| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| GMWestermeyer |
Posted - 01 Mar 2011 : 00:49:51
Okay, NOT the current editors or this "no novels set before 4e" stuff I've just heard about...
I was in the Bard's Rumor's sections and I noticed in the carious compilation of author notes the constant refrain that the editors said I had to do this, the editors made me change this, the editors cut that and so on and so forth.
Now, I write for a living, not fiction, but history. I generally find editors very helpful, but I have the advantage that on content, I get the last word because they are not the subject matter experts, I am. So I readily admit my personal experiences may not be appropriate here.
That said, I started to wonder if this excuse had become a bit too convenient for FR writers.
What do we think? Do FR editors have far too much power historically? Should we be blaming the editors more vorciferously for things we don't like?
I'm back and forth on this myself, so I'm really curious what others think. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Azuth |
Posted - 11 Apr 2011 : 02:12:36
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Should a lawyer hired to do work with a business be given a "free pass", so to speak (not that anyone's on trial or anything here, pardon the pun) to not be familiar with the nitty-gritty of commercial law because the Uniform Commercial Code is decades old (with plenty of revisions), scattered across a bunch of thick books, and fairly convoluted, to put it nicely? I just dislike the notion that, because there's an abundance of information about so many little details scattered across 30 years or so worth of books (with some of that information still relevant and in effect, while some of it is not), it's a "hopeless task", to be able to whip up something that doesn't cause continuity issues (large or small) in the world and meshes perfectly enough with everything else that already is out there. Or that, since there's all this stuff out there, we need to "grade on a curve", to take into account the fact that there's so much out there, when reviewing and criticizing. That, I see as a cop out. Not that I think any specific authors/editors are "guilty" of this. Hell, I don't even think that, in the setting as a whole, a lack of people having done their homework on any particular topic is an endemic problem, for the most part. The majority of the time, things are good. And, in most of the cases where continuity problems do pop up, they're small enough, or easily enough to explain that it doesn't really even matter.
-In general, if you're writing (or editing the person who did the actual writing) about something or someone, you need to know about that person, or that thing. If you choose to write (or, if your assignment is to do so) something that deals with a large issue, or multiple issues, job preparation research is that more broad in scope- hence the Uncle Ben quote. The larger and more important the issue you're dealing with, the more prep you need to have undertaken beforehand. Nobody is saying that all of the minutia that exists needs to be put to memory, and I don't think anybody actually thinks that that's how writers/designers should operate, memorizing everything to heart. General research into a topic or topics, however, that is. And, 98% of the time, that's exactly what happens, and things are good.
When authors get even a smidgeon of the pay that a corporate attorney receives, including dedicated legal assistants and networks of citable online resources to research caselaw, as well as courts that decide precident, I will concede your point. Regardless, I believe I've added about all I can on this topic, and I leave it to others to continue or end the scroll as they may.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 11 Apr 2011 : 00:27:43
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The sci-fi/fantasy genre usually appeals to people of 'higher intellect', ergo that means they are going to be more critical, because they have a larger range of ideas/experience to draw from in that regard. The more you know, the more critical you become (grognardise at it's finest).
-I don't think that's true, to a 'T'. I've known some smart people who see generic fantasy literature as, more or less, is poorly written mindless drivel. Likewise, I've personally interacted with people on the internet who have that level of "fandom" necessary to make an account of various websites and message boards and talk about D&D/Star Wars/comics/whatever, and a lot of them are pretty dumb.
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
Dagnirion, all due respect to Uncle Ben, but freelance "writers for hire" would never undertake a contract in which they had to memorize thousands of pages of books dating back to the 1970s to write a novel in the Realms. As soon as a world or setting becomes shared, and even when its not, mistakes will happen.
-Should a lawyer hired to do work with a business be given a "free pass", so to speak (not that anyone's on trial or anything here, pardon the pun) to not be familiar with the nitty-gritty of commercial law because the Uniform Commercial Code is decades old (with plenty of revisions), scattered across a bunch of thick books, and fairly convoluted, to put it nicely? I just dislike the notion that, because there's an abundance of information about so many little details scattered across 30 years or so worth of books (with some of that information still relevant and in effect, while some of it is not), it's a "hopeless task", to be able to whip up something that doesn't cause continuity issues (large or small) in the world and meshes perfectly enough with everything else that already is out there. Or that, since there's all this stuff out there, we need to "grade on a curve", to take into account the fact that there's so much out there, when reviewing and criticizing. That, I see as a cop out. Not that I think any specific authors/editors are "guilty" of this. Hell, I don't even think that, in the setting as a whole, a lack of people having done their homework on any particular topic is an endemic problem, for the most part. The majority of the time, things are good. And, in most of the cases where continuity problems do pop up, they're small enough, or easily enough to explain that it doesn't really even matter.
