Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I certainly think it was in the beginning, and it continues to be in its best iterations. Just my opinion, YMMV.

But going back to the original game: Space orcs, dwarves, hobbits, elves. A tyrant emperor who is also a super-being that everybody sees as a tyrant, except that he's enslaving everybody for the good of humanity, and having no fun in the process.

And, of course, navigators.

But later versions also add more Dune stuff in, such as the Adepta Sororitas. Not quite the schemers that the Bene Gesserit are, but just as fanatical.

My thoughts, anyway.

40K is a mix of various different things. I’m not sure i’d compare it too much to LOTR, other than the fact that 40K is/was an offshoot of Warhammer Fantasy.

But yeah, 40K is a mixture of many different fantastical settings. It’s hard to find a setting that hasn’t been at least a little bit appropriated by 40K.

40K was basically fantasy in space, plus other stuff. Warhammer Fantasy was based massively on the tropes set out in LOTR. The “in space” bit initially borrowed massively from dune and other stuff like 2000AD. So as a general over view dune/LOTR isn’t a bad summary of the core of 40K. But it’s evolved over the last 35 years and gone in its own direction, but back in the old days it was unapologetic about its influences. It never tried to be anything else but a mash up of its creators fave inspirations and satire.

Considering Dune blows ass lord I hope not.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Considering Dune blows ass lord I hope not.

Well, first I ever heard of that.

But not really. Tolkien (though I'm not sure he would have phrased it that way ) would certainly have agreed with your general sentiment, though possibly not for the same reason.

J.R.R. was very strongly Christian and Catholic, and his writings reflected it. Elbereth is Mary, Gandalf is Christ, etc. At least, those are very common interpretations of what he wrote.

Both Herbert and Tolkien featured god (F.H.) or God (J.R.R.T.) very strongly in their works, but meant very different things by that term. To Tolkien, God (Eru, Illuvatar) was very much the transcendent father who precedes and is the necessary cause of, all existence. To Frank, the god of the Duniverse is a construct made possible by human evolution. Paul Atreides, and even more strongly, his son Leto, are gods because the Bene Gesserit engineered them to be so, though there is a much stronger argument that they were just links in a chain stretching backwards and forwards forever. They only thought Paul was their experiment. In fact, they were a part of the experiment themselves.

Now, as to Frank's later writings, I'd agree with you. After about Dune Messiah, I think Frank decided, "Man! there's some real bread to be gotten outa this crap!" Then we get Heretics of Dune, Dune Chapterhouse, Certified Public Accountants of Dune, Granola Bars of Dune, How Dune Reiki Can Imptove Your Sex Life, etc. Then there were his son's writings, heavily (I believe) ghost-written by Brian Anderson, though I think some of those actually improved somewhat on the later things Frank wrote.

But to hear that it just utterly ****s **s is kind of odd, at least to me. Love it or hate it, it is certainly one of the seminal modern works of science fiction, and I really enjoyed the series, though, yes, it eventually dies a slow and torturous death.

I'd love to hear why you think that, though.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:


But to hear that it just utterly ****s **s is kind of odd, at least to me. Love it or hate it, it is certainly one of the seminal modern works of science fiction,

I'd argue this is bluntly more of an indictment of science fiction and fantasy than an endorsement of Dune. That Dune stands out in a sea of mediocrity means nothing to someone who tends to prefer more literary writing these days.

And just so we're clear, I literally finished the first Dune novel like three or four days ago (am now reading Blood Meridian and it is much better).

