| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| J D Dunsany |
Posted - 17 Nov 2009 : 09:21:22
Greetings and felicitations.
WotSQ is quite old now and I'd imagine that a lot of scribes have read it, thought about it and have an opinion on it. I'm currently three-quarters of the way through 'Annihilation' and will be forgoing my usual book's delay and going on to 'Resurrection' straight after.
Why this thread? Well, I'm interested in having a chat about all things WotSQ if anyone's up for it. I wrote a review of 'Insurrection' ages ago (it's around here somewhere) and I've been posting my general thoughts intermittently on the 'How Up to date are you in your FR novel reading?' thread, but I thought having a dedicated thread where scribes can discuss this in a relaxed manner might be a good thing.
So, if there's anything you want to chat about - from Valas' characterisation (I pick on him because, in book V, he does seem to have finally gained a character worth discussing) to speculation on Quenthel's underwear (I'm thinking black velvet, obviously, but with a small spider motif in diamonds sewn into the corner) - this is as good a place as any.
And I'll kick us off by talking, oddly enough, about 'Annihilation'. To my mind, Athans' novel is noticeably sharper on characterisation than the previous four. Jeggred, Valas and Danifae all become more three-dimensional in this novel. While this is good, it does pose one or two problems because some of the characterisation feels quite jarring - particularly Quenthel's marked lack of enthusiasm for returning to the Abyss, and Jeggred's frustration with his mistress and his subsequent realignment of his loyalty to Danifae - when compared to what has come previously. These two developments are particularly noticeable because Quenthel has been portrayed as your typical arrogant priestess of Lolth up to now and Jeggred's not possessed much of a personality or, indeed, shown any hint of having a will of his own until this book as well.
Then, there's Danifae. Again, she's given much more to do here. Her character's fleshed (ahem  ) out more - her treatment of her former house mage is very well done - and her scheming against her former mistress adds yet another layer of intrigue to an already nicely complicated set of plotlines.
Athans handles all this development very well, I feel, while telling a supremely gripping story. Novels involving inter-planar travel are always a bit hit and miss with me, but Athans keeps the characters grounded through some very clear description of their thoughts and feelings and, it must be said, through some really effective humour. (Sorry, but I love the line, "The Master of Sorcere slowly rose to a sitting position under painful protest from a dozen muscles, at least three of which he hadn't realized he possessed." (p.284) ) Up until this novel, I was far more interested in Halisstra's journey than I was the main group's. Athans' work changes this for me. The interplay between the characters and his excellent work on describing the Abyss and the journey there has made this a genuinely exciting bit of Realms fiction.
And then there's Ryld's death. Good grief. Firstly, Athans actually made me care about Ryld, despite the fact that he does an excellent (and necessary) job of reminding you of just how amoral he is in the fight with the loggers prior to his death. The death scene, though, is horrible, vicious and ultimately quite disturbing. I was left with a clear sense of shock after Ryld's death. Good writing.
And that's about it for me at the moment. Not that there isn't more that can be said. I'd be interested in hearing other scribes' viewpoints on this series, particularly the structure of it - a theory I'm formulating at the moment is that Smedman's novel (which, on the whole, is very good) suffers for not having a big set piece as its focus - like the destruction of Ched Nasad in 'Insurrection' - and the way the characters develop. Or anything else you want to talk about.
All the best!
JDD |
| 27 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BEAST |
Posted - 22 Sep 2010 : 19:45:15
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
As a reader, I didn't feel that the epic adventure was pointless. I mean, I can see how you see it that way--the mechanical differences between pre-WotSQ and post- are not all that great--but it was a long exploration of the drow cultural character, a winnowing of the weak of drow society, and indeed the goddess *does* change at the end of the series. It's also putting a huge amount of pressure on drow faith, and showing a classic fantasy tale of a "what happened to my god?" sort of quest. And indeed, what happens to Lolth isn't necessarily what the drow expected, but that doesn't mean nothing happens.
Not to give any spoilers, but this "nothing happens" attitude seems to me like saying one of the times Mystra dies and comes back in a new incarnation is an instance where "nothing happens." Maybe the status quo is preserved, at least in general appearance, but things *have* changed.
See, I got the complete and totally opposite impression from that: I felt that some of the window dressing was changed, but it didn't feel like anything of consequence happened. (Perhaps the true consequences of "WOTSQ" are explored in the Lady Penitent and Empyrean Odyssey mini-series? I haven't read those, yet.) But in Resurrection, itself, the full ramifications aren't really explained all that well. I got the sense that I was supposed to be wowed and awed by it all, but my recollection of the events didn't match the commentary.
