TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: SonTodoGato on July 29, 2021, 11:38:15 PM

Title: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: SonTodoGato on July 29, 2021, 11:38:15 PM
Notice how I said the "new school of fantasy"; not just RPGs, but fantasy in general.

How did we go from Frank Frazzetta/Boris Vallejo/Jeff Easley, etc. illustrations, Conan the Cimmerian, Clark Ashton Smith, Sword & Sorcery, 70's psychedelics and 80's metal, hand-drawn art and a "basement" feeling to pauldroncore, freakshit, "anti-racist" soyboy digital art fantasy, in which no character can get harmed and there's lots of cheeky "humor" and anime personalities?

Examples:

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgbeQsABAlHZkjpUwgnzuGh3v1Jb5Q49bVIQ&usqp=CAU)

(https://files.catbox.moe/ldp10b.png)

(https://files.catbox.moe/ofh688.png)

(https://files.catbox.moe/ybj7l4.png)

It's called progress sweety...


Here's fucking Dark Sun for God's sake:

(https://files.catbox.moe/xf53y9.jpg)

So my questions would be:

When did this transition take place and what triggered it? (No pun intended, I swear)

I dont think it's political since it's been around way before the 2010's. I think videogames and digital art contributed to a certain extent since they changed the aesthetics. I think anime did the rest; everybody wanted to play either Zero Morningstar, the silver-haired edgelord who has two guns (one possessed by a cheeky devil and another one by an angel who's totally a pervert :333 >__< ), likes blood and cries under the rain while saying "Y-You probably think I'm selfish...", the funny, comic relief freakshit character (the typical bard stereotype). Well, either that or the guy who likes to play out a sexual fantasy.

And then along came "diversity" to top it all off... So they went from the edgy rogue that makes snarky comments about organized religion to playing disabled POC with 4 pages of backstory.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Cave Bear on July 30, 2021, 12:19:07 AM
The transition towards freakshit started in the 60's, with Elric of Melnibone.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Omega on July 30, 2021, 01:13:46 AM
Every iteration of the "Moral Guardian" disease has tried to sanitize and pacify RPGs. Sometimes as part of the battlecry. Sometimes as a secondary to the main goals of taking control of gaming.

Storygamers and Pundits Swine were at the forefront of this and still are pushing it.

But the main goal is control and oppression under the guise of freedom and inclusion by co-opting whats been around from the start.

Before the game was even released players on the original D&D sessions were playing and recruiting monsters. That carried over a little to AD&D and then got lost for a bit in 2e before being gradually re-introduced. And on the flip side you could play anything from a human only campaign to everything in between.

5e has gradually been co-opted to push the idea that the DM is not allowed to say "No" or set limits on races, classes, etc. Storygamer, Swine and Forge tactics 101.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Flipped Bird on July 30, 2021, 04:04:03 AM
The decline of reading skills has a lot to do with it. There are many, many people who only read young adult novels and can't handle stories above a certain level of complexity or with any thematic maturity. I knew people in college who couldn't deal with Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret. These are not people who want to be challenged when they read something.

When it comes to art, that is entirely due to digital painting and the ease with which publishers can find illustrators who will do passable work for cheap. Many of them are self-taught, but even those who got a fine arts education are doing poorly because of the insertion of things that are extraneous to the production of, you know, "fine art"*. The anime look is an easy shortcut for artists who struggle with faces and hands.

*Brian Eno has this anecdote about being present at the thesis presentation for a batch of art school students; one girl was marked down and reduced to tears because her painting, which was excellent, did not come with a very good artist's statement.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: tenbones on July 30, 2021, 07:52:45 AM
The transition towards freakshit started in the 60's, with Elric of Melnibone.

In fiction - sure, it was written as a rebuke of Tolkien's work (and I'd argue by mischaracterization of Tolkien's intent on Moocock's part - but whatever). But the conceits are ENTIRELY different. You could no more have Elric be accepted by the woke mob before his inevitable actions run afoul of their ideology very quickly.

In Gaming? The Freakshow started in the latter part of the 3e era... And by 4e it was a done deal. There is zero contextualization to D&D's secondary settings, and with their latest announcement, much to my delight, those settings *don't even exist* outside of the current slap-dash freakshow.

Which is fine by me. I have a wall of 1e and 2e Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Darksun, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft (plus more) to claim as mine to with as I please.

Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on July 30, 2021, 07:53:23 AM

(https://files.catbox.moe/ybj7l4.png)

Notice right here a recurring problem with "nuCulture": the nuArt is objectively bad. As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad. (*)

Which pairs with nuCthulhu novels being bad, or nuComics like "I'm not Starfire" being published with the kind of art I see in 12-years old hopefuls (it is really terrible, and, most importantly, it has nothing to do with if you agree or not with the comic book contents).

I guess that the "entry barriers" do not exist anymore: anyone can express "zhemselfs", especially if zhe is "progrsssssive". Try to exert any kind of normal editorial content and you are a misogynist crypto-Nazi towards unnormative transcisgenders.

(*) In Italy we have a female writer-artist with the plum name "I Fumetti Brutti" ("The Ugly Comics"). She writes and draws, with hideous scrawlings, stories of transgender people, homosexuality and the like...

...And yet the result is powerful. Apparently she can't draw. Truth is: she mastered her own style, which portrays through "ugly" panels the "ugly situations" that permeate the common life of her characters. She worked a lot before being recognised, and her editor is one of the best in the industry. I have a lot of her books. Isn't it strange how you can perfectly go independent and forge your own successful path through hard work?
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: SonTodoGato on July 30, 2021, 08:24:47 AM


Notice right here a recurring problem with "nuCulture": the nuArt is objectively bad. As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad. (*)

Which pairs with nuCthulhu novels being bad, or nuComics like "I'm not Starfire" being published with the kind of art I see in 12-years old hopefuls (it is really terrible, and, most importantly, it has nothing to do with if you agree or not with the comic book contents).

I guess that the "entry barriers" do not exist anymore: anyone can express "zhemselfs", especially if zhe is "progrsssssive". Try to exert any kind of normal editorial content and you are a misogynist crypto-Nazi towards unnormative transcisgenders.

(*) In Italy we have a female writer-artist with the plum name "I Fumetti Brutti" ("The Ugly Comics"). She writes and draws, with hideous scrawlings, stories of transgender people, homosexuality and the like...

...And yet the result is powerful. Apparently she can't draw. Truth is: she mastered her own style, which portrays through "ugly" panels the "ugly situations" that permeate the common life of her characters. She worked a lot before being recognised, and her editor is one of the best in the industry. I have a lot of her books. Isn't it strange how you can perfectly go independent and forge your own successful path through hard work?

About the Fumetti Brutti, I don't know man, she strikes me as a feminist kind of author. Kind of like our "Maitena". Romanticizing periods, glorifyng obesity, not waxing, "look at me I masturbate every day", etc. And she confirms my politically incorrect hypothesis about feminists having a preference for rough sex and sexual submission (which she admits herself). Maybe that's why they need to go around screaming how powerful they are; it's overcompensation and guilt. And I bet the author of "I'm not Starfire" has that kind of fetish as well.

Apart from that, I agree with you. "Nu art" is bad indeed, but they play it off as though it is just alternative and quirky; as if they did it on purpose. Adventure time and Cal Arts in general do that. I think what they lack is actually soulful, talented artists who actually sit down and draw, as opposed to using a pc, vectors, templates and computer effects. It's practical effects vs. CGI all over again.

(https://cdn.eldeforma.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/calarts-e1589568951505.jpg)

We've all seen this pic but it proves the point exactly. The entry barrier is still there, they reject the ones that don't promote the established artstyle.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on July 30, 2021, 08:33:28 AM
The transition towards freakshit started in the 60's, with Elric of Melnibone.

In fiction - sure, it was written as a rebuke of Tolkien's work (and I'd argue by mischaracterization of Tolkien's intent on Moocock's part - but whatever).

I once met Moorcock in London, back in the early '90s. It was a book signing and a conference, at the Forbidden Planet, about "Elric and the Fortress of the Pearl" (which instantaneously devolved into AME).

Moorcock, as usual, said how he didn't like Tolkien's work (he had met the man when he was young, and personally he was totally fine). Regarding Elric, however, he said that "He had took Conan and created a character that was the total opposite - up to have Elric starting as a ruler where Conan started as a barbarian. In that panel he never mentioned The Lord of the Rings in relation with Conan.

My guess is that Moorcock became "The Anti-Tolkien" after The New Yorker published an infamous article with that title. After that, he recognised that it was true - but the only time I saw him "live" he made clear that Elric was a response to Conan, not Tolkien.

I also remember how he totally denied how Elric, and his relationship with Stormbringer, were a metaphor of his relationship with drugs (he didn't deny that he had been a drug user). I was surprised, because to me this metaphor was both clear and powerful, but that's what he said.

Quote
But the conceits are ENTIRELY different. You could no more have Elric be accepted by the woke mob before his inevitable actions run afoul of their ideology very quickly.

I did a bit of Google-fu and, strangely, he is still not cancelled. Maybe his constant flogging of Lovecraft is helping

[Fun fact: since both Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer's RPGs are based on the BRP, and I worked on the Italian edition of both published by Stratelibri, one of the first thing we did was to send the Mythos to Melnibone. We never published the rules on the then Stratelibri official magazine, but I remember that we did a box about "It can be done!" when we presented the Italian edition of Stormbringer.  ;D]
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: tenbones on July 30, 2021, 08:43:02 AM
If Moorcock ever gets caught in the public eye - should there ever be an Elric TV series or something... oh you bet your ass they'll come after him.

Yeah I can see the whole Conan vs. Elric starting points, I don't consider Elric or anything from Moorcock equivalent to the TTRPG Freakshow today because Moorcocks work is rock solid in its context within its own sandbox.

