Showing posts with label Appendix N. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Appendix N. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

The Perils of Public Statements and Why Natasha Pulley is the Bravest SF/F Fan I've Ever Read



The Guardian is one of the few newspapers that truly takes Science Fiction and Fantasy literature seriously on a regular basis. They frequently have reviews of new releases, cover the latest kerfuffle in fandom, and run a number of opinion columns discussing the genres. As a fan, it's nice to find a place in the mainstream media where I can see one of my obsessions treated without a hint of irony.

This isn't to say that The Guardian doesn't wander into Clickbaitlandia from time to time. I took one of their regular writers, Damien Walter, to task for asking if we were "in a post-Sci Fi era." Damien was kind enough to take my discussion seriously, which made for one of my own personal blogging highlights. One does not often imagine that people who have deadlines to meet, and who are halfway across the globe, have time to respond to one's little island of ideas.

About a week or so ago, Damien wrote a piece lamenting the tyranny of mega-novel series in epic fantasy fiction. As a fan of the Fantasy genre, who is tired of being expected to read 10,000 pages over the span of 20 years in order to get a complete tale told within an author's mythopoeic construction, I was glad to see someone I respect shared my views. I miss the compact and deep shorter novels of days past. Long gone are the days of Elric of Melnibone, we now live in the era of The Wheel of Time. I think that today's readers are poorer for that experience, but there are those who disagree with Damien's view. Among them is an aspiring author named Natasha Pulley.

Natasha Pulley argues in her own piece at The Guardian that, "High fantasy...hinges on world-building. When there really is a whole world to build, and not just a historical period or a particular country, world-building does not take a few paragraphs in a short story; it takes chapters. Add to that the anvil on which creative writing schools hammer their students now, show don't tell, and these details take even longer to convey." Her argument is that the modern genre of Epic Fantasy requires the massive amounts of elaboration that so many modern Fantasy novels indulge in as a condition of additig literary value and verisimilitude. In Pulley's analysis, many of the best Fantasy stories are very simple tales at there core and it is the addition of world-building and subtle portrayals of character interaction that make these stories truly worthwhile.


There is more to her argument, to be sure and you should read her piece in its entirety, but it is one that I could not disagree with more. I think that the kind of "subtlety" of interpersonal interactions that makes up much of the verbiage of many a modern tale are flaws in writing and not virtues.

Before I elaborate on my reasons, I want to take a moment to repeat something I wrote in the headline of this post. Natasha Pulley may be the bravest SF/F fan I've ever read. I write this because she has written column that takes up a somewhat controversial opinion during a time when fandom won't hesitate to demonstrate to you exactly how wrong you are, and often not in the nicest of terms. The reason I am writing this post is less because I disagree with Pulley and think she is in need of "correction," rather it's because of the ire she raised among my Facebook friends. I have an odd collection of "friends" on Facebook who run the gamut from "not at all interested in SF/F" to editors in the field, and many of them were outraged by Pulley's piece. One of the nicer critiques was that it seemed that The Guardian had recently become a cesspool of nothing but click bait articles.

I, myself, even tweeted out a brief "you clearly haven't read x..." tweet in response to Pulley's article. I wasn't insulting in tone or language, but I think I was a bit dismissive. Pulley's response was perfect, "I'll add that to my reading list." Not only is she brave, but she clearly cast a Stoneskin spell upon herself after writing the piece. The rage on my feed, and Pulley's own polite response to my snark, are why I'm writing this post.

I'll begin my critique of Pulley's piece by using a trick she uses in her own article. In order to demonstrate how simple, almost simplistic, Epic Fantasy tales can be, she reduces a couple to their barest skeleton. Her choices are Game of Thrones, The Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter. I'll go a step more modern, into a series that is "windier" (pun totally intended) than Rowling at her most "we are camping for 300 pages," and pick Patrick Rothfuss's The Name of the Wind.

Name of the Wind  : Homeless youth goes to college and acquires student loan debt.