I say again that I loved the mood and tone and atmosphere of Menzo as depicted in Dissolution. That book was great for those elements. Menzo was a beautiful and horrific setting before, but it became dirty and stinky and lived-in with Dissolution. It almost became more like a character itself in that story.
But other than killing off a few interesting starring drow characters (why, Ryld, why?!!), and ostensibly moving Lolth's domain to a new macro-setting, ultimately it all felt like things had returned to normal by the end of "WOTSQ".
It's been a few years since I read "WOTSQ", however, so I'll admit that I may have missed some big points back then, or I may be forgetting them now. I am re-reading some of Bob's Drizzt books to track changes in Drizzt's personality over time, and I and others have definitely missed/forgotten some subtle transitions in his life. So it's possible that I am guilty of that here, too. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 22 Sep 2010 : 19:23:43
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
[... I]in general I try to be precise with dates. My working chapter-by-chapter outlines include dates, times, moon phases, and so on, just to make sure the story jives with the world in which it's set. It's also a handy way to keep track of movement over time, to make sure the events of the story fall within the realm of transportation possibility.
That's really the only way to even remotely get all the details of this world right. You've either got to compile that sort of complex outline on the writing end of it, or the editor has got to start compiling a retroactive outline of highlights from your work afterwards, and then check things from there. It just gets too complicated and full of potential for goofs, otherwise.
Either that, or you can just nuke half the world and not be bothered with getting the details right.  |
| BEAST |
Posted - 22 Sep 2010 : 19:00:59
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
When readers started pointing out that WotSQ used Quenthel despite her technically being a character of the dead persuasion, I resorted to telling people that the character Bob had killed off was Quenthel Lou Baenre, and our character was her lookalike cousin Quenthel Sue Baenre.
You jest, but I kinda-sorta just played that same card regarding the matron of House Faen Tlabbar over in <another thread>. Ghenni'Tiroth Tlabbar seems to keep dying and then coming back. Her daughter Ghilanna, as mentioned in Elaine's "Starlight & Shadows" mini-series, just sorta gets disappeared.
EDIT: And with the talk of yet another Ghenni being around in 4E (that's three and counting), despite "WOTSQ"'s Ghenni having been offed, herself, in <Condemnation>, I am reminded of the Vorta aliens, who were a race of clones in Star Trek: Deep Space 9 who regularly got whacked and reappeared later in the series there, too.
I recall mention of the Faceless One in Homeland contemplating the notion of his role actually having been filled by a wave of different drow over the centuries, rather than a single individual. Apparently, his wasn't the only role filled by different people playing the same character... |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 22 Sep 2010 : 13:08:13
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
The variance between 4 years and "about 3 years" doesn't strike me as a large issue, given the circumstance described in Windwalker.
OK, agreed.
But like I mentioned, Annihilation, Ch.15, said that Quenthel had been gone for "a decade" and "ten years" (this, after Extinction, Ch.36 said that it was four years). And 3/4 years vs. 10 is a bit larger of a discrepancy than what can be simply explained away as a vague understanding of time. Quenthel's time serving Lolth in the Abyss would seem to be a matter of importance, and one that people would be more precise about.
While not a large issue, I felt like it constituted "general waffling", per the thread title.
Fair enough. I didn't read the entire WotSQ series, so I wasn't aware of subsequent waffling.
quote:
What was the season of 1361 DR when Shakti estimated the length of Quenthel's time away?
Autumn. Shakti emerged in a forest and was freaked out by the bright colors, the falling leaves, and the maniacal chirping of the small, feathered "demons" hopping about on the branches.
quote:
Even if Shakti was speaking in late 1361, since Quenthel died in late 1358, that only gives us three years, exactly as you wrote.
::nods:: I don't recall the particulars--that was several years back--but in general I try to be precise with dates. My working chapter-by-chapter outlines include dates, times, moon phases, and so on, just to make sure the story jives with the world in which it's set. It's also a handy way to keep track of movement over time, to make sure the events of the story fall within the realm of transportation possibility. |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 22 Sep 2010 : 12:54:43
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
When readers started pointing out that WotSQ used Quenthel despite her technically being a character of the dead persuasion, I resorted to telling people that the character Bob had killed off was Quenthel Lou Baenre, and our character was her lookalike cousin Quenthel Sue Baenre. But in retrospect, I have to admit that Elaine may have taken a better approach to patching up continuity.
