Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xill-Lord Psionic Might 05-16-05, 02:33 PM	Being an English/history major I was pondering the other day about the fantasy influences that culminated and breathed life into fantasy role-playing in general. The most often cited is Tolkien, progenitor of fantasist, and rightly so. In fact I first fell in love with the fantasy genre, like so many others, at age eight with The Hobbit. Then of course is Norse/ Celtic mythology and Arthurian fiction which inspired Tolkien and fantasy writers as a whole. Then depending on the campaign setting and flavor of the game many works can be sited as have a strong influence, such as Love crafts and Stokers works of horror to Arabian knights, to the works of Homer. However, through read these boards and speaking with roleplayers and fantasy aficionados, I have discovered some thing I consider an egregious oversight. Many people, IMO, over look CS Lewis and his Chronicles of Narnia in speaking about the origins of the fantasy gene and more specifically the D&D game. CS Lewis works are incredibly, if not equally important to the development of the genre as Tolkien’s . In fact Tolkien and CS Lewis were good friends, fellow professors, and even reviewed each other’s works. How is it then that Tolkien gets all the credit? I saying this I in no way mean to belittle LoTR, The Hobbit, Slimarrion*, or any other of Tolkiens works, in fact I am a Tolkien fanatic and read his works over at least once a year. On the other hand I am attempting to give another great fantasy writer some credit. Both Tolkien and Lewis drew off the same Celtic and Norse myths and folklore. Although it can be argued that CC Lewis’ works are geared for a younger audience than Tolkiens, don’t most of us fall in love with fantasy in your youth? If read the many players of the D&D game would find things strikingly common with the D&D game, (not saying none of you had of course, in no way is this opinion meant to belittle any ones intelligence), in D&D terms The Chronicles of Narnia could be considered the first High Magic, plane spanning (at least three planes) campaign setting. While these may be the ravings of a mad lunatic, Id still like your feed back even if it’s drastically opposed to my own. Thanx :D
Thorak 05-16-05, 02:46 PM	IMHO, people overlook Lewis because his books are seen primarily as children's lit. It's like The Hobbit; without LotR, it wouldn't attract a great deal of notice, because it's too "kiddie". There's this mistaken impression that children's lit is somehow unable to deal with 'real' issues, or incapable of good imagery and metaphor. Which is bunk, of course. But you try explaining to someone why their kids' books are better literature than the Clive Cussler books they enjoy. Not that I'm dissing Cussler, but he hasn't stood the test of time and critical perusal the same way authors like Carroll or Lewis have.
q'afuu 05-16-05, 02:53 PM	How is it then that Tolkien gets all the credit? I see two reasons: 1) Lewis wrote for children, Tolkien for adults. That's a thin and often-crossed line, admittedly (especially nowadays), but I still think it's an important distinction. 2) Lewis' work has not inspired the creators of D&D like Tolkien's has, or at least not so obviously. Many elements of D&D are lifted straight from the LotR (to the point that it caused legal problems), while there are no such recognizable elements from the CoN to be found. (Tolkien doesn't get all the credit, btw - Leiber, Lovecraft, Vance (even though many don't really appreciate the Vancian magic system being used, including myself ;) ), Lord Dunsany, Moorcock and many others have had a profound and more or less recognizable effect on D&D)
Xill-Lord Psionic Might 05-16-05, 03:23 PM	IMHO, people overlook Lewis because his books are seen primarily as children's lit. It's like The Hobbit; without LotR, it wouldn't attract a great deal of notice, because it's too "kiddie". There's this mistaken impression that children's lit is somehow unable to deal with 'real' issues, or incapable of good imagery and metaphor. Which is bunk, of course. But you try explaining to someone why their kids' books are better literature than the Clive Cussler books they enjoy. Not that I'm dissing Cussler, but he hasn't stood the test of time and critical perusal the same way authors like Carroll or Lewis have. I certainly agree without that children’s literature dose not get the credit it most often disserves in the fantasy genre, and books such as peter pan, Grimm’s fairy tales, and Alice and wonderland have all profoundly contributed to the fantastic realm. I mean if you think about it role-playing in and of itself derives from our childhood. When we were kids we pretend we were heroes and knights and pirates (at least I did) and role-playing IMO opinion is a natural extension of that. It is a way for us as adults to revive those childhood fantasies for a few hours in a structured way. However, I fell CS Lewis works of fantasy are special case in that they are one of the greatest additions to TRUE fantasy literature. JRR Tolkien has even be quoted as saying something along the lines (not exact quote) “this without my goods friends influence, and the tales of that mystical land of Narnia I could have never created middle earth. The CoN resonate with fantasy staples. Unlike LoTR, magic is abundant in Narnia. The Witch Witch even carpeted the world in snow due to a spell. Aslan is a power magical beast and by D&D would probably be considered a Demi-God if not an outright deity. In the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe the white witch performs a magic ritual on the stone table which we would definitely deem an artifact. This blatant use of magic Is not prevalent in Tokliens works, while there is certainly magic in tolkien (Frodos healing, the palatir, beorn’s shpeshift, gandalf and ofcouse the ring to name a few) Middle Earth does not seemed as suffused with magic as Narnia. In Narina magic seeps and oozes from ever crack of the setting and that archetypal fantasy world resembles many D&D worlds such as Forgotten Realms and Planescape.