Spoiler alert. That's pretty much all that happens in that book and it takes a long time to get there. Readers are led through sidebar after sidebar of other short stories along the way, but that's the crux of the book. Oh...and it's very enjoyable because it's well written. A part of how well it is written is in the little short stories that take place throughout the book. In fact, the sidebars contain far more world-building than the wordy narrative. Some of the best world-building in Rothfuss' book are the product of "off-hand" comments made by characters in the book. By off-hand, I mean off-hand to the characters, they are very intentional by the author.

This brings me to my main point. While Pulley is correct in stating that the on page development of deep friendships or interactions between characters can be page consuming, she is wrong about world-building. The problem, and blessing, of modern Fantasy is that it gives us entire conversations. This makes for very believable characters, but neither moves the story along nor gives the reader a sense of the world.

The best world-building is seen in shorter fiction, not in longer. It is, as Pulley rightfully acknowledges, extremely difficult to write short fiction let alone short Fantasy fiction. That's one of the reasons, much to Susan Palwick's disappointment I imagine, that I have not published any fiction to date. It's hard to be creative. But as difficult as short fiction is to write, it is where the best writing occurs.

Robert E Howard's first Conan tale, which I examined at this blog some time ago, is rich with world-building. Sometimes Howard achieves world-building through heuristic shortcuts where certain nations are "inspired" by our own history. He's not alone in this though as Robert Jordan borrowed from Dune, King Arthur, Tolkien, and a host of other sources for his Wheel of Time series. One would imagine that with all of the world-building shortcuts Jordan used, he wouldn't need so many books to tell his tale.

Fritz Lieber's classic tales of Nehwon are all short fiction, usually novellas, that give a strong sense of place in a very small number of words.

Michael Moorcock's Elric Saga is brilliant for its world-building and yet the world gets no "bigger" the more books you read. The world is real from moment one, even if you don't get the heuristic shortcuts Moorcock is using.

Garth Nix's tales of Hereward and Mr. Fitz take place in a fully imagined environment and never have they wandered into even the novel in length.

H.P. Lovecraft build complex mythologies within the short form.

C.L. Moore's Northwest Smith is one of the most realized characters in all of fiction, and his tales are a collection of shorter stories.

Barsoom is fully realized in "Under the Moons of Mars." Yes, that's a novel, but it isn't a massive mega-novel series. Even as a series, the full of Barsoom lore pales before a single volume of Rothfuss in mass.

Averoigne is as real a place as any other, but Clark Ashton Smith did not need 12 volumes to immerse us there.

The depth of a setting can be shared with arcane and subtle references that inspire the imagination. One need not have a fully articulated mythology akin to the Silmarillion fully referenced within a tale to give that tale depth. I'm not saying that having a fully written Silmarillion isn't helpful to an author who wants to be able to share subtle references with readers, it probably is. Instead, I'm saying that all readers need are subtle references to fill in the blanks. Gary Gygax's Appendix N is filled with tales of wonder far shorter, and more inspirational, than much of what is published today.

Leave gaps for the readers to fill. Let our imaginations live in the spaces between.

It is a tragedy that Fantasy has wandered too often away from praise of shorter fiction, short stories, novels, and novellas. They are still printed, but they lack the commercial success of their mega-tyrants. Given how much easier it is to translate a shorter tale to other media, other fandoms are ill-served by this tyranny.

I've shared only a few of my favorite shorter tales of Fantasy. What are some of yours?

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

AD&D's Appendix N? What About the Moldvay Appendix?

now become a widely used shorthand for the literary origins of RPGs."  James' site often includes discussions of the appendix, its influence on the early days of the hobby, and from time to time he even reviews books and authors featured in the Appendix. 

Given that he has taken the time to review the Carnelian Cube, a book that fellow Appendix N advocate Erik Mona has found "wanting," it is my hope that James will someday review the Kothar series by Gardner Fox.  Though if that doesn't happen I might just find the time to do so.  Having endured a couple of Lin Carter's Thongor books, I figure they cannot be much worse.  That said, Carter at least has the virtue of being one of the best editors in SF/F history even though his Thongor stories fall very short of the best of Sword and Sorcery fiction.

