Ethics, Wargaming, & the Waffen-SS

Over the summer, Battlefront released D-Day: Waffen-SS Forces in Normandy, 1944, a forces book for its Flames of War 4th edition game. I wasn't aware of this book at first, because I don't play this edition of Flames of War, but I was made aware of it by a post in "Ethical Gamers, A Gaming Discussion Group" on Facebook. 

The poster was outraged about the the book and its focus on the Waffen-SS, specifically the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, without any mention of atrocities carried out by this force, especially the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre.

This is an excellent point, and it raises important questions both for this specific case, and dealing with atrocities in military history and gaming generally.  

War gaming involves recreating events of great suffering and bloodshed as entertainment.  It is understandable that some people would be offended by that. Not simply pacifists, but veterans as well. Would you want to play out a war gaming scenario depicting a battle in which you fought, when your friends and buddies died in that fight?

The answer for some is yes.  In fact, I've personally helped run a refight of a Vietnam War engagement in which the commander of the American forces came to the game and participated in a question and answer session with the players afterwards.  Of course, this game was at a small convention held in a museum and it was very much billed as an educational event. For others, quite understandably, the answer is no. It brings up too many memories. Of course nearly all gamers respect such boundaries amongst their fellow players. 

A standard defense of historical war gaming  is that it is educational.  In fact, the leading miniature war game national society, the Historical Miniatures Gaming Society (HMGS), is a "non-profit, charitable and educational 501(c)3 organization whose purpose is to promote the study of military history through the art of tabletop miniature wargaming." (see here)  

But that defense undermines the most common response I get whenever I bring up ethics and war gaming, questioning the depiction of groups like the SS in war games. "It's just a game, lighten up!" Just a game is never a reason to ignore such concerns, because historical war gaming is educational, as all games are.  War gamers, and especially game companies, have a moral obligation to address these questions. 

The other common response is to retreat into Moral Relativism or the Whataboutism fallacy, claiming that applying moral standards to conduct in war is wrong, or that all military forces have historically committed atrocities so we should not single out groups like the SS. Moral relativism only works for those who subscribe to that philosophy, or those who somehow believe armed conflict has a different morality then peacetime. In that case, there is no shared common ground and further discussion is of little value. And, of course, the 'whataboutism fallacy' has the word fallacy right there in the title; "everybody else is doing it" has never been a valid defense of any action one might take.   

The other defense revolves around "fun." Essentially, those who bring these issues up are no fun, indeed joy killers.  Why can't we just let them have harmless fun with toy soldiers? 

Why not?  What harm does this book do?  Mitch Reed's review of the book is here, on the No Dice, No Glory website. He doesn't mention any harm. In fact, his review doesn't mention anything about the atrocities at all.  It's just an excited discussion of how 'cool' this unit is, discussing them exactly as a Warhammer 40K site might discuss a new unit of Space Marines. The "unique flavor of the SS is represented by a few distinct differences" from the standard German lists, but apparently that unique flavor is limited to uniforms and equipment, along with a few special rules mentioned in the text. The atrocities and abhorrent ideology of the Waffen-SS is not mentioned or described at all.  The book removes the historical context, reducing them to a "cool" unit for war gaming that has a "unique flavor."

Of course, other genres of games also deal with this problem to a greater or lesser extent.  In 1997 a roleplaying game company, White Wolf Publishing, published Charnel Houses of Europe: The Shoah, a setting for Wraith: the Oblivion incorporating the Holocaust. The work handled the subject in a sober and mature manner. It produced a setting that may have never been used in a RPG campaign, as it was exactly as depressing as one would expect, but it brought a more thorough understanding of the Holocaust to an audience that otherwise might have ignored the event.  A copy of the work is kept in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museums collections. 

In contrast, the video game industry even today fails miserably with these topics.  All too often groups like the Waffen-SS are reduced to "bad-ass" 'skins' and collectible uniforms and equipment in first person shooter MMOs which barely nod in the direction of historical accuracy. The audience only seems interested in historical accuracy when it can be used as a weapon to keep 'skins' depicting people of color or women out of their game play. This article about video games which white wash German crimes highlights the issue, and points out that video games are decades behind historical scholarship on this subject - the same thing can be said for miniature war gaming, though must miniature war gamers would consider themselves more historically knowledgeable then their videogame playing counterparts.

Flames of War, of course, glorifies the SS as a fighting organization. I can't think of a WWII rule set that doesn't to at least some extent. Just as bad, they all play down or ignore the atrocities and ideology. 

The answer is not stop war gaming, nor is it to stop war gaming the SS.  Historical war gaming is, after all, historical, and refighting such battles is an integral part of the hobby. Moreover, someone has to play "the bad guys."  You can't refight Arnhem, for example, without some SS troops.  

At the same time, we have a responsibility to educate that cannot be ignored. War game rules should mention SS atrocity, and acknowledge their crimes.  Equally importantly, they should resist the urge to assign them enhanced statistics, this treats the SS as if their superman delusions were real and is a disservice to humanity. 

I understand the desire to separate war gaming from the messy real world, to try and avoid anything that smacks of politics. It won't work, though, and it is harmful to our hobby.  As this article on former SS members still proud of their service makes clear, the veterans of the organization for the most part have rejected responsibility.  Attempts to white-wash the history of the Wehrmacht and the SS are constant, as this article about a historian threatened with prosecution for writing the truth shows. 

The sad fact is, our hobby is a prime recruiting ground for racists and right wing fanatics, who can easily "hide in plain sight" in the hobby, recruiting new members and spreading their historical disinformation.  When companies like Battlefront put profits over morality and ignore or white-wash the crimes of the past, then intentionally or not they are supporting such movements.   