Modern D&D is a mishmash of shit that they're curating for purposes OUTSIDE the context of their established lore - and now that they've officially jettisoned that lore, much like Star Wars, they're now going to show everyone what they think is "D&D". It will be good for a laugh.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Chris24601 on July 30, 2021, 09:38:56 AM
Yeah I can see the whole Conan vs. Elric starting points, I don't consider Elric or anything from Moorcock equivalent to the TTRPG Freakshow today because Moorcocks work is rock solid in its context within its own sandbox.
And therein I think is a critical point. The issue is not that Dragonborn and Tieflings exist; its that they are being shoved into settings that did not previously have them (or at least not at the level of common species). They make perfect sense in the Neranth setting (the default for 4E) because they’re woven into the world’s history (they’re honestly more integral to that setting than elves, dwarves or halflings), but they had to drop yet another cataclysm on the Realms to drop the 4E races into it.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Armchair Gamer on July 30, 2021, 09:45:36 AM
Modern D&D is a mishmash of shit that they're curating for purposes OUTSIDE the context of their established lore - and now that they've officially jettisoned that lore, much like Star Wars, they're now going to show everyone what they think is "D&D". It will be good for a laugh.

   D&D has always been a mishmash and farrago of various fantasy influences--it's just what the fantasy influences are have changed over 50 years. And trying to divide it between 'old' and 'new' is, IMO, an oversimplification--I can identify at least five different styles (OD&D/early AD&D pulp fantasy, post-Gygax high fantasy, 3E dungeonpunk, 4E high-flash, and 5E swashbuckling Seattle romance), and that's without even trying or taking into account various strands within each tradition, such as early D&D's tensions between pulp sword & sorcery and medieval wargaming.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Chris24601 on July 30, 2021, 09:58:52 AM
Modern D&D is a mishmash of shit that they're curating for purposes OUTSIDE the context of their established lore - and now that they've officially jettisoned that lore, much like Star Wars, they're now going to show everyone what they think is "D&D". It will be good for a laugh.

   D&D has always been a mishmash and farrago of various fantasy influences--it's just what the fantasy influences are have changed over 50 years. And trying to divide it between 'old' and 'new' is, IMO, an oversimplification--I can identify at least five different styles (OD&D/early AD&D pulp fantasy, post-Gygax high fantasy, 3E dungeonpunk, 4E high-flash, and 5E swashbuckling Seattle romance), and that's without even trying or taking into account various strands within each tradition, such as early D&D's tensions between pulp sword & sorcery and medieval wargaming.
“New school” is anything past the point where the style matches your preferences.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Ghostmaker on July 30, 2021, 10:12:55 AM
Yeah I can see the whole Conan vs. Elric starting points, I don't consider Elric or anything from Moorcock equivalent to the TTRPG Freakshow today because Moorcocks work is rock solid in its context within its own sandbox.
And therein I think is a critical point. The issue is not that Dragonborn and Tieflings exist; its that they are being shoved into settings that did not previously have them (or at least not at the level of common species). They make perfect sense in the Neranth setting (the default for 4E) because they’re woven into the world’s history (they’re honestly more integral to that setting than elves, dwarves or halflings), but they had to drop yet another cataclysm on the Realms to drop the 4E races into it.
Yeah, there's a bad problem of 'remember the new guy' with adding those races. Dragonborn are definitely the worst offenders; they had to shoehorn in an entire new continent into FR to add them (at least there was precedent with tieflings, since outsiders from the lower planes had been causing problems in Faerun since its inception).

If dragonborn had been the result of dragons developing agents to go out into the world and handle the various issues arising post-3E (Spellplague, etc), it would've fit better.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on July 30, 2021, 10:51:46 AM

About the Fumetti Brutti, I don't know man, she strikes me as a feminist kind of author. Kind of like our "Maitena". Romanticizing periods, glorifyng obesity, not waxing, "look at me I masturbate every day", etc. And she confirms my politically incorrect hypothesis about feminists having a preference for rough sex and sexual submission (which she admits herself).

I could say "So what?" I'm interested in hearing from everyone who says interesting things. "Interesting" is neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong, neither just nor evil. Interesting is... Interesting.

I read "Anestesia" a few months ago, and it really touched me. Others' mileage may vary.

Quote
Maybe that's why they need to go around screaming how powerful they are;

I'm pretty sure that a percentage of people feel that need - imagine when they stumble into something done right. However...

Quote
it's overcompensation and guilt. And I bet the author of "I'm not Starfire" has that kind of fetish as well.

Maybe. I don't know. However, "I Fumetti Brutti" creates her own world and her own characters. The authors of "I'm not Starfire" start by molesting an existing franchise. That's already a red flag. History teaches that the lack of faith and talent needed for creating your own franchise will be expressed with an uncreative approach to the themes paired with untalented art - all with the hope that an established brand will propel you anyway (see also "Winter Tide" and "Fate of Cthulhu") And the art of "I'm not Starfire" is horrid; horrid for real, not as a researched style fruit of hard work.

This means that "I Fumetti Brutti" sells to people interested in what she has to say. "I'm not Starfire", instead, is exactly that: an intrusion in a line whose readers are not interested in those topics (and a badly drawn one, BTW). No one wants to be lectured in Star Wars, Ghostbusters or Terminator, and those franchises and many others paid dearly for this mistake.

[Educational link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210415144433/https://www.oneangrygamer.net/get-woke-go-broke-the-master-list/]

I could be a fan of the American edition of "The Ugly Comics" but when I buy "Starfire" I want both Starfire (or a good spin-off of Starfire) and the minimum level of quality in the art department I expect from that comic book line.

[Not to mention how it turned out that a "Young Adult" comic has contents inappropriate for that age band...]

Ironically, a look at the American comic book industry shows that some sectors are doing really well. Authors like Raina Telgemeier are amazingly popular among young girls. And, lo!, think what you want about her, but she created her own characters and her own world. Marvel and DC are struggling in this sector (mostly because they lack the understanding and the experience). The result is that they publish something that the readers of Raina Telgemeier will never even consider while losing the readers of Starfire in the process.

Meanwhile, the twenty most sold adult graphic novels in America are constantly all manga. Time for the that part of the industry to get a clue.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: JeffB on July 30, 2021, 11:03:50 AM
August 1st 2000.






You said "exactly".
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: SonTodoGato on July 30, 2021, 11:05:23 AM
I can identify at least five different styles (OD&D/early AD&D pulp fantasy, post-Gygax high fantasy, 3E dungeonpunk, 4E high-flash, and 5E swashbuckling Seattle romance), and that's without even trying or taking into account various strands within each tradition, such as early D&D's tensions between pulp sword & sorcery and medieval wargaming.

Go on...
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: SonTodoGato on July 30, 2021, 11:13:48 AM
Meanwhile, the twenty most sold adult graphic novels in America are constantly all manga. Time for the that part of the industry to get a clue.

If there's one good thing about Japan is that they won't lecture everyone on the moral obligation to be a democrat.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Slambo on July 30, 2021, 12:27:38 PM
Its harry potter isn't it?
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on July 30, 2021, 01:07:11 PM
Its harry potter isn't it?

J.K. Rowling is currently under the bus, so, no. If it was yes, then HP had been retconned to no.

[I never bothered to understand why JKR is currently cancelled - and I don't think I will.]
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: jhkim on July 30, 2021, 01:20:49 PM
Its harry potter isn't it?

It depends how one slices it. I think the OP is making old school to be authors like Tolkien, Howard (Conan), and Lieber (Fafhrd) in the 1950s to 1970s -- which were the original genre of D&D.

The new school as characterized seems more like modern authors such as Rowling (Harry Potter), Pratchett (Discworld), Riordan (Percy Jackson) -- aimed more at younger readers, where the protagonists are more likely to be adolescent, and the fantasy more whimsical.

But of course, there's been plenty of variety of fantasy. There's always been whimsical fantasy for younger readers -- like Baum (Oz), Lewis (Narnia), and so forth. And there's always been plenty of authors like Le Guin and Moorcock who don't fit into either camp.

I think actually D&D and video games have been a major influence towards more whimsical fantasy, actually.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: SonTodoGato on July 30, 2021, 01:27:53 PM
[I never bothered to understand why JKR is currently cancelled - and I don't think I will.]

Basically she said trans aren't women. Her own feminist, woke cult eventually turned against her. She started with Hermione is black and Dumbledore is gay... and now the golem turned against her because she's a "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). Glad it happened.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on July 30, 2021, 01:57:21 PM
I don't know when it started, but if you could graph it over time, I'd bet you a case of doughnuts that it would correlate very strongly to the expanded range of what is considered adolescence.  That is, people are staying in adolescence longer, sometimes on purpose, and society is a lot more tolerant of that now.  This creates an huge, expanded market of adolescent tastes to satisfy. 

It's always been true that some people never grow out of that stage. They weren't always celebrated. 

If I'm correct, one big marker would be when the legal drinking age in the USA was increased to 21.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: KingCheops on July 30, 2021, 02:00:55 PM
[I never bothered to understand why JKR is currently cancelled - and I don't think I will.]

Basically she said trans aren't women. Her own feminist, woke cult eventually turned against her. She started with Hermione is black and Dumbledore is gay... and now the golem turned against her because she's a "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). Glad it happened.

Not even that.  She was arguing that girls struggle to understand their sexuality when they're teens so doctors and society shouldn't be pushing teen girls or younger to become boys.  She asserted that a Tom Boy is a thing and is a good thing as an expression of themselves (a position echoed by many lesbians afraid they're getting replaced by trans).  But this isn't allowed in the Cathedral.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: SonTodoGato on July 30, 2021, 02:03:24 PM
So it's even more stupid than I previously thought?

How dare you say that we should be extremely cautions when advising young people to perform permanent, life-changing surgeries?!
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: jhkim on July 30, 2021, 02:40:05 PM
I don't know when it started, but if you could graph it over time, I'd bet you a case of doughnuts that it would correlate very strongly to the expanded range of what is considered adolescence.  That is, people are staying in adolescence longer, sometimes on purpose, and society is a lot more tolerant of that now.  This creates an huge, expanded market of adolescent tastes to satisfy. 

It's always been true that some people never grow out of that stage. They weren't always celebrated. 