If I were to say that the influence of Appendix N extended beyond the gaming table and that many of the works therein are also seminal works of Science Fiction and Fantasy, I don't think there would be many who disagree.  The Appendix includes luminaries like Leigh Brackett, Edgar Rice Burroughs, J.R.R. Tolkien, Manly Wade Wellman, and Robert E. Howard -- and many others beside.  But the list is also incomplete.  There is no listing for Clark Ashton Smith, for example. 

But this is not the only list of recommended reading that the Dungeons & Dragons games have provided their readers.  No indeed.  The Erik Mona edited Pathfinder roleplaying game, or as I call it D&D Golarion, has it's own Appendix 3 which features a list of recommended reading.  It is a longer list than Gygax's, and a good one.



My own favorite "Appendix N" is a combination of the "inspirational source material" provided by Tom Moldvay on page B62 of the 1981 Dungeons & Dragons Basic and in the module X2 Castle Amber.  While others may have based their youthful Fantasy purchases on Appendix N, I based mine almost entirely on the Moldvay list.  It should be noted that Tom Moldvay was assisted in the creation of his list by Barbara Davis who was  Children's Librarian at the Lake Geneva Public Library.  Davis eventually became the Library Director from 1984 to 1996.  I don't know where she is now, but I'd like to thank her for the many hours of joy the list she worked on has provided many young people.

Maliszewski has already written a brief comment about how the Moldvay list differs from the Gygax one, and argues that it represents a shift from material that influenced the design of the game to a list that might provide inspiration or entertainment for those who play the game.  To quote James, "Whereas Gygax's list was a list of the specific books and authors who influenced him in creating the game -- and are thus a window into how he saw the game -- Moldvay's list is a generalized quasi-academic survey of fiction and non-fiction that might hold some interest to players of D&D."

His language is strong, and as much as he demurs from the quote being used as a "this list is better than the other list" statement, it seems clear to me that the use of the term "quasi-academic" is somewhat loaded.

Let's just say that James and I hold similar, but not exact positions on the lists.  I agree that the Gygax list is a specific list that influenced him in creating the game.  I think the list was also one which he thought would appeal to people who were currently playing D&D.  That is to say, adults.  When AD&D was first published, the game was just beginning to escape from college campuses and niche SF/F reading circles and into the mainstream.  The Moldvay list, on the other hand, is written for a generation of emerging players.  It is written for the young. 

Both lists include some overlap -- Fritz Leiber, Robert Howard, H.P. Lovecraft, and J.R.R. Tolkien.   But Moldvay's list is divided into many sections. 

There is Fiction: Young Adult, which includes Lloyd Alexander, L Frank Baum, and Ursula Le Guin. 

There is Non-Fiction: Young Adult, which includes Olivia Coolidge's Legends of the North.

There is Fiction: Adult Fantasy with Poul Anderson, Leigh Brackett, Avram Davidson, E.R. Eddison, Heinlein, Jack Vance, Karl Edward Wagner, and a host of others.

Adult Non-Fiction includes Jorge Luis Borges' The Book of Imaginary Beasts and Thomas Bullfinch.

In most ways, the Moldvay list is inclusive of Appendix N.  There are only four authors Moldvay's list leaves out that are in the Gygax list.  These are Frederic Brown, August DerlethMargaret St. Clair, and Stanley Weinbaum

If you want a wonderful overview of the Sword and Sorcery field, I would argue that you should start with the Moldvay list and add the four authors that Moldvay excluded.  If your primary mission is to see the books that influenced Gygax, stick to Appendix N.

Both are good lists, but I still prefer the Moldvay.  That attachment probably stems from an overall affection for the Moldvay Basic Set, but...