-In general, if you're writing (or editing the person who did the actual writing) about something or someone, you need to know about that person, or that thing. If you choose to write (or, if your assignment is to do so) something that deals with a large issue, or multiple issues, job preparation research is that more broad in scope- hence the Uncle Ben quote. The larger and more important the issue you're dealing with, the more prep you need to have undertaken beforehand. Nobody is saying that all of the minutia that exists needs to be put to memory, and I don't think anybody actually thinks that that's how writers/designers should operate, memorizing everything to heart. General research into a topic or topics, however, that is. And, 98% of the time, that's exactly what happens, and things are good. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 10 Apr 2011 : 02:45:31
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The sci-fi/fantasy genre usually appeals to people of 'higher intellect', ergo that means they are going to be more critical, because they have a larger range of ideas/experience to draw from in that regard. The more you know, the more critical you become (grognardise at it's finest).
I had much more here, but I started drifting into very dangerous (4e) territory, so I just erased it all.
It amounted to "if you can't make your customers happy, you need to change customers". Not a knock, just an observation, and both sides probably can claim some fault there. We fans may have inadvertently "loved FR to death". 
I think that the 4E argument is a valid point when used correctly. Prior to 4E, you could count on as fact in the Realms that when a mage was casting a spell, she was interacting with the Weave, and thus Mystra. Thus a quick prayer to Mystra prior to an important casting made perfect sense. If an author happened to be working on a novel prior to the publishing of the 4E rules and neither she nor her editor caught one of the lines, we fans might argue that the mage in question would have no reason to pray to Mystra as she's a dead power. Others would argue that people can pray to whomever they want, for any reason. Yet another person might argue that in calling upon Mystra, the mage is providing her with faith and trying to "ressurect" her through direct worship. Any three arguments could be right, and have a valid foundation.
Now, if the author goes back and adds a sentence that said, quote:
"Although knowing the goddess Mystra had died in the Spellplague, LadyMage still uttered a prayer in her name before unleashing her fireball on her unsuspecting foes."
The original may have read: quote:
LadyMage approached the door, uttered a prayer to Holy Mystra, and hurled her fireball on the wicked hobgoblins."
People want continuity, but neither authors nor editors are omniscient, so errors are bound to happen. As THO said in one of the first responses to this topic, Ed likes to be vague and most editors do not. I don't personally need an explanation for everything a character does, but that's just me.
With respect to canon/continuity, as I have said before, every reference to infravision that deals with sensing heat was made "non-canon" by the 3E rules with the switch to "dark vision." I agree with Markustay when he says that fans of this genre tend to be more picky, if not necessarily of higher intellect. I suspect that many of the scribes here at the Keep are of a keener mind than average, and this very topic and its continued discussion reflect that. However, I don't think that blaming anyone is going to change anything, as I've said before, and I really do believe that every author, editor, and copy editor aim for perfection. While none ever reach it, arguing about who is at fault defeats the entire purpose of writing so that others may enjoy your work, as an author. Without disagreeing with Lily, Bob Salvatore writes the most amazing battle-prose I've read. His detailed discussions of combat make me feel like I'm watching the fight unfold before me. If he diverges from canon, it must not bother his readers overmuch as his books continue to be best-sellers. I love reading Bob's fight scenes. That doesn't make him a god, and there are a few areas of his books where I think other authors are stronger.
Conversely, Ed writes incredible setup text, and when reading about Cormanthor, I can almost smell the forest and feel the sun through his description. Admittedly, I get frustrated with Ed's use of Realms-specific curses, swearing, and other "lewd" text. I understand why he does it, and it makes complete sense, but I still have to go back and try to find the first use of a curse on occasion because I have no idea what it means. Does that make Ed or the editor bad? No. If I were Ed's editor, I'd suggest a glossary of "Realms Terms" but given the translation of most of these terms, it'd probably get quashed by the publisher. But I do like Bob's battle scenes more than Ed's, I've found. Ed's are good; Bob's are great.
