| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dennis |
Posted - 28 Sep 2010 : 15:10:41
I finished Shadows of Doom long time ago. And I must say that it's quite a disappointment. I only enjoyed the first 30 pages or so; the rest totally let me down. El in that book is nil but a doddering old fool. I understand the Art going awry, and he losing his magic. But to portray him that way is just like seeing your favorite character thrown into a mental hospital and is bound to stay there till the last shred of his sanity emerges, or so one hopes.
Now I am reading Cloak of Shadows, book 2 of the trilogy. Please tell me if it still makes sense that I continue reading it. I'm stuck in chapter 3, and I find no good reasons to continue, merely because of the following grounds:
-The three obnoxious Harpers (I didn't bother remembering their silly names) are given too much stage time – again.
-The Malaugrym appear to be less than powerful than I expected. Heh, the younger ones seem no more than Red Wizard apprentices that the Simbul easily dispatches.
-Elminster declares that he's far too busy doing “Realms repair” to concern himself with the Malaugryms; hence, the three completely unappealing Harpers (and the Silent Sister) will handle the job of getting rid of the shapeshifters.
-Too much use of the word “shadow.” Such sheer annoyance. In a page there are 4 or sickeningly more...shadow shadow shadow shadow shadow shadow shadow shadow. See? Annoying, right? What are synonyms for, in the first place?
Even the fact that El will confront Ao with temerity (a thing never ever been done by any other mortal) doesn't drive me enough to continue reading just to reach that part, which I expect is but half a page.
Are there some things you find interesting in this book (which I might – hopefully – also find interesting)?
|
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 06:59:07
Thanks, Merrith. That helps. When I'm done with James Clemens, I might pick it up again. (And speaking of which, I wonder where on earth did I leave it. It's not in my shelf anymore ...Will search later.) |
| Merrith |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 06:03:34
It's been awhile since I read this trilogy as the novels have been out for quite a few years now, but I recall really enjoying seeing the Rangers Three take center stage for much of these novels. They were interesting characters, especially Sharantyr who has shown up a time or two elsewhere in Ed's work.
I find it hard to relate to your "doddering old fool" portrayal of Elminster in Shadows of Doom as he essentially with no magic accomplishes what he does for the High Dale on guile and wits alone. He definitely still has his aura of "yes, I may only have a couple wands of magic missles but since I know all the key players already we can win".
The Malaugrym certainly seem far more powerful the more you read of books 2 and 3, at least the elders. The ones that get beaten easily are just as often taunted and insulted by the senior Shadowmasters. Don't forget The Rangers Three have the presence of a Chosen of Mystra along with them, and a gift from the goddess herself (sword) to aid them. Not to mention El watching them all along the way.
I wouldn't say these were my favorite books by Ed but definitely was worth the read for me, if only for the lore regarding the Malaugrym and more knowledge about what Elminster was doing during the ToT. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 02:50:55
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Stars
I'm curious, dennis. Reading your list of why you're "stuck," I see: Malaugrym not as powerful as you expected, the three Harper characters given "too much stage time - again"
And you seem strongly disappointed that Elminster is depicted as vulnerable.
So, are you hoping to read about super-powerful characters letting rip?
Or - - ?
In other words, WHY is an author's choice of which characters to feature, and how they are portrayed, wrong? Did he promise you something different, on the cover blurbs or in person?
And what's with all the usages of "silly"?
It DOES happen to be the creator of the setting who penned this book. Don't you like the Realms? Or the focus of the book? (Because it seems to me that Ed would be THE expert on characters he's created, not me or you or any other reader.)
I'm not sniping at you, I'm genuinely curious.
(And how can a trilogy of books you haven't read be "plain boring"? If it's the IDEA of what sort of story the Knights books tell, it happens to be the root story of D&D: a party of adventurers forming and learning what it means to be adventurers. Is D&D in general "plain boring"? Because you say you like Feist, and many of Ray's books are VERY close to D&D in feel and content [[so close, in fact, that I know some New York editors who didn't want to publish his books because they were "too much like those fantasy games"]].)
Care to share?
In more than one occasion, I advised my students, “When you are on the verge of saying something you feel deep down you will rue, have a moment of silence...till that feeling ends.” Heh, I myself don't follow this advice at times. But now, I think I should...So I shall answer your questions when “that” time comes. (I am not promising it will, though, because sometimes it just won't.)
Anyway, my main concern is not The Knights of MD nor Feist's novels, but if my fellow scribes here at the 'Keep find something interesting in this book that might drive me to continue reading it.
|
| Sage of Stars |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 00:31:35
I'm curious, dennis. Reading your list of why you're "stuck," I see: Malaugrym not as powerful as you expected, the three Harper characters given "too much stage time - again"
And you seem strongly disappointed that Elminster is depicted as vulnerable.
So, are you hoping to read about super-powerful characters letting rip?
Or - - ?
In other words, WHY is an author's choice of which characters to feature, and how they are portrayed, wrong? Did he promise you something different, on the cover blurbs or in person?
And what's with all the usages of "silly"?