Kevtar 05-16-05, 03:33 PM	In interviews over the years, Gary Gygax has noted "pulp" authors as his major influence for D&D and has all but written-off Tolkien as an influence. Vance, like the other poster mentioned earlier, is a good example of the "pulp" authors. Michael Moorcock is another. I think Tolkien & CS Lewis influenced the 3.0/3.5 designers more than 1st & 2nd ed designers. Although I love both Tolkien and CS Lewis, many of the books written by "pulp" authors seemed to enjoy a certain amount of autonomy within the "fantasy" genre, and at times, made for more interesting reads. What most people fail to realize is that "fantasy" is rarely original, and as such, it's difficult to ascertain where the influence is derived. Halflings were known in all sorts of mythology and folklore but were only made popular through the LOTR (granted the name "Hobbits" was an original addition to the Halfling concept and their traditions, characteristics, etc were collected and "enhanced" by Tolkien. So, was Tolkien an influence because he made the Halflings more popular, or are we influenced by existing folklore & traditions? How about both? Interestingly enough, I think it's highly probable that George Lucas has influenced current RPG players, even D&D players, more than Tolkien when considering the amount of time Star Wars has enjoyed, in various aspects, as a part of our popular culture vs. LOTR. How many times have Star Wars elements crept their way into your campaign? But with that said, Lucas is only re-introducing fantasy archetypes into a different setting, so again the question is, "Is Lucas' presentation of these archetypes the influence, or are these components influential in their own right?"
Sinon 05-16-05, 03:34 PM	Lewis wrote children's literature? I suppose the Chronicles of Narnia can be appreciated by a child, but they're also a fairly sophisticated Christian allegory. (By fairly sophisticated, I mean a high-school student should notice the Christian symbols and get the metaphors, but he'll probably feel smart when he does.) But his other works were hardly "children's literature." Try: Mere Christianity, non-fiction, theology The Abolition of Man, fiction, theological, What is hell like? Till We have Faces, fiction, re-telling of the Cupid/Psyche myth as allegory of profane/sacred love The Discarded Image, non-fiction, How would a medieval person have seen the world? Studies in Words, non-fiction, How are the meanings of words in English literature to be properly understood? The Screwtape Letters, fiction, an epistle novel in which a demon tries to advise his young protégé and one of the best and one of scariest novels I have ever read.
pres_man 05-16-05, 03:36 PM	There is also the fact that there is entirely "too much" christianity in Lewis's works for many people. Personally, I just didn't find them all that interesting, even after reading the first book, I felt no real desire to read the others. On the other hand, Lloyd Alexander's books were a lot more entertaining for me. As for the founders of fantasy, don't forget Robert Howard's Conan.
Xill-Lord Psionic Might 05-16-05, 03:39 PM	2) Lewis' work has not inspired the creators of D&D like Tolkien's has, or at least not so obviously. Many elements of D&D are lifted straight from the LotR (to the point that it caused legal problems), while there are no such recognizable elements from the CoN to be found. I agree with out the CS Lewis works a less noticeable in our Role-playing game I think they are just as prevalent here are two examples… 1) As I have already stated, magic as we know it in D&D is much more like that of Narnia than Middle Earth 2) One of our most beloved races (well to some) in core D&D the gnomes have a strong Narinan influence. While gnomes are never expressly mentioned in CoN, the dwarves of Narnia fit the gnome archetype (the live in the forest, are adept at magic, enjoys pranks) much more than Tolkien’s norse-like dwarves.
Xill-Lord Psionic Might 05-16-05, 03:49 PM	There is also the fact that there is entirely "too much" christianity in Lewis's works for many people. Personally, I just didn't find them all that interesting, even after reading the first book, I felt no real desire to read the others. On the other hand, Lloyd Alexander's books were a lot more entertaining for me. As for the founders of fantasy, don't forget Robert Howard's Conan. Actaully CS Lewis was an atheist when he wrote CoN, he only later in his like convereted to roman catholism due to considerable influance for Tolien who was a devot chatolic throughout the entirety of his life. That said there are many, i mean many christan elements in CoN (cuting the hair of aslan is reminiscent of Samson and Delia, Aslans rebirth on the stone table is startling analogus to christs ressurection, edmunds redemption) However if you think that fantasy does not have an overwhleming biblical influance you are really kidding your self
Jack Daniel 05-16-05, 03:54 PM	Ah, for me, fantasy literature will always begin with L. Frank Baum, pass through a short C.S. Lewis phase, and end with J.R.R. Tolkien. :D
Sulaco 05-16-05, 04:22 PM	Yes there are elements of Narnia which also exist in D&D, but it is not by way of Narnia that they came to the game. Narnia simply isn't much of an influence on the D&D as can be evinced by the fact that the game is largely free of talking animals, child nobility, real-world crossovers, and overt Christian symbology.
pres_man 05-16-05, 04:23 PM	However if you think that fantasy does not have an overwhleming biblical influance you are really kidding your self Not me. I'm just saying, I've seen enough anti-christian sentiment on these boards to know that some people will deny anything that remotely ties christian values/mythology to d&d.
Sulaco 05-16-05, 04:29 PM	However if you think that fantasy does not have an overwhleming biblical influance you are really kidding your self If by that you mean fantasy - imagined tales often with a moral impetous or purpose - influenced the Bible then yes, you are correct. Without delving to far into a religious discussion, The Bible is but a link in a long chain. It grew out of earlier tales and myths and influenced later ones.