If I'm correct, one big marker would be when the legal drinking age in the USA was increased to 21.

From what I read, most states had a legal drinking age of 21 from the end of prohibition in 1933. That stayed that way for decades, but with the 26th Amendment in 1971, the voting age was reduced to 18 as a standard, and many states also reduced the drinking age to 18, but the drinking age was increased to 21 again after the 1984 federal law that tied federal highway funds to a minimum drinking age of 21 or older.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimum_purchase_age_by_state

I think what you're talking about is different, though -- it's more the change in demographics after the 1980s. After the Baby Boomers, the trend has been to have fewer children later in life. Children have then been more sheltered later into life -- and as part of the same trend, it's been much harder to detach from one's parents due to the increased costs of college and housing.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Flipped Bird on July 30, 2021, 02:48:41 PM
So it's even more stupid than I previously thought?

How dare you say that we should be extremely cautions when advising young people to perform permanent, life-changing surgeries?!

The only thing worse than a heretic is an apostate.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Aglondir on July 30, 2021, 04:03:46 PM
[I never bothered to understand why JKR is currently cancelled - and I don't think I will.]

Basically she said trans aren't women. Her own feminist, woke cult eventually turned against her. She started with Hermione is black and Dumbledore is gay... and now the golem turned against her because she's a "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). Glad it happened.
There was also the African magic school debacle. The Woke Mob demanded to know why there were wizards in England and Europe but not Africa. She actually had considered that, and posted some of her initial ideas. She was immediately struggled with "Why is there only one school, when white people get three? Are you aware there are many different cultures in Africa? Do you think all Africans are the same? Are you, as a white person, qualified to write about them? Etc."

What a surprise.

My theory is that Rowling is being rejected by the Wokists because the novels actually have conservative (ish) elements:

- Definite good vs. definite evil
- Boys and girls fall in love, get married, start families
- People are judged by their merits and accomplishments, rather than their identity
- Intelligence and hard work are rewarded
- Duty and self-sacrifice for the greater good
- The soul exists, as well as an afterlife
- Masculinity and fatherhood are positive (rather than universally toxic)


Some liberal elements as well. But I don't see the novels or Rowling as Woke.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on July 30, 2021, 05:08:14 PM
[I never bothered to understand why JKR is currently cancelled - and I don't think I will.]

Basically she said trans aren't women. Her own feminist, woke cult eventually turned against her. She started with Hermione is black and Dumbledore is gay... and now the golem turned against her because she's a "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). Glad it happened.
There was also the African magic school debacle. The Woke Mob demanded to know why there were wizards in England and Europe but not Africa. She actually had considered that, and posted some of her initial ideas. She was immediately struggled with "Why is there only one school, when white people get three? Are you aware there are many different cultures in Africa? Do you think all Africans are the same? Are you, as a white person, qualified to write about them? Etc."

I'm currently writing a comic book script with a female blind criminologist. I guess I'll have to stop, since I'm neither of these three things.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Shasarak on July 30, 2021, 05:30:34 PM
I would probably estimate that new school started in June 2008 and boy its been a hell of a ride so far.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: SonTodoGato on July 30, 2021, 05:47:15 PM

There was also the African magic school debacle. The Woke Mob demanded to know why there were wizards in England and Europe but not Africa. She actually had considered that, and posted some of her initial ideas. She was immediately struggled with "Why is there only one school, when white people get three? Are you aware there are many different cultures in Africa? Do you think all Africans are the same? Are you, as a white person, qualified to write about them? Etc."

What a surprise.

My theory is that Rowling is being rejected by the Wokists because the novels actually have conservative (ish) elements:

- Definite good vs. definite evil
- Boys and girls fall in love, get married, start families
- People are judged by their merits and accomplishments, rather than their identity
- Intelligence and hard work are rewarded
- Duty and self-sacrifice for the greater good
- The soul exists, as well as an afterlife
- Masculinity and fatherhood are positive (rather than universally toxic)


Some liberal elements as well. But I don't see the novels or Rowling as Woke.

That's what she gets for giving in. She gave them the african school of wizards they demanded and then it wasn't enough. Should've told them to fuck off right off the bat. They were NEVER interested in the school, they just wanted to do leftist revisionism upon her for not bowing to the "oppressed" ever since the 90's.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 30, 2021, 06:44:56 PM
[I never bothered to understand why JKR is currently cancelled - and I don't think I will.]

Basically she said trans aren't women. Her own feminist, woke cult eventually turned against her. She started with Hermione is black and Dumbledore is gay... and now the golem turned against her because she's a "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). Glad it happened.
There was also the African magic school debacle. The Woke Mob demanded to know why there were wizards in England and Europe but not Africa. She actually had considered that, and posted some of her initial ideas. She was immediately struggled with "Why is there only one school, when white people get three? Are you aware there are many different cultures in Africa? Do you think all Africans are the same? Are you, as a white person, qualified to write about them? Etc."

What a surprise.

A white woman from the UK writing primarily about people in the UK. It's indeed puzzling... :D

Quote
My theory is that Rowling is being rejected by the Wokists because the novels actually have conservative (ish) elements:

- Definite good vs. definite evil
- Boys and girls fall in love, get married, start families
- People are judged by their merits and accomplishments, rather than their identity
- Intelligence and hard work are rewarded
- Duty and self-sacrifice for the greater good
- The soul exists, as well as an afterlife
- Masculinity and fatherhood are positive (rather than universally toxic)


Some liberal elements as well. But I don't see the novels or Rowling as Woke.

Yeah. Rowling is "A progressive driving the speed limit". IMO part of the popularity of the Potter novels is that she consiously or subconsiously used "tradtional" ideas about storytelling and morality, and didn't try to aggressively subvert everything in sight. That is was so popular and not ham handedly conservative put her on track for the eventual confrontation with wokesters who can't help but enjoy "problematic" content.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on July 30, 2021, 07:13:31 PM
(https://files.catbox.moe/ybj7l4.png)

As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad.

Out of curiosity, what would you say makes the second picture "bad" and the first "good" (or at least acceptable)?  I ask from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about art theory, and sees only two pictures both done with a technical competence I certainly couldn't deliver myself.

I am certainly not a fan of the style of the second painting vs. the first, but a difference in taste is not the same as a criticism of quality, I think.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: palaeomerus on July 30, 2021, 07:21:47 PM
If Moorcock ever gets caught in the public eye - should there ever be an Elric TV series or something... oh you bet your ass they'll come after him.


Moorcock was supposedly quite trying to get Elric made as a TV/Streaming show and they rejected his pitch and he was told it was too much like the Witcher. Poor guy.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: HappyDaze on July 31, 2021, 04:04:45 AM
I don't believe that there is a definable break point. The change has been gradual and is still ongoing. I remember some of the things that are "new school" from as far back as the late 80s, but they were less widespread than they are today. I think they have become more common as games have moved toward attracting interest from those outside the typical gamer. The D&D gamer might now be something of a minority among those that participate in D&D themed products (not all of which are part the RPG).
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 31, 2021, 04:38:08 AM
(https://files.catbox.moe/ybj7l4.png)

As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad.

Out of curiosity, what would you say makes the second picture "bad" and the first "good" (or at least acceptable)?  I ask from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about art theory, and sees only two pictures both done with a technical competence I certainly couldn't deliver myself.

I am certainly not a fan of the style of the second painting vs. the first, but a difference in taste is not the same as a criticism of quality, I think.

Just want to comment that the first picture is from Everquest, where you can play a dark elf or a catman or a lizard man. :D Positivley "New School" gaming there.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on July 31, 2021, 06:04:21 AM
(https://files.catbox.moe/ybj7l4.png)

As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad.

Out of curiosity, what would you say makes the second picture "bad" and the first "good" (or at least acceptable)?  I ask from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about art theory, and sees only two pictures both done with a technical competence I certainly couldn't deliver myself.

I am certainly not a fan of the style of the second painting vs. the first, but a difference in taste is not the same as a criticism of quality, I think.

Just want to comment that the first picture is from Everquest, where you can play a dark elf or a catman or a lizard man. :D Positivley "New School" gaming there.

The first one is by the late Keith Parkinson, one of the "big four" of D&D and esp. "Dragonlance" (along with Elmore, Easley and Caldwell).

The first thing you notice about the second one is how the composition is all wrong. Not only it is unbalanced, but important elements are muddled. The little lizardman in the middle disappears amid all the other elements surrounding him. The two figure fighting in the lower right partially obscure the two other figures behind them (Parkinson apparently does the same, but it his version the way the figures are placed doesn't hide the ones in the background).

Generally speaking, Parkinson's illustration gives more "air" to the scene, allowing to each figure to be properly perceived. His dragon isn't big and it hadn't to be. The "bigger is better" dragon in the second illustration only results in an orange blob in a scene already crammed.

Parkinson uses colors to further detach each character both from the ambience and from each other (you could say that the paladin in white against the white boulders is his only mistake). The second image is a "garish is better" assault on the retinas.

Then the characters. Parkinson's show an elegance and beauty that - as a side effect - makes the player say "I want to play this one!". They are also anatomically correct. Now, tell me why I should want to play the befuddled ranger (?) on the left (after I realised that she was an archer only after staring to her for a while, because her bow almost belongs to a game of "hidden objects"). Who is fighting with who is often unclear. I have a few doubts about the anatomies. And, for all the attempt to show "superheroic characters" in the second image, Parkinson's poses are cooler.

These are the first things that come off my head. Generally speaking, Parkinson's work shows a guy who has mastered his talent and knows to convey the spirit of what he is illustrating in the best possible way. The second image is done by someone who apes better artists, but who still has to understand that cramming everything together and failing at the basic use of colors only shows how he still has a long road in front of him.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Pat on July 31, 2021, 06:50:29 AM
The first one is by the late Keith Parkinson, one of the "big four" of D&D and esp. "Dragonlance" (along with Elmore, Easley and Caldwell).

