This is exactly what I am after; there's, ever since Gary Gygax canonized fantasy literature for D&D nerds, an in the end, very narrow talk, and only on a few selected authors: Selected, for no good reason than that the crew at TSR liked them, and/or was involved in promoting products related to their works.
For example - Dune, really? I am mid-through the first novel, and I cannot say that I see any similarity to any aspect of Blackmoor; except maybe the crystals/shards being somehow equivalent to spice; but apart from that, really none.
The same for Cthulhu - I read a bunch of those novels over the last year, and, okay, you have fish-people in Innsmouth - but apart from that? I think the similarities between some very marginal aspects of D&D and the whole Lovecraft material stem from either early 80s reception of Warhammer, and, more importantly, from D&D's reception of Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion series. - Which is unfamiliar to most of us today, but was in it's heyday in the 70s, and contains nearly all the kind of motifs that we have in BKM, including forces of Chaos, etc.
- Which is one of the reasons why I am inclined to discard Leiber as a primary source for Arnesonian D&D; Greyhawk was essentially Lankhmar already, and, so far, there is no direct indicator for a reception by Mr Arneson.
Rather than that, I'd like to know the impact of stuff he actually is sure to have known - like, probably "Thieves World", given the AiF angle, or stuff he directly references to, like the Beagle.
My idea behind all this is that I am somewhat stalling with my understanding of the setting as is, and this I attribute mostly to the sources commonly named being false ones; for example, I am so going to grab those Horseman books at some point. :)
|