Sinon 05-16-05, 04:30 PM	Actaully CS Lewis was an atheist when he wrote CoN, he only later in his like convereted to roman catholism due to considerable influance for Tolien who was a devot chatolic throughout the entirety of his life. Lewis accepted Chritianity in 1931. The first book in the Narnia series was published in, I believe, 1950. I do not know how any reader with even the most limited understanding of Christian symbols, stories, or theology, could think that the writer was an atheist. When you read The Last Battle in particular, you can see the Lewis already has a fully-developed theology. Also, Lewis was a member of the Church of England, practicing High Anglicanism.
GreyLord 05-16-05, 04:39 PM	You people don't seem to realize that BOTH THE Hobbit and the LoTR were children's books put out by Tolkien. He wanted his more adult book, the Silmarillion to be published instead of the LoTR at first, but the publishers wanted a sequel to the children's story the Hobbit instead. So that's what they got. When in examination of works however, though the CoN were written more for children, Lewis himself was far more the adult writer than Tolkien, and most of his works were aimed towards a much more adult audience than most of what Tolkien wrote. Plus, some of Lewis's stuff is pretty screwed up...I mean, who writes about a demon doing his job?
GreyLord 05-16-05, 04:45 PM	As an aside, something of interest, especially to those in English literature around the idea of myths, fables, and legends, which is some of the areas of Lewis and Tolkien in what they worked with, is the character of Andrew Lang. I think in some ways Lewis's Narnia, and Tolkien's Middle Earth copied some of the aspects of Lang's works (which came earlier). Lang worked with fairy tales, and organized the Fairy Books (Green, Red, Yellow, etc). These were written actually with adults in mind, though with also kids as the audience. They were written to keep adults interested...and were organized by adults in a fairy tale society. In essence, the LoTR movies would have horrified these writers with it's graphic violence...HOWEVER...the books in them had some rather gory items described. Lang's writing is much superior to Grimms or any of those, getting far more in depth with characterization, creatures, and monsters. In fact, much of D&D Lore could be seen in Lang's works, and his works many times go much easier in a type of literature that would inspire D&D groups if read today (though less with the Red and Blue books, and more with the Green and Yellow Fairy books). Just some more fantasy which is actually very adult in manner, but preceded Tolkien or Lewis...yet it's impact is apparant and obvious upon their own works and approach.
Xill-Lord Psionic Might 05-16-05, 04:50 PM	Lewis accepted Chritianity in 1931. The first book in the Narnia series was published in, I believe, 1950. I do not know how any reader with even the most limited understanding of Christian symbols, stories, or theology, could think that the writer was an atheist. When you read The Last Battle in particular, you can see the Lewis already has a fully-developed theology. Also, Lewis was a member of the Church of England, practicing High Anglicanism. I stand corrected ....thank you..i apperntly misunderstood my information....i have no problem admits my flaws
Sulaco 05-16-05, 04:55 PM	You people don't seem to realize that BOTH THE Hobbit and the LoTR were children's books put out by Tolkien. He wanted his more adult book, the Silmarillion to be published instead of the LoTR at first, but the publishers wanted a sequel to the children's story the Hobbit instead. So that's what they got. THe Hobbit was written for children, specifically Tolkien's own children. Lord fo the Rings was not written for children. Yes it was a sequel to The Hobbit but was not itself written for children. You may wish to believe otherwise but this doe not make it so.
Xill-Lord Psionic Might 05-16-05, 04:55 PM	mabey im just abnormal im my favortism in works of fiction, i mean im the kind of guys how thinks poes is more frightening than lovecraft but thanx to everyone for thier feedback i appericate discussion
Draco Strang 05-16-05, 05:40 PM	mabey im just abnormal im my favortism in works of fiction, i mean im the kind of guys how thinks poes is more frightening than lovecraft I'm with you on this one. I read The Cask of Amontillado about once a month. My copy has an excellent illustration of what appears to be a drunken clown getting bricked up in a crypt. Very scary. Quite possibly the best short horror/suspense story ever.
jukar 05-16-05, 06:05 PM	Hmm, I have always liked CoN. My father is veritable Lewis scholar (so we were always exposed to it growing up), and he actually wrote a much more mature fantasy series- the Perelandra series. (Er, Lewis wrote Perelandra. Not my father. My father only wishes he wrote the Perelandra series). I personally don't care much for Tolkien. I think it was a great story, but the rest of the world beat the entire archetype to death. I can't even look at an elf without feeling bored anymore thanks to the myriad of Tolkien knock-offs out there. As a child, I adored the CoN, and still like to read them today. I tend to get irked when people gripe about the Christian symbolism. Sure, there is Christian symbolism, but you can't fault the man for injecting his own creation with his own beliefs. And at the end of the day, a majority of the morals in the stories are just as relevant to the nonchristian as they are to the christian. I also loved Lloyd Alexander, too. I actually was talking to my boyfriend the other day about modeling a character after Prince Gwydion.
Xill-Lord Psionic Might 05-16-05, 06:10 PM	I'm with you on this one. I read The Cask of Amontillado about once a month. My copy has an excellent illustration of what appears to be a drunken clown getting bricked up in a crypt. Very scary. Quite possibly the best short horror/suspense story ever. It is a quite terrifying tale, my personal favorite is masque of the red death im also fond of fall of the house of usher dont get me wrong anyone i love lovecraft (that was redundant) I just I find poe's themes of insanity/parnoia scarier then lovecraft's fear of the unknown and the ulitmate insagnifigace of man Nathien Hawthrone, while known mostly for The Scarlet Letter also has some great works of horror. the best IMO being The House of Seven Gables
GreyLord 05-16-05, 06:36 PM	THe Hobbit was written for children, specifically Tolkien's own children. Lord fo the Rings was not written for children. Yes it was a sequel to The Hobbit but was not itself written for children. You may wish to believe otherwise but this doe not make it so. Odd then that the publishers were asking for a children's book sequel...eh? Wouldn't you think? One of the reasons why they wanted LoTR and not the Silmarillion...actually a pretty big reason. Tolkien himself stated that he wrote LoTR to appease those who wanted more of hobbits and such who fell in love with them from...of all things...The Hobbit. However, it's popular now, too put down all things Tolkien (Including the Tolkien estates though not all Tolkiens) who might not agree with what Jackson views in what he put into his movies (great as they are).
