then is resurrected in the next 50 minutes, and then is like the supercop of the world, but is also a Jesus figure as he walks over water at the end. Walking over water was in the steel factory in Pittsburgh, and there was water there, and I put something just underneath the water so he could walk over the water and say that wonderful line, “I am not arresting you anymore.” Meaning, I’m going to shoot you. And that is of course the American Jesus.
LordofHats wrote: The only pillar for modern fantasy imo is Tolkien. The man didn't only write the greatest piece of fantasy literature of the 20th century, he even proposed the value of the genre, articulated its attributes, and argued for it to be taken seriously by a literary community that saw it as childish and having no artistic value.
If we were to consider the 'Pillars' of the Fantasy genre it's probably Tolkien and C.S. Lewis but mostly Tolkien.
So you disregard Homer, Arthurian Legend, The Grimm Tales, Shakespeare, Beowulf etc. And the thousand other century old folklore and mythology which they drew from? Tolkien did not invent Elves and Goblins. He didn't do much new at all besides create an extraordinarily popular example of a fantasy novel. Credit is due for that but to merit him as THE major inspiration for all modern fantasy is pretty ignorant.
Its more having to recognize that if we're going to go through ALL the roots of fantasy literature, we'll spend all our time talking about it. The modern fantasy story is the invention of Tolkien based on the works that preceded him but Tolkien's work is the point where we see fantasy become what it currently is. Hence why I use the term 'modern.'
So what is it that you think Tolkien "invented"?
And yes the roots of fantasy literature are vast, which is one of the reasons naming Tolkien as the sole pillar of modern fantasy is ridiculous.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That's because Verhoeven is a complete Donkey Cave and wanted to make his anti war movie, not make a Starship Troopers movie.
You're talking about the guy that made Robocop, so you be careful son.
How you do [a remake] now, you’d have to go into all of the digital world, and I’m not sure that would improve the soul of the movie, you know? The point of Robocop, of course, it is a Christ story. It is about a guy who gets crucified in the first 50 minutes, and then is resurrected in the next 50 minutes, and then is like the supercop of the world, but is also a Jesus figure as he walks over water at the end. Walking over water was in the steel factory in Pittsburgh, and there was water there, and I put something just underneath the water so he could walk over the water and say that wonderful line, “I am not arresting you anymore.” Meaning, I’m going to shoot you. And that is of course the American Jesus.
If you're looking for fantasy equivalents to the the masters of SF
I'd agree that Tolkein has to rank highly and probably props up one half of the fantasy table on his own,
but you also have to concider Robert E Howard, the creator of Conan and Bran Mac Morn, probably the strongest influence on modern 'heroic' fantasy, and a major influence on D&D etc
Along with H P Lovecraft (mainly cosmic horror) and the now neglected Clark Ashton Smith (SF, Cosmic Horror, Fantasy and other weirdness) he was one of the Three Musketeers of Wierd tales and dabbled in pretty much every pulp writing genre.
While he was the weakest (in my opinion) writer among them he was the best story teller
Yeah, when I read about a while ago I even started a thread about it on Dakka. Realising that was the point Robocop went from being a really good 80s action movie, to being one of the great action movies.
Mannahnin wrote: Other than the concepts of power armor and drop pods (which Heinlein originated), SM bear almost no resemblance to anything in ST. Obviously those are very important elements, but in terms of story, theme, and philosophy, there's no similarity at all.
Bolded part is exactly what I was talking about, the concept of "Space Marines" as they are used in 40k and through out the rest originated in the form we know it now in Starship Troopers, especially with the concepts of power armor and "drop" troopers. The Federation of ST is a whole political spectrum away from the Imperium of man and the list really goes on. The 40k concept of the Space Marine as inspired by ST is what originated MORE in the same vein, building on the concept in the name of grimdark/gothicness. Genetically modified super soldiers, pauldrons you can pick up Dish network with, etc.