Dagnirion, all due respect to Uncle Ben, but freelance "writers for hire" would never undertake a contract in which they had to memorize thousands of pages of books dating back to the 1970s to write a novel in the Realms. As soon as a world or setting becomes shared, and even when its not, mistakes will happen.
Bottom line: authors should write good stories, editors should help avoid errors and keep the story progressing, and copy editors should fix any typos. Once a product is approved for press, the burden falls entirely upon the person who approves said book for publishing, and nobody else. That person is usually not the author nor the editor, and I sometimes question if the people who perform this task read the books before approving their release to publishing. This doesn't apply specifically to the Realms, but it doesn't exclude it, either. My two silver pieces: take them as you will.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Apr 2011 : 00:19:32
The sci-fi/fantasy genre usually appeals to people of 'higher intellect', ergo that means they are going to be more critical, because they have a larger range of ideas/experience to draw from in that regard. The more you know, the more critical you become (grognardise at it's finest).
I had much more here, but I started drifting into very dangerous (4e) territory, so I just erased it all.
It amounted to "if you can't make your customers happy, you need to change customers". Not a knock, just an observation, and both sides probably can claim some fault there. We fans may have inadvertently "loved FR to death". |
| Lily M Green |
Posted - 09 Apr 2011 : 22:03:00
I think what you're referring to here is the difference between a 'Copy Editor' and an 'Editor'. A copy editor would deal with the minutiae, ensuring correctness in spelling & grammar etc. An editor works at a higher level, ensuring that content and context are correct and also offering 'editorial suggestion' to the author. Sometimes the two people are one and the same but in traditional publishing terms they are two separate people. FWIW. A good editor would pick up on the fact that.. in the battle you've written you gave the hero two wounds but in the scenes following the battle you've only referred to one of the wounds. I'm not picking here (honestly) but I've just finished reading a book where 'the hero' received what seemed like two very nasty wounds in the midst of a bloody battle yet only one was referenced after the fact. TBH it confused me that much I had to go back and re-read the scene to make sure that I hadn't imagined 'the hero' receiving one of the wounds. That, to me, is where an editor, or first reader, should come in and say 'hang on a minute, that makes no sense.' It shouldn't get as far as the published work.
My personal experience only goes as far as writing fanfiction and having it 'beta'ed' by a published writer, but... I tend to over think things so that I cover every eventually and avoid plot holes, and have actually been told that "you can leave this out because it wouldn't happen" to me, that's what an editor is supposed to do.
EDIT: & having read this back I really should have used a copy editor to stick a new paragraph in somewhere! *Sigh* |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 09 Apr 2011 : 21:04:12
You know in part it depends on what the Editor is hired to do. There are degrees of what the job is.
Make sure no misspellings.
Make sure grammar is correct as well.
Make sure book is internally consistent.
Make sure individual book is consistent with a larger body of work.
We as consumers expect the highest standard so clearly get disappoint when seeing "their" that should have been "there", let alone to higher levels of a greater Editor duties they might be hired for.
Even so the editor might get it right and the printer provides a galley to the publisher that they sign off on without checking with author or editor. In the end it is the person that orders the print run that is responsible. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 09 Apr 2011 : 19:21:04
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-I'm not an aspiring author, nor do I want to be. I just wanted books that stayed true to the greater setting (Books + Sourcebooks + Adventures + Whatever Else), and didn't cause continuity problems (when they sprang up).
The difficulty in that quest is the sheer amount of material against which any new novel must be checked. Books against books made sense when there were only three or four authors publishing in the Realms. The sourcebooks made sense when it was only one edition, but now books that were canon on infravision are completely incorrect. Adventures are modules meant to be played out by people in their homes. The adventures written for the Avatar Trilogy, for example, are quite different when the player characters are involved. As an author, I'm not even sure how I'd deal with "everything else" in my writings. While editors can help alleviate this situation, it is still an inordinate amount of information through which to sift searching each line of prose for a possible canon conflict.
-All doable. People regularly consort as wide a selection of sources for their own personal games, to ensure that their own D&D plots mesh with everything else to the best of their knowledge. So, too, can authors/editors/whoever else while involved with their work (and, no doubt, it's harder and more time consuming to write a 300 page novel than it is to make a D&D game).