We have a moral obligation as war gamers to ensure that such white-washing does not occur in the games we run. We have an ethical obligation to consider these questions and how our games relate to them. Even if that makes them "less fun." That doesn't mean every game must be focused on these events, but we need to acknowledge them, and especially game books should mention them placing the units described in a full historical context rather then simply using them as cool "options" for players. Works on Vietnam should acknowledge My Lai as well as the mass murders the Viet Cong committed in Hue, for example.  Campaign rules for the Battle of Gettysburg should acknowledge that Lee ordered every African-American his army could seize shipped south into slavery. It isn't difficult, acknowledging these crimes. It's simply the right thing to do. 

Certainly the history of warfare is complicated and nuanced. But if we cannot at least talk about the Waffen-SS and their atrocities, which are not in doubt... well, then we should give up all pretense of playing historical games at all.

For Further Reading

The following works I recommend for further reading about the 2nd SS Panzer Division and the Waffen-SS. This is not a complete list, obviously. 

Adrian Gilbert, Waffen-SS: Hitler’s Army at War

Max Hastings, Das Reich: The March of the 2nd SS Panzer Division Through France, June 1944

Bernd Wegner, The Waffen-SS

Jochen Boehler and Robert Gerwarth, The Waffen-SS: A European History

All views in this blog are my own and represent the views of no other person, organization, or institution.

Kings of War Reviewed

(Warning: Don't bother reading this if you have ever said "it's fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic." You've already excluded yourself from the conversation.)

For the last year or so many members of my gaming club, the Spotsylvania Area Gamers have been pretty focused on a fantasy wargame, Kings of War 3rd edition published by Mantic Games. see a beginner's guide here.) It has taken the place of the fantasy game we tried briefly the year before, Age of Sigmar by Games Workshop. I've played enough Kings of War now to review it, I believe.  

Since this is the first war game review I've done for this blog, I thought I should detail my gaming background. I started war gaming in 1979 with Avalon Hill's Panzerblitz. I started miniature wargaming in 1986 when I was a Freshman at Norwich University and joined the the N.U.T.S. (Norwich University Tactics Society).  I've had a lot of experience playing a lot of different systems. My favorite fantasy wargaming system was Battlesystem 2nd edition by TSR, I rejected Warhammer in the '90s because I disliked Games Workshop's marketing practices.  

My dislike of Games Workshop has never really faded over the years, but in a club, you play what the majority prefers.  Many of our club members got their start in gaming with Warhammer 40k or Warhammer, and they were excited to try Age of Sigmar. I had some old GW lizardmen figures I had purchased used years ago so I jumped in. I didn't really like the game, when I beat a player who was far more skilled then I simply through dumb luck, I was convinced it wasn't the game for me.  And after a year the clubs interest in that system evaporated.  

Still, I loved fantasy war games and wanted to play more fantasy rather then simply go back to science fiction or historical war games. So when the club's interest turned to Kings of War I was very willing to try it.

I like it better then Age of Sigmar but that really is faint praise. After playing for over a year now, albeit stop and go due to the pandemic, I do have some thoughts on the good and the bad of Kings of War. I prefer intuitive games that start from a foundation of relative historical simulation and adjust from there for playability, I understand that many younger players are not interested in simulation at all. 

Good: Figures from all manufacturers welcome.  This really should be the norm, but companies like Games Workshop and Battlefront have pushed to crush the independence of the war gaming hobby by trying to limit 'organized play' to 'official' figures only.  I can't imagine that 3d printers are going to allow that nonsense to last with any game company for long.  

Bad:  'Group' basing and rigid formations.  All troops are in a single square or rectangular block and they cannot change formations. while this allows for gorgeous gaming dioramas as play pieces, it prevents anything resembling realistic play. Just as bad, from my point of view, is that the rigid basing discourages using the figures for other systems. Either you base them for Kings of War or you do a lot of additional work to allow your individually based figures to stand properly on Kings of War unit bases. As a firm believer in using figures in multiple settings and systems, this really bugs me. 

Good: A wide variety of fantasy archetypes are given statistics.  Nearly every fantasy trope is represented.

Bad: But they still have those different fantasy types rigidly defined. You can only play the armies designed by Mantic in Mantic's world. The system is not designed to be used for any other setting, there is purposefully no player freedom here.  You cannot decide to use Kings of War to fight out battle between orcs and dwarves on Middle Earth or in the Forgotten Realms. There is no way to create personal units or creatures. Basically, no room for player innovation or imagination.  

Good: The nerve checks with wavering and rout results, and hits instead of removing figures from units, is pretty good. Combining damage and morale results for a hybrid, cumulative effect on a unit is usually solid wargame design and the same holds here. 

Very Bad: Of course, the solid design of the combat results roll is nearly wiped about by the very broken melee combat system.  Melee combat is not simultaneous in this game. If someone charges you, their damage is done and results applied long before your unit gets a chance to strike back. The result is that often units will die in this game without ever striking a blow back.  It's simply ridiculous. Melee in the game should be simultaneous.  Regardless of which player's turn it is, if units are locked in hand to hand combat then they should both make attacks.  Yes, this will make for bloodier battles.  But as it stands, 90% of game play in this game is pre-measuring to stay out of charge range, unless you want to charge first.  It makes for games that don't feel like battles at all.  

Good:  The magic system.  The spells and magic items are straightforward and simple, and not overly complicated nor generally unbalanced. 

Very Bad: The bonuses for attacking the flanks and rear of enemy units are overwhelming.  Combined with the rigid unit base shapes, the elementary terrain rules, and the odd movement rules, the game devolves into "gotcha" geometry that resembles no real life battle I can think of.  

Good: A solid army building system. Like so many systems today, this one is focused on "organized play" or tournaments. It is obvious that the designers spent far more time on their army building system then on any other aspect of the rules, the result is a system that seems incredibly balanced.