Ha!  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Sep 2010 : 01:19:16
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
To me, it doesn't matter what the characters feel -- it's all in what they accomplish. And if they accomplish nothing, then reading about them trying to accomplish it is a waste of time. I've got no problem with wasting time in general, but given a choice between reading about characters who accomplish nothing, or reading about characters who accomplish something, even if it's not what they intended, then I'm reading the latter.
And yeah, I know that some will say the journey is more important than the destination... But walking 100 miles by circling your house repeatedly is a kind of journey. If the journey gets you nowhere, it's not worth it.
The world is full of people who never accomplish great things. Their stories are not pointless or even necessarily boring.
Many of the greatest works of fiction in the world have not been about great accomplishments. On the other hand, most of the worst spectacle-pandering fictional works in the world are probably tracable to the idea that it's important that 'lots of stuff happens'
It drives the career of Michael Bay and it brings us new Realms Shattering Events every time Wizards publishes a trilogy.
Uh, thanks for that? 
I never specified great accomplishments... I felt they didn't accomplish anything. Unlikable characters who don't accomplish anything are not interesting to read about.
I can read about people who don't accomplish great things, so long as they accomplish something and the characters are worth reading about. I did not feel that this series featured either. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 22 Sep 2010 : 00:56:02
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
To me, it doesn't matter what the characters feel -- it's all in what they accomplish. And if they accomplish nothing, then reading about them trying to accomplish it is a waste of time. I've got no problem with wasting time in general, but given a choice between reading about characters who accomplish nothing, or reading about characters who accomplish something, even if it's not what they intended, then I'm reading the latter.
And yeah, I know that some will say the journey is more important than the destination... But walking 100 miles by circling your house repeatedly is a kind of journey. If the journey gets you nowhere, it's not worth it.
The world is full of people who never accomplish great things. Their stories are not pointless or even necessarily boring.
Many of the greatest works of fiction in the world have not been about great accomplishments. On the other hand, most of the worst spectacle-pandering fictional works in the world are probably tracable to the idea that it's important that 'lots of stuff happens'
It drives the career of Michael Bay and it brings us new Realms Shattering Events every time Wizards publishes a trilogy.
Uh, thanks for that? |
| BEAST |
Posted - 21 Sep 2010 : 22:55:11
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
The variance between 4 years and "about 3 years" doesn't strike me as a large issue, given the circumstance described in Windwalker.
OK, agreed.
But like I mentioned, Annihilation, Ch.15, said that Quenthel had been gone for "a decade" and "ten years" (this, after Extinction, Ch.36 said that it was four years). And 3/4 years vs. 10 is a bit larger of a discrepancy than what can be simply explained away as a vague understanding of time. Quenthel's time serving Lolth in the Abyss would seem to be a matter of importance, and one that people would be more precise about.
While not a large issue, I felt like it constituted "general waffling", per the thread title.
Nevertheless, perhaps some further rectification of the issue can indeed be found in your POV argument, Elaine. The Ext. reference was mouthed by Gromph--ever-sharp--while the Ann. passage was voiced by Quenthel right after she had had her schizoid spell talking with her snake whip. It might not be a good idea to take anything she said in that state of mind too seriously.
quote:
If you want a REALLY definitive answer, you'd need specific dates. For example, if Quenthel's exile spanned 3 years and 8 months, "about three years" would be accurate, but if you were, say, constructing a timeline and needed to account for the number of calendar years her exile spanned, four would be the appropriate answer.
Well, Quenthel died in Siege of Darkness, Ch.29. The Time of Troubles had ended (Ch.14), and the first snow had already fallen around Mithral Hall (Ch.18). Drizzt and Catti-brie leave the Hall in the end to find Deudermont (Epi.).
This has all traditionally been placed in the latter portion of 1358 DR.
But it is possible that the end of SOD (including Quenthel's death) could've actually extended into early 1359 DR, when one considers just how much happened in that book after the TOT had already concluded.
(I don't know the month-by-month breakdown of the TOT. Anybody got a source on that?)
Anyway, so Quenthel apparently died in late 1358 DR after the end of the TOT, and after the first snow had fallen.
What was the season of 1361 DR when Shakti estimated the length of Quenthel's time away?
Even if Shakti was speaking in late 1361, since Quenthel died in late 1358, that only gives us three years, exactly as you wrote.
But if Shakti was speaking early in the year 1361, and Quenthel died in late 1358, then that would give us less than three years.