One thing I will give Dune is that the setting, for lack of better word, is very "cool". The actual world-building is fairly "tell don't show" and "take our word for it" though. Literally the first third of so of the book is just Frank talking at me through his characters about the world (except when he's having characters painstakingly detail their plots). Indeed, we are "told" many things that don't especially hold up under scrutity. We are "told" Thufir Hawat is a genius Mentat and as such is quite the boon to the Harkonnens when he is forced into their employ, but he's a bumbling doofus and doesn't even seem to be aware of the Voice the way Halleck is, despite being the spymaster. We are "told" Paul has an insight beyond his years, which is shown by... being aware that when spice production fails people who have stockpiled it will reap the profits. Whoa what a concept. Or when he asks what the size of the territory of a sandworm is. Basic questions any average teenager with a good education might ask. We are "told" Suk doctors are conditioned to be completely impossible to subvert, but Baron Harkonnen does this by capturing Yueh's wife as leverage. Which is about the most basic way to get someone to do what you want in feudal power politics.

I could forgive all of that if the characters were good but no, almost everyone is either a hypercompetent bore or a cartoon character, and it's fairly easy to tell who is who by if they are on Paul/the Fremen's side or against him. Here is what every antagonist boils down to:

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/132260i08CE54FE3CE3A056/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999

All of them. Every single one.

Jamis: Surely I will be able to defeat this child in a Fremen duel hehe- OH NO HE'S EASILY KILLED ME!

Baron Harkonnen: Ahahahah I have laid House Atreides low now Arrakis is mine forever and the stupid Fremen barbarians can do nothing about i- OH NO THE FREMEN ARE MAKING RULING ARRAKIS IMPOSSIBLE AND NOW I'M BEING STABBED TO DEATH BY A FOUR YEAR OLD GIRL!

The Sardaukar: We are the greatest soldiers in the universe none may stand before u- OH NO A BUNCH OF MALNOURISHED DESERT NOMADS ARE EASILY KILLING US IN MARTIAL COMBAT!

The Emperor: No one dares attack here with my legions of Sardauka- OH NO PAUL AND HIS FREMEN HAVE EASILY DEFEATED MY ARMY AND NOW HE'S THE NEW EMPEROR!

The Guild: Heheheh we squeeze these stupid Fremen out of all they have for the spice they mine that fuels our navigator powers it's good to be ki- OH NO DESPITE OUR LIMITLESS WEALTH AND RESOURCES WE ALLOWED A BUNCH OF DESERT BARBARIANS FREE REIGN TO HOLD THE SPICE AND NOW THEY'RE THREATENING TO DESTROY IT IF WE DON'T CAPITULATE!

That's it. Every antagonist to Paul and the Fremen is a stupid caricature of a person with inflated egos but no real competence. Why should I care about all the politicking when its done by a bunch of sniveling supervillains? What catharsis can there be from seeing the Harkonnens toppled when they're cartoonish supervillains with the depth of a silver age Superman antagonist? Also real classy Herbert, making the more or less main antagonist a morbidly obese and disgusting homosexual pedophile. Did I mention Frank disowned his son for being gay?

The only character I'd argue fully breaks this mold is Yueh, who is a traitor to the Atreides and yet is allowed to be a more multi-faceted and competent character and only failed at killing the baron due to bad luck.

Then there's Paul. A childish teenage boy's power fantasy who is superhumanly good at everything but is oh so tragic because of his fate which is outside of his control. Just like me man! I'm also perfect at everything I do but am constantly hampered by everyone else man, wow so relatable. No, but Paul is a boring and frankly rather insufferable main character at the worst of times who is supposed to be this extremely intelligent and charismatic leader but unfortunately Herbert's ability to actually write a character who acts and talks like such a character is sorely lacking. And is frankly undercut by all of the eye-rolling space magic advantages Paul has over everyone else. It reminds me when anime fans rolled their eyes when Ichigo turned out to have Shinigami powers, Hollow powers, AND Quincy powers on top of them? Being able to combine the powers of all three to Sue his way out of any confrontation? Well meet Paul, who on top of being with maybe one possible exception (Count Fenring, who both him and Paul seem confident could easily beat Paul mano el mano but chooses not to so it's just an informed ability) the single best fighter to show up in the book also is a Bene Gesserit trainee who surpasses any Reverend Mother shown (including his own mother), is ALSO a Mentat, a sort of human computer and seems to be by far the best one in the book, but ALSO has the same sort of prescience and pseudo-omniscient awareness of the world around him that the Guild's Navigators have but to an even greater degree.