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Max Brooks is Better than C.L. Moore According to NPR

I hate top 100 lists.  They force reviewers, participants, and readers to ranks books in order of "importance" or "quality" in a way that is truly unhelpful.  Matters of which book is better or worse are not merely a matter of subjective standards, the subjectivity often lacks any real weight of opinion.  As someone what their 54th favorite book is, and the answer will likely be different each and every time.  This is even true if the individual hadn't read any books between askings.

The one thing that top 100 lists are good for is spurring discussion and possibly, just possibly, highlighting works that may be overlooked by those who want to explore a particular subject or genre.  But the 1001 "blanks" to "blank" before you die books do a similar thing and don't have any arcane selection systems.

Recently, NPR finalized their "Your Picks: Top 100 Science-Fiction, Fantasy Books" list.  It was a list that seemed to have rules constructed specifically to rule out Harry Potter and to guarantee that Tolkien would be placed at the top of the heap.  It's a list that contains some truly excellent examples of genre writing, but it is also a list that demonstrates the flaws so apparent in top 100 lists.  One wonders what "new shores" or discoveries the individual seeking to delve into SF and Fantasy will find if they pick from this list -- a list filled with well known names and tilted toward New York Times best-sellers, as well as some writers favored by the literati.  The list is sadly lacking in some truly excellent names, while including all of the "modern favorites."  One knows they are reading a flawed list when the first Michael Moorcock book is listed at spot 90 behind such longstanding and influential works as <em>World War Z</em> and Timothy Zahn's "Thrawn Trilogy" of Star Wars media tie-in fiction.  I loved <em>World War Z</em> and the Zahn is one of the best writers in the Expanded Universe, but neither of these contain the literary merit or influence of the Elric books -- or Moorcock's work in general.

There are authors on the list, high ranking authors, who consider Moorcock to be mandatory reading, yet he ranks in the bottom 10 of the top 100.

If only this were the worst of the sins.  Low rankings on a list can be dismissed as mere subjective differences, but out and out exclusion of important voices -- while other writers receive multiple entries -- is nigh unforgivable.

Who was excluded?

Are you a fan of fantasy history and look to the past for great writing? Are you looking for some names you might remember from English Literature courses?

Never mind Samuel Butler or Edmund Spenser, you won't find them on this list.

Patrick Rothfuss' "The Name of the Wind" (a wonderful book btw) comes in at #18, but "The Faerie Queene?"  Nah that's not a top 100.

The writer who created one of the most entertaining genre's in all of SF, the Planetary Romance, should be there right?  Nope.  Edgar Rice Burroughs is a less important contributor to SF/F than Terry Brooks.  Friends who know how much I love and defend Terry Brooks know that I make that statement not out of lack of respect for Brooks, but for those who think he has more "important" works than Burroughs.

Where are C.L. Moore, Leigh Brackett, C.J. Cherryh, Elizabeth Moon?  Thankfully Connie Willis and Lois McMaster Bujold manage to make the list (at #97 and #59 respectively) or the list would be a complete fraud.

Edmond Hamilton, Manly Wade Wellman, David Gemmell, Gordon R. Dickson (wtf? no Gordon R. Dickson?!), Harlan Ellison, or Jack Williamson?  All of these writers are of lesser contribution than Max Brooks.

John Brunner, who wrote a book that one could argue paved the way for Brook's World War Z entitled <em>Stand on Zanzibar</em>?  Nope.

Worst of all.  There are two Stephen King books and not one by Howard Phillips Lovecraft or Edgar Allan Poe.

What books or authors do you think were left off the list that are top SF/F writers?

Do you prefer "to be read lists" to "top 100" lists?

Thursday, July 28, 2011

A Game Master's "Appendix N" -- A List of Books Every GM Should Own

Gary Gygax's list of recommended reading, is "appendix," on page 224 of the first Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide holds a special place in the role playing game community.  In role playing circles, the list is as influential -- if not more so -- than the Lin Carter Ballantine Adult Fantasy series is for Fantasy fans in general.  Gygax provided the list so that Dungeon Masters could be filled with the same wonder and inspiration that eventually culminated in his creation of the Dungeons and Dragons role playing game.