And if Quenthel actually died in early 1359 DR, and Shakti was speaking early on in 1361, it could conceivably give us only about two years.
Again, I'm not saying it's a biggie. I'm just adding it to the list of quibbles with "WOTSQ", etc. |
| skychrome |
Posted - 21 Sep 2010 : 22:39:11
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
As a reader, I didn't feel that the epic adventure was pointless. I mean, I can see how you see it that way--the mechanical differences between pre-WotSQ and post- are not all that great--but it was a long exploration of the drow cultural character, a winnowing of the weak of drow society, and indeed the goddess *does* change at the end of the series. It's also putting a huge amount of pressure on drow faith, and showing a classic fantasy tale of a "what happened to my god?" sort of quest. And indeed, what happens to Lolth isn't necessarily what the drow expected, but that doesn't mean nothing happens.
Not to give any spoilers, but this "nothing happens" attitude seems to me like saying one of the times Mystra dies and comes back in a new incarnation is an instance where "nothing happens." Maybe the status quo is preserved, at least in general appearance, but things *have* changed.
Cheers
Of course Erik, totally agree with you. When saying "pointless", I mean that in a macro context the outcome would probably not haved changed much with the party staying at Menzo or not. But for me that is precisely the point of reading FR novels: I just want to delve into the realms, get carried along by stories happening in the realms, no matter if they are epic or a 1st level character facing his first fight with a goblin. I loved the series and I think it is great the chars did not make the major difference in the outcome, even though in a micro context it makes a lot of difference.
Now, when I think about how those events influenced The Lady Penitent thereafter...  Different story. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 21 Sep 2010 : 18:17:30
When readers started pointing out that WotSQ used Quenthel despite her technically being a character of the dead persuasion, I resorted to telling people that the character Bob had killed off was Quenthel Lou Baenre, and our character was her lookalike cousin Quenthel Sue Baenre. But in retrospect, I have to admit that Elaine may have taken a better approach to patching up continuity. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 21 Sep 2010 : 15:06:11
As a reader, I didn't feel that the epic adventure was pointless. I mean, I can see how you see it that way--the mechanical differences between pre-WotSQ and post- are not all that great--but it was a long exploration of the drow cultural character, a winnowing of the weak of drow society, and indeed the goddess *does* change at the end of the series. It's also putting a huge amount of pressure on drow faith, and showing a classic fantasy tale of a "what happened to my god?" sort of quest. And indeed, what happens to Lolth isn't necessarily what the drow expected, but that doesn't mean nothing happens.
Not to give any spoilers, but this "nothing happens" attitude seems to me like saying one of the times Mystra dies and comes back in a new incarnation is an instance where "nothing happens." Maybe the status quo is preserved, at least in general appearance, but things *have* changed.
Cheers |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 21 Sep 2010 : 13:33:25
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I'm still wondering if anyone has ever noticed/explained the discrepancies in the timing of Quenthel Baenre's return. EC's "Starlight & Shadows" trilogy indicated that QB came back after about 3 years, while the "WOTSQ" books said that she was either gone for 4 years and returned for 10, or gone for 10 years and returned for 4.
I was writing Windwalker, the third book in the Starlight & Shadows trilogy, while WotSQ was in early stages. In an effort to ensure continuity, I requested the WotSQ story bible. I was a little surprised to note that Quenthel was a character, seeing that she'd been killed off several years back in one of Bob Salvatore's novels. So I suggested a way to explain her return in Windwalker, which describes events that took place several years before WotSQ. All the pieces fit, everyone was happy.
The variance between 4 years and "about 3 years" doesn't strike me as a large issue, given the circumstance described in Windwalker. Scenes are narrated from the perspective of the point of view character, and it made sense to me that Shakti, an Underdark drow who'd been wandering the Abyss for a while, would be a little vague on the passage of time.
If you want a REALLY definitive answer, you'd need specific dates. For example, if Quenthel's exile spanned 3 years and 8 months, "about three years" would be accurate, but if you were, say, constructing a timeline and needed to account for the number of calendar years her exile spanned, four would be the appropriate answer.
|
| Zireael |
Posted - 19 Sep 2010 : 18:33:28
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I'm still wondering if anyone has ever noticed/explained the discrepancies in the timing of Quenthel Baenre's return. EC's "Starlight & Shadows" trilogy indicated that QB came back after about 3 years, while the "WOTSQ" books said that she was either gone for 4 years and returned for 10, or gone for 10 years and returned for 4.