The first thing you notice about the second one is how the composition is all wrong. Not only it is unbalanced, but important elements are muddled. The little lizardman in the middle disappears amid all the other elements surrounding him. The two figure fighting in the lower right partially obscure the two other figures behind them (Parkinson apparently does the same, but it his version the way the figures are placed doesn't hide the ones in the background).

Generally speaking, Parkinson's illustration gives more "air" to the scene, allowing to each figure to be properly perceived. His dragon isn't big and it hadn't to be. The "bigger is better" dragon in the second illustration only results in an orange blob in a scene already crammed.

Parkinson uses colors to further detach each character both from the ambience and from each other (you could say that the paladin in white against the white boulders is his only mistake). The second image is a "garish is better" assault on the retinas.

Then the characters. Parkinson's show an elegance and beauty that - as a side effect - makes the player say "I want to play this one!". They are also anatomically correct. Now, tell me why I should want to play the befuddled ranger (?) on the left (after I realised that she was an archer only after staring to her for a while, because her bow almost belongs to a game of "hidden objects"). Who is fighting with who is often unclear. I have a few doubts about the anatomies. And, for all the attempt to show "superheroic characters" in the second image, Parkinson's poses are cooler.

These are the first things that come off my head. Generally speaking, Parkinson's work shows a guy who has mastered his talent and knows to convey the spirit of what he is illustrating in the best possible way. The second image is done by someone who apes better artists, but who still has to understand that cramming everything together and failing at the basic use of colors only shows how he still has a long road in front of him.
I don't think the difference is that stark. I do think the characters in Parkinson's tableau are easier to distinguish, but that's mostly because the armor in the second piece tends to chop the characters up -- the style of plates with borders breaks up the overall outline of a human body. The problem with the dragon is less size and more color -- the red really stands out, and provides a sharp border; the orange does not, especially since the foreground characters use orange or analogous colors. The same problems also occurs with the characters to the right. Regarding elements blending in, that war machine in the back of Parkinson's piece is harder to distinguish than the small lizardman in the second piece, and Parkinson's halfling and dwarf also merge into a hard to separate blob. Also, I wouldn't praise Parkinson's anatomy too much -- the giant forehead on the wizard stands out, and so does the pose of the rogue, which appears to be a resting position rather than in the middle of moving, but would be terribly difficult to hold. The priestess with the staff staring directly at the viewer is distracting. Overall, neither picture has good composition. Both are kind of a mess. They're action scenes, but half the characters seem to be posing pointlessly, or staring off in random directions. Neither is a particularly good piece.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Cola on July 31, 2021, 10:43:28 AM
I am not sure where the breaking point was.

I like a lot of 5e but commented to my friend of 40 years: “it’s hard to find pictures of warriors with axes…knights…where are all the badasses?”

It only gets worse by Tasha’s.  Neon colored characters who seem to fight by shooting lasers from their twats.

There was a picture of a what looked like an English footman being menaced by a monster: https://5e.tools/img/bestiary/MTF/Nightwalker.jpg

And I was shocked to find it in the mound of art from the past several years.  Why the shift?

Overall you get railed for representing fantasy medieval Europe at all—-the roots of the game.  As you push further away from knights and castles (too Eurocentric, I am sure) a normal adventuring party gets rarer and rarer.  The other element is totally cultural.  The cutesy fan art is ubiquitous.  Tastes have changed.  Old D&D players were inspired by older things.

I would imagine that the flood of computer generated heroes in the last 20 years is also a contributor.  Instead of reading and imagining some things subject to the laws of physics, we have bendy flashy flippy CGI heroes in mind now.

I would guess the art really shifted mid to late 90s just thinking back to old products from major companies.

So I think the subjects change for one reason followed by the aesthetics for other reasons all within the past 20 years.

Don’t think I am right?  It’s ok I pulled this out of my own subjective ass.  What I know for fact is the new Star Trek homoerotic wizard schools leaves me pretty cold.  Uninspiring and unexciting to say the very least.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on July 31, 2021, 11:11:56 AM
The first one is by the late Keith Parkinson, one of the "big four" of D&D and esp. "Dragonlance" (along with Elmore, Easley and Caldwell).

The first thing you notice about the second one is how the composition is all wrong. Not only it is unbalanced, but important elements are muddled. The little lizardman in the middle disappears amid all the other elements surrounding him. The two figure fighting in the lower right partially obscure the two other figures behind them (Parkinson apparently does the same, but it his version the way the figures are placed doesn't hide the ones in the background).

Generally speaking, Parkinson's illustration gives more "air" to the scene, allowing to each figure to be properly perceived. His dragon isn't big and it hadn't to be. The "bigger is better" dragon in the second illustration only results in an orange blob in a scene already crammed.

Parkinson uses colors to further detach each character both from the ambience and from each other (you could say that the paladin in white against the white boulders is his only mistake). The second image is a "garish is better" assault on the retinas.

Then the characters. Parkinson's show an elegance and beauty that - as a side effect - makes the player say "I want to play this one!". They are also anatomically correct. Now, tell me why I should want to play the befuddled ranger (?) on the left (after I realised that she was an archer only after staring to her for a while, because her bow almost belongs to a game of "hidden objects"). Who is fighting with who is often unclear. I have a few doubts about the anatomies. And, for all the attempt to show "superheroic characters" in the second image, Parkinson's poses are cooler.

These are the first things that come off my head. Generally speaking, Parkinson's work shows a guy who has mastered his talent and knows to convey the spirit of what he is illustrating in the best possible way. The second image is done by someone who apes better artists, but who still has to understand that cramming everything together and failing at the basic use of colors only shows how he still has a long road in front of him.
I don't think the difference is that stark. I do think the characters in Parkinson's tableau are easier to distinguish, but that's mostly because the armor in the second piece tends to chop the characters up -- the style of plates with borders breaks up the overall outline of a human body. The problem with the dragon is less size and more color -- the red really stands out, and provides a sharp border; the orange does not, especially since the foreground characters use orange or analogous colors. The same problems also occurs with the characters to the right. Regarding elements blending in, that war machine in the back of Parkinson's piece is harder to distinguish than the small lizardman in the second piece, and Parkinson's halfling and dwarf also merge into a hard to separate blob. Also, I wouldn't praise Parkinson's anatomy too much -- the giant forehead on the wizard stands out, and so does the pose of the rogue, which appears to be a resting position rather than in the middle of moving, but would be terribly difficult to hold. The priestess with the staff staring directly at the viewer is distracting. Overall, neither picture has good composition. Both are kind of a mess. They're action scenes, but half the characters seem to be posing pointlessly, or staring off in random directions. Neither is a particularly good piece.

Well, I'm not here to judge your own opinion of what "good art is". I can only notice that you didn't divide your post in paragraphs  :)
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Pat on July 31, 2021, 11:34:46 AM
Well, I'm not here to judge your own opinion of what "good art is". I can only notice that you didn't divide your post in paragraphs  :)
I didn't just give an opinion. Similar to what you did, I gave a rationale for my opinion, which is a more fertile ground for discussion than a simple I like/don't like. And nearly every sentence in my post in a separate point, which doesn't lend itself well to a multiple paragraph structure. It's more suited for either:
... the latter of which I usually avoid, because theRPGsite's implementation isn't that good.  :P
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Shawn Driscoll on July 31, 2021, 12:54:38 PM
How did we go from Frank Frazzetta/Boris Vallejo/Jeff Easley, etc. illustrations, Conan the Cimmerian, Clark Ashton Smith, Sword & Sorcery, 70's psychedelics and 80's metal, hand-drawn art and a "basement" feeling to pauldroncore, freakshit, "anti-racist" soyboy digital art fantasy, in which no character can get harmed and there's lots of cheeky "humor" and anime personalities?
Nintendo.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: jeff37923 on July 31, 2021, 01:15:20 PM
If dragonborn had been the result of dragons developing agents to go out into the world and handle the various issues arising post-3E (Spellplague, etc), it would've fit better.

I can run with this idea. The dragonborn are to dragons what D-class personnel are to the SCP Foundation. Disposable units used to scout out hazardous unknown locations.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: jeff37923 on July 31, 2021, 01:31:13 PM
I don't believe that there is a definable break point. The change has been gradual and is still ongoing.

I have to agree with this.

There was no single polarizing moment. This has been a gradual progression (like cancer or a mold) that happened as the internet and social media became more commonly used - as social Marxists and other crazies began talking to each other and organizing into communities, then the SJWs arose organically from that to try and smash the established institutions.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: HappyDaze on July 31, 2021, 03:47:29 PM
I don't believe that there is a definable break point. The change has been gradual and is still ongoing.

I have to agree with this.

There was no single polarizing moment. This has been a gradual progression (like cancer or a mold) that happened as the internet and social media became more commonly used - as social Marxists and other crazies began talking to each other and organizing into communities, then the SJWs arose organically from that to try and smash the established institutions.
I don't necessarily believe that the "new" art is inherently linked to specific politics.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 31, 2021, 04:17:40 PM
(https://files.catbox.moe/ybj7l4.png)

As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad.

Out of curiosity, what would you say makes the second picture "bad" and the first "good" (or at least acceptable)?  I ask from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about art theory, and sees only two pictures both done with a technical competence I certainly couldn't deliver myself.

I am certainly not a fan of the style of the second painting vs. the first, but a difference in taste is not the same as a criticism of quality, I think.

Just want to comment that the first picture is from Everquest, where you can play a dark elf or a catman or a lizard man. :D Positivley "New School" gaming there.

These are the first things that come off my head. Generally speaking, Parkinson's work shows a guy who has mastered his talent and knows to convey the spirit of what he is illustrating in the best possible way. The second image is done by someone who apes better artists, but who still has to understand that cramming everything together and failing at the basic use of colors only shows how he still has a long road in front of him.

Certainly. The second image has a "collage" look, where everything looks like it's been cut out of a magazine and pasted onto a background.
But then, a lot of art from older D&D is pretty bad. Or pretty good, depending on the piece. Quality isn't a defining trait of old school.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Aglondir on July 31, 2021, 05:20:39 PM
There was a picture of a what looked like an English footman being menaced by a monster: https://5e.tools/img/bestiary/MTF/Nightwalker.jpg
Love that piece. Has a Symbaorum vibe to it.