Bad: The terrain and movement system are extremely simple and poorly done. This is especially noticeable in a fantasy system, where often units will have odd, interesting movement abilities. Kings of War has frog like creatures who can hop, amphibious fishmen, elementals, and flying creatures but all of their special movement abilities get watered down and rendered boring by the system. Castles, towers, magical swamps, and crystal groves are equally muddied up. 

Good: The game has a decent scenario system. It produces relatively random scenarios that are basically even. 

Bad: It doesn't lend itself to individualized scenario play.  The game just doesn't lend itself to anything beyond organized play. I would be astounded to see someone running a convention game using Kings of War.     

There are a few other issues, for example artillery is overly effective and missile fire too ineffective, but those issues have more to do with individual unit ratings then they do the game system as a whole. 

Overall, Kings of War is a simple game that does not produce battles that feel "real", it favors simplicity over simulation to a fault. It's reasonably well balanced.  But most figures used for the game will be useless for use in any other gaming system, making it relatively expensive for multi-system wargamers. It feels like a step backwards in game design but caters well to its target audience of former Games Workshop players.

I'll keep playing the game though, because that's what my club plays. 

Edit: A couple 'Good' points about the game that I was reminded of by 'Clement' in the Facebook Kings of War Fanatics group. First, all of the rules and a decent selection of army lists are included in the main book. The game system keeps splatbooks to a minimum, the only current splatbook simply adds more army lists, not more rules.  That's a big positive. And second, the game lends itself well to a chess-style turn clock. This is another way it is well suited for tournament play.  Neither of these change my view of the game, I was aware of them, but they are important positives that it is only fair my review mention.

All views in this blog are my own and represent the views of no other person, organization, or institution.

A Halloween Review: Edgar Allen Poe

 Portions of this article appeared in Knights of the Dinner Table #180 (October, 2011).

Gustave Doré, 1883

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,

Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore —

While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,

As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.

"'Tis some visiter," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door —

       Only this and nothing more."

The Raven, by Edgar Allan Poe (1845)

Halloween is one of my favorite times of the year, I love the spookiness, the colors, the chill in the air, and the sense of expectant gloom. I tend to favor old school horror -- Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, and the Mummy, without the "new" spin on these old monsters that they so often have. Along with that, I love Edgar Allen Poe.  

The United States in its first century produced several men of literary genius, but (albeit with all do respect to Washington Irving)  I believe Poe is our greatest literary contributor from those earliest days of the Republic. He is remarkable, so often imitated that many stumbling on Poe feel his work is hackneyed and over-done, not realizing that is only so because others have followed in his well-trod footsteps..  Poe reads so modern it is hard to recall he wrote before electricity, phones, space travel, computers, ect. indeed, even his ideas on poetry predate the modernist school!

And Poe was prolific, as befits a man who lived off of his writing, and he produced many lesser known works beyond his more famous compositions. These works contain all of the classic Poe touches, and truly capture Poe’s macabre mannerisms and writing style.

Recently, a collection of Poe's more famous short works, read by legendary actors Basil Rathbone and Vincent Price, have come out for and our available to download and listen to for free. I cannot recommend these collections enough; Rathbone's reading of "The Raven" and Price's reading of "Morella" are particular highlights.  You can read more about this collection here. Or go directly to Spotify to download them. 

“The Fall of the House of Usher" is perhaps my favorite Poe work, primarily because it employs one o my favorite literary devices, the library. Although the Usher library listed in the tale is comprised of real works, the climax involves reading from a fictional tome, the “Mad Trist” of Sir Launcelot Canning. Both the fictional tome and the library influenced many later writers to include such in their own tales.

“Not hear it?—yes, I hear it, and have heard it. Long—long—long—many minutes, many hours, many days, have I heard it—yet I dared not—oh, pity me, miserable wretch that I am!—I dared not—I dared not speak! We have put her living in the tomb! Said I not that my senses were acute? I now tell you that I heard her first feeble movements in the hollow coffin. I heard them—many, many days ago—yet I dared not—I dared not speak! And now—to-night—Ethelred—ha! ha!—the breaking of the hermit’s door, and the death-cry of the dragon, and the clangor of the shield!—say, rather, the rending of her coffin, and the grating of the iron hinges of her prison, and her struggles within the coppered archway of the vault! Oh! whither shall I fly? Will she not be here anon? Is she not hurrying to upbraid me for my haste? Have I not heard her footstep on the stair? Do I not distinguish that heavy and horrible beating of her heart? Madman!”—here he sprang furiously to his feet, and shrieked out his syllables, as if in the effort he were giving up his soul—“Madman! I tell you that she now stands without the door!      [Edgar A. Poe, “The Fall of the House of Usher” (1839)]

Of course, “The Masque of the Red Death,” feels incredibly timely these days. It's difficult to find a tale more on the nose for our current predicament in 2020. Have I mentioned how modern and timely Poe usually feels?  

Harry Clarke, 1919

And now was acknowledged the presence of the Red Death. He had come like a thief in the night. And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.  [Edgar A. Poe, _The Masque of the Red Death_ (1842)]

"The Casque of Amontillado" is a classic revenge tale, a murder told from the perspective of the murderer. It might remind the reader of similar Poe tales such as “The Black Cat” but its Italian Renaissance setting makes it particularly good inspiration. 

 "A Descent into the Maelström" is one of Poe’s nautical tales, describing a disastrous Norwegian fishing trip. The image of vast, over-powering nature is inspiring in itself, I believe it heavily influenced the final climatic scene in Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. 