-And, there's definitley a correlation between knowledge needed and general in-game impact. Let's take Ghostwalker for example. Took place in a relatively small frontier settlement, had a generally self-contained plotline, and featured generally low-key characters. Had no problem with anything in Erik's book, there. Books that feature "high-impact" characters, or locations, or events, they're broader in scope, by their/WotC's choice. With great power comes great responsibility, as Uncle Ben said. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 09 Apr 2011 : 17:54:22
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-I'm not an aspiring author, nor do I want to be. I just wanted books that stayed true to the greater setting (Books + Sourcebooks + Adventures + Whatever Else), and didn't cause continuity problems (when they sprang up).
The difficulty in that quest is the sheer amount of material against which any new novel must be checked. Books against books made sense when there were only three or four authors publishing in the Realms. The sourcebooks made sense when it was only one edition, but now books that were canon on infravision are completely incorrect. Adventures are modules meant to be played out by people in their homes. The adventures written for the Avatar Trilogy, for example, are quite different when the player characters are involved. As an author, I'm not even sure how I'd deal with "everything else" in my writings. While editors can help alleviate this situation, it is still an inordinate amount of information through which to sift searching each line of prose for a possible canon conflict.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 09 Apr 2011 : 07:29:49
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
It seems like almost all fantasy writers and editors get a bum wrap.
Graded way to hard. Nit-picked at most every turn.
And I just realized why. With the exception of myself  , almost everytime I read a review or negative comment about a fantasy novel(much more so than other genres) I invariably see from that person or persons (either in that place or another) that they are an aspiring author or are trying to figure out how to get published.
Fantasy seems to encourage that group more than any other genre, and along with people dreming of being a published author comes fairly critical eyes seeing things from all angles!
-I'm not an aspiring author, nor do I want to be. I just wanted books that stayed true to the greater setting (Books + Sourcebooks + Adventures + Whatever Else), and didn't cause continuity problems (when they sprang up). |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 08 Apr 2011 : 20:52:04
It seems like almost all fantasy writers and editors get a bum wrap.
Graded way to hard. Nit-picked at most every turn.
And I just realized why. With the exception of myself , almost everytime I read a review or negative comment about a fantasy novel(much more so than other genres) I invariably see from that person or persons (either in that place or another) that they are an aspiring author or are trying to figure out how to get published.
Fantasy seems to encourage that group more than any other genre, and along with people dreming of being a published author comes fairly critical eyes seeing things from all angles! |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Apr 2011 : 04:11:16
I gave up trying to fix all the discrepancies - he is a good writer and lets leave it at that. Maybe we should go back to blaming the editors.
|
| BEAST |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 23:40:42
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
And I do accept that honest mistakes occur. If authors admit to them ('Oops, I messed that up!')it makes me like them more, it makes me more loyal.
RAS has his own message board with an interactive Q&A thread, from time to time, like some of the other Realms illuminaries here at the 'Keep. I don't know what Bob ever did to engender the perception of an attitude that Markustay mentioned earlier, but on his own boards--whenever he gets around to responding, that is--RAS is very open and honest with us fans. Methinks that he has more of a welcoming audience there, on his own boards, so that's gotta help. We can manage to point out embarrassing points from the stories without accusing him of being a worthless hack in the process, there. I, personally, usually go the extra mile and actually offer some sort of in-world rationalization or retconned way of explaining stuff away, when I can. And sometimes Bob says, "Hey! I really liked that, BEAST!" Sometimes he just winks and tells me that it was a good try, but the truth is he honestly goofed and nobody caught it in time.
I recall that Phil Athans once wrote an article on WOTC's site in which he fell on his sword about one of the glitches in "War of the Spider Queen". I thought that was cool--although there was a lot more than just one wrong thing, there...  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 20:25:06
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
Nyway, that is extreme, I know. And I do accept that honest mistakes occur. If authors admit to them ('Oops, I messed that up!')it makes me like them more, it makes me more loyal. If Rich Baker had just said, "Dang it, that slipped by me. Sorry! let's see how we can make this work...') I bet he would have won over a LOT of fans.
-Rich Baker did kinda do just that.
YES, yes he did, and I appreciated his candor. He had said he read Evermeet and had forgotten that part. That's fine.