GreyLord 05-16-05, 06:37 PM	Hmm, I have always liked CoN. My father is veritable Lewis scholar (so we were always exposed to it growing up), and he actually wrote a much more mature fantasy series- the Perelandra series. (Er, Lewis wrote Perelandra. Not my father. My father only wishes he wrote the Perelandra series). I personally don't care much for Tolkien. I think it was a great story, but the rest of the world beat the entire archetype to death. I can't even look at an elf without feeling bored anymore thanks to the myriad of Tolkien knock-offs out there. As a child, I adored the CoN, and still like to read them today. I tend to get irked when people gripe about the Christian symbolism. Sure, there is Christian symbolism, but you can't fault the man for injecting his own creation with his own beliefs. And at the end of the day, a majority of the morals in the stories are just as relevant to the nonchristian as they are to the christian. I also loved Lloyd Alexander, too. I actually was talking to my boyfriend the other day about modeling a character after Prince Gwydion. I too enjoy the Prydain Chronicles tremendously. Great series!
q'afuu 05-16-05, 06:58 PM	I agree with out the CS Lewis works a less noticeable in our Role-playing game I think they are just as prevalent here are two examples… 1) As I have already stated, magic as we know it in D&D is much more like that of Narnia than Middle Earth 2) One of our most beloved races (well to some) in core D&D the gnomes have a strong Narinan influence. While gnomes are never expressly mentioned in CoN, the dwarves of Narnia fit the gnome archetype (the live in the forest, are adept at magic, enjoys pranks) much more than Tolkien’s norse-like dwarves. While this may be true, the link is far from obvious. Sure, Narnia magic is closer to D&D magic than Middle-Earth magic is, but that's not exactly saying much: just about every magical fantasy world has magic that resembles that of D&D more than Middle-Earth's. The casting system is actually based on the works of Jack Vance, so that link is obvious. Alignment is straight out of Moorcock's novels - again, an obvious link. Halflings and orcs - even just for the names - are obviously based on the LotR. Narnia simply doesn't have as obviously noticeable ties with D&D (presumably because they aren't there). Being alike doesn't really mean anything, what matters is an actual connection. 2) Sure. But Tolkien's norse-like dwarves resemble D&D dwarves (or, more properly put, vice versa), so I don't really see the point... Narnia dwarves are more like D&D gnomes than Tolkien dwarves? Ok, fine, but both are still dwarves by name, and the latter resemble what's a dwarf by name in D&D more. Basically, it's point 1 again: there's no readily obvious connection between CoN and D&D. That doesn't reflect in any way on what Lewis' works meant for fantasy in general, but it should explain why D&D fans don't give them the same kind of credit they do the works of Tolkien, Vance, Moorcock and a host of others.
Xill-Lord Psionic Might 05-16-05, 07:49 PM	IMO the planesscape campaign setting in particular owes a great deal to CoN on the very basic conceptual level. To my knowledge CoN was the first of the fantasy (im not including mythology) genre to deal extensivievly with extra-planar travel except that of alice in wonderland. In CoN there are several diffrent "planes of existance" that the various children travle too ofcourse there is earth and narnia but there is also Charn which would remind us RPGers of a abyssal or infernal realm. There is also a "woods between worlds" in witch is used for extra-planar travel in "the magicans nephew" that reminds me of the Astral plane with trees and no githyanky. just my opinion anyway
jukar 05-16-05, 08:54 PM	I too enjoy the Prydain Chronicles tremendously. Great series! Oh, me too. They were my favorite growing up. I was very close to selecting Arawn as my screen name! We actually got into a big discussion as to what classes each of the various Prydain characters would be. It was a fun trip down memory lane.
Thorak 05-17-05, 12:01 AM	This is getting a bit silly in the corners. Of course D&D is more closely related to LotR than to CoN. Frankly, duh. Anyone who's ever heard any of D&D's early history would know that D&D started, explicitly, as an unofficial Middle Earth-based roleplaying game. In the first printing, halflings were hobbits, for instance. This and several other changes were made when Gygax et al were threatened with legal action if they didn't remove the trademarked material. It's like debating whether Venom is more derivative of Spiderman or Wolverine. On a much more general note; I heartily suggest that anyone and everyone interested in fantasy (or science fiction, for that matter) read the classics. All the titles mentioned here should be read, and there are far too many more to bother listing here. Do some searches for "best fantasy" and you'll find some decent lists. I haven't read Lewis' work yet, mostly due to my university library missing the first book due to theft and me not wanting to start mid-way, but it's high on my list to tick off ASAP. And I've read a crapload of other stuff from both genres. Don't let the fact that it's old fool you; there's darn good stuff there. And a lot of it doesn't feel nearly as dated as you might think. It's also almost all heaps better than the stuff being printed these days, which is getting sadly formulaic (not that the formula's bad in some cases, but it's getting a bit long in the tooth)
TigerWolfe 05-17-05, 12:39 AM	So this is completely off topic but has anyone else noticed that some CoN book series say that the first book is The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe but then others say it is the Magicians Nephew (which it is chronologically speaking).
