Quote from: Krazz on March 04, 2025, 02:45:50 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 03, 2025, 04:49:03 PM

Quote from: Krazz on March 03, 2025, 03:42:05 PMI thought about this topic after watching a video about Tolkien's views on Narnia. Tolkien tried to make his races have their own cultures and mentalities, as part of an attempt at mature world-building. He didn't like Lewis's approach to Narnia, where talking beavers, fauns and British schoolchildren all have the same culture and mentality.

Could you link that video? I want to take issue with that position, but not on the basis of just a paraphrase.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3vcnBzPKM

Interesting stuff.

Far be it from me to pick a fight with the ghost of Professor Tolkien, so I'll just say that the guy making the video doesn't appear to have actually read the Narnia books.

In a strictly literal way, the claim being made is incorrect. Narnia does have a culture which is both distinct from the culture of 20th century Britain, and from that of the other fictional nations in the stories (Telmar, Calormen, etc.). There is also a history there, which is hinted at throughout the series and shown in The Magician's Nephew, and there's differentiation within the inhabitants of Narnia. The Black Dwarves are culturally distinct from the Red Dwarves; centaurs are different from werewolves, and so on. Some of the more fantastical creatures like the sea people or the naiads are genuinely quite alien to the protagonists.

That said, I can see why all of that would be insufficient to Tolkien's tastes, especially given the religious objections which that video also mentions. It's definitely true to say that the history of Narnia is a lot less logical and thorough than the history of Middle Earth. I like both quite a bit, but they are very different approaches to fantasy. The plagiarism allegation is an interesting one, which I hadn't heard before, but I'd need to see more than what the video cites.

What I will say is that it's unfair to Narnia to say it's analogous to what's been going on with contemporary D&D. To the extent that there is a samey-ness amongst the fantasy creatures of Narnia, it's largely because Lewis draws very broad generalizations around "good" and "bad"-natured creatures, arguably moreso than Tolkien. That's the opposite of the direction D&D is going in.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on March 04, 2025, 11:10:42 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 04, 2025, 09:34:42 AM99% of the time they're written as a culture that human beings could easily develop

Many such cases. Planet of the hats. There are a few ways around it, like making the world universe such that the only way out of the fermi paradox is to be basically human so there's a selection presure towards basically just being humans in hats, but that seems unsatisfing. I like going the lovecraft direction, "these aliens are so different from you I'm not even going to bother trying to explain how, good luck".

My preference is towards the Stargate approach. Not literally with Stargates, but that a precursor stage of humanity lost to deep time (say 20k to 14k years ago) expanded out to the stars before everything collapsed so now you've got environmentally adapted humans all over a sphere of inhabited planets within a distance that reinvented hyperdrives or whatever can reach.

14k years is enough time for some degree of evolution to fit planetary environments, but probably not enough to make their thought processes inhuman (probably still be genetically compatible too... like wolves and dogs).

There's two things about the Chronicles of Narnia that needs to be considered to properly critique them.  First, CS Lewis wrote them to be children's books.  Second, the Chronicles of Narnia are allegorical stories where all the fae and the talking animals are supposed to be a way to view regular people through a new lens.

In contrast, Tolkien wrote his Middle Earth books in a much different manner and for a much different purpose.  He intended his audience for almost all of his books to be adults.  He also wanted to explore themes divorced from the personalities that usually provide them and from the conclusions that most tend to push.

Comparing the two, Narnia and Middle Earth, is like comparing a canoe to a passenger jet.  Sure, they are both vehicles but the comparison drops off after that. 

For a more apt comparison of Lewis to Tolkien, I recommend Perelandra and Til We Have Faces.  Here we can see a much more deliberate Lewis writing in pure fiction for a much more sophisticated audience.  More deeply, we can see that Lewis writes to bring the reader to a specific point where the reader observes a specific element in a specific way.  In other words, Lewis is getting to a conclusion and his entire story is to bring you to this moment where you have a deeply poignant understanding of it.  CS Lewis is trying to help you see exactly what he sees so that both the author and the reader are having the exact same experience.  This is deeply in contrast to Tolkien where his goal is to build a narrative playground for your mind to run wild in.  Tolkien isn't trying to guide you to a conclusion, he's trying to build a fire where you find your own experience. 