In retrospect, and in-light of what Elaine has since revealed (that the tree never got planted - that was merely 'the plan'), its easy to see how that (if Rich were aware of it) could have influenced his own usage, which makes perfect sense in hindsight.
No offense or insult intended at Rich - I probably have the MOST respect for him of all current in-house writers. I think he is an excellent author, and his honesty should be a example to others.
I think Elaine should still write that story, albeit an abbreviated version of it, and have it a Dragon article. That's the kinds of things I want to see - I want explanations when things 'get weird'. On the other hand, a full book about what happened (the events in GHotR are tantalizing) would be very cool, and still VERY do-able. If a novel were written about Lamruil, he could have 'flash-backs' (the way Ed does with Elminster, or Steven did with the Khelben novels) of those times a century ago - it could easily tie into a current (post-plague) story wherein Lamruil is still searching for his 'lost love'.
Just give him Danillo as part of his 'epic party' (a'la Jason and the Argonaughts), and maybe a couple of other 'big names' from the past, and it would be pure win. Too bad Elaine is no longer reading this (probably because it started taking a downhill turn). 
Anyhow, I think we should all be growing tired of 'pointing fingers'; let us hope that things will get better and we won't need to have these kinds of threads anymore. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 18:35:39
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
Actually, the never-written novella "Tree of Souls" was inspired by the James Hilton classic.
-See, I didn't even know that. There you go. |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 13:22:26
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
Nyway, that is extreme, I know. And I do accept that honest mistakes occur. If authors admit to them ('Oops, I messed that up!')it makes me like them more, it makes me more loyal. If Rich Baker had just said, "Dang it, that slipped by me. Sorry! let's see how we can make this work...') I bet he would have won over a LOT of fans.
-Rich Baker did kinda do just that.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Here's the weird part - I like the Tree of souls BETTER in Cormanthor - I always felt it belonged there, and didn't really care for where it was headed the first time (my only quibble with Evermeet, that I can think of). The premise behind it is that it would be planted "when the elves returned to Faerūn". I felt the return to Cormanthor/Myth Drannor was much more in-line with the original premise - I'm not even sure if the far-north is even Faerūn proper.
-Lamruil's goal was to create an Elven Shambhala, an Elven Shangri-La. Sadly, even being isolated from mainland Faerūn by a large body of water, magical wards, and magical guardians was not enough to keep Evermeet safe. You can't have a a pure land hidden kingdom of Elves that's not in the remote mountains! James Hilton would be aghast.
Actually, the never-written novella "Tree of Souls" was inspired by the James Hilton classic. In the original story proposal, Lamruil decided not to plant the tree there, for a variety of reasons that are now entirely moot.
One of the reasons I did NOT think of, but readers have since pointed out, was the issue of having a band of elves living near the North Pole. Kind of hard to take that very seriously.
Interesting thread, but due to time constraints I'm going to unsubscribe now and go about my business.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 06:47:19
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
Nyway, that is extreme, I know. And I do accept that honest mistakes occur. If authors admit to them ('Oops, I messed that up!')it makes me like them more, it makes me more loyal. If Rich Baker had just said, "Dang it, that slipped by me. Sorry! let's see how we can make this work...') I bet he would have won over a LOT of fans.
-Rich Baker did kinda do just that.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Here's the weird part - I like the Tree of souls BETTER in Cormanthor - I always felt it belonged there, and didn't really care for where it was headed the first time (my only quibble with Evermeet, that I can think of). The premise behind it is that it would be planted "when the elves returned to Faerūn". I felt the return to Cormanthor/Myth Drannor was much more in-line with the original premise - I'm not even sure if the far-north is even Faerūn proper.
-Lamruil's goal was to create an Elven Shambhala, an Elven Shangri-La. Sadly, even being isolated from mainland Faerūn by a large body of water, magical wards, and magical guardians was not enough to keep Evermeet safe. You can't have a a pure land hidden kingdom of Elves that's not in the remote mountains! James Hilton would be aghast. |
| GMWestermeyer |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 06:41:10
I feel guilty for the negative tone this thread has drifted towards, thoough the last page or so of criticisms are very valid, IMO.