Overall you get railed for representing fantasy medieval Europe at all—-the roots of the game.  As you push further away from knights and castles (too Eurocentric, I am sure) a normal adventuring party gets rarer and rarer.  The other element is totally cultural.  The cutesy fan art is ubiquitous.  Tastes have changed.  Old D&D players were inspired by older things.
I've noticed this too. Paizo gave away the Pathfinder2 pdf for free. I deleted it 10 minutes later. I couldn't stand the cutesy art. That's was a first, in decades of gaming.

What I know for fact is the new Star Trek homoerotic wizard schools leaves me pretty cold.  Uninspiring and unexciting to say the very least.
You lost me there-- what's a Star Trek homoerotic wizard school? I only have the 5E PhB (and soon will be rid of that.)

Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: DocJones on July 31, 2021, 05:26:00 PM
These are the first things that come off my head. Generally speaking, Parkinson's work shows a guy who has mastered his talent and knows to convey the spirit of what he is illustrating in the best possible way. The second image is done by someone who apes better artists, but who still has to understand that cramming everything together and failing at the basic use of colors only shows how he still has a long road in front of him.
The characters equipment and armor in the second painting are ridiculously large. 
It's unwearable.  It reminds me of this review of miniatures: Fantasy character designs may be sillier than you thought (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL-bkO4su3I)
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Premier on July 31, 2021, 05:26:37 PM
The first one is by the late Keith Parkinson, one of the "big four" of D&D and esp. "Dragonlance" (along with Elmore, Easley and Caldwell).

The first thing you notice about the second one
[..]

Not to argue (I agree that the second picture is not good), I'll just add that composition is totally whacked. (Like you said, it feels like a collage.)

What is the elf archer looking at? Certainly not at any of the other individuals in the picture. She's looking at something outside the picture. What about the dwarf? I guess the artist intended him to look at the giant tiger guy, but if you look at where their feet are on the ground, it was a failure: his face is not turned towards that guy. Same thing with the chick with a ridiculously oversized hammer: if I had a gun pressed to my head, I'd guess she's supposed to be looking at the green skinned ogre-like thing, but once again, the direction of her gaze just isn't going in that direction.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Cola on July 31, 2021, 05:43:34 PM
There was a picture of a what looked like an English footman being menaced by a monster: https://5e.tools/img/bestiary/MTF/Nightwalker.jpg
Love that piece. Has a Symbaorum vibe to it.

Overall you get railed for representing fantasy medieval Europe at all—-the roots of the game.  As you push further away from knights and castles (too Eurocentric, I am sure) a normal adventuring party gets rarer and rarer.  The other element is totally cultural.  The cutesy fan art is ubiquitous.  Tastes have changed.  Old D&D players were inspired by older things.
I've noticed this too. Paizo gave away the Pathfinder2 pdf for free. I deleted it 10 minutes later. I couldn't stand the cutesy art. That's was a first, in decades of gaming.

What I know for fact is the new Star Trek homoerotic wizard schools leaves me pretty cold.  Uninspiring and unexciting to say the very least.
You lost me there-- what's a Star Trek homoerotic wizard school? I only have the 5E PhB (and soon will be rid of that.)

Haha sorry for the tangential rant!  The Star Trek homoerotic wizard school refers to recent “strixhaven?” Art.  It’s mostly gay blue elves and tieflings at a dance. I mean whatever on your choice of partner but we could not get further way from knight, barbarians and traditional elements.  And they are groovin to some techno pop I am sure, in line with what D&D is all about 🙄
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Svenhelgrim on July 31, 2021, 05:45:33 PM
The transition towards freakshit started in the 60's, with Elric of Melnibone.

Do tell.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Eirikrautha on July 31, 2021, 08:36:37 PM
I don't believe that there is a definable break point. The change has been gradual and is still ongoing.

I have to agree with this.

There was no single polarizing moment. This has been a gradual progression (like cancer or a mold) that happened as the internet and social media became more commonly used - as social Marxists and other crazies began talking to each other and organizing into communities, then the SJWs arose organically from that to try and smash the established institutions.
I don't necessarily believe that the "new" art is inherently linked to specific politics.
Incorrect.  The philosophical basis of the SJW movement is based around the erasure of history (this is year zero, and next year will be, too) and the "democratization" of the arts (with democratization defined as allowing the ordinary practitioner the same prestige as a master of the craft).  This is exemplified in the "Cal-Arts" style of animation: a simplistic style that is easily replicated and doesn't require great expertise to draw (which also makes it commercially appealing, as it is cheap to produce).  Many other modern artistic disciplines also distain technical expertise in favor of more pedestrian (and political) styles.  Politics (or the implicit philosophical underpinnings of a particular politics) has definitely had a large effect on the kinds of art that have been produced in the last 20 years plus.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: HappyDaze on July 31, 2021, 11:00:56 PM
I don't believe that there is a definable break point. The change has been gradual and is still ongoing.

I have to agree with this.

There was no single polarizing moment. This has been a gradual progression (like cancer or a mold) that happened as the internet and social media became more commonly used - as social Marxists and other crazies began talking to each other and organizing into communities, then the SJWs arose organically from that to try and smash the established institutions.
I don't necessarily believe that the "new" art is inherently linked to specific politics.
Incorrect.  The philosophical basis of the SJW movement is based around the erasure of history (this is year zero, and next year will be, too) and the "democratization" of the arts (with democratization defined as allowing the ordinary practitioner the same prestige as a master of the craft).  This is exemplified in the "Cal-Arts" style of animation: a simplistic style that is easily replicated and doesn't require great expertise to draw (which also makes it commercially appealing, as it is cheap to produce).  Many other modern artistic disciplines also distain technical expertise in favor of more pedestrian (and political) styles.  Politics (or the implicit philosophical underpinnings of a particular politics) has definitely had a large effect on the kinds of art that have been produced in the last 20 years plus.
Just because you make that connection doesn't mean it isn't nonsense.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Eirikrautha on July 31, 2021, 11:29:46 PM
I don't believe that there is a definable break point. The change has been gradual and is still ongoing.

I have to agree with this.

There was no single polarizing moment. This has been a gradual progression (like cancer or a mold) that happened as the internet and social media became more commonly used - as social Marxists and other crazies began talking to each other and organizing into communities, then the SJWs arose organically from that to try and smash the established institutions.
I don't necessarily believe that the "new" art is inherently linked to specific politics.
Incorrect.  The philosophical basis of the SJW movement is based around the erasure of history (this is year zero, and next year will be, too) and the "democratization" of the arts (with democratization defined as allowing the ordinary practitioner the same prestige as a master of the craft).  This is exemplified in the "Cal-Arts" style of animation: a simplistic style that is easily replicated and doesn't require great expertise to draw (which also makes it commercially appealing, as it is cheap to produce).  Many other modern artistic disciplines also distain technical expertise in favor of more pedestrian (and political) styles.  Politics (or the implicit philosophical underpinnings of a particular politics) has definitely had a large effect on the kinds of art that have been produced in the last 20 years plus.
Just because you make that connection doesn't mean it isn't nonsense.
Just because you don't, doesn't mean it is.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Omega on August 01, 2021, 04:28:20 AM
If Moorcock ever gets caught in the public eye - should there ever be an Elric TV series or something... oh you bet your ass they'll come after him.

Yeah I can see the whole Conan vs. Elric starting points, I don't consider Elric or anything from Moorcock equivalent to the TTRPG Freakshow today because Moorcocks work is rock solid in its context within its own sandbox.


1: Oh the last and current editions of this mental disease have gone after Moorcock. But usually from odd angles and so far nothing big that I have seen.

Prior and current versions of the cult have used the battle cry of "its anti Albino!" which was also tossed at the 2nd Matrix movie and a few others. Which as usual gets albinos blacklisted as a viable character option in media, even sanitized and PC, because damned if you do and more damned if you dont conform so... DONT.

2: He has some jabs and jibes and jokes at various characters over the years. Some pretty funny. Keep in mind that this is fairly common in the writing biz. Be it friendly in-jokes like between Lovecraft and his friends. To not so friendly jabs at grifters like Ellison. Also pops up in the comics biz too. Especially indie comics. Sometimes up to artists doing segments for eachother.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on August 01, 2021, 06:43:35 AM
(https://files.catbox.moe/ybj7l4.png)

As someone who both ran a RPG line and, a few years later, a comic book series, I would have refused the second illustration strictly because the art is bad.

Out of curiosity, what would you say makes the second picture "bad" and the first "good" (or at least acceptable)?  I ask from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about art theory, and sees only two pictures both done with a technical competence I certainly couldn't deliver myself.

I am certainly not a fan of the style of the second painting vs. the first, but a difference in taste is not the same as a criticism of quality, I think.

Just want to comment that the first picture is from Everquest, where you can play a dark elf or a catman or a lizard man. :D Positivley "New School" gaming there.

These are the first things that come off my head. Generally speaking, Parkinson's work shows a guy who has mastered his talent and knows to convey the spirit of what he is illustrating in the best possible way. The second image is done by someone who apes better artists, but who still has to understand that cramming everything together and failing at the basic use of colors only shows how he still has a long road in front of him.

Certainly. The second image has a "collage" look, where everything looks like it's been cut out of a magazine and pasted onto a background.
But then, a lot of art from older D&D is pretty bad. Or pretty good, depending on the piece. Quality isn't a defining trait of old school.

I agree. I was simply comparing those two pictures.

However, when "old school" artists are as good as Elmore or Parkinson, they are, IMHO, often better than nuSchool. Only a few days ago I opened up the Basic Set (Red Box) and famous illustrations as the one for the Cleric are hard to see these days:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/79/63/b7796373c6ce10a71cbcb8a0e808d9da.jpg)

Some 4E artists were technically good, but the request was to produce illustrations with the POW underground, "superheroically" tilted, stunningly crammed and with vanishing points in the next timezone. Like the game they worked for, they became laughable fast.