Okay, if we’re just talking about the archetype external technology and visual tropes, I get you. The concept of Marines in Space in power armor was certainly originated in Starship Troopers. What I was taking issue with was what seemed to be your claim, that Space Marines from 40k are “straight from Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers”, which I disagree with because in most regards, the Space Marines and the Mobile Infantry are nothing alike. One is an order of superhuman, genetically-modified & cybernetically enhanced fanatical warrior-monks in lifelong service to a dystopian fascist Imperium. The other much more closely corresponds to the modern model of citizen-soldiers in a democratic (arguably a bit utopian) society. Aside from being elite fighting forces, some of the equipment for one of which is clearly inspired by the other, the two types of soldier have almost nothing in common.
LordofHats wrote: The only pillar for modern fantasy imo is Tolkien. The man didn't only write the greatest piece of fantasy literature of the 20th century, he even proposed the value of the genre, articulated its attributes, and argued for it to be taken seriously by a literary community that saw it as childish and having no artistic value.
...the roots of fantasy literature are vast, which is one of the reasons naming Tolkien as the sole pillar of modern fantasy is ridiculous.
The word "modern" would seem to be there specifically to distinguish between modern writers and their classical, folkloric, and mythological inspirations. If we're talking about modern genres of fiction you can't reasonably complain because Beowulf is being excluded.
One of Australia's best known movie critics argues that Showgirls is an unappreciated satirical masterpiece. I can't see it personally, but perhaps that's because I keep getting distracted by all the boobs.
LordofHats wrote: The only pillar for modern fantasy imo is Tolkien. The man didn't only write the greatest piece of fantasy literature of the 20th century, he even proposed the value of the genre, articulated its attributes, and argued for it to be taken seriously by a literary community that saw it as childish and having no artistic value.
...the roots of fantasy literature are vast, which is one of the reasons naming Tolkien as the sole pillar of modern fantasy is ridiculous.
The word "modern" would seem to be there specifically to distinguish between modern writers and their classical, folkloric, and mythological inspirations. If we're talking about modern genres of fiction you can't reasonably complain because Beowulf is being excluded.
I'm not just talking about classical, folkloric, and mythological inspirations. Tolkien wasn't even original in his own era.
One of Australia's best known movie critics argues that Showgirls is an unappreciated satirical masterpiece. I can't see it personally, but perhaps that's because I keep getting distracted by all the boobs.
My personal philosophy has always been that when you realize your movie is gak, you throw in naked women. Obviously this held very true for Flight because a naked woman is the first thing you see, but Showgirls is all about naked women so the best I can figure is that they knew it would be crap before they even started making it.
LordofHats wrote: Nothing is original so such charges are invalid on their face unless we're talking plagerism.
So appreciate the context of the discussion. I'm responding to somebody who is saying Tolkien is the only pillar of modern fantasy. The only sense that is true is that people try to copy his success. The Lord of the Rings isn't the basis for modern fantasy any more than Star Wars is for scifi, they are just most popular examples of their respective genre.
LordofHats wrote: My personal philosophy has always been that when you realize your movie is gak, you throw in naked women. Obviously this held very true for Flight because a naked woman is the first thing you see, but Showgirls is all about naked women so the best I can figure is that they knew it would be crap before they even started making it.
Ah, but then you get to the strange world of Paul Verhoeven, who makes movies that revel in nudity and extreme violence and do it in a way that subverts the normal expectations of nudity and violence. So, for instance, Robocop is completely nuts in the ludicrous amount of destruction and harm he inflicts in stopping what are, in many cases, minor crimes. And in coming back from the dead to murder the villains (and walking on water along the way) it satirises the US very strange way the US fetishises gun violence and Jesus at the same time.
The almost non-sensical motivations of most of the parties in Total Recall are sort of explained by the idea that this might all be the dream of a man who's just gone nuts, but at the same time the whole thing still plays like a a pretty straight forward meat headed action movie. To show something as ludicrous and still a pretty good example of the genre is basically satire at its best, after all.