But you know what? I could forgive all of that if Herbert was a good prose stylist. But he's not. His prose is at best merely adequate and at times is actively grating, and he does extremely basic writing mistakes like changing perspective mid-paragraph and I think occasionally even mid-sentence. He's just not a good writer. And on at least a few occasions plot points are brought up and then never referenced again, like when Paul realizes that to stop the jihad he must work against his mother and that she is is enemy. And this as said is never referenced again.

And then it just ends, and rather unsatisfyingly at that. Maybe Dune Messiah fixes a lot of my issues. Maybe if I read it (and I probably will, it being a fairly short read and all) it will retroactively fix a lot of my issues about this book. But for now I don't think it's really worth reading for a reader who is familiar with more philosophy-inclined genre fiction novels that have more interesting things to say with less words like A Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsey.

This is more or less my Goodreads review of the book, slightly edited for the forum. But no I didn't especially like it. I also disliked the Hobbit for the record. I like Lord of the Rings when I was younger but need to read it again. I read the Silmarillion as an adult and liked it, ditto The Children of Hurin.

But Dune unfortunately confirmed my fears that "seminal work of science fiction (or fantasy)" doesn't actually mean all that much to me in a literary sense. And yes, maybe I judge Dune too harshly considering it is such a seminal work, but your average Black Library schlock is just bolter porn and I treat it as such. Dune unfortunately isn't even particularly fun and perhaps that is it's main flaw. I was struck by even the first chapter of Blood Meridian after I finished Dune by how much less dry it is and how much funnier, despite also being a serious business novel with things to say about stuff. Dune is boring. It has no charm to it, except arguably the Harkonnens.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
J.R.R. was very strongly Christian and Catholic, and his writings reflected it. Elbereth is Mary, Gandalf is Christ, etc. At least, those are very common interpretations of what he wrote.

hell, no
christian philosophy is build into the world simply because he grew up within it and the theme of humans must overcome evil by their own without the help of the gods and those who seek power are corrupted by it is central to both (and this is were the similarities end), but he did not wrote any character to be a certain christian one or the be based on one (unlike Lewis hwho made it very clear and wanted to make sure that really everyone understands that Aslan is Jesus)

Gandalf being Jesus because he was resurrected is oversimplified and plain wrong for the simple fact that Gandalf was never a "living" being that is able to die in the first place
going by the christian theme, Gandalf was an Angel, send to Earth with limited powers to inspire people, and after his fight with the Balrog (which would be a Fallen Angel), instead of going back to heaven he was given less limited powers to compensate for Saruman turning away

for LotR you find more WW1 based similarities and Tolkins own live than catholic ones (Beren und Lúthien and basically he and his wife)

40K is both those things, but also inspired by real life in Britain during the horrific time of post imperial decline, post industrial decline and the rise of Thatcherism (greed is good, the poor deserve to be poorer etc).

Hive Cities have an origin in failed, post-war housing projects such as Tower Blocks. Built as ‘villages in the sky’ they soon became abject failures. Built quickly and cheaply they magnified social problems, becoming hotbeds of crime both petty and serious.

The fashions of Confrontation come from 80’s fashions, sci-fi, anime etc.

The feel of The Imperium also draws on the collapse of the Roman Empire. In fact that general motif is repeated throughout its made up galactic history. The post-industrial post-imperial decline in the U.K. resulted in once thriving industrial communities being left to literally rot away. Not just the cranes, warehouses and streets, but the populace itself left with nothing.

It’s a hodge-podge of influences, both pop culture and historical. It’s as much shared with the origins of 2000AD as lifted/borrowed. Because the minds behind both were both from post-industrial places watching and consuming the same media.