Then there is Poe’s greatest nautical tale, and his only completed novel, The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket. An adventure tale at first, it degenerates from shipwreck to cannibalism, to rescue and then shipwreck again, and ends with eldritch discoveries and bizarre happenings on Antarctica. Very few have read this strange work, which ends in an abrupt, magical manner. Nonetheless it inspired Jules Verne to write an unofficial sequel, An Antarctic Mystery and H.P. Lovecraft to write At the Mountains of Madness.

My favorite poem of Poe's isn't The Raven, as a fine a work as that is, but rather The Bells. I just love the way that Poe is able to get across so much mood and sound with just careful and inspired word choice, few poems take the reader from joy to profundity to dread in so few bars, it is a true master-work, in my opinion. 

And a perfect ending for this short essay!

Hear the tolling of the bells —
                 Iron bells!
What a world of solemn thought their monody compels!
        In the silence of the night,
        How we shiver with affright
      At the melancholy menace of their tone!

All views in this blog are my own and represent the views of no other person, organization, or institution.

Fantasy authors and list making

Portions of this article appeared in Knights of the Dinner Table #150 (April, 2009).

There was a recent snap poll conducted on Twitter by Dr Dimitra Fimi that asked the question, "if I asked you to name the 3 best Fantasy authors of all time EXCLUDING #Tolkien, who would you list?"

She had some very good reasons behind asking the question, and I encourage you to go to her blog to read up on those here. "Best" is a big word, at least in my opinion.  Too many people answer with their favorite authors, but I've always argued there is a big difference between taste and quality. Mostly because there are many extremely well written works that simply are not to my taste.  On top of the quality/taste trap, how do you judge the works value as art? How truthful is it to the human experience? How much does that matter to its artistic merit?  These are long debated questions, and they make answering her question difficult indeed, IMO. 

I didn't try! I was made aware of the poll on John Rateliff's superb blog, Sacnoth's Scriptorium.  In his blog entry on the subject, he asked folks to answer a slightly different question, "Who are your three favorite fantasy authors (excluding Tolkien)? Or, if it's easier to choose, what are your three favorite fantasy books (again excluding Tolkien)?"

That is an easier question, since the only criteria is the readers own personal enjoyment - though I still found it difficult to limit myself to threee!

Of course the striking aspect of the poll is that it starts by excluding Tolkien. There are a few iconoclasts who down play his influence or call him "boring" but at this stage no one who has studied the field at all can deny his overwhelming influence. As Dr Fimi points out, his influence in fact warps discussion of the debate, making it difficult to properly assess other authors in the genre. 

She points out all the different authors mentioned, how often, ect, and Rateliff extrapolates the top 33 for commentary of his own in a second blog post. I was surprised at how many of the top 33 I hadn't read yet, and by how few "sword & sorcery" authors were on the list - I feel like it is a very 21st century list, and it would have looked very different in the 1990s. 

My own answers, to Rateliff's question, of course broke the rules.  

Favorite Author:  1. Susan Cooper   2. Mary Stewart  3. David Eddings (tie) & 3. Lloyd Alexander (tie)

Favorite novels: 1. The Belgariad (its one novel, not a seires, IMO)  2. The Grey King by Susan Cooper  3. The High King by Lloyd Alexander

Favorite Series: 1. Thieves' World series 2. The Dark is Rising series 3. The Merlin trilogy

'Favorite' is the key. These are based on my taste, not on quality.

Such lists are always useful, back when I wrote the book review column, "Off the Shelf" for Knights of the Dinner Table magazine I did a list article myself.  My list was ranked as ‘most important’ because of the literary quality of their work, or their influence upon the genre. "Important" is very different from "best" or "favorite", not that any of these lists are super important, they are a thought exercise, a useful way of thinking about the world. But they are also prone to abuse, some people get so caught up in list placement and definitions they forget these are all great works or authors to start with. 

I've added the list below, with commentary after some entries in italics, I wrote this article in 2009 and I wouldn't make all the same choices today that I made in 2009.  

20. Ed Greenwood

            Ed Greenwood’s writing is far more enthusiastic than it is literary, and he often devolves into pulp clichés… yet he is the creator of what was once the most popular fantasy role-playing and novel setting in America.  The influence of the Forgotten Realms may not have always been benign on the fantasy genre, but no one can argue it was not extensive.  And for sheer fun and gracious openness with fans, no one can top Greenwood. 

 I'm not sure he would make the list if I wrote this today.  I might include Mary Stewart or Mary Renault instead.

19. Lord Dunsany

            His writing is quirky and his plots often feel incomplete, but listing Lord Dunsany as an ‘influence’ has become the fashion for the more pretentious modern day writers of fantasy.  If more of them had actually read his simple yet complex work the fantasy genre would be richer indeed.

Not sure my snarkiness is fair here.  

18. Andrew Offutt

            Offutt is one of the true old guard of the genre, and as fine a sketcher of character as you will find anywhere (read “Shadowspawn” in Thieves’ World).  Yet his influence stems primarily from his role as editor of the long lived Swords Against Darkness anthology series.  He kept alive the sword and sorcery short story for new generations, and for that we owe him profound thanks. 

I think today I might replace him, though I am not quite certain with who. Perhaps Robert Apsrin & Lynn Abbey for creating the shared universe concept. 

17. Terry Brooks

            His first book, Sword of Shannara has been unjustly called a mere Tolkien pastiche; it is more accurately a true homage.  He has moved beyond that to become one of the most consistent best sellers in the genre.  But his work has become more challenging to the reader, not less, over the years.     

I don't really like his work, aside from Elfstones of Shannara, but even as a negative influence hard to ignore him, IMO.  

16. Laurell K. Hamilton

            Many traditional fantasy fans might recoil at including her on the list, but Hamilton’s works have had a large impact on what gets published in the fantasy genre.  No other writer has made the ‘supernatural detective’ motif more popular.  The first four Anita Blake books especially virtually recreated the motif; do not allow the controversy over the later works to prevent you from examining those first four.    

