Appendix N: Inspirational and Educational Reading

-

-

-

DMG

Interview with Gary Gygax
 
 

BOOKS: The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit
MOVIE: The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit
COMIC: -
RPG: MERP (Middle Earth Role-Playing)
GAMES: Battle of the Five Armies

Tolkien Art +

A review of the film, “The Lord of
the Rings,” in the form of an open
letter to Saul Zaentz and Ralph
Bakshi.

Your film was a rip off! Yes, rip
off! I know that the expression has
moral connotations, and that you
haven’t done anything wrong legally;
but I happen to believe that
moral obligations often make demands
that go beyond the demands
of law. So stay with me for
a few paragraphs, and I’ll explain
why your film is immoral.

Let me start by saying that I’m
not an outraged purist. I’ve read
the Trilogy about six times, but I
went into the theater with no expectation
whatsoever of seeing a
movie that was “just like the
book.” Film and print are two different
mediums of communication.
There is no way for a film to
capture everything that can be put
into a book, and a film can express
things that no writer could hope to
accomplish.

So I’m writing right now, not as
a Tolkien fan, but as a movie fan (I
love movies and attend the
cinema about thirty times a year).
As a movie-goer, there were three
things I expected from you: good
animation, a captivating and logical
story, and clear guidance into
the alien mythos of Middle Earth.
You only gave me one and a half
out of three.

My wife watched this movie
with me. She never reads fantasy
or plays fantasy games. When we
walked out of the theater, I knew
what she was going to say before
she said it: “Wasn’t the animation
good?” Superb. Congratulations
guys, I loved it too.

“I think I understood the part
about Frodo and Sam . . .” The
story was clear concerning these
two. She did get confused about
Gollum, though. She had so
much to learn about between the
appearance of Gollum in the introduction,
and his reappearance
late in the movie, that she forgot
who he was.

" . . . but frankly, I didn’t understand
what happened to the
rest of the characters in the second
half of the movie. I couldn’t see
how it related.” And that’s because
you blew the second half of
the movie. You used a lousy, mistake
riddled, confusing script, that
only a Tolkien fan could understand.

Why didn’t Frodo’s sword glow
in the battle with the orcs? Bilbo
said it would. Who was this Strider
guy? Why did he have two
names? Why was his sword broken?
Couldn’t he afford a new
sword? Did he get a new sword
later on, or did somebody fix it for
him? What is the relationship between
Rohan and Minas Tirith?
Where did Gandalf get that army
that he used to save the army of
Rohan? Why were some of the
orcs bigger than the others? What
were they fighting each other
about that one time with Pippin
and Merry? What was the significance
of Pippin and Merry running
into that talking tree? They
just seemed to somehow fade out
of the story. Did Gandalf really
succeed in driving the forces of
evil from Middle Earth at the end
of the movie? Then why was the
ring important?

Of course I know the answers to
all these questions: I’m a Tolkien
fan. But my wife isn’t, and she’s
confused. What made you think
that you could drop names like
Rohan and Arathorn as if you
were making a passing reference
to Jimmy Carter and America?
The least you could have done
would have been to have worked
some sort of a map into the story.
You could have had the characters
read it while they were discussing
their options. This would
have at least given the uninitiated
some chance of understanding
what went on.

Ralph and Saul, you ripped us
all off. Know why? Because you
released a movie of such poor
quality, knowing that it was poor
quality, but knowing that you
would make money off of it because
of the popularity of the literary
work it was based on.

Oh, I should say a word about
the ending. It didn’t. End, that is.
You should have written “To be
continued. . .” across the screen.
Better yet, write it across the ads.
“The Lord of the Rings:” That’s
the title of the whole triology,
guys. You used it in your ads, but
you forgot to tell us in advance
that you weren’t going to tell the
whole story. Shabby.

You think I’m being too harsh?
Let me ask you this. Would you
even seriously consider releasing
a film with this many flaws in it if it
wasn’t based on a famous piece of
literature that would guarantee it a
built in audience? Only if you
were really stupid. But you’re not
stupid. You’re just too cheap to do
the job right. Or maybe you just
don’t care enough about your art
to fight just a little bit harder with
your backers for just a little bit
more money so that you can get a
decent script.