Quote from: BadApple on March 04, 2025, 05:00:09 PMFor a more apt comparison of Lewis to Tolkien, I recommend Perelandra and Til We Have Faces.  Here we can see a much more deliberate Lewis writing in pure fiction for a much more sophisticated audience.  More deeply, we can see that Lewis writes to bring the reader to a specific point where the reader observes a specific element in a specific way.  In other words, Lewis is getting to a conclusion and his entire story is to bring you to this moment where you have a deeply poignant understanding of it.  CS Lewis is trying to help you see exactly what he sees so that both the author and the reader are having the exact same experience.  This is deeply in contrast to Tolkien where his goal is to build a narrative playground for your mind to run wild in.  Tolkien isn't trying to guide you to a conclusion, he's trying to build a fire where you find your own experience. 

Yep. Then you read "Till We Have Faces"--an essay wrapped in a novel--a sublime novel despite wrapping an essay.  It's the culmination of his career, about the nature of myth.  Another way to make your point is that Lewis is a philosopher first, fantastical writer second, where as Tolkien is a linguist first, fantastical writer second.  However, for all that, Lewis had more than a passing understanding of linguistics, and Tolkien likewise of philosophy.

Quote from: BadApple on March 04, 2025, 05:00:09 PMThere's two things about the Chronicles of Narnia that needs to be considered to properly critique them.  First, CS Lewis wrote them to be children's books.  Second, the Chronicles of Narnia are allegorical stories where all the fae and the talking animals are supposed to be a way to view regular people through a new lens.

In contrast, Tolkien wrote his Middle Earth books in a much different manner and for a much different purpose.  He intended his audience for almost all of his books to be adults.  He also wanted to explore themes divorced from the personalities that usually provide them and from the conclusions that most tend to push.

Comparing the two, Narnia and Middle Earth, is like comparing a canoe to a passenger jet.  Sure, they are both vehicles but the comparison drops off after that. 

For a more apt comparison of Lewis to Tolkien, I recommend Perelandra and Til We Have Faces.  Here we can see a much more deliberate Lewis writing in pure fiction for a much more sophisticated audience.  More deeply, we can see that Lewis writes to bring the reader to a specific point where the reader observes a specific element in a specific way.  In other words, Lewis is getting to a conclusion and his entire story is to bring you to this moment where you have a deeply poignant understanding of it.  CS Lewis is trying to help you see exactly what he sees so that both the author and the reader are having the exact same experience.  This is deeply in contrast to Tolkien where his goal is to build a narrative playground for your mind to run wild in.  Tolkien isn't trying to guide you to a conclusion, he's trying to build a fire where you find your own experience. 

All very true. I really do need to read the space trilogy one of these days.

When it comes to comparing to LOTR to Narnia, I really think you ought to look at them as coming from different literary traditions. Middle Earth is drawn from a background in epic literature and mythology, from Beowulf and the Kalevala, whereas Narnia has more in it of Aesop's Fables and Peter Pan. Lewis does sometimes trip over the line into being hamfisted with his allegories (I can barely sit through The Last Battle), but I do find that as a result Narnia feels much more "fairy-tale" to me. I appreciate the boundless imagination that the looser world-building allows for.

That said, I do think the narrative playground is there in Narnia if you just pay attention to the background details. Lewis makes it clear that Narnia is a persistent world where momentous events often occur entirely without the intervention of English schoolchildren. Calormen and Telmar have histories that are only hinted at in the books. The Kingdom of Narnia fights wars with the giants on its north border and apparently with its human neighbors as well. I've said it before here, but I think Narnia is criminally underrated as a potential roleplaying setting. The fact that its history, cosmology and geography are only vaguely sketched in books just gives you more room to invent as a GM. Set your campaign in Archenland sometime between The Horse and His Boy and Prince Caspian and the world is your oyster.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 04, 2025, 01:51:34 PMMy friends pick non-humans if they can get a +1% bonus to combat. There is no other reason.

I was cursed with a very "munchkin" heavy group.

They can make for fantastic playtest groups.

So if I'm roleplaying a green, one eyed alien creature which uses its neck to wrap around things and reads Standard Galactic Alphabet, what stereotypes am I exhibiting?

Quote from: D-ko on March 05, 2025, 04:06:24 AMSo if I'm roleplaying a green, one eyed alien creature which uses its neck to wrap around things and reads Standard Galactic Alphabet, what stereotypes am I exhibiting?

Hulk's dick?

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 04, 2025, 04:42:45 PMMy preference is towards the Stargate approach. Not literally with Stargates, but that a precursor stage of humanity lost to deep time (say 20k to 14k years ago) expanded out to the stars before everything collapsed so now you've got environmentally adapted humans all over a sphere of inhabited planets within a distance that reinvented hyperdrives or whatever can reach.

14k years is enough time for some degree of evolution to fit planetary environments, but probably not enough to make their thought processes inhuman (probably still be genetically compatible too... like wolves and dogs).

That's another good one. 40k used some thing similar as well, to great effect.