Here, for example, we have an illustration by Ralph Horsley. I guess it depicts a cool scene - once you have worked four days to decipher it:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ef/e2/67/efe2671999d092167114424593205ad7.jpg)
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Pat on August 01, 2021, 07:08:47 AM
Here, for example, we have an illustration by Ralph Horsley. I guess it depicts a cool scene - once you have worked four days to decipher it:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ef/e2/67/efe2671999d092167114424593205ad7.jpg)
I see a tiefling with elephant man's disease, a zombie elf who appears to be all torso, an armored warrior, and Lidda attacking a beard-tentacled dwarf and his rabbit and bird friends.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on August 01, 2021, 07:20:43 AM
Here, for example, we have an illustration by Ralph Horsley. I guess it depicts a cool scene - once you have worked four days to decipher it:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ef/e2/67/efe2671999d092167114424593205ad7.jpg)
I see a tiefling with elephant man's disease, a zombie elf who appears to be all torso, an armored warrior, and Lidda attacking a beard-tentacled dwarf and his rabbit and bird friends.

Oh, there is Lidda too in there! You are right!
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: S'mon on August 01, 2021, 07:34:59 AM
Here, for example, we have an illustration by Ralph Horsley. I guess it depicts a cool scene - once you have worked four days to decipher it:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ef/e2/67/efe2671999d092167114424593205ad7.jpg)
I see a tiefling with elephant man's disease, a zombie elf who appears to be all torso, an armored warrior, and Lidda attacking a beard-tentacled dwarf and his rabbit and bird friends.

Oh, there is Lidda too in there! You are right!

I think that's Lidda Tordek & Regdar from 3e. They seem to have been the Iconics in the early 4e books too.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on August 01, 2021, 07:44:32 AM
Here, for example, we have an illustration by Ralph Horsley. I guess it depicts a cool scene - once you have worked four days to decipher it:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ef/e2/67/efe2671999d092167114424593205ad7.jpg)
I see a tiefling with elephant man's disease, a zombie elf who appears to be all torso, an armored warrior, and Lidda attacking a beard-tentacled dwarf and his rabbit and bird friends.

Oh, there is Lidda too in there! You are right!

I think that's Lidda Tordek & Regdar from 3e. They seem to have been the Iconics in the early 4e books too.

What I meant is that I totally didn't see her. I was straining my eyes trying to understand if the magic user in the middle was one or two characters.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Flipped Bird on August 01, 2021, 08:16:57 AM
What are you guys talking about? That is just a rectangle filled up by streaks of brown and purple.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: JeffB on August 01, 2021, 08:46:13 AM
4E art is just as hit or miss as any other WOTC edition for me, and I don't care for the style in that piece above at all.

BUT


The interesting bit about that RH piece  is there is a counter piece to it in the DMG where the monsters (can't recall what..Kobolds, Orcs?) are  in that cave looking out to the Adventurer's as they are entering the monster's domain. I enjoy the concept, it reminds of the types of scenes we would get from Bill Willingham and Jeff Dee circa 80/81.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: jhkim on August 01, 2021, 11:26:22 AM
The philosophical basis of the SJW movement is based around the erasure of history (this is year zero, and next year will be, too) and the "democratization" of the arts (with democratization defined as allowing the ordinary practitioner the same prestige as a master of the craft).  This is exemplified in the "Cal-Arts" style of animation: a simplistic style that is easily replicated and doesn't require great expertise to draw (which also makes it commercially appealing, as it is cheap to produce).  Many other modern artistic disciplines also distain technical expertise in favor of more pedestrian (and political) styles.  Politics (or the implicit philosophical underpinnings of a particular politics) has definitely had a large effect on the kinds of art that have been produced in the last 20 years plus.

This sounds to me like exactly the same thing that people have been saying about modern art styles for over a century - not just the last 20 years. Detractors often say artists in newer styles like Picasso and Pollock were too cheap and/or lacked technical expertise -- "They're too lazy and just not good enough to do _real_ art." Given how frequent the complaint is, it may be true sometimes, but as a broad complaint, it's off-base. It's fine to dislike newer styles of art - everyone has their own tastes - but the changing styles isn't because artists aren't good enough to do the old styles. They're deliberately engaging in the stylization of their times, whether that's Cubism or Expressionism or later style.

Within animation, the thin-line "Cal-Arts" style of animation isn't just cheap to produce -- it also allows more dynamic animation. In a lot of animation with more realistic art, the cost is prohibitive, so you end up with a lot of characters standing stock still as just their lips move or other minor adjustments. The Cal-Arts calls back to earlier thin line styles like Looney Toons when the animation is more the focus, and you can get a lot more dynamic action in a scene. I don't like a lot of modern shows - but then, I thought the animated shows of my youth in the 1980s were even worse.

Regarding RPG art - I generally agree with Ratman,

Certainly. The second image has a "collage" look, where everything looks like it's been cut out of a magazine and pasted onto a background.
But then, a lot of art from older D&D is pretty bad. Or pretty good, depending on the piece. Quality isn't a defining trait of old school.

I agree. Old-school tended to have simple black-and-white line art of highly varying quality. There are some great uses of art, like the POV illustrations of dungeon scenes in Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, but a lot of books were hit-or-miss in the art - even if the book content was good.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Eirikrautha on August 01, 2021, 12:20:22 PM
Within animation, the thin-line "Cal-Arts" style of animation isn't just cheap to produce -- it also allows more dynamic animation. In a lot of animation with more realistic art, the cost is prohibitive, so you end up with a lot of characters standing stock still as just their lips move or other minor adjustments. The Cal-Arts calls back to earlier thin line styles like Looney Toons when the animation is more the focus, and you can get a lot more dynamic action in a scene. I don't like a lot of modern shows - but then, I thought the animated shows of my youth in the 1980s were even worse.

No, it does not "allow" more dynamic animation.  It makes it cheaper and faster to make frames (which is what I said above and you repeated).  The dynamism is not a feature of the style.  A company can choose to create more expensive dynamic animation not using that style if they want.  Cal-arts is low effort and low quality.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Pat on August 01, 2021, 03:16:58 PM
Oh, there is Lidda too in there! You are right!
Post-intervention Lidda. She looks ugly and pissed off because she's in withdrawal.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: HappyDaze on August 01, 2021, 03:39:45 PM
Oh, there is Lidda too in there! You are right!
Post-intervention Lidda. She looks ugly and pissed off because she's in withdrawal.
It's the after effects of the 'roids she took when auditioning for the role of Teela.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Aglondir on August 01, 2021, 04:02:52 PM
4E art is just as hit or miss as any other WOTC edition for me, and I don't care for the style in that piece above at all.

BUT


The interesting bit about that RH piece  is there is a counter piece to it in the DMG where the monsters (can't recall what..Kobolds, Orcs?) are  in that cave looking out to the Adventurer's as they are entering the monster's domain. I enjoy the concept, it reminds of the types of scenes we would get from Bill Willingham and Jeff Dee circa 80/81.

I love the way some of the old school art would tell a story. Or make you think of one. Who was Emrikol the Chaotic? Why was he on the run? Did he commit a crime, or was he being persecuted unfairly? What were the effects of that magic beam? Did he light the guy on fire?

But 5E is great for this too. Why is this poor halfling in such agony? Is it because an evil wizard shrunk her feet, and the pain of supporting her upper body is too much to bear? Or is it because someone randomly drilled extra holes in her flute? Why doesn't she remove that heavy bedroll before her performances?

Every picture tells a story!
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Cola on August 01, 2021, 04:07:35 PM
I have never played travelled but try OSE b&w line drawings make me want to explore the game. 

I have some trouble knowing how much is nostalgia vs other factors but looking at older game art (D&D or AD&D) gives me a sense of mystery and wonder and makes me want to play…
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Pat on August 01, 2021, 04:10:50 PM
I love the way some of the old school art would tell a story. Or make you think of one. Who was Emrikol the Chaotic? Why was he on the run? Did he commit a crime, or was he being persecuted unfairly? What were the effects of that magic beam? Did he light the guy on fire?

But 5E is great for this too. Why is this poor halfling in such agony? Is it because an evil wizard shrunk her feet, and the pain of supporting her upper body is too much to bear? Or is it because someone randomly drilled extra holes in her flute? Why doesn't she remove that heavy bedroll before her performances?

Every picture tells a story!
Early second edition had some great art. The full color plates of a wizard being carried away by fairies, the fighter holding the ogre's nose ring, the band of adventurers standing proudly around the (tiny) dragon they killed, etc. As whimsical as earlier editions, but more fairy taleish.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 01, 2021, 04:14:50 PM
I have never played travelled but try OSE b&w line drawings make me want to explore the game. 

I have some trouble knowing how much is nostalgia vs other factors but looking at older game art (D&D or AD&D) gives me a sense of mystery and wonder and makes me want to play…

Yep. I miss the line art. Little snippets of adventuring life tucked in the corner like those Mad magazine (back when it was a magazine) pages with the little cartoons on the page edge.
Fun stuff.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Cola on August 01, 2021, 05:26:54 PM
We started playing becmi with my kid recently.  Don’t know if the 70s/70s or what but the old art is evocative.  It seems in fantasy we used to tolerate alien and otherness.

I am afraid that in our crusade to make everything contemporary in values and aesthetics we are losing mystery.

Old modules were far out.  It was so different to me it seems to have grounding in another time and place.

The recent homoerotic Star Trek/creature cantina prom picture in strixhaven looks like a bunch of millenials from Seattle.  I mean whatever but I don’t hear ancient music in the background while they cut a rug and joker smile at each other.

It does absolutely nothing for my creative juices or sense of wonder.  It’s only one example but when I saw frank frazetta i assumed there was something other than 21sr century reality….


Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: DocJones on August 01, 2021, 05:47:48 PM
Oh, there is Lidda too in there! You are right!
Post-intervention Lidda. She looks ugly and pissed off because she's in withdrawal.
She's having her monthly visitor.  Subtract 1 from wisdom and charisma.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on August 01, 2021, 07:22:44 PM
Re: "Ancient Art", I still remember when I first saw what is still my favourite fantasy illustration ever. I was running Dragonlance, buying the modules as they came out. One day my LFGS's owner told me that "DL 8 - Dragons of War" had arrived. While my wallet was going to the register to pay for it, all by itself, the owner handed me the module. And I saw this:

(https://iili.io/ddpkdl.jpg)

You need one second to grasp the scene and realise that it will going to be AWESOME. It is not even a spoiler, but it is a full blown trailer in a single image. What's happening? Where are they? Who is this dragon, the coolest I ever saw? And the rider? Why is everything exploding? Did "The Empire Strikes Back" just entered "Dragonlance"? (don't ask me why, but the first thing I thought about was TESB). It is the very pinnacle of the whole "Warrior vs. Dragon" concept.

And when I ran the module it was AWESOME. Interestingly, this scene didn't happen in "Dragons of War", but later in the campaign, and grew organically from events down the line. And when it happened it was AWESOME.

Today?

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a2/2a/a0/a22aa0bb2630c01b6efefaf2fa02fb5c.jpg)

"Once you recover from our all out assault to the concept of 'fine arts' you will understand that our adventure is great!" (nope; no, thanks).
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: palaeomerus on August 01, 2021, 07:39:14 PM
Don't be so mean. Tieflings can extra-crust up their faces and form a Linkin Park tribute band if they want to. Nu-metal isn't a crime. Yet.  ;)
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: S'mon on August 02, 2021, 12:35:00 AM
Here, for example, we have an illustration by Ralph Horsley. I guess it depicts a cool scene - once you have worked four days to decipher it:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ef/e2/67/efe2671999d092167114424593205ad7.jpg)
I see a tiefling with elephant man's disease, a zombie elf who appears to be all torso, an armored warrior, and Lidda attacking a beard-tentacled dwarf and his rabbit and bird friends.

Oh, there is Lidda too in there! You are right!

I think that's Lidda Tordek & Regdar from 3e. They seem to have been the Iconics in the early 4e books too.

What I meant is that I totally didn't see her. I was straining my eyes trying to understand if the magic user in the middle was one or two characters.

It certainly is horrible art!

I'm playing 4e again currently, so seeing a lot of this stuff over again. It is quite painful.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on August 02, 2021, 08:12:40 AM
It certainly is horrible art!

I'm playing 4e again currently, so seeing a lot of this stuff over again. It is quite painful.

Yes.  That is so so bad that even someone like me that doesn't understand more than a little of the very basics of art can see it is bad.  Like a person with a poor ear for music and no training being able to tell that the band is grossly out of tune.  Not sure what to blame it on, but the piece as a whole doesn't work.

I kind of like the leaves.  No idea if they are done well or not.  Besides the piece being too busy, I don't care for the heavy use of purple for the magic and shadows.  And I like purple.  There's something about it that is confused, as if the artist was trying for a particular mix of fantastical and realistic, but made the realistic elements fantastical and vice versa.

The paralleling of the familiars wings and the tielfings horns I'm sure is done on purpose for symmetry.  Both look contrived.  Better to leave the familiar out?  No, let's leave the tiefling out!  Then the familiar can go where the tielfling is. :D
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: ScytheSong on August 02, 2021, 02:29:08 PM
For Fantasy as a whole, I suspect that the "new school" that you're talking about started with Marion Zimmer Bradley and Walter Breen's writer's commune and it's influence on both the SF con circuit and the nascent SCA. Berkeley, CA combined with child abusers and neopaganism is at the heart of the '80s shift in fantasy -- Diana Paxton, Mercedes Lackey, and all the rest from the Swords and Sorceress series were very influential on the way fantasy was written and read from about 1984 on.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on August 02, 2021, 02:50:14 PM
Also, "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever" by Stephen Donaldson - who put front and center a very unsympathetic hero (the first book was the first book ever that I finished in English; I had it with me when I visited England with my father in 1985; he grumbled a bit about the "fantasy stuff" but he was happy that I was reading a whole book in a different language; I ended it wondering for what reasons I should have rooted for a rapist and a general dick...)
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Omega on August 02, 2021, 03:15:51 PM

I think that's Lidda Tordek & Regdar from 3e. They seem to have been the Iconics in the early 4e books too.

Lidda, Regdar and Myalie (sp?) Were from 3e. They were also the main characters in the CGI D&D interactive movie.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Omega on August 02, 2021, 03:17:11 PM
What are you guys talking about? That is just a rectangle filled up by streaks of brown and purple.

That particular artists works are often like that. Everything blends together.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: jhkim on August 02, 2021, 06:50:04 PM
Within animation, the thin-line "Cal-Arts" style of animation isn't just cheap to produce -- it also allows more dynamic animation. In a lot of animation with more realistic art, the cost is prohibitive, so you end up with a lot of characters standing stock still as just their lips move or other minor adjustments. The Cal-Arts calls back to earlier thin line styles like Looney Toons when the animation is more the focus, and you can get a lot more dynamic action in a scene. I don't like a lot of modern shows - but then, I thought the animated shows of my youth in the 1980s were even worse.

No, it does not "allow" more dynamic animation.  It makes it cheaper and faster to make frames (which is what I said above and you repeated).  The dynamism is not a feature of the style.  A company can choose to create more expensive dynamic animation not using that style if they want.  Cal-arts is low effort and low quality.

But in practice, companies don't just accept paying vastly more for animation. Generally, what they do is cut costs in other ways - like by having fewer character moves, fewer characters, re-using sequences, etc. That has a lot of effects not just on the look of the show, but on the stories that get told. The choice isn't between a thin-line style and naturalistic style with the same amount of animation. Instead, given budgets, the choice is: (a) a thin-line style with a lot of unique movement and dynamic scenes, or (b) a more naturalistic style with much less movement and dynamics.

The fundamental that I dislike is judging animation based on the look of screenshots. Animation is about being *animated*, so the quality and amount of movement has a lot to do with the quality of a show or movie. Kids can see this. A show with a lot of movement and character expression is more engaging -- especially to kids -- than one with a lot of fixed poses and drawn-out shots.

I don't like much of the newer animation, but it isn't all lazy or low-effort. For example, my ex's kids really liked The Amazing World of Gumball - which is typical of newer styles. I saw a bunch of episodes and didn't like it, but I could see that a ton of effort went into it. Each episode has a lot of stuff constantly happening, and they often would pull in unique changes, like having live puppets in an episode, for example. I think the fast action and abrupt changes is aimed more at low attention span. But that takes effort.

---

To connect this back to RPGs -- I feel similarly about arguing about the art in isolation of the game play. RPG art isn't just about generically looking good - it's about supporting game play. Back in the original old-school, a lot of material had bad or uneven art - with amateur black-and-white sketches and typewriter layout. The DIY aesthetic is that the art isn't definitional - it's stuff you can use or not use. For me, the best use of art for D&D was the POV illustration of dungeon elements like in Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: SHARK on August 02, 2021, 08:39:17 PM
Greetings!

I took a number of art classes in college--as well as "Art Appreciation" or whatever they were. Art history, and all that jazz. Some of it was interesting, beautiful, and cool, but I also admit to most of it being very much subjective, and loaded with pretentious elitism.

I don't claim to be an "Art Sophisticate" in any way, despite having some education on the subject.

When it comes to D&D art, I think a lot of the full-colour, modern works are garbage, or just ok. Some are excellent, of course, but many of them are pretty bland or silly.

In contrast, I think a lot of the old black & white art of the DMG, etc, were inspiring, and awesome. Adding dashes of menace and peril, intrigue, wonder, and even humour.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: strcondex18cha3 on August 03, 2021, 03:51:41 AM
The transition towards freakshit started in the 60's, with Elric of Melnibone.

In fiction - sure, it was written as a rebuke of Tolkien's work (and I'd argue by mischaracterization of Tolkien's intent on Moocock's part - but whatever).

I once met Moorcock in London, back in the early '90s. It was a book signing and a conference, at the Forbidden Planet, about "Elric and the Fortress of the Pearl" (which instantaneously devolved into AME).

Moorcock, as usual, said how he didn't like Tolkien's work (he had met the man when he was young, and personally he was totally fine). Regarding Elric, however, he said that "He had took Conan and created a character that was the total opposite - up to have Elric starting as a ruler where Conan started as a barbarian. In that panel he never mentioned The Lord of the Rings in relation with Conan.

My guess is that Moorcock became "The Anti-Tolkien" after The New Yorker published an infamous article with that title. After that, he recognised that it was true - but the only time I saw him "live" he made clear that Elric was a response to Conan, not Tolkien.

I also remember how he totally denied how Elric, and his relationship with Stormbringer, were a metaphor of his relationship with drugs (he didn't deny that he had been a drug user). I was surprised, because to me this metaphor was both clear and powerful, but that's what he said.

Quote
But the conceits are ENTIRELY different. You could no more have Elric be accepted by the woke mob before his inevitable actions run afoul of their ideology very quickly.

I did a bit of Google-fu and, strangely, he is still not cancelled. Maybe his constant flogging of Lovecraft is helping

[Fun fact: since both Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer's RPGs are based on the BRP, and I worked on the Italian edition of both published by Stratelibri, one of the first thing we did was to send the Mythos to Melnibone. We never published the rules on the then Stratelibri official magazine, but I remember that we did a box about "It can be done!" when we presented the Italian edition of Stormbringer.  ;D]

Moorcock for sure was a mighty degenerate, however you wanna look at it.

The last interviews I read (which were probably less off the cuff and honest than your chat, but still) he came across as absolutely clueless as to what it was that he so dilligently promoted.
He wanted to break every trope, subvert rules and so on. That's ok as an artist but there's a limit on how much society can ultimately cope.
Turns out, fantasy is an echo of our ancient mythology and it reverberates inside our soul (or DNA if you want to be an autist).
He was not a bad author but his work was destructive.
Cave Bear is 100% on the money.
New school began partly thanks to him.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: SHARK on August 03, 2021, 05:06:37 AM
Moorcock for sure was a mighty degenerate, however you wanna look at it.