Twenty million americans have
read that Trilogy. Many of them
would go and see any movie
based on it, even if they heard it
panned in a review. They just
couldn’t resist. I think that you
banked on that (excuse the pun)
when you did this movie. And I
say that’s a rip off.

Up until this point in the letter, I
have been speaking on behalf of
those who have never read the
Trilogy. Perhaps that’s presumptuous
of me, but I think I’ve been
fair. Now I want to say a few words
as a purist.

Fine animation. I understand
that some of the scenes were done
by filming live actors, and then
drawing animation on over the
film. I was so caught up in the visual
treat of the movie, that there
were times when I wasn’t even noticing
the changeover from pure
animation to the redone scenes.
Really well done.

The characters and the creatures
were reasonably well represented.
You couldn’t please
everyone, but you did a good job
overall. Personally, I thought your
orcs were too much like your ring
wraiths, but then you made up for
that with your superb balrog.
 

Thank you for leaving out Tom
Bombadil. It would have taken
you at least twenty minutes to do
justice to him, and you didn’t have
the time. So you left him out entirely
rather than portray him inadequately.
A wise choice.

Would that you had used the
same wisdom in dealing with
Treebeard. A pox upon you for
what you have done to my beloved
Ent. Oh, I know, you were
going to reintroduce him in the
sequel, when you would have the
time to do justice to him. But you
did such a poor job on the first
film, that you may not be able to
raise the money for a sequel.

Slow moving, slow thinking,
purposeful Ents, interacting with
tiny, flighty little hobbits. One of
the most imaginative creative, appealing,
and just plain old fun
concepts I have ever read. The
Ents alone make Tolkien’s works
a classic.

Do you know what you did with
Treebeard? You used one of the
most endearing literary concepts
of all time as a gimmick. To the unitiated,
his scenes in the movie
were no more meaningful than
the various aliens in the bar scene
in “Star Wars.”

Assuming that you can raise the
bucks for a sequel, I would like to
make a few suggestions. Don’t
use superb literary concepts as
tinsel. Don’t use a script that only
insiders can understand. Don’t introduce
people and places so
casually.

And don’t be Hollywood
pimps, using a beloved literary
work as a prostitute to make a
cheap buck. Make it a film that will
entertain without confusing. Or
else do the world a favor, and
don’t make it at all.

Mark Cummings — NY
(The Dragon #24)

There’s not a whole lot I can say
about the foregoing. Had I written
the review of LOTR, as I had
planned before I went to see it, it
would scarcely have been any
kinder.  To the contrary, it would
have been far more cutting and
critical.  I hope Messrs. Zaentz and
Bakshi take heed. -- ED
 
 
 
 

"Bakshi's shoddy work"
Dear Editor:

En garde, Master Rahman and those of you
who defend such shoddy pieces of work such as
Bakshi’s. (I’ll refrain from referring to it as the ‘Lord
of the Rings’)

Mr. Rahman states “There is no way for a film
to capture everything that can be put into a book,
and a film can express things no writer could hope
to accomplish.” Granted in most cases, but the film
in question here very seldom reached any expression
on its own.

As to the map mentioned by Master Cummings,
a meritable idea. Rahman was concerned about it
doing nothing more than stopping the action. Blah!
A deep feeling of ‘ripped-off’ came to me (as well as
minor shock), in Bakshi using stills when scenes 
were too tough, too complex, or when he feared he
would just blow the mood with lousy animation.
Nothing could have broken the movie more. Verily, I
feared greatly for the audience for just when the
movie promised to at least meet base expections all
action would stop, unless you consider a horse’s leg
shifting or a flag unfurling in the breeze action, and
it seemed certain someone would end up with a
case of whiplash disgruntedly falling back against
their seats. Especially after working and watching
for two hours to get there..