That said, when I see an author go out of his or her way to maintain continuity I really appreciate it. Elaine's been following the thread, and I am currently rereading her Liriel books. It is obvious that she really did her homework, not just on Menzoberranzan but on Skullport, the Promenade, and especially the Rashemi, an obscure location in Realms lore at that time! I love how she took the time to tie to look at the Vikings sourcebook, for example.
There are other Realms authors who are also stars of research, like Steven Schend.
Anyway, all those writers who go that extra mile deserve our thanks.
|
| Azuth |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 05:01:14
My mistake, and I need to clarify. My posts only apply to the fictional novels, and not to the sourcebooks! I do feel that asking authors to be completely in sync with all of the sourcebooks is unrealistic. Asking a co-author to read an entire book with his name on it: completely reasonable and expected.
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused on my part. I agree with Mark 100% on that. There's definitely a pattern for errata postings in both the real world and digitally.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 04:47:38
Here's the weird part - I like the Tree of souls BETTER in Cormanthor - I always felt it belonged there, and didn't really care for where it was headed the first time (my only quibble with Evermeet, that I can think of). The premise behind it is that it would be planted "when the elves returned to Faerūn". I felt the return to Cormanthor/Myth Drannor was much more in-line with the original premise - I'm not even sure if the far-north is even Faerūn proper.
So even though I sometimes like flubbed lore (there are instances where I prefer the changes over the original), I can't help but feel that each one of this 'cracks' in continuity just makes the whole thing more and more fragile... at some point its all just going to fall apart (and some think it already has).
This is why, despite my deepest desires to the contrary, I would prefer for them to move forward with 4e and try to fix things, then do a 'reboot'. My heart sings at the thought of a reboot, but then I have to ask myself, how 'canon' is any of the official lore, if they can just turn around and erase it all, again and again?
It gets to the point where comics are at - I can remember having a three-way argument about which of Wolverine's origins was the 'correct' one (and it all depended upon when each of us started reading them). We already see this in FR - when someone asks "what is such-and-such", and the first response is "that depends...", then we have a big problem because no-one is sure what is 'correct' anymore.
For example, we have people come onto this site and ask "where can I find out more about Eladrin?" That's actually an extremely complicated question. The first thing we have to ask is either "which Eladrin?", or "which edition?"
That's just NOT good. It confuses new fans, and embitters old ones. continuity is PARAMOUNT in a shared-world setting.
So if mistakes or bad decisions are made, roll with it, move forward, and try to fix things. All this 're-defining' stuff s not getting us anywhere. Did you know we had the definition of The weave (you know - pretty much the most important factor that sets FR apart) waffling back and forth with its description all throughout 3e? Depending on what source you read, you'd come up with a totally different definition. Without naming any names, I had a disagreement with one designer about that definition, and he said my version was incorrect.
The version I was using came word-for-word from a product with HIS name on it! 
His answer was that there were two other authors, and he hadn't read their parts.
SAY WHAT?!!! 
That is a HUUUUUUUUUUGE problem in my book.
He also went on to say that it was still incorrect, despite it being the most recently released definition of The Weave.
Can we at least get a consensus within a single sourcebook? Is that too much to ask? I'm not even talking about bad lore, or bad design, I'm talking about people who can't even be bothered to read what co-authors are writing! Blame it on the writers, or the editors, or the mythical 'traffic cop', or the friggin' Easter Bunny for all I care, but MAKE IT STOP and get your acts together. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 04:46:18
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
[quote]Originally posted by Dagnirion
<snip>
Anyway, that is extreme, I know. And I do accept that honest mistakes occur. If authors admit to them ('Oops, I messed that up!')it makes me like them more, it makes me more loyal. If Rich Baker had just said, "Dang it, that slipped by me. Sorry! let's see how we can make this work...') I bet he would have won over a LOT of fans.
Anyway, just my take.
I agree with the sentiment, but authors don't really have a mass-markey way of apologizing to readers, and most readers probably don't care. I'm not excusing the errors, and I agree that mea culpas go a long way, but I doubt that Wizards is going to pay to print an "author's apology" as an insert into its novels, or to recall or repring already-profitable books to change what - is to them - a minor detail. I agree 100% with the sentiment, I'm just not sure how practical it is. The future, with e-publishing: that's a different matter entirely.
All they would need to do is offer up something that reconciles the continuity issue. To use an example I mentioned earlier in the thread, in 2E Silverymoon was protected by magic wards. In 3E, it suddenly and without explanation had a mythal. This inconsistency was never explained.
