To quote the powers that be at Netflix .... Wednesday? Time to do it again! That's right, time for one more from the deep library of the Splendiferous Snarfticle Vault, which is hidden in a tiny box, placed in a closet of an attic in a forgotten house which was sunk to the bottom of the Mariana trench. So I hope y'all appreciate that I have to go all James Cameron to get these for you! Then again, that's not a big deal. Guys at my high school used to be King of the World all the time.
Anyway, while I keep the cockles of my heart warm during the holiday season with a combination of my burning hatred of bards and copious amounts of spiked eggnog, y'all are going to warm your cockles (NOT A EUPHEMISM) with a little reheated leftovers, because it's the last Snarfticle of 2024. Happy Holidays to all, and I hope you and your kin and your friends stay happy, healthy and bard-free!
Please Allow Me To IntroduceMyself This Essay
One recurring debate on EnWorld is, "What is an edition, anyway? Is it only a new edition if Bobby Brown says so? Is that ... his prerogative? Does he do what he wants to do? Or are editions like a hot dog... they may, or may not, be sandwiches?" Well, I wouldn't touch that debate with yo mamma's 10' pole, so instead I am going to discuss a different recurring debate that we see... what's up with Drow, anyway? Where did they come from?
Also, given that there are some occasional issues (.... Community....) it is helpful to look at the history of the Drow in D&D so we can finally answer the question ....
(I also want to make sure to h/t enworld commenter @Doug McCrae who has provided some excellent sourcing in the past, some of which is used here)
A. Chronology of the Appearance of Drow until Codification in the Fiend Folio
1977: Monster Manual
1978: G3, D1, D2, D3
1980: Deities & Demigods, Q1
1981: Fiend Folio (First Codification in a Rulebook)
The very first appearance of the Drow is in the Monster Manual, and all that is written is the following:
Drow: The "Black Elves," or drow, are only legend. They purportedly dwell deep beneath the surface in a strange subterranean realm. The drow are said to be as dark as faeries are bright and as evil as the latter are good. Tales picture them as weak fighters but strong magic-users.
That's it. It is, in effect, a teaser for the later appearance in G3. As such, the first true description of the Drow occurs in G3. Luckily, it's a fairly thorough writeup!
B. On the Origin of Drow
If anyone is unfamiliar with the origins of Drow, I highly recommend the following article-
Seriously, it is a short and great read. Look, I know that almost no one (for values of almost no one that excludes @Mannahnin ) follows any of the links I provide, but this is a good, informative, and short read. The reason I find it persuasive is that it avoids the most common fallacy that I see many people fall into; attempting to "single source" the Drow. Don't do that. Drow are not expensive coffee, and they aren't single sourced. Far too often, you will see someone attempt to claim that X is "the source" for the Drow, and if you just read "the source", saw it, experienced it, etc., you would know that. Of course, what "the source" is varies from person to person, and it is rare for something to be traced to a single, dispositive source as inspiration. We stand on the shoulders of giants, plural, not a single, convenient and identifiable giant.
The Drow (and their associated religion, cities, cultures, and so on), like a lot Gygaxian creations, were derived from multiple sources.
But wait, what did Gygax himself say? Well, here's the thing; Gygax is not always the most reliable narrator of events, not even the events in his own life. Here on this website, he said the following in 2007:
The thing is, we know that this is incorrect, because it is contradicted by .... Gygax himself! GYGAX!!!!!! You knew that was coming. In November, 1979, which is a time that is conveniently almost three decades closer to the creation of the Drow, Gygax wrote the following:
The reason I bring up the first part is that we now see a plausible path to the creation of the Drow. The Incomplete Enchanter by de Camp and Pratt that Gygax is referring to contains the story/novella The Roaring Trumpet; and that novella is the obvious inspiration for the G series. Notably, just like in the G series, the protagonist encounters dark elves with "licorice" skin when he is in Surt's (Snurre!) volcano fortress. Suddenly, the connections, the borrowings, seem obvious. It is not a straight lifting, but it is ... a strong adaptation. We see that Gygax was creating a "unique new mythos designed especially for AD&D" by taking bits and parts of other sources that he had read in the past; a lot of Anderson, and Moorcock, and Burroughs, as he tended to do, with bits and pieces of Vance and Merritt and St. Clair.