The appendix is quite marvelous.  It begins by mentioning that Gygax's father's story telling was a key component in sparking young Gary's imagination.  Too often discussions of Appendix N leave out the opening paragraph when discussing the important influences, but we should all remember how important it is to share stories with our children and to take some time to make up our own bed time stories.  It is wonderful to read to our children, but by telling them stories we show our children that it is okay to invent their own tales.

But this post isn't about Gary's list. There are plenty of posts discussing "Appendix N," such as this Cimmerian post on the topic. The original "Appendix N" was a list of inspirational authors and works of fiction that Dungeon Masters could read to spark their narrative imaginations, and better understand the kind of Fantasy that would be experienced using the Dungeons & Dragons rules. That was a lofty goal, and one that the list succeeded at, but it is only half of what a good GM needs. A GM needs both food for the imagination, and food for the presentation.

By this I mean that GMs need stories that can lead them to create wonderfully rich narratives for their players, but they also need the tools that will help them to manage very good sessions. Essentially, GMs need both a degree in "Literature that Inspires Good Gaming" and "Game Session Management." Over the 25+ years that I've been running games, and as someone who was once a terrible GM, here is a list of books I've found invaluable. Future blog posts (on no particular schedule) will highlight some of these books and talk about why they are so important.

Friday, January 21, 2011

In Memory of Robert E Howard -- Jan 22, 1906 to June 11, 1936

When I saw the first Conan movie (1982) I had never heard of Robert E Howard. Even after that movie inspired me to purchase a couple of Conan paperbacks at the local paperback exchange, the name of Conan's creator was unknown to me as the books I purchased were of the pastiche variety. It wasn't until the Christmas after I had seen the film when my parents bought me the Dungeon Master's Guide and I read Gary Gygax's famous "Appendix N" that I remember encountering the name. I quickly found copies of Conan stories that were written by Howard, though the editions also contained some "co-written" stories, and I could instantly see a difference between the dark prose of Howard and the more juvenile writing of the imitators. There was something more to the Howard stories (as I have written before). They weren't the immature wish fulfillment tales of a lusty and violent young man in a loincloth of some of the imitators. Contrary to the Schwarzenegger portrayal, Howard's Conan was cunning, quick witted, joyful and somber.

It wasn't long before I was hunting down everything I could find written by Howard. Eventually, I stumbled upon my favorite Howard character Solomon Kane. The wrathful puritan's tales combined horror and action in a way that sparked my imagination.




In recent years, I have read a good deal of Howard's fiction as more publishers release collections of his writings. Recently, I have been paging through Del Rey's The Horror Stories of Robert E. Howard and came across a story that is wonderfully Poe-esque. In honor of Howard's 105th birthday, here is a sample of "The Touch of Death."

Old Adam Farrel lay dead in the house wherein he had lived alone for the last twenty years. A silent, churlish recluse, in his life he had known no friends, and only two men had watched his passing.

Dr. Stein rose and glanced out the window into the gathering dusk.
"You think you can spend the night here, then?" he asked his companion.
This man, Falred by name, assented.
"Yes, certainly. I guess it's up to me."
"Rather a useless and primitive custom, sitting up with the dead," commented the doctor, preparing to depart, "but I suppose in common decency we will have to bow to precedence. Maybe I can find some one who'll come over here and help you with your vigil."
Falred shrugged his shoulders. "I doubt it. Farrel wasn't liked -- wasn't known by many people. I scarcely knew him myself, but I don't mind sitting up with a corpse."
Dr. Stein was removing his rubber gloves and Falred watched the process with an interest that almost amounted to fascination. A slight, involuntary shudder shook him at the memory of touching these gloves -- slick, cold, clammy things, like the touch of death.

The story proceeds from this opening to a perfectly rewarding Twilight Zone style resolution. The tone has been set.