Marchen 05-17-05, 06:58 AM	It's because The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was written first. But Magician's Nephew is actually the first book. Chronicles of Narnia are wonderful.
Kevtar 05-17-05, 07:28 AM	[QUOTE] If by that you mean fantasy - imagined tales often with a moral impetous or purpose - influenced the Bible then yes, you are... [/QUOTE.] This of course is countered by the fact that millions of people believe the Bible to be the word of God and not just a collection of myths and legends. From that perspective, it would seem that fantasy influenced by the Bible. and apparently I don't know how to use the quote feature here... ah well.
Zachary The First 05-17-05, 07:38 AM	I believe the precise chronology of book should go: The Magician's Nephew The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe A Horse and His Boy Prince Caspian Voyage of the Dawn Treader The Silver Chair The Last Battle By the way, I love Narnia. C.S. Lewis was a brilliant writer, both in his fiction and non-fiction efforts. It's not that he was a Christian writer, he was a writer who happened to be Christian.
Sinon 05-17-05, 09:43 AM	The books should be read in the order in which they were published. To provide a topical example, Lucas. He started his series in the middle, with episode 4. Then 5 &6, then back to one. People watching the episode 3 know the hero (Skywalker) is going to fall and become Darth Vader. They also know that he will have a child who eventually defeats and redeems him. The entire presentation of the last three films assumes the viewer has knowledge of future events, and therefore they are not about what is going to happen, but how and why those things happened. CoN is structured similarly. Lion, Witch Wardrobe is the first book. If the reader begins it with the knowledge of the sixth book, Magician's Nephew, he misses all of the mystery it involves. He knows who Aslan is and his connection to the divine; who the witch is, why she's there and that she is in fact the bad one. You can read them in any order, but the way the author gave them to us is the one in which he intended them to be read. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe Prince Caspian Voyage of the Dawn Treader The Silver Chair The Magician’s Nephew The Last Battle
Sulaco 05-17-05, 11:03 AM	Odd then that the publishers were asking for a children's book sequel...eh? They weren't. Allen & Unwin wanted a sequel to a children's book, not necessarily another children's book.
Sulaco 05-17-05, 11:11 AM	If by that you mean fantasy - imagined tales often with a moral impetous or purpose - influenced the Bible then yes, you are... This of course is countered by the fact that millions of people believe the Bible to be the word of God and not just a collection of myths and legends. From that perspective, it would seem that fantasy influenced by the Bible. and apparently I don't know how to use the quote feature here... ah well. Many people believe this to be so, and I won't argue theology here, but you really would have to be living in a cave, on Mars, with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears not to see that the Bible stories grew out of older myths and legends adapted from other cultures. This is simply a fact. This does no negate anyone's faith but the chain is there nonetheless. Refusing to admit it exists does not make it go away.
Zachary The First 05-17-05, 11:18 AM	Many people believe this to be so, and I won't argue theology here, but you really would have to be living in a cave, on Mars, with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears not to see that the Bible stories grew out of older myths and legends adapted from other cultures. This is simply a fact. This does no negate anyone's faith but the chain is there nonetheless. Refusing to admit it exists does not make it go away. Baiter. :P
Sulaco 05-17-05, 11:31 AM	Baiter. :P I am not baiting anyone nor am I pulling this out of my ass. To ignore the contributions of earlier cultures is sheer self-delusion.
Zachary The First 05-17-05, 11:52 AM	No place in this thread. Let'er go, Bass Pro.
Sinon 05-17-05, 11:53 AM	Sulaco, are you familiar with the works of Joseph Campbell?
Draco Strang 05-17-05, 11:53 AM	I am not baiting anyone nor am I pulling this out of my ass. To ignore the contributions of earlier cultures is sheer self-delusion. I'm sorry, but the Silent Bob avatar coupled with this just scream ironic contrast. :D Not that I'm naysaying your Sulaco. I'm not. Just pointing this oddity out.
Thorak 05-17-05, 11:57 AM	Many people believe this to be so, and I won't argue theology here, but you really would have to be living in a cave, on Mars, with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears not to see that the Bible stories grew out of older myths and legends adapted from other cultures. This is simply a fact. This does no negate anyone's faith but the chain is there nonetheless. Refusing to admit it exists does not make it go away. For instance, the Genesis story, as presented in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran, is practically identical to the Babylonian and Sumerian creation myth. Right down to God creating Man in a garden, and casting them out because they ate the forbidden fruit they were tempted into eating by a serpent. The only major difference is that in the Babylonian story, the God who created Man isn't the good guy; he created Man as mindless slaves. It was the good-guy God who took the form of a serpent, to give man the gift of self-knowledge. From a historical perspective, this makes a lot of sense, since the Jews were overtaken by the Babylonians and taken captive for many years, where they would have been exposed to the various myths, and if they adopted them (as they clearly did) it makes perfect sense that they'd take their captor's Godly enemy as their own good guy, and vice versa. Heck, the "serpent-as-Satan" symbol is almost entirely Judeo-Christian, and probably dates to exactly this. In most other cultures, snakes are symbols of wisdom. There's a reason why the common symbol for medicine is a snake-entwined staff, and it has nothing do to with evil or temptation. And, for the record, I'm a Christian, and believe in the Bible as the word of God. However, God's a wily one, and couched a lot of it in metaphor and parable. And various translations have even further diluted various meanings. If you're going to study the Bible, at the very least get a modern version translated direct from the Hebrew and Greek, and which uses the best modern words to translate what the words meant at the time. The King James, for instance, was translated from Hebrew through Greek and Latin before getting into English, and contains a huge number of anachronisms that date from the times of the various translations, when words meant slightly different things than they did later on. I only mention this because what I'm saying in no way denies faith or the truth in the Bible. It can only do so if your faith is shaky and your mind is small. Which means you should take measures to strengthen your faith and expand your mind, if it bothers you. Unless you think ignorance and tepid faith are good qualities. Incidentally, the borrowing from a pantheistic faith neatly explains the odd pluralization in the Garden of Eden when God is saying "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (Gen 1:26) In the original Babylonian and Sumerian myths, there's more than one deity, and he's discussing the idea with them.