Gygax, if nothing else, was a consummate DJ and remixer of myth. Just think ... AD&D is Ibiza. Pulp fiction and myths and S&S was the vinyl. And he just replaced the turntables with, um, tables. So. Many. Tables. .... now that I said that, I really want that mental image out of my head.
C. Structural Issues
But wait, there's more! If you go to the original article I brought up (you didn't read it, did you?), I would point out footnote 10. "The description of Erelhi-Cinlu as a pit of vice and decay reminds me of the state of many cities in the 1970s, such as New York. Possibly, American urban decay may have also influenced Gygax?"
The reason I bring this up is because anytime someone makes a fictional depiction it will reflect the mindset of the times and the person who made it. This is something that is both banal and profound, but is lurking beneath many conversations that we have; a typical example would be, "Well, X was just typically racist for their time, while Y was more racist than their time." Y, by the way, is always HP Lovecraft.
In the footnoted example, it is hard to overstate the ways in which urban decay and violence was assumed in the late 70s; such a structural issue would likely be reflected in the depiction of cities even if the author was not consciously making a point about it. Of course the cities would reflect contemporary fears and issues about urban decay!
The reason I bring this up is because if you look at a lot of early depictions of Drow, you can see some problematic issues that I don't necessarily think reflect intent, but likely reflect structural issues or a cultural zeitgeist. Many illustrations of male Drow have them with short curly hair, even though that is not in the written descriptions. The female Drow aren't attractive, but "strangely attractive," and the image of the priestess of Lolth in Deities and Demigods, well, that just speaks for itself doesn't it?
So on the one hand, I don't think that the original conception of evil elves as written is necessarily racist- other than the troubling sense of "color coding" villains (see also, almost all of history, or just the Westerns that were popular when Gygax grew up with white and black hats). Nor is it necessarily misogynistic; after all, a quick read of other modules, such as B2, shows that the default for evil humanoids was a patriarchal society*, so .... progress?
*In B2, there is a disturbing amount of women and children that need killing.
But there are obviously structural issues with presenting a black, female-led, evil, decadent, violent, slaving (!) race. More than I care to unpack critically. Which leads to ....
D. Critical Examination
A person at enworld once said that the issue isn't so much the use of these tropes, but the uncritical use of these tropes. I think that's about right. There is a lot going on with the Drow; there's the issue of representation (black=evil). There's the issue of the most matriarchal society in D&D being the most prominent villains. There's the issue of, how should I put this, whips and chains and slaves and pain, oh my, that has always been lurking in the background (.... c'mon, the foreground) with the Drow. There's the problem with how Drow have been depicted in art, from the notoriously bad Keith Parkinson painting to the occasionally "off" Drizzt covers.
Not to mention the growing love of cosplay, and the problematic issues of choosing to cosplay as a Drow.
These are difficult conversations, and they tend to be papered over by proxy arguments over "Drizzt Fanboyism." On the one hand, I understand that Drow have traditionally been, as Gygax put it, part of the unique new mythos of AD&D, a wonderful and flavorful creation of a villain that has resonated deep within the psyche of gamers for years, such that people today still argue about keeping them as their original villains, or using them because to "play against type" is so attractive (if not ... ahem ... strangely so). The Drow are one of the most enduring creations of D&D.
On the other hand, "black skin = bad" is a trope we cannot abide by (especially in light of the other, light-skinned elves, being good), and WoTC's efforts to sever this trope should be welcome.