It was also stated that the ‘Lord of the Rings’ is
just too big of a book with its 500,000 words, 3
volumes, a novel forward, six appendices 1,300
pages, and a foundation such as the ‘Silmarillion’.
Ah, tut, tut, tut, no excuse. Bakshi was aware of the
bulk before he drew his –2 butchering knife.

In closing I’d like to thank both Mr. Cummings
and Mr. Rahman for their definitions of ‘ripped off’.
Ah, yes, and before I lay down the sword of
tongue, I strongly disagree with Mark Hermansen. I
feel that an amazing bulk of wargamers are quite
pacifistic.

Let me say I am over six feet tall close to two
hundred pounds and love to growl in the foam of
my ale, I am also a sharpshooter, I practice nearly
daily with the bow. I fight forest fires for the State of
Washington and there’s still little that I love as much
as the initial attack on a small (several acre) fire
where men and equipment are put to the test in
most every way. I also think nothing of leading a
foray into an orc stronghold with swords slashing
spells slithering, beasts howling and hacking our
way into its depths, yet I stop there. My violence
goes no further.

As a parting thought think of the Game Con
that could be held with the funds we spent in
‘Nam’, and the game developments we could reach
with the Defence fund. Lets send those ‘Russkies’
some 20-sided dice.

In peaceful strength,
Jon of Stonehedge
(The Dragon #30)

Hi Lurkinggherkin,

You are right on both accounts.
REH was my first real S&S author and remains a favorite to this day.

Oerth is indeed more influenced by his writing than ever that of JRRT.
tolkien did not write S&S, he wrote fantasy, what I would call high fantasy in the LotR trilogy.

Cheerio,
Gary

< (Interview with Gary Gygax) >

Quote, S'mon:
It might have been an unconscious thing, but I do very much get the impression that D&D's goblins & hobgoblins are based off the ones in The Hobbit, and D&D's orcs are based off orcs in Lord of the Rings (rather than Celtic mythology, say), so in essence all 3 are the same monster. Likewise D&D's dwarves' attributes seem more directly akin to Tolkien's dwarves than most mythological representations, and D&D elves likewise. And halflings, of course (although Tolkien didn't invent 'hobbit', despite what his estate claims).
 

Of course I included names of humanoids that had been used in Tolkien's works.
That was something done purpusefully in order to appeal to the JRRT fan base.
however, goblin armies are hardly unique to his work.
Those critters are written about a good deal in folklore and fairy tales.
I believe that is why the Good Professor switched from goblin to "orc" so as to be more unique.

I'll wager you are sad about being able to find any mention of gnoll or bugbear in his writings, so you can point to them too, eh?
Heh-heh-heh.
This reminds me of the novice editor for a large NYC publisher who when appearing on a SF panel with me asked why I had "stolen dwarves from Tolkien."
I set her straight by informing the not-well-read young lady that I had done my research and stolen them from Norse myth, the same source JRRT used

Anyway, it doesn't matter what goblin, hobgoblin, and orc are in JRRT'swriting, because they are different and not the same in D&D, are they not?

As for hobbit, I found a single reference to that name, sans any discriptive material.
The hobbits of Tolkien's writing are indeed unique to his authorship.
The D&D halflings are not nearly as unique, as they are meant to fill in for those gamers who admire hobbits.

Quote, S'mon:
Of the D&D Player-Character races, half-orcs are perhaps the least Tolkienesque in that the ones hinted at in LOTR seem to be sly, sneaky infiltrators rather than big dumb lunks, although I think he does have it that the big Uruk Hai/hobgoblins are the result of orc-human crossbreeding.
 

That being the case, the proper term for such hybrids is half-hobgoblins, I suppose...

What about elves?
The D&D elf has little of JRRT's elf in it. they are shorter and not at all special as he had therace.

Anyway, I have cleared up all such confusion in the LA RPG.
Kobolds are tough and smart and good-looking in a devilish way.
Hobgoblins are small and dangerous, goblins are bigger and more dangerous.
Trolls are more like medieval trolls, turn to stone daylight. There are allsorts of elf-like races--alfs, lyfs, elfs, ilfs, and wylfs.
Orgre are the baddest of regular giants--those of deital sorts not included, of course.