I prefer Jim Butcher's work, but she is more influential, I believe. 

15. Marion Zimmer Bradley

            She brought feminism to fantasy and empowered a new generation of female writers to break down the doors in this famously male dominated genre. Her historical interpretations are usually flat out wrong, but as a work of imaginative fiction the Mists of Avalon is rich, complex, and well worth reading. 

Bradley has been "cancelled" in the years since, IMO for very good reason as she appears to have engaged in and abetted sexual abuse of multiple children.  Still, I would probably keep her on the list, albeit in a lower position. She absolutely was a pioneer in the field. She is a classic case of art versus artist, and many of her tales include problematic themes as well, you can't easily separate her writing from her sins.  

14. Ursula K. Le Guin

            Few writers have mastered the art of saying so much with so few words.  The initial Earthsea trilogy is perhaps a third the size of The Lord of the Rings and yet she packs into that tale as much mythical resonance, personal growth, and spiritual meaning as Tolkien imparts.  Her influence is not as wide as she deserves, few works make you better for having read them, A Wizard of Earthsea is one of them.

Interesting that in Fimi's quick poll she so thoroughly dominated as the best fantasy author excluding Tolkien.  I don't know that I totally agree but her work is unquestionably excellent and I cannot think of anyone BETTER, though there are some I enjoy more personally.  

13. Neil Gaiman

            It’s cliché to argue that comic books are a serious art form, but in the fantasy genre they have seldom been taken seriously as original works; they are perennially adapting from published novels.  Gaiman created serious, thoughtful fantasy tales that make full use of the comic forms possibilities, and limitations.  Few writers since Tolkien have shown they understand Fantasy is Mythology, and how powerful that is.  Gaiman is one such writer. 

I think I'd argue now that he is more influential for what he says about fantasy then for his own writing.   

12. Gary Gygax

            His novels are terrible but few writers have brought fantasy to life as completely as Gary Gygax.  He is the great Marxist of the fantasy genre, taking the stories and giving them lock, stock, and barrel to the fans to twist and turn to their heart’s content.  Thanks to Gygax we can all create worlds and slay dragons. 

I was kinder here then I would have preferred. Many people know me as a rather constant critic of Gygax - I found his Dragon magazine editorials infuriating then and just as arrogant today. And much of the arrogance is undeserved, he is a bad, not merely mediocre but actively bad, fantasy writer, he appeared incapable of sharing credit or taking blame and I think Dungeons and Dragons would have been far better off had he quietly retired around 1982 or so.  But regardless, his influence is undeniable and the influence of Dungeons & Dragons is even more obvious today then it was in 2009.  

11. Robert Jordan

            He doesn’t always match the breadth of his ambition but Robert Jordan dared to examine the full context of the ‘Wheel of Time.’  I find his world too bleak for my taste, but book shelves don’t lie: Jordan dominated fantasy in the ‘90s and the ‘00s.  A large, complex cast that draws his readers in on a personal level while dragging them through cosmic struggles and world wars is the anchor of his style and who can argue with success?

I'd certainly leave him out today.  His influence seems to have disappeared. 

10. Michael Moorcock

            “This sword here by my side don’t act the way it should...” Blue Oyster Cult’s paean to Moorcock’s famously conflicted hero shows how fantasy was beginning, even in the ‘70s, to creep into the broader culture.  Elric of Melnibone is a tragic hero in the true sense.  You may find his doom and gloom annoying, but don’t deny it’s compelling.  He brooded before brooding was hip, and showed us elves could be evil and cruel… and named Melniboneans. 

Moorcock still seems to matter.  He even made Fimi's list.  

9. Fritz Leiber

            Who doesn’t want to be Fafhrd or the Grey Mouser?  Leiber’s terrible twosome are the fantasy genre’s response to historical fiction’s ‘Three Musketeers’ and suffered not at all for being two less. But beyond providing us the greatest fantasy buddy story since Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Leiber also shows us the best city in fantasy fiction.  Every fantasy city after Lankhmar is Lankhmar, with a different name. And his heroes’ tales are presented in some of the finest prose in the genre.  A true great. 

Should be higher on the list. 

8. H. P. Lovecraft

            You can trace his influence through fantasy like a sibilant whisper threading through the cerebral cortex of the genre’s finest minds.  Lovecraft’s impersonal take on horror, his conviction that some things man was not meant to know, and his incredible talent for atmosphere cemented his individual mark on the genre.  Yet he also acted as the center piece to a long-distance group of American ‘Inklings’ who created the sword and sorcery genre in the pages of Weird Tales and similar magazines.  If Cthulhu waits dreaming, he at least found a worthy oracle to keep his memory alive during the wait.

Lovecraft's influence never seems to wane.  

7. C.S. Lewis

            Lewis’ fiction is heavily influenced by his Christianity; it detracts from his writing as much as Lovecraft’s atheism detracts from his work.  But solid, respectable, accomplished Lewis shows that serious people can and do address serious subjects through fantasy.  If nothing else, the famous theologian has left us a powerful counter-argument to those who attack the genre on religious grounds. 

After last summer's Lewis "deep dive" I'm even more convinced of his influence. At least two fantasy series that have been adapted for the screen, His Dark Materials, and The Magicians basically exist because he infuriated their authors so much they had to write book length replies.  I think his work will long out last their's. 

6. Robert E. Howard

            Dark and tormented, Howard’s work was a primal scream against civilization.  His mighty thewed barbarian is one of the most memorable characters in literature, yet the form of his stories had an even greater impact on the genre.  His prose is powerful and his themes robust, his short stories are powerful sprints compared to the novelistic marathons we are so used to today.  And yet in his few short stories Howard told tales as riveting as any twelve volume genre work available today.  Like Lord Dunsany, he is fashionable to list as an influence. And like Dunsany, the genre would be stronger today if his influence were as pervasive as claimed.