Conclusion-
Nope. No conclusion. Just putting this out for you. As I wrote above, I hope everyone has a wonderful Holiday Season! And if you see DEREK!!!!! (currently pretending to be @TwoSix I believe) make sure to keep your likker locked up.
Anyway, while I keep the cockles of my heart warm during the holiday season with a combination of my burning hatred of bards and copious amounts of spiked eggnog, y'all are going to warm your cockles (NOT A EUPHEMISM) with a little reheated leftovers, because it's the last Snarfticle of 2024. Happy Holidays to all, and I hope you and your kin and your friends stay happy, healthy and bard-free!
Please Allow Me To Introduce
One recurring debate on EnWorld is, "What is an edition, anyway? Is it only a new edition if Bobby Brown says so? Is that ... his prerogative? Does he do what he wants to do? Or are editions like a hot dog... they may, or may not, be sandwiches?" Well, I wouldn't touch that debate with yo mamma's 10' pole, so instead I am going to discuss a different recurring debate that we see... what's up with Drow, anyway? Where did they come from?
Also, given that there are some occasional issues (.... Community....) it is helpful to look at the history of the Drow in D&D so we can finally answer the question ....
(I also want to make sure to h/t enworld commenter @Doug McCrae who has provided some excellent sourcing in the past, some of which is used here)
A. Chronology of the Appearance of Drow until Codification in the Fiend Folio
1977: Monster Manual
1978: G3, D1, D2, D3
1980: Deities & Demigods, Q1
1981: Fiend Folio (First Codification in a Rulebook)
The very first appearance of the Drow is in the Monster Manual, and all that is written is the following:
Drow: The "Black Elves," or drow, are only legend. They purportedly dwell deep beneath the surface in a strange subterranean realm. The drow are said to be as dark as faeries are bright and as evil as the latter are good. Tales picture them as weak fighters but strong magic-users.
That's it. It is, in effect, a teaser for the later appearance in G3. As such, the first true description of the Drow occurs in G3. Luckily, it's a fairly thorough writeup!
B. On the Origin of Drow
If anyone is unfamiliar with the origins of Drow, I highly recommend the following article-
Seriously, it is a short and great read. Look, I know that almost no one (for values of almost no one that excludes @Mannahnin ) follows any of the links I provide, but this is a good, informative, and short read. The reason I find it persuasive is that it avoids the most common fallacy that I see many people fall into; attempting to "single source" the Drow. Don't do that. Drow are not expensive coffee, and they aren't single sourced. Far too often, you will see someone attempt to claim that X is "the source" for the Drow, and if you just read "the source", saw it, experienced it, etc., you would know that. Of course, what "the source" is varies from person to person, and it is rare for something to be traced to a single, dispositive source as inspiration. We stand on the shoulders of giants, plural, not a single, convenient and identifiable giant.
The Drow (and their associated religion, cities, cultures, and so on), like a lot Gygaxian creations, were derived from multiple sources.
But wait, what did Gygax himself say? Well, here's the thing; Gygax is not always the most reliable narrator of events, not even the events in his own life. Here on this website, he said the following in 2007:
The thing is, we know that this is incorrect, because it is contradicted by .... Gygax himself! GYGAX!!!!!! You knew that was coming. In November, 1979, which is a time that is conveniently almost three decades closer to the creation of the Drow, Gygax wrote the following:
Dragon 31.
The reason I bring up the first part is that we now see a plausible path to the creation of the Drow. The Incomplete Enchanter by de Camp and Pratt that Gygax is referring to contains the story/novella The Roaring Trumpet; and that novella is the obvious inspiration for the G series. Notably, just like in the G series, the protagonist encounters dark elves with "licorice" skin when he is in Surt's (Snurre!) volcano fortress. Suddenly, the connections, the borrowings, seem obvious. It is not a straight lifting, but it is ... a strong adaptation. We see that Gygax was creating a "unique new mythos designed especially for AD&D" by taking bits and parts of other sources that he had read in the past; a lot of Anderson, and Moorcock, and Burroughs, as he tended to do, with bits and pieces of Vance and Merritt and St. Clair.