Cheers,
Gary

<Gary or dcas?>

Howdy dcas
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcas
The reference is a bit obscure. [snip]
And from your reference it seems to be in the Trilogy, not The Hobbit.
While i do forget a lot of things, having read the latter book first normally,
then aloud two or three times for my children,
I was rather taken aback that I hadn't recalled any reference to hobgoblins within its pages.
<Gary or dcas?>

Quote:
Yes. "Orc" sounds much more serious than "goblin," don't you think?
He even created a phony etymology for "orc."
Absolutely!
The dictionary has an orc defined as a kind of ogre, and ogre is a seriously menacing word.
In all events, gamers have taken to "orc" like ducks to water

Cheers,
Gary

Howdy Dcas 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcas
The reference is a bit obscure. [snip]
 

And from your reference it seems to be in the Trilogy, not The Hobbit.
While i do forget a lot of things, having read the latter book first normally, then aloud two or three times for my children, I was rather taken aback that I hadn't recalled any reference to hobgoblins within its pages.
 

Right Boz,

What a trip to have had Tolkien play D&D, using it as the base of a rules system for adventures on his own Middle Earth world as Phil Barker did in regards to his Tekumel world setting!

Thinking of being able to exchange ideas with the Good Professor T. blows me away. Ah well...

Cheers,
gary

The short answer regarding JRRT's work:

I created the D&D game to sell, to get to as many consumers as possible, and the best way to do that was to include races that were favored by the many young Tolkien fans.
Dwarves are hardly a main feature of the Rings trilogy, but hobbits, elves, orcs, balrog, and ents (the Anglo-Saxon word for "giant," of course) were.
So I included them so as to sell the game.
Even though I find the Rings trilogy a bore, found Bored of the Rings great sport, so what?
Gamers are able to enjoy their D&D campaign with as much Tolkein flavor as they wish.

A careful analysis of all the races and creatures in the OAD&D game will see how small the percentage of Tolkien-inspired material there is actually within the roster.
Of course, I do not count elves as JRRT's creation at all, they being the stuff of much British folklore, as Dwarves are Scandanivian and Germanic.
Of all that the Professor wrote about, the hobbits, the balrog, and the ents were all that were uniquely detailed.

Speaking of bored, that's what this tedious subject does to me and quite a few others I should imagine <EEK!>

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Mouser
Don't you realize that Tolkien was your main inspiration for the whole of D&D, Gary? Why continue to bring up the thousands of other stories and hundreds of other authors you had read before making the game and admit the truth that one author, whose major work you didn't particularly care for, is really responsible for every aspect of the game?

Well...

I did enjoy The Hobbit, and I was awfully fond of the Tom Bombadil character. The rest was just too slow and dull for my taste. I somehow never could really relate to the mental agonies of a furry-footed midget and his similar companions. At least when Elric becomes deptessive there is soon some action to make the reader forget the boring passage preceeding it 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcas
The Fellowship of the Ring?

Not saying it was necessarily an inspiration, since I know you are not inordinately fond of Professor Tolkien's work; but the members of the Fellowship have, until their break-up, pretty clear roles as party members.

Sorry, but there isn't a spell-caster amongst the lot.

Cheers,
Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
I know Gandalf's magic is apparently weak compared to D&D magic, but surely he is a spell-caster!

Nary a cleric nor an illusionist, and Gandalf doesn't cast a truly potent spell on behalf of the party, so I'll stick by my statement

Cheerio,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by noffham
Gandalf is clearly a psion with several domination-like powers and the ability to battle demons through astral projection. 

Errr...

Somehow I do not believe that Professor Tolkien would agree with that.

Cheerio,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey
Gandalf was an incarnate angel and definitely not anything described in Gygaxian D&D.

Speaking of J. R. R. Tolkien, are you planning to read The Children of Hurin? Here it is on amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Children-Hurin...6418464&sr=1-1

That's the first newly-published fantasy novel that I've looked forward to since I can remember.