<snip>
It was "gone for 4 years, returned for 10". BTW I never noticed it and it's not explained either in her bio in her Dragon write-up. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Nov 2009 : 02:30:51
quote:
Originally posted by skychrome
I actually liked the series for being pointless to a certain degree. Pointless in the sense that the band of drow did a truly epic trip and mastering grand adventures worth to be told for generations. Nevertheless in the end it is basically all for nothing. Lolth had her own storyline planed and executed and the characters could as well have never left Menzoberanzan, wouldn't have made a difference on the overall outcome. But they thought themselves so much more important than they actually were....
I like that "logic" of pointlessness somehow.
To me, it doesn't matter what the characters feel -- it's all in what they accomplish. And if they accomplish nothing, then reading about them trying to accomplish it is a waste of time. I've got no problem with wasting time in general, but given a choice between reading about characters who accomplish nothing, or reading about characters who accomplish something, even if it's not what they intended, then I'm reading the latter.
And yeah, I know that some will say the journey is more important than the destination... But walking 100 miles by circling your house repeatedly is a kind of journey. If the journey gets you nowhere, it's not worth it. |
| J D Dunsany |
Posted - 20 Nov 2009 : 21:49:42
quote:
Originally posted by skychrome
I actually liked the series for being pointless to a certain degree. Pointless in the sense that the band of drow did a truly epic trip and mastering grand adventures worth to be told for generations. Nevertheless in the end it is basically all for nothing. Lolth had her own storyline planed and executed and the characters could as well have never left Menzoberanzan, wouldn't have made a difference on the overall outcome. But they thought themselves so much more important than they actually were....
I like that "logic" of pointlessness somehow.
And that does tie in with the somewhat bleak nihilism that seems to be the drow's default philosophical setting.
I really am enjoying Paul Kemp's work on 'Resurrection', btw. All the authors in the series have their strengths, but PSK's descriptions are so wonderfully vivid. And he does a good job of portraying Halisstra's conflicted nature early on, too.
JDD |
| skychrome |
Posted - 20 Nov 2009 : 20:01:14
I actually liked the series for being pointless to a certain degree. Pointless in the sense that the band of drow did a truly epic trip and mastering grand adventures worth to be told for generations. Nevertheless in the end it is basically all for nothing. Lolth had her own storyline planed and executed and the characters could as well have never left Menzoberanzan, wouldn't have made a difference on the overall outcome. But they thought themselves so much more important than they actually were....
I like that "logic" of pointlessness somehow. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Nov 2009 : 15:38:18
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
I still don't know what the point of it all was supposed to be. It seemed like much ado about nothing.
Yeah, that was another major issue for me. I can't stand books that are pointless, and this entire series felt pointless to me.
I think it was more about marketing than it was about developing the setting -- a trend I think was all too common in many of the books put out during the 3E timeframe. The flood of RSEs in particular made it seem like the books were being written not to benefit the setting, but to benefit the bottom line. At least, that's my opinion.
And yeah, I understand that everyone wants to make money. But it's like any good brand name: people trust the brand name because of past quality. When the name itself becomes more important than the quality, then then brand name suffers. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 20 Nov 2009 : 15:03:21
I'm still wondering if anyone has ever noticed/explained the discrepancies in the timing of Quenthel Baenre's return. EC's "Starlight & Shadows" trilogy indicated that QB came back after about 3 years, while the "WOTSQ" books said that she was either gone for 4 years and returned for 10, or gone for 10 years and returned for 4.
I loved Dissolution for its rich description of common, everyday drow life. It made Menzo feel more visceral, grimier, and real.
It must've been really hard for PSK to wrap it all up. I still don't know what the point of it all was supposed to be. It seemed like much ado about nothing.
But I'd still love to see more projects like this, if greater consistency and continuity could be maintained. It was fun, except for the end. |
| J D Dunsany |
Posted - 20 Nov 2009 : 09:00:50
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I was not a fan of the series, for several reasons (which I'm not going into, at the moment).
A shame, because I'm genuinely interested to know what they might be.
quote:
Other than Pharaun, I simply didn't care about any of the characters -- but that didn't stop me from noting the sometimes abrupt shifts in characterization that occurred from book to book.
I have some other quibbles with the books, but simply not caring about the characters or their goals was the biggest thing that kept me from enjoying the series.
Is this because they're drow, evil and consequently more difficult to identify with than your typical fantasy protagonist - or does the problem go deeper than that? I mean, it's not as if the authors involved can't write, because they surely can.