Which is more influential, Howard, or the false image of Howard that so many of his testosterone-poisoned fanboys have? 

5. Edgar Rice Burroughs

            Few writers have exploited their characters as successfully as Burroughs.  His many Tarzan and John Carter of Mars novels highlight the possibility of the serial as a novel form for fantasy fiction.  His work is pulp fiction at its best… and at its worst. 

I think most fantasy genre scholars wouldn't include him in the genre, seeing his work instead as a precursor, but i don't see a meaningful distinction between his works and fantasy.  

4. Bram Stoker

            One novel made Stoker’s reputation, and deservedly so.  He never wrote anything else half as good, but Dracula had a profound impact on both the horror and the fantasy genres.  Indeed, in their mutual fascination with the undead these genres meet.  Dracula is the model of the mystical antagonist.  It is a powerful work that transcends genre and transformed into a true cultural artifact.

Like Lovecraft, he was an even bigger influence on the horror genre but he impacted fantasy writing nonetheless. 

3. J.K. Rowling

            She burst on the scene and has been credited with saving reading and the entire publishing business.  And she deserves it.  Her world building skill is evident in every carefully chosen detail across the seven novels, her understated British humor shines in the carefully crafted names, and her magic system is sublimely logical and rigidly true to itself. And through this detailed, believable world her vivid characters follow a complex, satisfying plot.  Very few writers have dealt with subjects so deep in a satisfying way for children.  It is fashionable to dismiss her work; frankly those who do so only exhibit their own ignorance.  Rowling is the real deal, and quite possibly the greatest fantasy writer since Tolkien.  

Although I stand firmly against her views on transsexuals, I also stand by this view of her work. She and Lucas are the only "authors" whose work has impacted generations of people on the same deep, massive level as Tolkien. Really, the top three stand alone, IMO, on that count. 

2. George Lucas

            Lucas is not a writer of novels or short stories, yet his influence on fantasy has been immense.  Star Wars yanked fantasy into the mainstream by dressing up mythology in the trappings of space opera.  I am a fan of all six movies, others prefer to dismiss the later works but you cannot dismiss the pervasive cultural influence of his creation.   The Force is with him indeed.

I still stand by this.  He is easily dismissed by people who ignore what he was doing with the films, or simply lack the education to recognize it. But set that aside, even if none of that mattered, his influence on the fantasy genre would be immense because he popularized  Joseph Campbell's monomyth, the "Hero's Journey" and made it the template that virtually all fantasy authors have since tried to emulate.  Perhaps that is for the worst, the monomyth has been (properly IMO) slammed by scholarly critics, but regardless, you have to search hard to find a book in the fantasy genre NOT based on that template.  

1. J.R.R. Tolkien

The Professor is the obvious choice for the top position.  No one has come close to exceeding Tolkien’s skills as a world builder; Middle Earth remains the finest example of the art.  It is rich in detail yet broadly conceived with a documented, cohesive history which spans eons.  Yet transcending the detail is the literary quality of his tales.  The style and tone is often at odds with modern tastes, but I say the fault lies in modern taste.  Frodo, Beren, Turin – Tolkien’s characters are indelible archetypes yet heart-breakingly individual. Tolkien’s work feeds the mind and the soul, and then repays repeated, careful readings; that is a rare gift.  Thank goodness for the Oxford Don and his love of elves and hobbits. 

I think I'll end this here.  I have no further comment on Tolkien himself. I'd love to hear what folks think of my choices, and how they might answer the questions themselves.

All views in this blog are my own and represent the views of no other person, organization, or institution.

The Mabinogion Tetralogy

The Mabinogion Tetralogy is a four novel series by Evangeline Walton, all based on the Welsh Mabinogion, or myth cycle. It comprises Prince of Annwn (1974), The Children of Llyr (1971), The Song of Rhiannon (1972), and The Island of the Mighty (1936).

I've read translations of the Mabinogion and found it very difficult going, but I've read in several places that these are the most appropriate novelizations of the Mabinogion. I've long wanted to read the series, as I am generally a fan of well done novelizations of mythic tales, but they were not easy to get a hold of. I finally put them on my Amazon wish list and my wife and kids got them for me this year for Christmas and my birthday, 

Walton does not disappoint, the work is fresh and interesting, but sticks fairly closely to the tale, simply putting it in terms the modern reader can better understand and filling it with scholarship that explains the culture that produced it. But that makes the tale seem very dry, and it is anything but that! From the very beginning it is filled with sex, violence, sacrifice, political intrigue, and even some fairly deep metaphysics.

Walton limits herself to the four Branches of the Mabinogi that form the Mabinogion's core, leaving out the various tales and romances that are also present in the extant copies left to us. 

She starts with "Pwyll Pendefig Dyfed", the first of the four Branches, in Prince of Annwn.  Her tale follows the original in a seemingly straight forward way, starting in media res, as Pwyll meets with Arawn, Lord of Annwn, and in some sense a personification of Death. 

At first, I found it hard to deal with Arawn, as I was used to viewing him as a villain on par with Sauron as depicted in Lloyd Alexander's masterful Chronicles of Prydain; seeing him in a more benevolent role here is jarring, even though my knowledge of Welsh mythology prepared me for it.

Pwyll encounters and fights, sort of several mythological creatures, including possibly a tarrasque, based on a Celtic scuplture.  She ties the work in here with several other mythologies, especially some Near Eastern, and hints at the coming of Christianity.   