Indeed, whatever Gandalf might have been in regards the Professor's mind, he was not a character that is comparable to virtually any FRPG system I can think of that was not designed specifically from the Rings Trilogy.

I am in no hurry to read the "new" JRRT book, as I have plenty of reading material at the moment.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelHardisson
Using only the books as sources, his most flamboyant use of magic occurs off-stage - a good example is his battle with the Ringwraiths at Weathertop. Lots of thunder and lightning, but only seen from afar. His battle with the Balrog on the top of Zirak-Zigil is also very flashy, also with lightning and thunder, but again, it's related by him in flashback. The most outright-powerful use of magic he displays "on stage" occurs as he races out to rescue Faramir and company; he uses a ray of light to drive away the Nazgul almost at the gates of Minas Tirith. But, this could have been an effect of the Elven Ring he wore, which was the Ring of Fire.

Heh,

And what other sources might one use for Gandalf other than the books Tolkein authored?
As far as I can determine, the Professor's concept of the magic used on Middle Earth was not of the sort common in S&S fiction and founf in FRPGs.

Cheerio.
Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey
,,,

...The closest thing in AD&D to Gandalf would be a deva.
 

And that angel-like creature was meant to be as such.

Cheers,
Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelHardisson
A lot of people now use the movies as sources. The movies =/= the books, by a long shot. My mentioning that I was only using the books as sources was to head off any "where was that in the movies?" type of questions.

Had the Professor written and directed the films, they would have validity in regards Middle Earth.
As that is not the case, anything in the films that does not appear in Tolkien's writings is absolutely apocryphal, is it not?

Cheers,
Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naidim
Gary,

First I'd like to add my thanks for the creation of something that has added so much joy to my life.

When I first got into reading, my grandmother got for me the Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander and I was hooked on S&S. After that I picked up 3 Hearts and 3 Lions by Poul Anderson and The Hobbit/LotR. When a friend introduced me to D&D in 1979 I was in heaven, being able to adventure in the worlds I loved to read about was everything I could imagine.

I appreciate your thanks 

It goes without saying that I too found much joy, entertainment, and stimulous from my youthful reading. As a matter of fact I am still devoted to reading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelHardisson
...

By the way, I meant it as a general comment for anyone reading this thread. It wasn't directed at you. My assumption is you know the movies and books are two different beasts.

Yes indeed, and I must confess that I very much enjoyed the movies...

Cheerio,
Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Mouser
Colonel,

I know you're not a big fan of JRRT, but I do have to recommend The Children of Hurin. Only 259 pages, and that includes the preface and introduction. It seems to me to be Tolkien's take on Greek tragedy set in a fantasy milieu. Without dropping any spoilers I have to just say that I got the last 1/3 (or so) of the book and thought, "OMG, no way!" Had to go back and reread a bit just to make sure I was following what was going on correctly 

BTW, the book also fetures a damn cool talking sword. I'd have to think JRRT was a bit influenced by Michael Moorecock in this area if the story hadn't been written some time before the appearance of Stormbringer 

As for your other comments, I have to completely argee with the necessity of rereading Jack Vance on a fairly regular basis. Rarely have I read an author whose prose I enjoyed so much. I also hope that the outline of the new Gord novel progresses apace. And don't forget to put in the appearance of Mordenkainen and Bigby! (Heh, I know, I know...) 

Gray Mouser

when i am out of reading material that I am excited about likely I will picj up The Children of Hurin. After all, I did really enjoy reading The Hobbit. Perhaps the "singing Sword" wielded by Prince Valiant was a source of inspiration for JRRT. Anyway, IIRR there are some talking swords in fairy tales. It has been decades since I read those of Andrew Lang where I think they appear.

As for Vance, how thoroughly I agree. His prose is so exceptional that reading it is a sheer joy. I recall how I lingered over Night Lamp, wishing it were 400 or more pages in length.

Because i have had too much other stuff to do today, I have made no further progress on the detailed outline for the new Gord novel, still only nine chapters set forth. I'll add one or two more today yet...with luck.

Cheerio,
Gary

<trim>

<idea: try for more use Tolkien fonts, on the site>