And then there's the subversion of the femme fatale in Basic Instinct, where to be honest I don't think it works that well but a lot of critics disagree.
The problem is when you get to Showgirls. Because when you're making something as trashy and exploitative as a T&A movie, there isn't that much to satirise. Instead you just end up with a really crappy T&A movie.
One of Australia's best known movie critics argues that Showgirls is an unappreciated satirical masterpiece. I can't see it personally, but perhaps that's because I keep getting distracted by all the boobs.
My personal philosophy has always been that when you realize your movie is gak, you throw in naked women. Obviously this held very true for Flight because a naked woman is the first thing you see, but Showgirls is all about naked women so the best I can figure is that they knew it would be crap before they even started making it.
I would say that Tolkien is pretty much the largets pillar of modern fantasy, at the very least he is the sole pillar of high fantasy. Elves are elves because of him, if you look at elves pre tolkien they're these gnomish figures who are godawful ugly and mean. Orcs are his invention, (though I'm not sure if D&D orcs have been cross inspired recently by GW Orks, because they've been getting progressively greener as time goes by.) and pretty much all of the races as portrayed in modern fantasy get nearly all of their traits from Tolkien instead of their folklore foundation.
Though if we're talking about modern american fiction I would say that the other pillar to tolkien is Gygax.
Glorioski wrote: So appreciate the context of the discussion. I'm responding to somebody who is saying Tolkien is the only pillar of modern fantasy. The only sense that is true is that people try to copy his success.
Take the pic above displaying a circle of arrows. Imagine each arrow is a 'cycle' of an idea. Tolkien would be the 'pillar' of the current arrow we are currently in, the current cycle being the 'modern' rendition of the fantasy genre which does have distinct motiffs and differences from previous renditions believe it or not. Most noteably that a literary historian will tell you the modern Novel didn't even exist until the works of Hemingway and his contemporaries. Tolkien was one of the first authors to engage fantasy literature into the form of the modern novel.
Though some might suggest the works of George R.R. Martin in Song of Ice and Fire are becoming the next pillar for a new trend in fantasy literature. Time shall tell.
The Lord of the Rings isn't the basis for modern fantasy any more than Star Wars is for scifi, they are just most popular examples of their respective genre.
I actually don't consider Star Wars scifi. And considering how heavily immitated both those things are anyway, arguing they haven't had resounding influences on their genre's is a little silly and narrow sighted.
The Lord of the Rings isn't the basis for modern fantasy any more than Star Wars is for scifi, they are just most popular examples of their respective genre.
I actually don't consider Star Wars scifi. And considering how heavily immitated both those things are anyway, arguing they haven't had resounding influences on their genre's is a little silly and narrow sighted.
So you've turned this round from you saying Tolkien is the only pillar of modern fantasy to me saying it hasn't had any influence? Like I said, it has had a major influence in the fact that people try to copy it's success. LOTR clones exist everywhere. But that's not the same thing as establishing the genre.
I tend to to think of Tolkien as a weird detour between Robert Howard and Michael Moorcock. The genre I'm thinking of is not really "fantasy" (a term that Tolkien's work has irretrievably muddled) but rather "swords and sorcery."
Manchu wrote: I tend to to think of Tolkien as a weird detour between Robert Howard and Michael Moorcock. The genre I'm thinking of is not really "fantasy" (a term that Tolkien's work has irretrievably muddled) but rather "swords and sorcery."
You do realize "swords and sorcery" is a sub-genre of fantasy right? That's like saying Punk Rock isn't a type of of Rock music.
So this thread which is a rehash of a billion different other threads has gone massively off-topic and is now circling round and round because people are claiming Tolkien copied mythology and tweaked it a little in the process creating the modern fantasy novel and inspiring the next generation of writers to base their work of his as opposed to the original inspiration?