I often wonder at what tales Howard would have written had he lived beyond the age of 30. Sadly, we can only speculate.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG in Playtest Phase

This November Goodman Games will be releasing their Dungeon Crawl Classics role playing game. Goodman Games describes the game as "an OGL system that crossbreeds Appendix N with a streamlined version of 3E." I have enjoyed reading the Dungeon Crawl Classics line of adventures that Goodman has published, and will be purchasing the game when it comes out.

One of the things I find most interesting about the game is that it will be using all the "weird" Zocchi dice -- like the 24 sided die. It reminds me of my friend Ron's idea to create an rpg that only used 12 sided dice for resolution. His reason for the idea? He liked d12s. Apparently the folks at Goodman Games like the "weird" dice, and incorporating them into game play sounds plain fun.

The game is currently in playtest.

I am envious of all those who are playtesting the game. I'll just have to pre-order it and count the days.

BTW, this book has a cover I can appreciate.

In My Mailbox Today -- The Wildside Press Robert E. Howard Reader

For the past few months I had contemplated purchasing The Robert E Howard Reader from Wildside Press. I have purchased some of their Howard publications in the past, in particular Gates of Empire and have been quite happy with the purchases. Wildside is one of the many excellent smaller SF/F publishers and are the current publisher of Weird Tales, Sherlock Holmes Mystery Magazine and Adventure Tales.

What struck me as particularly interesting about the Reader was its ecumenical approach to Howard scholarship. The book features writings about Howard from Poul Anderson, Fritz Leiber, Robert M. Price, and the pariah of many modern Howard fans L. Sprague de Camp. In fact, the book is dedicated to de Camp (I can see James at Grognardia cringing as I write this).

As much as I disagree with de Camp's analysis of Howard's psyche as pure psychobabble, I have always admired his promotion of Howard's work and I was impressed that the Reader included and acknowledged him.

There was only one thing that kept me from ordering the book day one...

It has a horrible cover! It's worse than a Baen books cover, and that's not easy folks. What would your average plane/bus/train passenger think I was reading if they saw it?


I finally overcame my hesitation. After all, if I can admit to being a Hellcats fan how bad can walking around with this book be?

Looking at the contents, I am impressed so far. There is just one thing that keeps grating against my nerves. In the introduction of the book, and on the back cover, it says "A century after Robert E. Howard's death, it is evident that this amazing Texan achieved something unique in the annals of American literature." Conceptually, I agree with the sentence. Factually, I am irked. Robert E. Howard died in 1936 -- 75 years ago. The book was written for publication in 2007 -- you can still buy the author's Lulu version -- so it is intended as a Howard Centennial book. This is great, and I'm sure the writer meant "a century after Robert E. Howard's birth," but the lack of editing/review irks me.

I'll let you know how the book holds up as soon as I can get my mental nitpicker to take a nap.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Continuing the Conversation -- New "Blogging Pulp Stories" Page Added

I will be resuming my [Blogging Northwest Smith] series of posts next week with the story "Yvala." I have very much enjoyed reading the stories and writing my thoughts about them, but work, school, and two and a half year old twin daughters have interrupted the process.

In honor of my renewed intent to fulfill the social contract I entered with you last year, I have added a page to this blog entitled "Blogging Pulp Stories." On this page, you will find a listing of all the Northwest entries. As time permits, I will add other stories to the list as well. After Northwest will likely come Jirel of Joiry -- might as well read more Moore as she has a wonderful voice. This will likely be followed by a foray into "lost" DeCamp. I recently purchased a copy of a UK issue of Unknown Worlds that contains the Sprague DeCamp story "Solomon's Stone," and I am itching to read it. In his book Fantasy Roleplaying Games John Eric Holmes mentioned the story as a "proto" rpg tale, and I have longed to read it since Holmes' mention.

One of the reasons I am looking forward to re-igniting this series is because of the tremendous influence these tales have had on the gaming hobby and on popular culture in general.