Gygax, if nothing else, was a consummate DJ and remixer of myth. Just think ... AD&D is Ibiza. Pulp fiction and myths and S&S was the vinyl. And he just replaced the turntables with, um, tables. So. Many. Tables. .... now that I said that, I really want that mental image out of my head.
C. Structural Issues
But wait, there's more! If you go to the original article I brought up (you didn't read it, did you?), I would point out footnote 10. "The description of Erelhi-Cinlu as a pit of vice and decay reminds me of the state of many cities in the 1970s, such as New York. Possibly, American urban decay may have also influenced Gygax?"
The reason I bring this up is because anytime someone makes a fictional depiction it will reflect the mindset of the times and the person who made it. This is something that is both banal and profound, but is lurking beneath many conversations that we have; a typical example would be, "Well, X was just typically racist for their time, while Y was more racist than their time." Y, by the way, is always HP Lovecraft.
In the footnoted example, it is hard to overstate the ways in which urban decay and violence was assumed in the late 70s; such a structural issue would likely be reflected in the depiction of cities even if the author was not consciously making a point about it. Of course the cities would reflect contemporary fears and issues about urban decay!
The reason I bring this up is because if you look at a lot of early depictions of Drow, you can see some problematic issues that I don't necessarily think reflect intent, but likely reflect structural issues or a cultural zeitgeist. Many illustrations of male Drow have them with short curly hair, even though that is not in the written descriptions. The female Drow aren't attractive, but "strangely attractive," and the image of the priestess of Lolth in Deities and Demigods, well, that just speaks for itself doesn't it?
So on the one hand, I don't think that the original conception of evil elves as written is necessarily racist- other than the troubling sense of "color coding" villains (see also, almost all of history, or just the Westerns that were popular when Gygax grew up with white and black hats). Nor is it necessarily misogynistic; after all, a quick read of other modules, such as B2, shows that the default for evil humanoids was a patriarchal society*, so .... progress?
*In B2, there is a disturbing amount of women and children that need killing.
But there are obviously structural issues with presenting a black, female-led, evil, decadent, violent, slaving (!) race. More than I care to unpack critically. Which leads to ....
D. Critical Examination
A person at enworld once said that the issue isn't so much the use of these tropes, but the uncritical use of these tropes. I think that's about right. There is a lot going on with the Drow; there's the issue of representation (black=evil). There's the issue of the most matriarchal society in D&D being the most prominent villains. There's the issue of, how should I put this, whips and chains and slaves and pain, oh my, that has always been lurking in the background (.... c'mon, the foreground) with the Drow. There's the problem with how Drow have been depicted in art, from the notoriously bad Keith Parkinson painting to the occasionally "off" Drizzt covers.
Not to mention the growing love of cosplay, and the problematic issues of choosing to cosplay as a Drow.
These are difficult conversations, and they tend to be papered over by proxy arguments over "Drizzt Fanboyism." On the one hand, I understand that Drow have traditionally been, as Gygax put it, part of the unique new mythos of AD&D, a wonderful and flavorful creation of a villain that has resonated deep within the psyche of gamers for years, such that people today still argue about keeping them as their original villains, or using them because to "play against type" is so attractive (if not ... ahem ... strangely so). The Drow are one of the most enduring creations of D&D.
On the other hand, "black skin = bad" is a trope we cannot abide by (especially in light of the other, light-skinned elves, being good), and WoTC's efforts to sever this trope should be welcome.
Conclusion-
Nope. No conclusion. Just putting this out for you. As I wrote above, I hope everyone has a wonderful Holiday Season! And if you see DEREK!!!!! (currently pretending to be @TwoSix I believe) make sure to keep your likker locked up.