Manchu wrote: I tend to to think of Tolkien as a weird detour between Robert Howard and Michael Moorcock. The genre I'm thinking of is not really "fantasy" (a term that Tolkien's work has irretrievably muddled) but rather "swords and sorcery."
You do realize "swords and sorcery" is a sub-genre of fantasy right? That's like saying Punk Rock isn't a type of of Rock music.
Punk *revived* from rock but whether or not it's a type of rock is a long and boring discussion that i'm not willing to have
shame on you, shame on you all! How can any self-respecting nerd have such a name-feast concerning fantasy and science fiction authors and NEVER mention the FATHER OF SCIENCE FICTION???
I will now provide that part, thus demonstrating my elite status amongst you lot.
What about H G Wells? Doesn't he get any love? The guy who covered the basic archetypes in SF from which most now stem; the alien invasion, time travel, missions into space.
Manchu wrote: I tend to to think of Tolkien as a weird detour between Robert Howard and Michael Moorcock. The genre I'm thinking of is not really "fantasy" (a term that Tolkien's work has irretrievably muddled) but rather "swords and sorcery."
You do realize "swords and sorcery" is a sub-genre of fantasy right? That's like saying Punk Rock isn't a type of of Rock music.
Punk *revived* from rock but whether or not it's a type of rock is a long and boring discussion that i'm not willing to have
Punk did not revive from Rock because Rock music predates Punk Rock, also you can't revive something that didn't exist before. Rock music originated between the 50's and early 60's where as Punk Rock is commonly cited to have started from the Ramones (1974-1996) although there
were many bands that had a similar aesthetic to the Punk sound before that time (The New York dolls, The Stooges, MC5, Velvet Underground, The Modern Lovers, Patti Smith, etc).
Manchu wrote: I tend to to think of Tolkien as a weird detour between Robert Howard and Michael Moorcock. The genre I'm thinking of is not really "fantasy" (a term that Tolkien's work has irretrievably muddled) but rather "swords and sorcery."
You do realize "swords and sorcery" is a sub-genre of fantasy right? That's like saying Punk Rock isn't a type of of Rock music.
I'm saying that "fantasy" as a genre label isn't very meaningful so we have to go more specific.
Manchu wrote: I tend to to think of Tolkien as a weird detour between Robert Howard and Michael Moorcock. The genre I'm thinking of is not really "fantasy" (a term that Tolkien's work has irretrievably muddled) but rather "swords and sorcery."
You do realize "swords and sorcery" is a sub-genre of fantasy right? That's like saying Punk Rock isn't a type of of Rock music.
I'm saying that "fantasy" as a genre label isn't very meaningful so we have to go more specific.
Oh OK that makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
Twilight is romance fiction with a horror flavoring.
Cornwell's Warlord trilogy (his Arthurian one) is historical fiction, with a little bit of fantasy seeping in at the edges. He's generally pretty careful to make the fantastic elements ones which could be explained by coincidence and/or an unreliable narrator.
"Low" vs. "high" fantasy definitions vary, but usually it includes some (if not all) of the following...
1. A plot which is generally local and personal, rather than epic and sweeping. Events concerning commoners, focusing on local personal conflicts and events, rather than kings of men and wars between civilizations are often considered low as opposed to high fantasy. The protagonists may be thieves attempting a score, soldiers in a fantasy army dealing with the grit and death at ground level, or an apprentice wizard who can't just magic his way out of a bad situation.
2. Protagonists who have venal rather than noble motivations, who are written to be flawed limited, rather than iconic and/or omnicompetent.
3.Characters written with an attempt at having plausible, recognizable human motivations rather than being vehicles to convey archetypes or metaphors.
4. Magic being rare, severely limited in application and/or having harsh drawbacks to use.
5. Descriptions and detail focusing on grit, dirt, blood and the nastier and unpleasant aspects of life in a pre-modern world. A low-fantasy story is more likely to mention infected wounds or characters needing to engage in eliminatory functions.