Sulaco 05-17-05, 12:00 PM	No place in this thread. Let'er go, Bass Pro. The only one baiting here is you. Please stop. It is a CoC violation and can get the thread closed.
Sinon 05-17-05, 12:22 PM	I asked about Campbell because he wrote on what he called metamythology. He looked at the cross-cultural similarities in world stories, parallels between them. He saw them all as concrete expressions of universal truths. He takes the Christian mythology, and by showing how the metaphors actually work and how other people said exactly the same things in different times and places, opens doors to greater spiritual depth and awareness. Second only to Lewis on my list of favorite writers.
Sulaco 05-17-05, 12:37 PM	Sulaco, are you familiar with the works of Joseph Campbell? Of course. However, this is veering dangerously far off course and so is a discussion best left for another thread. Cheers! :D
Xill-Lord Psionic Might 05-17-05, 12:43 PM	Weither the Old testiment bible has a conglomeration of various ancient myths was not the origional intent of this thread, nor was the christain influances in CoN. It was to examine and discuss the effect that CS Lewis writings had an effect on D&D roleplaying and fantasy litterature as a whole. Religion is a trickey subject, and while it cannot be divorced entirely from fantasy or roleplay because it is such a large part of human existance, it also creates large rifts and flared tempers becuse people more offten than not are more very possionate in what they belive. So can we stick to CoN so the thread can stay open?
Sulaco 05-17-05, 01:02 PM	I'm sorry, but the Silent Bob avatar coupled with this just scream ironic contrast. :D Not that I'm naysaying your Sulaco. I'm not. Just pointing this oddity out. What "oddity"? Are you actually suggesting that my opinion has less validity cos of my avatar? If it helps I have studied History, English, Psychology and Sociology at university and hold two post-secondary degrees. While at university I took several courses on religion and mythology solely out of personal interest. Does that make my opinion hold a bit more water or is my avatar still more important?
Zachary The First 05-17-05, 01:03 PM	The only one baiting here is you. Please stop. It is a CoC violation and can get the thread closed. Well, if it's a matter of you having sand in your gully-hole, then, I'll stop.
crazysamaritan 05-17-05, 01:31 PM	Some people seem set on taking my posts in entirely the wrong way. Just to clarify: I give you, the reader, the benefit of the doubt. I act on the assumption that you are both clever and mature enough to realize that everything I post is, by definition, my opinion and to realize that I am not getting emotional or trying to bully you, tear you down, or insult you. Just try giving me, and every other poster for that matter, the same benefit of the doubt you give every person you deal with in every day life and we'll all be a lot happier. Cheers! Some people have sigs turned off Sulaco. I think I know you well enough to tell you aren't intentionally baiting, despite the way the words come out. Your sig is a good reminder for people to recall that people are entitled to their opinions, and we don't need to go around saying, "take it back! No, you take it back! No, YOU take it back!!" :D
Kevtar 05-17-05, 01:50 PM	Many people believe this to be so, and I won't argue theology here, but you really would have to be living in a cave, on Mars, with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears not to see that the Bible stories grew out of older myths and legends adapted from other cultures. This is simply a fact. This does no negate anyone's faith but the chain is there nonetheless. Refusing to admit it exists does not make it go away. I'm simply addressing your previous post which seemed so conclusive that it did not give any regard to another perspective, the perspective of a Christian with faith in what they believe to be inspired text. To quote you from an earlier post: "You may wish to believe otherwise but this doe not make it so." Although your stance of the Bible being influenced by myth/legend is very concrete, other people with the opposing view are just as convinced in their own argument. While you are completely satisfied with empirical evidence, others are equally as satisfied with "spiritual data" (for lack of a better term). I also don't like to argue Theology/personal belief systems because argument/contention has not place in those types of discussions. However, I tend to be a little sensitive to people who say "DUH - this is the way it is." when there are other perspectives to be considered.
Zachary The First 05-17-05, 01:53 PM	Anyhow, Narnia rocks. Those books helped me get into fantasy, and really are a wonderful allegory as well. I love the scene in The Magician's Nephew when some of the animals learn to talk--great stuff. I also love how the uncle gets what's coming to him.
Draco Strang 05-17-05, 02:01 PM	What "oddity"? Are you actually suggesting that my opinion has less validity cos of my avatar? If it helps I have studied History, English, Psychology and Sociology at university and hold two post-secondary degrees. While at university I took several courses on religion and mythology solely out of personal interest. Does that make my opinion hold a bit more water or is my avatar still more important? No....that's the thing Sulaco. I've never thought of you as anything less than intelligent. The comment I referenced was your remarking that you weren't baiting. I felt this was ironic because Silent Bob (your avatar) is the absolute king of baiting Jay toward more and more mayhem, with only his silence and inaction. Seriously now. When have I ever hinted at your opinions being less valid, or a lack of formal intelligence? Never. Whatever you may construe as a jibe in your direction is just my saracasm. I really should have used a smiley face....it might have helped avoid this. I didn't mean to offend you, and I hope you don't take it personally. It was a joke that fell flat, and then backfired. I'm sorry man. Don't think less of me.