40k, from a purely lore standpoint, has widely acknowledged and easy to spot influences, Dune being very much one of them. LOTR is a huge influence, ableit more idirectly and also via the miniatures.

Early on, there simply weren't a lot of 40k minis, so they converted stuff out of WFB minis. Hence space orks, space dwarves, and yes, space halflings.

Very little of the themes or setting for LOTR is in 40k, yet 40 years later we have long lived, magical elves, industrious and earthy dwarfs, cockney speaking orks, and eagle eyed halflings.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

But later versions also add more Dune stuff in, such as the Adepta Sororitas. Not quite the schemers that the Bene Gesserit are, but just as fanatical.

Not so much the Bene Gesserit, but much more the Fish Speakers.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Considering Dune blows ass lord I hope not.

Well that makes your opinion objectively wrong.

 kodos wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
J.R.R. was very strongly Christian and Catholic, and his writings reflected it. Elbereth is Mary, Gandalf is Christ, etc. At least, those are very common interpretations of what he wrote.

hell, no
christian philosophy is build into the world simply because he grew up within it and the theme of humans must overcome evil by their own without the help of the gods and those who seek power are corrupted by it is central to both (and this is were the similarities end), but he did not wrote any character to be a certain christian one or the be based on one (unlike Lewis hwho made it very clear and wanted to make sure that really everyone understands that Aslan is Jesus)

Gandalf being Jesus because he was resurrected is oversimplified and plain wrong for the simple fact that Gandalf was never a "living" being that is able to die in the first place
going by the christian theme, Gandalf was an Angel, send to Earth with limited powers to inspire people, and after his fight with the Balrog (which would be a Fallen Angel), instead of going back to heaven he was given less limited powers to compensate for Saruman turning away

for LotR you find more WW1 based similarities and Tolkins own live than catholic ones (Beren und Lúthien and basically he and his wife)

Tolkien himself (you can look up the interview on youtube) agreed Galadriel could very well resemble "Our Lady". That said he also stated that it was not his intent, for allegory. And the Christ figure is also found if one looks for it, as represented in Frodo, and Aragorn as well. Tolkien's influences, particularly his Christian ethics permeate his Heathenesque creation. Théoden giving Gríma a second chance? Frodo giving Gollum a second chance? Give me a break in the real world their heads would have been gone. These are but a few examples.

So... that said and to give you a break for your staunchly definitive Anti-Christian position, he continued to say (paraphrasing) one does what one knows I suppose. This of course applies to his Catholicism as applies to all of his inspirations which come from being a philologist and a poet, including more cultural ticks than merely Norse, and Anglo-Saxon.

Back to 40K... being that it started out as a game drawn up by a couple of dudes and then more and more over time, whatever they were knowledgeable in and interested in they capitalized on. I like to say what hasn't influenced 40k to some degree?

I think that's part of what makes it attractive. That not only is the verse broadly inspired beyond some obviously adapted, though generalist parodies on religion such as the Roman Catholic Church, Christian evangelism, and the corruption that we call state government, (which I think most can relate to), but that it inspires us to bring ourselves and ideas into it as it continues to evolve.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well that makes your opinion objectively wrong.

Consider branching out of science fiction and fantasy literature to see how bad Dune really is.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
That's it. Every antagonist to Paul and the Fremen is a stupid caricature of a person with inflated egos but no real competence.

I mean... *gestures vaguely at the entire world*

 Daia T'Nara wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
That's it. Every antagonist to Paul and the Fremen is a stupid caricature of a person with inflated egos but no real competence.

I mean... *gestures vaguely at the entire world*

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

But later versions also add more Dune stuff in, such as the Adepta Sororitas. Not quite the schemers that the Bene Gesserit are, but just as fanatical.

Not so much the Bene Gesserit, but much more the Fish Speakers.