The last interviews I read (which were probably less off the cuff and honest than your chat, but still) he came across as absolutely clueless as to what it was that he so dilligently promoted.
He wanted to break every trope, subvert rules and so on. That's ok as an artist but there's a limit on how much society can ultimately cope.
Turns out, fantasy is an echo of out ancient mythology and it reverberates inside our soul (or DNA if you want to be an autist).
He was not a bad author but his work was destructive.
Cave Bear is 100% on the money.
New school began partly thanks to him.

Greetings!

I am inclined to agree. Moorcock, as you said, is not a bad author. His cultural legacy--somewhat separate from any artistic legacy he may have--is also, as you mentioned, destructive. I think it promotes a sense of bitter nihilism that is ultimately philosophically corrosive.

I know Moorcock has many fans over the world, and is a beloved author--and I do appreciate some aspects of the artistic themes, visions, and characters introduced in his stories--Moorcock has achieved a legitimate status as a prominent and distinctive author. However, I cannot shake the impression that ultimately Moorcock is overrated. Applauded at the time for introducing Elric of Melnibone and Stormbringer, and such--but I confess I read Moorcock as a kid and as an adolescent. Re-reading Moorcock years later as an adult, his works come across to me as being much less impressive, compared to what I once thought. Moorcock is certainly not anywhere near in the same league as Tolkien or Howard. I also appreciate David Gemmel, Karl Edward Wagner, Harry Turtledove, Jack Whyte, and Bernard Cornwell, amongst others. In contrast to Conan and Tolkien, Conan stories and Tolkien's works stand the test of time. They are as enjoyable, inspiring, wondrous, and fun as they were when I first read them as a kid.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: strcondex18cha3 on August 03, 2021, 05:52:02 AM
well put:
Quote
They are as enjoyable, inspiring, wondrous, and fun as they were when I first read them as a kid.

At some point in our life, dismantling cultual ideas and norms may be very inspirational. But that's a phase that ultimately has to be overcome.

Books that keep inspiring you in different ways throughout your life are rare and precious indeed.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: S'mon on August 03, 2021, 07:19:14 AM
Moorcock wrote great books for angsty teenage boys. It's pulp though and certainly should not be taken seriously!

Moorcock is definitely not superversive, but neither is it morally corrosive like His Dark Materials, which I found truly disgusting - and I'm an atheist!
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: palaeomerus on August 03, 2021, 07:55:24 AM
Yeah. When you open the Golden Compass and it hisses " I AM THE ANTI-NARNIA! Kreeeeeeeee!!! " it makes you feel like "alright, alright! Calm the $#%^ down ya paperback... sheesh."

I also thought The Mysterious Stanger was bitter, malicious, and corrosive and was relieved when I found out that it was published posthumously because Mark Twain did not want to inflict it on his fans even thought writing it was cathartic for him in very sad times. It read like a Snoo Wilson or Kurt Vonnegut joint but without the usual laughs. You could tell Sam Clemens was a broken man when he wrote it. Not his usual voice. His anger had taken over and he was no longer wry and stinging with it but wielding it like a broken piano leg in a bar fight. It was las if his goal was to poison everything you've ever been taught to trust  and he started out by pretending to spin you a fable so you'd get into range of that piano leg so he could smash you right in the mouth with it.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: tenbones on August 03, 2021, 08:55:36 AM
That is an interesting claim about Moorcock's work not standing the test of time.

Well I guess we'll see. Moorcock's influence is probably wider than Howards in terms of pop-culture influence. People don't compare Moorcock to Howard - they compare him to Tolkien.

Let's not get it bent: Howard is seminal. He will always be my first source of fantasy, even before Tolkien. But the stories of Conan, Kull and everything Hyperborean were not the same point as what Moorcock was doing with Elric and the Eternal Champion. Both are pulp, for sure, but they're products of entirely different ages, and their content shows.

I think Moorcock is an extreme outlier to the "traditional" fantasy myth-building tradition by design. He definitely, to me, is the birthing point of where S&S kicks the door down to "modern fantasy". Gemmel is solidly in the Howard S&S Tradition (Gemmel is truly not praised enough). By contrast I'd put someone like Raymond Feist as the guy that takes all the Tolkien tradition and marries it to "game fiction" in the modern sense. It's very traditional, much like David Eddings, but I think Feist is a better storyteller.

There is a distinct lack of... masculinity in a lot of modern fantasy. And it might be a generational thing. I find Brandon Sanderson's stuff to be very overrated. His concepts are cool, but his characters are like chewing on cardboard. And don't get me started on Patrick Rothfuss, whose work is complete dreck, which is ironic because he's a pretty good writer in terms of style.

There are some modern guys that I enjoy a lot: Joe Abercrombie, *very* modern but does a great job of keeping those pages turning. Stylewise he's not elegant at all, but damn me if he's not fun as fuck to read. He's like Clive Cussler crapped out a kid that liked S&S.

I'm also a big fan of Scott Lynch's "Gentleman Bastards". Very good writer and worldbuilder, and knows how to stay in his lane, worldbuilding by allusion and insinuation and letting his cool characters do their thing in front of those ideas.

I've said this elsewhere... if people want to really challenge themselves on fantasy that tries to bridge traditional Tolkien-fantasy, with the aesthetic of S&S, and the Moorcockian "cosmic Armageddon" heroics... I tentatively submit R. Scott Bakker's series - 'The Prince of Nothing' series. It's such a synthesis of fantasy sub-types that goes right into sci-fi material that it's pretty stunning.

I'm not sure if it's homage (the author says it is) or deconstruction, (where I sweat, ready to press the button and fire my missiles) to Tolkien, maybe both? But whatever it is, it has deeply affected my sensibilities of adult fantasy. It's Heavy Metal, Warhammer Fantasy, Dune, Lovecraft, and Tolkien rolled into one. It's the first time I've ever understood the trite term "dark majesty" by the end of the second trilogy. And there were *many* times I felt I was Hate-Reading my way through, but I simply had to see if he was going to "Go there" at the end. Let's just say he does. There are zero punches pulled, and you feel just relieved to have witnessed it. But you feel dirty afterward. Relieved... but dirty. You'll be pondering the events for years, since it's essentially a philosophical issue about the metaphysics of his fantasy world. Or not. Depends on you. The fact that rarely happens in *any* genre, much less fantasy, is worth a read if you're wanting the challenge.

Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: strcondex18cha3 on August 03, 2021, 09:09:47 AM
Quote
There is a distinct lack of... masculinity in a lot of modern fantasy.

No shit. Just look at the other thread about Kevin Smith's abomination of a reboot.
In short, masculinity is dissolving because it's been commodified and rebranded as gender neutral. Everybody can be a Chinese woman and every Chinese woman can be a heroic man, if zhe wants. Nerds are especially endangered, since, on average, they experience the most trouble with connecting to their manliness because of innate predispositions towards creativity and abstraction.

Quote
And it might be a generational thing. I find Brandon Sanderson's stuff to be very overrated. His concepts are cool, but his characters are like chewing on cardboard. And don't get me started on Patrick Rothfuss, whose work is complete dreck, which is ironic because he's a pretty good writer in terms of style.
Totally concur. Rothfuss is a joke.
Sanderson does everything by the book.
Both are cashing in on stronk, sophisticated womb-men and Homer Simpsonish men.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Trond on August 03, 2021, 09:16:31 AM
It’s worth remembering that there were some….different art styles before Frazetta as well 😀

(https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/5125/7809149_1m.jpg?v=8CA37D6507CEF30)
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: tenbones on August 03, 2021, 10:14:15 AM
It’s worth remembering that there were some….different art styles before Frazetta as well 😀

(https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/5125/7809149_1m.jpg?v=8CA37D6507CEF30)

Very pertinent point.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Aglondir on August 04, 2021, 12:15:38 PM
Also, "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever" by Stephen Donaldson - who put front and center a very unsympathetic hero (the first book was the first book ever that I finished in English; I had it with me when I visited England with my father in 1985; he grumbled a bit about the "fantasy stuff" but he was happy that I was reading a whole book in a different language; I ended it wondering for what reasons I should have rooted for a rapist and a general dick...)

Yeah, read that around the same time. Hasn't aged well.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on August 04, 2021, 12:55:09 PM
As Fantasy writing begin to become a thing of itself, the usual problem was "lousy writer, good story".  Donaldson was the opposite problem. In that he was in the minority at the time but also foreshadowing much recent fantasy fiction.

I've wondered if the story in Mirror of Her Dreams is any good, but can't ever seem to get around to reading it.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: ScytheSong on August 04, 2021, 01:06:34 PM
As Fantasy writing begin to become a thing of itself, the usual problem was "lousy writer, good story".  Donaldson was the opposite problem. In that he was in the minority at the time but also foreshadowing much recent fantasy fiction.

I've wondered if the story in Mirror of Her Dreams is any good, but can't ever seem to get around to reading it.

The story in The Mirror of Her Dreams, and its sequel A Man Rides Through, is actually significantly better than any of Donaldson's other stuff, with the exception of a couple of his stand-alone short stories. The POV character is a passive whine-butt, but that's vital for the story, so if you can stand passive whine-butts you'll be good. The Gap series steals it's plot from Wagner's Ring Cycle, blatantly and unapologetically, so the plot is good, but I really don't like how he handles the story.
Title: Re: When did the "New school" of fantasy begin, exactly?
Post by: Reckall on August 04, 2021, 04:53:48 PM
It’s worth remembering that there were some….different art styles before Frazetta as well 😀

(https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/5125/7809149_1m.jpg?v=8CA37D6507CEF30)

"Red Nails" is when Howard introduces Valeria of the Red Brotherhood. It is actually a Valeria tale, not Conan's, told from her point of view. IIRC it is also very funny. It was published one month after Howard killed himself.

True fact: Pulp magazines' editors knew very well that covers like this one sold better than others. If your tale gave the opportunity to create such a cover the probability that it was accepted increased.