Xill-Lord Psionic Might 05-17-05, 02:05 PM	um........yea........back to Cronicles of Narnia.........
Draco Strang 05-17-05, 02:11 PM	*double post*
Sulaco 05-17-05, 02:44 PM	No....that's the thing Sulaco. I've never thought of you as anything less than intelligent. The comment I referenced was your remarking that you weren't baiting. I felt this was ironic because Silent Bob (your avatar) is the absolute king of baiting Jay toward more and more mayhem, with only his silence and inaction. Seriously now. When have I ever hinted at your opinions being less valid, or a lack of formal intelligence? Never. Whatever you may construe as a jibe in your direction is just my saracasm. I really should have used a smiley face....it might have helped avoid this. I didn't mean to offend you, and I hope you don't take it personally. It was a joke that fell flat, and then backfired. I'm sorry man. Don't think less of me. No worries, man. Didn't take it personally. Trust me, I am the freakin' mayor of "Being Misunderstood Town". See my sig for details. Cheers! :D
Sinon 05-17-05, 02:56 PM	um........yea........back to Cronicles of Narnia......... OK, sorry. Honestly, off the top of my head, I can't think of anything uniquely Narnian in D&D.
Zachary The First 05-17-05, 03:00 PM	For me, it's nothing direct, but Narnia was definitely an influence in getting me interested in D&D. I also enjoy putting Talking Animals in campaigns, I guess, but that's just me.
screwtape 05-17-05, 04:53 PM	C.S.Lewis? Never heard of him.
LadyCreator 05-17-05, 05:34 PM	I love CS Lewis, probably more than Tolkien. His influence on D&D is very minor; the only direct thing I can think of is the Astral Plane - The Magician's Nephew, as someone pointed out, has interplanar travel by means of jumping through pools. In fact, the entire series is suffused with interplanar travel. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is probably my favorite book, and it has a good deal of that. There's a lot of Lewis's material that I want to adopt for my campaigns, and I think it's very much a pity that there aren't more of his concepts in D&D generally. But his influence on fantasy as a whole is undeniable. His relationship with Tolkien has got to rank among the best artistic partnerships there has ever been. As far as religion goes, they are the best refutation to those who believe that D&D is devil-worship or whatever nonsense like that. I'm horribly biased, because Lewis was one of the most profound influences in my childhood (and beyond), along with Carroll.
pres_man 05-18-05, 08:31 PM	Starting to read the Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe and I noticed that the witch casts flesh to stone (d&d spell) and Aslan "casts" stone to flesh (d&d spell, spell-like ability). Neither of these spells are in LoTR (unless the only reason the trolls were turned to stone in the hobbit was due to Gandalf casting a spell, which I believe is not the case). Also though I can think of a lot of stories where things are changed to stone (or salt), I can't think of any but this one where they are turned back. Also the witch is a half-giant, I mean come on. And then there is the biggest direct relation between Narnia stories and D&D. The D&D T.V. cartoon ('80's) is set up just like the Narnia story, teens/children pass through a portal to a magic world. Blanant ripoff if I do say. :P :D
Quenditar 05-18-05, 10:26 PM	The Underdark could have been inspired by the underground realm of the Green Witch in The Silver Chair. There is even a "Deep Underdark" called Bism.
Arnwolf 05-19-05, 07:23 PM	Lewis accepted Chritianity in 1931. The first book in the Narnia series was published in, I believe, 1950. I do not know how any reader with even the most limited understanding of Christian symbols, stories, or theology, could think that the writer was an atheist. When you read The Last Battle in particular, you can see the Lewis already has a fully-developed theology. Also, Lewis was a member of the Church of England, practicing High Anglicanism. Also CS Lewis was not Roman Catholic. He was a layman in the Church of England.
Templetroll 05-19-05, 09:05 PM	mabey im just abnormal im my favortism in works of fiction, i mean im the kind of guys how thinks poes is more frightening than lovecraft but thanx to everyone for thier feedback i appericate discussion Poe is scarier than Lovecraft. The cool thing about Lovecraft is that he built what came to be called the Mythos, while Poe's stories had no connection between them. this Mythos had the very scary idea that there was something out there, that had been around since long ago, and could return at any time and it didn't really like humans.... without a little salt and maybe a nice hollandaise sauce... Another thing he did was write about certain books, tomes filled with horrid knowledge, and did so in a way that made them seem possible. The 'possible' can be very scary. :)
Thorak 05-19-05, 10:29 PM	Poe is scarier than Lovecraft. The cool thing about Lovecraft is that he built what came to be called the Mythos, while Poe's stories had no connection between them. this Mythos had the very scary idea that there was something out there, that had been around since long ago, and could return at any time and it didn't really like humans.... without a little salt and maybe a nice hollandaise sauce... Another thing he did was write about certain books, tomes filled with horrid knowledge, and did so in a way that made them seem possible. The 'possible' can be very scary. :) For my money, the greatest part of Lovecraft's work is that it's almost entirely glimpses. At the end of any given story, you only have tiny little bits of information, not enough to really understand anything, but enough to really, really disturb. Even with the mythos stories, the sum total is just as dimly enlightened. It's not so much what Lovecraft shows you that freaks you out, it's the huge masses of stuff you can't see but know have to be out there that freak you out. This is a lesson that, sadly, seems to be forgotten by most modern Horror movie makers. There's waaaaay too much of the "here's how everything about this works, so you can go home understanding everything that happened" type of bunk out there. Which ends up being a shock and/or gore movie more than horror. There's no horror in a corpse. A corpse with the heart ripped out, though, that's freaky. And entirely because you know something ripped out the heart, but you have no idea what it was.