Good point about the Fish Speakers! I never even considered that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well that makes your opinion objectively wrong.

Consider branching out of science fiction and fantasy literature to see how bad Dune really is.

 Daia T'Nara wrote:

I mean... *gestures vaguely at the entire world*

Sorry, but I'm not enough of an overly cynical midwit to think this is accurate. The idea that everyone but you is an incompetent cartoon character with the emotional depth of a puddle holds a sort of teenage appeal and as such I can see why Paul's story resonates with a lot of people but that doesn't make it true. Do you really find an overpowered and frankly very boring protagonist beating up on buffoonish cartoon characters without any tension compelling?

@Void Dragon:

Certainly both Baron Harkonnen and the Emperor could have been worthier allies- I'd say that's totally fair.

But I think some of the other commentary is a bit on the unfair side. Arbitrarily stating that rules such as maintaining perspective must always be followed is counter to five hundred years of literary criticism that praises soneteers more for their poignant sponaic substitution than for their slavish, consistent obedience to Iambic pentameter- so I'd be inclined to examine those perspective shifts one at a time to see if some are intentional- particularly in a series that deals with themes of duplicity, prescience and the merging of timelines.

Paul has his childish moments- apropriate, as he is a child when the story begins. But he does grow and learn from each of his experiences, and the bitter broken man that he becomes in Messiah is a far cry from the snivelling teenager we saw when the series began.

And Paul is constantly working against Jessica- if I remember correctly, she doesn't want him to convert the water of life, she doesn't like Chani, she doesn't like him "Going Fremen" and I think they disagree on how to handle Alia's possession too... And he works against her on ALL of these attempts at control.

Either way though, you're entitled to your opinion, and I won't bother saying too much more on that front.

But what I will say is that if you're interested in more Literary Science Fiction, look into Dan Simmons. I've never read a greater marriage between science fiction and literature- his Hyperion Cantos series is patterned after Canterbury Tales, it stars a genetic clone of John Keats who is host to an AI seeking to understand humanity and I think one could make a strong argument that the antagonist is a reference to Beowulf's Grendel.

Stepping away from Sci-fi, rather than Tolkien, I'd recommend Guy Gavriel Kay for your fantasy fix. I'd recommend starting with the Fionivar Tapestry- it does use the trope of contemporary characters pulled into a fantasy realm (like Narnia), which is not my favourite... But Fionivar is the first of all worlds, and Kay references it in almost every other book he's ever written, and I would say it underscores all of his writing.

Incidently, Kay helped compile the Silmarillion.

I'd also caution against dismissing Science Fiction as a genre. Often, its power is predictive or allegorical rather than the beauty of its prose. Consider as well the connections between sci-fi and dystopia. Canticle for Leibowitz, We, Brave New World... That's contemporary commentary through a metaphorical future.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Daia T'Nara wrote:

I mean... *gestures vaguely at the entire world*

Sorry, but I'm not enough of an overly cynical midwit to think this is accurate. The idea that everyone but you is an incompetent cartoon character with the emotional depth of a puddle holds a sort of teenage appeal and as such I can see why Paul's story resonates with a lot of people but that doesn't make it true. Do you really find an overpowered and frankly very boring protagonist beating up on buffoonish cartoon characters without any tension compelling?