Reading this first was interesting, it was the last of Walton's Tetralogy written, thought it covers the first Branch and these branch are internally chronological.  I was surprised by how much religious and political commentary Walton fit into the work. She was an early feminist and that permeates all of the work. She was also raised a Quaker, and I doubt if that explains the hostility to Near Eastern Religions, including Christianity, that is also apparent in this book. Oddly, she also left out the final third of the "Pwyll Pendefig Dyfed", which dealt with the birth and early childhood of Pryderi, Pwyll's son with Rhiannon

Next was The Children of Llyr , which covers "Branwen ferch Llŷr", the second Branch. This work was very different from the first book,  somewhat more down to earth, though clearly still in the world of myth and folklore. The stories start to look less like a fairy tale and more like an epic fantasy.  The Sons of Llyr make excellent protagonists, flawed but endearing, and the antagonists are very human, with redeeming qualities that grant them humanity despite their horrific choices.

But what really sets this work apart is the constant sense of impending, unavoidable doom. The work devolves, especially at the end, into true horror, getting nearly as depressing in places as Frodo's march through Mordor, but without the high purpose and sense of hope that lie at the foundation of Tolkien's work.

The center of the novel is the struggle for a mysterious magical Cauldron which grants the king who possesses it great military power, but at a truly horrific cost to his kingdom. It is truly powerful - and the tale cannot conclude without resolving the Cauldron's fate. Like Tolkien's One Ring, then, the Cauldron is not a true McGuffin (a story object whose only real purpose is to drive the plot). Indeed, it is very like the Ring, in both power and its persistent corruption of those who encounter it. 

The third book is The Song of Rhiannon, covering the "Manawydan fab Llŷr."  This work starts very evocatively, as Manawydan and Pryderi return from the disastrous war with the Irish.  The third branch is generally titled after Manawydan, but Walton chooses to title it after Rhiannon, and includes the tale of Pryderi's birth here rather then in the first novel as it appears in the first Branch of the Mabinogi.  Rhiannon is a focus of the tale, but Manawydan is the point of view character. I found him fascinating, definitely my favorite character in the series to date and the closest thing to a recognizably moral character. 

The feminist subtext in this book is very strong as Rhiannon makes several interesting choice regarding her bedmates, and the matriarchal nature of the "Old Tribes" is on full display. The politics she adds to the work are interesting but how accurate her view of ancient Welsh or Celt culture and society is I can't say.

Walton's novel was published in 1974, the Fleetwood Mac song came out in 1975; it was not based on Walton's novel and I doubt Stevie Nicks had heard of the novel or its title when she was writing the song. Nonetheless it is remarkable how well the song fits the Rhiannon of the Mabinogion.

The Island of the Mighty is the fourth and final book in Walton's series, covering the fourth branch, "Math fab Mathonwy", of the Mabinogi.  Despite being the title character of the Branch, Math is not the protagonist. Instead the protagonists are Gwydion and  Lleu Llaw Gyffes, Math's heirs.  

Gwydion especially is the protagonist but he is really an anti-hero, which I found shocking (though Arawn's characterization should have warned me), because, as mentioned with Arawn above, I associate him with Gwydion the battle leader in Lloyd Alexander's Prydain series, where he is something of an Aragorn figure, very noble and wise. Here, Gwydion is handsome, charming, intelligent, but also arrogant, demanding, and over-all, very hard for modern readers to like. It doesn't help that he makes morally questionable decisions again and again. He generally suffers consequences for his bad choices, however, which always help humanize a character. 

Pryderi does appear in the opening chapters, he is the only character to appear in all four Branches, but shifting the focus away from Pwyll and his family is a bit shocking, though completely true to the original text.

There is a LOT more feminist politics in this work, so much that I am shocked it was published in 1936, Walton was very ahead of her time. There is just so much to unpack here on body autonomy, the nature of life, parenthood, self-will... it's an engrossing novel, but it is impossible to read it and not ponder these issues.  Much of this, of course, is straight from the original text of the Mabinogi, but she coul have easily chosen to downplay it or rationalize it way, removing the ethical and philosophical implications. Instead, Walton puts them front and center in her tale, demanding the reader consider these questions. Her sheer intellectual integrity on this point is impressive.

Her one weakness as a writer lies in the fight scenes, they are always truncated and simple and se doesn't seem capable of painting a picture of the fight. In contrast, magic, dialogue, and inner turmoil are her métier.  The final scene of Arianrhod was moving and effective, a prime example of well she wrote scenes of magic. The end of the tale is also moving, in part because the final 'duel' was a very one-sided affair so she could work around her weakness on fight scenes by focusing on the interplay of the characters. 

None of that really mattered, I found this work a fitting conclusion to the series, and the series as a whole certainly lived up to its hype.  I feel like I have a far firmer grasp on Welsh mythology then I had before, and a deeper understanding of Western culture broadly.  

Though she started writing in the first half of the Twentieth century, Walton didn't become known until the second half. She first published The Island of the Mighty  in 1936, as "The Virgin and the Swine" but the work received little notice, she later started a trilogy on Theseus only to find Mary Renault beating her to the punch with a master-work. She didn't become well known until her Mabinogion Tetralogy was published by the Ballantine Books Adult Fantasy series (we certainly owe that series a great deal!).  In the Seventies her work received the acclaim it deserved, she won several awards, and more of her work has since been published, I certainly intend to track down novel Witch House and her Theseus novel, The Sword is Forged.

Her home-grown feminism is well established, I wasn't shocked to discover a 2013 doctoral dissertation on the topic, "The Daughters of Modron: Evangeline Walton’s Feminist Re-visioning of the Mabinogi."

Walton herself was a scholar, although home-schooled and self-taught her mastery of Celtic literature is clear.  It is especially obvious in "Celtic Myth in the Twentieth Century" published in Mythlore (Vol. 3, No. 3, 1976), it is apparent from context that this was a lecture she gave, most likely at a convention or conference but my cursory search hasn't determined when and where exactly. 