Sinon 05-20-05, 03:37 PM	Also though I can think of a lot of stories where things are changed to stone (or salt), I can't think of any but this one where they are turned back. Aren't they restored in almost all of them? Usually the spell ends or the curse is broken when the tasks are completed or the villain is overcome. While the actual "casting" by Aslan is more similar to D&D, I don't think that you could support the claim that there is any kind of link. Also the witch is a half-giant, I mean come on.In D&D, there are half-breeds of every sort, dragon, fiend, even vampire, but they started with the original two: half elf and half orc, both of which trace their origins directly to Tolkien. And then there is the biggest direct relation between Narnia stories and D&D. The D&D T.V. cartoon ('80's) is set up just like the Narnia story, teens/children pass through a portal to a magic world. Blanant ripoff if I do say. Neither a direct relation nor a rip off. We're seeing convergent ideas here, not copied ones. The two elements teens/children and magic portals are both necessary elements to the story and arose due to the demands of the audience and the plot. The one was not copied from the other. First, the protagonists are young people because that's who the audience was. Young people are more likely to respond to and identify with characters who are similar to themselves. Writers know this and studio executives know little else. Second, portals are a means to get from one realm or reality to another. The way that Lucy does so, leaving the room and stepping into another realm altogether without even really realizing it, seems closely related to the story of the "Twelve Dancing Princesses" who go through a secret door to a whole other world that has its own forest with leaves of diamonds. The cartoon D&D had a roller-coaster wreck that opened up a path to another reality. The only similarity between the two is that in both cases the writers need to take ordinary people and put them in extraordinary places and came up with a way to do it. It definitely does not follow that one was borrowed from, built on, or influenced by the other. I love C.S. Lewis, but had he never written the Chronicles, D&D would still look exactly the same.
GreyLord 05-20-05, 04:59 PM	Now I can't say D&D would be the exact same today if Narnia wasn't around. Narnia had an impact on a different view of halflings, different creatures, of half breeds abundant, and various other items that are not in Tolkien, but have inspired OTHER fantasy writers. Now I agree, 1e and the original probably would have been the same or at least bearing a strong resemblance...but 3e has taken off out of a realm not really relavant as much to Tolkien, and in fact in many ways having a much stronger resemblance to other forms of fantasy. That has come from many different arenas...many of which were at least inspired by Narnia, if not taken from Narnia directly... Tolkien was big with certain types of archtypes and them doing certain things in general in his Middle Earth writings (that's in general...not specific circumstances). The Ranger is the obvious connection between the original D&D and Tolkien that is easiest to discuss. Rangers in Tolkien weren't just a class, it was an entire group of men. These men had definate skills, and were known for who and what they were...their skills were pretty set, and in fact were a pretty set archtype. Aragorn was one of those. Another archtype of Tolkiens were his elves...in that they were skilled in bow, sword, magic, and music as well as crafts. Dwarves were typically axebearers, and craftsmen. Hobbits, well we shan't talk about them. 1e was all about racial and class archtypes. For example, Rangers like Aragorn were rather hardy (at least at first) as starters, gained some skill with magic...and knowledge in that arena, as well as nature and druidic craft. IN UA they even got bonuses with a sword or bow if they chose...in many ways seeming to draw inspiration from Tolkien. Elves were seen as being good fighters, or magic-users, with the thief class thrown in. Halflings to hobbits...very similar...and it should be no surprise that their class selection was fighter and theif based. Dwarves, well they didn't have to be fighters...but that was a pretty major class selection... starting in 2e and continuing even moreso in 3e that changed. In truth we have D&D that is completely different than the original in many ways and in that change draws more close to the fantastical fantasy than the Tolkien inspired fantasy. Rangers for instance now are more parallel to what we've seen as rangers in wood lore...and with NO magic spells drawn from the arcane. In addition we've tossed in the D&D flavor of two weapon fighting skills...and done away with the specialization in the longsword or bow...and even greater specialization in those two. Halflings now are thin and much less hobbit like. Other items have held over, but Elves can be all sorts of things now...not more focused on certain areas. The influences can still be seen..such as the preferred classes that came out with 3e. However, more influences have crept in of other fantasy and other ideas than that of Tolkien. Of course it would be hard pressed to say Tolkien was the only inspiration at the beginning either...as Gygax drew on other inspirations as well, and items NON-Tolkien were in D&D such as Centaurs, unicorns, minotaurs, things found in myths, legends, and other writings of Fantasy writers. There are some that I wonder if they came from Narnian writings however such as the Snakes with human heads idea (Green Witch in the Silver Chair), Dwarves/Gnomes as illusionists (though that could also come from the ideas of Gnomes being apt at hiding themselves and decieving others in European myth), Create food and drink, something the White witch did...and many other items. Of course it should also be figured that in some instances Tolkien and Lewis drew upon some of the same sources...but I'd say Narnia indeed has had some impact upon our current day version of D&D.