As far as caring about characters, I know what you mean, but I found myself genuinely caring about Ryld and Halisstra during the middle two books. Pharaun is a great character, because he's so cool under pressure and that's a trait that most of us, I'd have thought, would find attractive or, at the very least, be sympathetic to. Quenthel's vicious fanaticism, Valas' servile stoicism and Danifae's selfish manipulations are traits that are less attractive, I suppose - no matter how well they're portrayed.
This raises the issue of what's left in fantasy literature if you don't have characters you can identify with easily. If this series is anything to go by, the answer is 'spectacle' and WotSQ does manage to deliver that in vast quantities. It's interesting that more than a few scribes have mentioned the spell battles between Gromph and Dyrr as being among their favourite moments in the series. And the interest there, I think, is less to do with the two characters involved and more to do with the cleverness of the combatants and how spectacular their strategies turn out to be. (I've got to be honest, but being exiled to halfling heaven seems a bit lame to me, but never mind...)
Just started 'Resurrection' and I'd forgotten how rich PSK's writing can be. Excellent start.
JDD |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Nov 2009 : 06:07:44
Tom Reid's contribution to the series was probably the most enjoyment I've had with all-things-drow related. Aside from Elaine Cunningham's 'Liriel' books, of course, and Ed Greenwood's treatment of the drow in other FR material.
Otherwise, my thoughts pretty much mirror Wooly's own.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Nov 2009 : 05:54:00
I was not a fan of the series, for several reasons (which I'm not going into, at the moment).
Other than Pharaun, I simply didn't care about any of the characters -- but that didn't stop me from noting the sometimes abrupt shifts in characterization that occurred from book to book.
I have some other quibbles with the books, but simply not caring about the characters or their goals was the biggest thing that kept me from enjoying the series. |
| Dantrag |
Posted - 20 Nov 2009 : 02:06:22
Condemnation was hands down the best..., The character of Pharaun was my favorite. The wit and humor of Pharuan are a great edition to the generally dark story, and also the banter between the mage and Quenthel are great. Gromph and Dyrr's battles were epic. And just like an earlier comment, Nimor was an interesting character with a good twist that no one knew was coming. Dissolution was my least favorite( sorry Richard), but its tough to make the first book in a story as exciting others in a trilogy, while getting the general build up of the story across. |
| J D Dunsany |
Posted - 19 Nov 2009 : 22:04:09
Yes. There's something about a longer series. All the characters - with the possible exception of Valas, who's too pragmatic to be as interesting as Pharaun or Halisstra - have well and truly embedded themselves in my memory and the sense of a really big, epic event unfolding is pretty cool.
Almost finished 'Annihilation', btw. The moment were Lolth 'returns' (nice trip, was it? Love to see the holiday snaps) is done particularly well. For some reason, the image of drow priestesses writhing on the floor in ecstacy is not one I'll be forgetting in a hurry.
And, yeah, Pharaun is a great character.
JDD
PS: The greatest change I've noticed with Danifae is the one that takes place between 'Extinction' and 'Annihilation'. In the latter, she becomes a major player quite suddenly - and her hold over Jeggred is never really satisfactorily explained, tbh. |
| skychrome |
Posted - 19 Nov 2009 : 21:07:21
It's been a long time since I read the series. I really liked all books, some more than others but I cannot keep them apart anymore except for the last one by Kemp.
I am a great fan of trilogies as they provide much more space for character and epic story development. A six book series is even better though!
I loved Pharaun, loved the travel on the demon boat and Gromph's spellbattle at the end. Truly great series, even though there where inconsistencies in characters due to the author swaps from book to book. I remember that this was an especially annoying issue in case of Danifae for me, but I do not remember all details.
Anyways, what a great series! I just wish, series like this were still planned by WoTC... |
| swifty |
Posted - 18 Nov 2009 : 22:24:18
i personally enjoyed condemnation the best.really thought the middle books benefited from being open ended.i thought nimor was a superb character who hopefully will be used in 4e.the epic battles between gromph and dyrr were great as well.i think even precious elminster would be crushed by gromphs trickiness. |
| J D Dunsany |
Posted - 17 Nov 2009 : 20:45:45
Thanks for the response, swifty. I'll be starting 'Resurrection' reasonably soon. I'd still be interested in hearing your take on the other novels, though.
All the best!
JDD |
| swifty |
Posted - 17 Nov 2009 : 14:17:22
i wont go into details about ressurection as you havent read it yet.paul kemp is a great writer but he suffered from having to tie up all the loose ends.imo the weakest book in the series. |
|
|