No, but thanks for the veiled barb. Although the source of the confusion is a little bit on me, in quoting a line referencing Paul - I was speaking to the depiction of the antagonists in isolation. But for the record - and I won't say I can really speak for Dune fandom in any sense, since while I re-read the original every few years I got bored partway through whatever the second one is (Heretics?) and gave up, so this is just me - no I don't find Paul compelling, but I don't need to, because my read isn't that Paul's supposed to resonate with me (if anyone does, it's Irulan). A lot of why I enjoy Dune is the mechanics of its storytelling and its use of language, but so far as characters go I enjoy the slowly unfolding irony that everyone (Paul included) is acting based on assumptions that are at best skewed, more often just flat-out wrong (the examples you cited earlier, Suk doctors being 'unbreakable' and so on - all that), and nobody gets what they want because nobody's seeing clearly (Irulan included, just because I identify doesn't mean I think she's right). For Paul, I suppose so far as he goes I pity him - given his upbringing he seems like not the most unreasonable sort, and it's not his fault he got manoeuvred into being this superhero-like anomaly who dominates the 'story' but just keeps making everything worse because, like the people who brought about his creation, it's all based on the mistaken belief that it's a story. I suppose I'll admit a degree of satisfaction that he manages to overcome himself enough to salvage some kind of resolution out of the mess he caused (not that I really blame him, I'd argue dubious consent at best for his role in things) - although I gather in the rest of the books (and the second Sci-Fi miniseries certainly seemed to lean this way) the end of the first book's not so much a win as just managing to postpone the inevitable for a bit.

But yeah, I can relate to a world largely dominated by egotistical buffoons propped up by varying degrees of good PR and vested interests.

The second Dune book is Dune Messiah.
Heretics is the 5th one (After Children of, God emperor of).

 Daia T'Nara wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Daia T'Nara wrote:

I mean... *gestures vaguely at the entire world*

Sorry, but I'm not enough of an overly cynical midwit to think this is accurate. The idea that everyone but you is an incompetent cartoon character with the emotional depth of a puddle holds a sort of teenage appeal and as such I can see why Paul's story resonates with a lot of people but that doesn't make it true. Do you really find an overpowered and frankly very boring protagonist beating up on buffoonish cartoon characters without any tension compelling?

No, but thanks for the veiled barb. Although the source of the confusion is a little bit on me, in quoting a line referencing Paul - I was speaking to the depiction of the antagonists in isolation. But for the record - and I won't say I can really speak for Dune fandom in any sense, since while I re-read the original every few years I got bored partway through whatever the second one is (Heretics?) and gave up, so this is just me - no I don't find Paul compelling, but I don't need to, because my read isn't that Paul's supposed to resonate with me (if anyone does, it's Irulan). A lot of why I enjoy Dune is the mechanics of its storytelling and its use of language, but so far as characters go I enjoy the slowly unfolding irony that everyone (Paul included) is acting based on assumptions that are at best skewed, more often just flat-out wrong (the examples you cited earlier, Suk doctors being 'unbreakable' and so on - all that), and nobody gets what they want because nobody's seeing clearly (Irulan included, just because I identify doesn't mean I think she's right). For Paul, I suppose so far as he goes I pity him - given his upbringing he seems like not the most unreasonable sort, and it's not his fault he got manoeuvred into being this superhero-like anomaly who dominates the 'story' but just keeps making everything worse because, like the people who brought about his creation, it's all based on the mistaken belief that it's a story. I suppose I'll admit a degree of satisfaction that he manages to overcome himself enough to salvage some kind of resolution out of the mess he caused (not that I really blame him, I'd argue dubious consent at best for his role in things) - although I gather in the rest of the books (and the second Sci-Fi miniseries certainly seemed to lean this way) the end of the first book's not so much a win as just managing to postpone the inevitable for a bit.

But yeah, I can relate to a world largely dominated by egotistical buffoons propped up by varying degrees of good PR and vested interests.

SPOILER FOLLOWS:










































Paul ultimately goes back into the desert and becomes the Preacher at Arakeen. He sees himself as having failed and tried to fix everything he thinks he's broken.

In the end, his son Leto (yes, named after the grandfather) goes on to become a far greater tyrant than Paul, lives for thousands of years, and has an even worse end.