Mannahnin wrote: Twilight is romance fiction with a horror flavoring.
Cornwell's Warlord trilogy (his Arthurian one) is historical fiction, with a little bit of fantasy seeping in at the edges. He's generally pretty careful to make the fantastic elements ones which could be explained by coincidence and/or an unreliable narrator.
"Low" vs. "high" fantasy definitions vary, but usually it includes some (if not all) of the following...
1. A plot which is generally local and personal, rather than epic and sweeping. Events concerning commoners, focusing on local personal conflicts and events, rather than kings of men and wars between civilizations are often considered low as opposed to high fantasy. The protagonists may be thieves attempting a score, soldiers in a fantasy army dealing with the grit and death at ground level, or an apprentice wizard who can't just magic his way out of a bad situation.
2. Protagonists who have venal rather than noble motivations, who are written to be flawed limited, rather than iconic and/or omnicompetent.
3.Characters written with an attempt at having plausible, recognizable human motivations rather than being vehicles to convey archetypes or metaphors.
4. Magic being rare, severely limited in application and/or having harsh drawbacks to use.
5. Descriptions and detail focusing on grit, dirt, blood and the nastier and unpleasant aspects of life in a pre-modern world. A low-fantasy story is more likely to mention infected wounds or characters needing to engage in eliminatory functions.
That's true; low fantasy tends to include fewer nonhuman races and monsters.
Remember, "low" is really more a relative term to "high" than being an absolute category. Not all stories will confirm to all characteristics on the above list. For example, there's a series called "Orcs" written by Stan Nicholls, which focuses on a military unit of Orcish raiders, in service to an evil sorceress queen. Some elements, like nonhuman protagonists and them winding up questing after magical artifacts, are a bit high-fantasy. But the style of the stories (disclaimer: I only read part of the first book, as it really wasn't to my taste) was more low fantasy, as it was going for a gritty feel, the protagonists had a mix of realistic motivations and flaws, there was double-crossing and uncertain alliances, characters were using narcotics, etc.
Most Conan stories and similar sword & sorcery tales are more toward the "low" end of the spectrum.
I'd say that Jack Vance's Cugel the Clever stories, in his Dying Earth setting, are low fantasy by virtue of venal and roguish characters, of low personal power, even though there is powerful magic and fantastic creatures in the world. Stories focusing on powerful wizards like Rhialto, OTOH, are more mixed, or high fantasy.
Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame books are pretty classic. They have some high fantasy elements like dragons and powerful magic, but OTOH the protagonists are real people (several of them college students transported into the bodies of their D&D characters, basically, in the first book), who quickly realize all the bad parts of being in a medieval fantasy world. Like slavery, rape, and friends dying horrible deaths.
I believe I've heard Glen Cook's Black Company books frequently described as being low fantasy.
Low fantasy, to me, seems to be many "children's" fantasy novels. Would I correct in saying that a book/series like Harry Potter or Raven's Gate is low fantasy?
I wouldn't classify it that way. Harry Potter is contemporary fantasy. A story with fantasy elements set in the real world (some low fantasy does too but low fantasy rarely takes place in the 'present').
I would classify Harry Potter as High Fantasy, lots of non human races, a few characters, wizards bloody everywhere. Magic is used for pretty much everything and can be occasionally powerful.
Ratbarf wrote: I would classify Harry Potter as High Fantasy, lots of non human races, a few characters, wizards bloody everywhere. Magic is used for pretty much everything and can be occasionally powerful.
But it's set in the real world making it contemporary fantasy, High fantasy tends to make magic widely available whereas in harry potter it's a tiny fraction of the population.
Bolded part is exactly what I was talking about, the concept of "Space Marines" as they are used in 
shame on you, shame on you all! How can any self-respecting nerd have such a name-feast concerning fantasy and science fiction authors and NEVER mention the FATHER OF SCIENCE FICTION???