It DOES happen to be the creator of the setting who penned this book. Don't you like the Realms? Or the focus of the book? (Because it seems to me that Ed would be THE expert on characters he's created, not me or you or any other reader.)
I'm not sniping at you, I'm genuinely curious.
(And how can a trilogy of books you haven't read be "plain boring"? If it's the IDEA of what sort of story the Knights books tell, it happens to be the root story of D&D: a party of adventurers forming and learning what it means to be adventurers. Is D&D in general "plain boring"? Because you say you like Feist, and many of Ray's books are VERY close to D&D in feel and content [[so close, in fact, that I know some New York editors who didn't want to publish his books because they were "too much like those fantasy games"]].)
Care to share?
|
| Sandro |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 00:23:28
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Sandro
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
Anyway, I didn't bother reading Knights of MD. I have a clear idea who the silly knights are and how the story starts and ends. Plain boring.
If you're denying yourself that wonderful trilogy for those reasons, well, you're denying yourself a wonderful trilogy. At any rate, you're judging the proverbial book by its cover, and I've no doubt you're aware of society's typical view of that.
Preference. It always comes down to that. I never liked knights. I read 2 versions of a synopsis of each book in that trilogy and several reviews. And you're quite wrong that it's the cover upon which I based my decision never to bother read it. In fact, I like all their covers. (Oh, speaking of covers, if you're a fan of Feist, you should know that some of his books have the worst covers in the history of book publishing; but people, including yours truly, mind not at all because we know how great his works are. So, book covers (FR or not) was never an issue to me.)
Proverbial cover, my friend -- I knew (or at least strongly suspected  ) that it wasn't the cover stopping you from reading it. It is, however, external information that has caused you to write them off, not knowledge of the books themselves. Personally, I'd say the synopses don't do them credit, in general, as the books are much more about the characters than they are about plot, but you are right to say it all comes down to personal preference. To each his own, and all that wonderful stuff. |
| Blueblade |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 00:23:03
"Plain boring"? I wonder how you feel about the books you DO bother to read. Most of us avoid passing judgment on something we haven't looked at. Just sayin.'
BB |
| Dennis |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 16:09:25
quote:
Originally posted by Sandro
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
Anyway, I didn't bother reading Knights of MD. I have a clear idea who the silly knights are and how the story starts and ends. Plain boring.
If you're denying yourself that wonderful trilogy for those reasons, well, you're denying yourself a wonderful trilogy. At any rate, you're judging the proverbial book by its cover, and I've no doubt you're aware of society's typical view of that.
Preference. It always comes down to that. I never liked knights. I read 2 versions of a synopsis of each book in that trilogy and several reviews. And you're quite wrong that it's the cover upon which I based my decision never to bother read it. In fact, I like all their covers. (Oh, speaking of covers, if you're a fan of Feist, you should know that some of his books have the worst covers in the history of book publishing; but people, including yours truly, mind not at all because we know how great his works are. So, book covers (FR or not) was never an issue to me.)
|
| Sandro |
Posted - 29 Sep 2010 : 10:00:28
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
Anyway, I didn't bother reading Knights of MD. I have a clear idea who the silly knights are and how the story starts and ends. Plain boring.
If you're denying yourself that wonderful trilogy for those reasons, well, you're denying yourself a wonderful trilogy. At any rate, you're judging the proverbial book by its cover, and I've no doubt you're aware of society's typical view of that. |
| scererar |
Posted - 29 Sep 2010 : 02:18:02
The Rangers Three were great. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 28 Sep 2010 : 17:00:32
These were actually some of my favorite books by Ed. The Rangers Three are more the protagonists in book 2 (although Ed tends to highlight every character almost in that fashion, even the lowly farmers and guards, etc... but thats his style). I say give it a chance. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 28 Sep 2010 : 15:54:06
El being vulnerable is fine with me. He was far vulnerable in Elminster in Hell, but the way he was portrayed in Shadows of Doom made him appear like a decrepit, hopeless fool.
Anyway, I didn't bother reading Knights of MD. I have a clear idea who the silly knights are and how the story starts and ends. Plain boring.
|
| Kilvan |
Posted - 28 Sep 2010 : 15:41:31
I liked to see Elminster vulnerable for a change, and by vulnerable I mean crying in a corner curved into a ball. It reflects Elminster's dark, insane part (his 'shadow' side, if you prefer ). After all his goddess, whom he loved, died, and magic, the thing he lives for, might disappear forever.
As for the 3 Harpers getting too much spotlight, don't expect it to change in book 2 or 3, but Elminster DOES get a hold of himself.
Malaugryms do appear less powerful than I expected, they should be AT LEAST as strong as the Shades after all. But hey, if Ed says so, then it means that my perception was wrong, not the other way around. Or, the Harpers are much stronger than they appear (level 15+).
As for the word Shadow, well you probably guessed by now that it is the trilogy's theme, so don't expect that to change either.
I must admit that Shadow of the Avatar WAS Ed's books that I enjoyed the less, so I can understand your disappointment. The finale IS epic, but the Knights of Myth Drannor and the Elminsters novels were vastly superior IMO.
|
|
|