OK, deep breath:

You have mutant Navigators from Dune, as well as the general political structure (substitute the various branches of the Adeptus Terra for the Houses of Dune). While Dune has a God-Emperor that has transcended humanity, the implementation of the concept is very different

Foundation is also a huge influence. the entire concept of hiding and sequestering technological knowledge by restricting it to a priestly class where only the higher levels have true understanding while you teach the rote maintenance to the masses to keep their machines working? that's entirely Foundation, it's explicitly used as a control mechanism by the Foundation to keep the empires that border them reliant on the Foundation to keep their ships running

The Imperium itself can also be seen as based on Foundation's, except the Galactic Empire is explicitly not centered on Earth, this becomes a major plot point later on. Otherwise? pretty analogous, even down to the fact it's declining and there being a plan in place to prevent it doing so

A lot of the street level 40k setting can be traced back to 2000AD and GW's previous license to produce Judge Dredd minis, the Arbites are obvious but they share the DNA of being a broken pastiche of thatcherite britain (2000AD was founded in 1977, Thatcher became PM in 1979, Rogue Trader was released in 87, and has a lot of 2000AD's style along with the portrayal of oppression of the average citizen. Even things like the mutations evoke that distinctive Dredd style, and it's no coincidence that some 2000AD artists have also worked on 40k (Clint Langley comes to mind)

The Tolkien comparisons are pretty lazy to be honest. 40k isn't based on Tolkein, 40K is based on WHFB, which is based on D&D, D&D is based on Tolkein, and Tolkein took a bunch of concepts from various mythologies, including norse (specifically Beowulf) when creating Middle-earth.
So that's where we get Orks and Ratlings (literally referred to as halflings in Rogue Trader), Ogryns and Space Elves as a concept from, but the implementation is different. Tolkein orcs certainly weren't green or comic relief, and everyone's well aware that Orks are based on football hooligans.

And then, of course, there's Michael Moorcock's Runestaff/Elric series. That's where you get your immortal Emperor on life support, the concept of Chaos (including the Chaos Star, as well as a lot of the actual practical implementation of Chaos like corruption and possession by Chaos), a bunch of fantasy-races-in-space stuff (the Eldar are more like the Eldren than they are Tolkein's Elves)

We could spend forever delving into the individual influences of every race in 40K but those are the broad strokes of the setting as a whole

Charax wrote:
OK, deep breath:

The Tolkien comparisons are pretty lazy to be honest. 40k isn't based on Tolkein, 40K is based on WHFB, which is based on D&D, D&D is based on Tolkein,
and Tolkein took a bunch of concepts from various mythologies, including norse (specifically Beowulf) when creating Middle-earth.

Okay. NOT TRYING TO GIVE YOU A HARD TIME, but, in fairness, your accusation of lameness is pretty lame. That 40k has its roots in Tolkien is so obvious its like being hit in the face with a tire iron. GW did not come up with halflings/ratlings on their own.

Keep it real mah bro.

No, but they also didn't take them directly from Tolkein. By neglecting to take into account the intermediary steps you miss all of the other influences they picked up along the way.

I rate 40K as being an amalgation of both pop culture, thatcher era zeitgeist of UK and the entire "UK scifi" scene which has roots stretching decades before Rogue Trader ever hit the printers.. 2000AD as much as Dune, Foundation and whatnot. You cannot really point to any one specific thing

Pretty much what tauist said.

40K is a hodge-podge-melting-pot of influences and pop culture. Bits here, smidge from there, some original stuff, some very obvious influences.

And in being so, it’s genuinely become its own thing.

In a sense, it kind of is modern Tolkein. I say that knowing Middle Earth draws heavily on European folklore etc, filtered and refined into a distinct mythos unto itself. A unique whole made from non-unique constituent parts.

And it is very, very British. Not just Thatcherism, but the decay and rebirth of that era. Some areas did well and grew in wealth. Others saw industry stripped away, nothing to replace it, and former industrial sites left to rot.

Charax wrote:No, but they also didn't take them directly from Tolkein. By neglecting to take into account the intermediary steps you miss all of the other influences they picked up along the way.