In that lecture, Walton notes the lack of morality in the Mabinogion and how oddthat is to modern eyes, the quote seems an excellent place to end this essay:

"In mythology you never find our modern preoccupation with good and evil—a preoccupation that doesn't seem to have made us noticeably good yet. And perhaps you find it least of all in the Celtic. Yeats says—this time in his Celtic Twilight—that fantasy and caprice would lose the freedom which is their breath of life if they were to unite with either good or evil."

Post-script:  This post is not particularly detailed, of course, regarding the Mabinogion Tetralogy.  If you are looking for a more in-depth look that really delves into the various mythologies and plots in the novels, the four blog posts found here on The Labors of Ki'shto'ba Huge-Head are very well done, though I found the over-all blog organization a bit confusing.

All views in this blog are my own and represent the views of no other person, organization, or institution.

Lovecraft & Racism

So there is a new series on HBO called Lovecraft Country based on a novel of the same name by Matt Ruff. It has attracted a great deal of interest because Weird fiction generally, and Lovecraft specifically, has been fashionable the last decade or so.  This interest tends to run in spikes with Lovecraft, but it seems particularly to get traction now because Lovecraft's racist beliefs and writings alongside his general influence on the horror genre makes him a prime target.

Once something is a prestige HBO series, the topics involved are bound to get attention, as happened to Robert Chambers' The King in Yellow when it was a plot point in the first season of HBO's True Detective. Multiple online magazines started dissecting Lovecraft, his themes, and his racism.  Slate, for example, has four different articles on the new series.  None of  them were very insightful, nor were they written by Weird fiction specialists.  

Vox produced "Lovecraftian horror — and the racism at its core — explained", Not as thoughtful as I had hoped when I started to read it, but a decent take nonetheless. It treats fanzines and magazines as if they were the same thing, which is lazy writing (and makes me think perhaps Wikipedia* was the primary source of research for this journalist) and it does give short shift to defenders like S.T. Joshi, I have my own problems with Joshi's work, but he's definitely the world's leading Lovecraft scholar, he is a person of color, and his thoughts on this topic deserve a great deal of consideration.

Joshi's take on Lovecraft's racism appears in the middle of this article (and elsewhere, the man is as prolific as Lovecraft himself). he can also be heard in this podcast and his views specifically about the Lovecraft Country HBO series are discussed here. Joshi is too committed to Lovecraft study for us to take his absolution of Lovecraft's racism completely at face value, but he definitely gets one thing right that the Vox article gets wrong - racism permeates many of his works, but it is not the point of his work. The horror of mankind's utter cosmic inconsequence is the most important theme for Lovecraft.

The fact is, this is a difficult subject. Lovecraft was a racist, plain and simple. Lovecraft wrote thousands of letters to dozens (at least) of correspondents. Many letters espoused racist viewpoints but the man at 16 or 17 was not the same man when he died. Nor had he been totally redeemed. 

Consider Lovecraft himself, he was a man with no power or wealth and no prospects for attaining either.  He was a man who lived such extreme poverty that poor nutrition undoubtedly contributed to his early death, he had a very unhappy life - some bitterness is to be expected, and that it was often misplaced should surprise none of us. Though the banality of it is disappointing in someone so imaginatively gifted otherwise.

He was also a prolific author, who wrote scores of tales over his short lifetime. Some, but certainly not all, of his work is permeated by his racism (especially his earlier works). and it is no simple matter to determine that beyond obvious examples like those mentioned in the article. 

As the Vox article notes, a bust of Lovecraft was originally given to winners of the World Fantasy Award, perhaps because the first award was given at the convention in 1975 held at Providence, Rhode Island and that convention's theme was Lovecraft's circle of fellow writers. I approve of changing the the award myself. I always thought it was in poor taste to make it an individual's bust in the first place, especially when that person is more a horror then a fantasy author, and while influential in the genre, no one could argue he was the most influential fantasy author by a long shot. The Hugo and Nebula awards are far more appropriate - a rocket ship and a transparent block with a glittering nebula respectively. 

Simple hatred for Lovecraft is an easy cop-out, but it is hardly intellectually sound. Neither is claiming he was "of his time" and ignoring or literally white-washing his racism. The proper way to deal with it is to wrestle with it, and thankfully many new writers are. 

Ruthanna Emrys is one new author doing just that, her Innsmouth Legacy series, especially Winter's Tide, the first novel, turns all of Lovecraft on its head, not only addressing his racism, but equally importantly, IMO, challenging his central thesis that atheism is fact, but also existentially terrifying. It's far from a perfect book - her protagonist is a bit too perfect - but her world-building is superb. 

Of course, Matt Ruff's book, and the HBO series, are also doing the same thing as Emrys. I'm looking forward to reading the book (I'm afraid I'm not interested enough in the series to pay for HBO). 

"Cancelling" Lovecraft would be incredibly counter-productive, his work is too foundational. But the entire point of fiction is to engage in it, to challenge and reply to it. Lovecraft isn't an answer, he is a question.

* Yes, I often link to Wikipedia articles. It is often (not always) a decent place to start. Not so much for its content, as for its bibliographies and references.  I never link to a poor Wikipedia page, and i don't use it as a source.  But if its got a solid summary and good references on a subject, then I happily direct folks to that entry. 

This is harder then I had thought!

 I knew that the key to getting my blog to take off would be regular content, but that has been more difficult then I expected to produce. Probably because I've turned each entry into a sort of long-form article.  Which is fine in theory, but in practice it just introduces all of the issues that cause the writer's block I am prone to. I have 11 draft blog entries saved, in vary stages of completeness, for this reason!

I really need to work on interspersing those longer articles with short snippets of thought.  So, this is one of those.