For example, the thieving, corrupt, perpetually randy mafia-like halflings of the Moot and ratlings of the Imperium are much closer to The Harvard Lampoon' parody Bored of the Rings (1969) than to Tolkien proper. An influence that could easily have happened, as that book was hugely popular and managed to be in continuous print for over 40 years.

Charax wrote:
A lot of the street level 40k setting can be traced back to 2000AD and GW's previous license to produce Judge Dredd minis, the Arbites are obvious but they share the DNA of being a broken pastiche of thatcherite britain (2000AD was founded in 1977, Thatcher became PM in 1979, Rogue Trader was released in 87, and has a lot of 2000AD's style along with the portrayal of oppression of the average citizen. Even things like the mutations evoke that distinctive Dredd style, and it's no coincidence that some 2000AD artists have also worked on 40k (Clint Langley comes to mind)

Not only artist, but more importantly authors. A lot of the big names at Black Library that arguably created medium and 'modern' (e.g. post-2000s) Warhammer started out storyboarding for 2000 A.D.: Most notably Dan Abnett, but also names like Gordon Rennie, Simon Spurrier or Kev Walker. If you ever can get hold of the 'Warhammer Monthly' comics, the influence of 2000 A.D. is undeniable (to the point that you could say they stole the concept completely): from the self-consciously satirical in-character editorials to the practice of having 3-5 stories in 4-6 parts running at all times, to the general stylistic choices.

[quote For example, the thieving, corrupt, perpetually randy mafia-like halflings of the Moot and ratlings of the Imperium are much closer to The Harvard Lampoon' parody Bored of the Rings (1969) than to Tolkien proper.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

For example, the thieving, corrupt, perpetually randy mafia-like halflings of the Moot and ratlings of the Imperium are much closer to The Harvard Lampoon' parody Bored of the Rings (1969) than to Tolkien proper.

Dude. The very fact that its CALLED "BORED OF THE RINGS"...

[Deep breath]

Okay.

Not doin' this, not doin' this...

Have a great day, and I mean that in all sincerity. I'm off to take my blood pressure medication

Obviously it's a parody of Tolkien; other than that, i don't get what you're going at, and don't appreciate the theatralics.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing any need for hostility here either. Saying something is inspired by something inspired by Tolkein doesn't diminish Tolkein's contribution, it just adds that other things that were also inspired by him contributed their own elements as well.

I'm as up for an internet scrap as the next guy, but we're all capable of adding our two cents without getting heated (For example, I wouldn't necessarily count the authors Tsagualsa mentioned because they didn't shape 40k's initial vision, they came in afterwards - but I'm not going to rip his head off about it).

Charax wrote:
Yeah, I'm not really seeing any need for hostility here either. Saying something is inspired by something inspired by Tolkein doesn't diminish Tolkein's contribution, it just adds that other things that were also inspired by him contributed their own elements as well.

I'm as up for an internet scrap as the next guy, but we're all capable of adding our two cents without getting heated (For example, I wouldn't necessarily count the authors Tsagualsa mentioned because they didn't shape 40k's initial vision, they came in afterwards - but I'm not going to rip his head off about it).

Yeah, i specified that the mentioned authors came in at the second or third phase of Warhammer (which i described as 'modern' Warhammer) because it's pretty apparent that they did not shape the initial versions of the setting and lore. There's a pretty stark divide between that early phase and the later, more professionalised incarnations, which also coincides with happenings at GW/Citadel, the renaming of their magazine, many of the initial creators parting ways, and a lot of stuff that happened with the RPG side of things. However, that's so extremely convoluted and way too much stuff to put in a simple forum post, so if anyone wanted to learn about that i'd rather refer them to the book written about that era (Dice Men) or to the handful of excellent blogs like e.g. Lost Warhammer or Awesome Lies that are dedicated to making light of that era, and some of the projects that happened (or were cancelled in various stages of completion).

Uh.... The Eldar anyone?