A mea culpa, while nice, wouldn't have fixed it. But a later source could have explained it away. Perhaps Silverymoon was the site of an ancient mythal that had gone dormant, and the magic of the wards awoke and revitalized it. Or maybe Alustriel brought that mythal back with some special ritual. Or maybe Lurue visited the city that bears her name, and willed the wards to become a mythal. Or maybe they spontaneous morphed into a mythal.
Maybe it's just me, but offering us a couple of lines to explain something like that would have kept me happy. It doesn't even have to be in a sourcebook -- a web article detailing a mage NPC who was there when it happened would have been more than enough for me. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 01:04:03
quote:
Originally posted by GMWestermeyer
[quote]Originally posted by Dagnirion
<snip>
Anyway, that is extreme, I know. And I do accept that honest mistakes occur. If authors admit to them ('Oops, I messed that up!')it makes me like them more, it makes me more loyal. If Rich Baker had just said, "Dang it, that slipped by me. Sorry! let's see how we can make this work...') I bet he would have won over a LOT of fans.
Anyway, just my take.
I agree with the sentiment, but authors don't really have a mass-markey way of apologizing to readers, and most readers probably don't care. I'm not excusing the errors, and I agree that mea culpas go a long way, but I doubt that Wizards is going to pay to print an "author's apology" as an insert into its novels, or to recall or repring already-profitable books to change what - is to them - a minor detail. I agree 100% with the sentiment, I'm just not sure how practical it is. The future, with e-publishing: that's a different matter entirely. |
| GMWestermeyer |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 00:53:22
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Rich said it best above. There's technical D&D rules that involve game minutia- how many attacks you get in a round, how far you can move in a round, how long a round actually is- that it doesn't matter if they get violated. If Drizzt killed 8 Orcs with three attacks within a 40' radius, whatever. It's believable fiction is all that matters. Certain things compromise the integrity of the setting as a whole, however. Red Dragons breathing ice, with no explanation as to why this is. Dwarves who can naturally fly, with no explanation as to how this happened. Waterdeep being ruled by an elected president, with no explanation as to where the Lords of Waterdeep went. Things like that is where the line gets drawn, so to speak.
I agree, but IMO too often that line gets crossed. The most blatent old example was Shou dragonships (hell, Shou at all) in the Inner Sea in The Veiled Dragon. In a more recent example, in The Alabaster Staff the author decided, based on what i have no idea, that all magic spells, even those involving stealth, have some sort of magical glow.
Elaine's right about the spelling of Lloth. Heck, it is a mark against the believability of the Realms that more deities do not have alternate spellings and names.
Combat doesn't bother me, since in D&D that's always been an abstraction anyway. BUT magic should follow the Rules more closely. Memoriziation, only so many spells per day, specific spell descriptions and limitations, these things should be deal breakers as much as flying dwarves.
And stuff like the Tree of Souls is unacceptable. That sort of thing adds to the feeling long term Realms fanatics might have that WotC & hasbro basically despise us... see us as suckers, or at the least have no respect for us. Okay, that might be extreme, but if I take your setting seriously, and you don't, it makes me feel used. Like getting a lap dance. You know the girls only cares about your wallet, not you.
ANyway, that is extreme, I know. And I do accept that honest mistakes occur. If authors admit to them ('Oops, I messed that up!')it makes me like them more, it makes me more loyal. If Rich Baker had just said, "Dang it, that slipped by me. Sorry! let's see how we can make this work...') I bet he would have won over a LOT of fans.
Anyway, just my take. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 00:46:20
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Rich said it best above. There's technical D&D rules that involve game minutia- how many attacks you get in a round, how far you can move in a round, how long a round actually is- that it doesn't matter if they get violated. If Drizzt killed 8 Orcs with three attacks within a 40' radius, whatever. It's believable fiction is all that matters. Certain things compromise the integrity of the setting as a whole, however. Red Dragons breathing ice, with no explanation as to why this is. Dwarves who can naturally fly, with no explanation as to how this happened. Waterdeep being ruled by an elected president, with no explanation as to where the Lords of Waterdeep went. Things like that is where the line gets drawn, so to speak.
-To me, (i)t is the job of the writer to ensure that main story points and events of his/her literature maintain the continuity of the shared world. It is the job of the editor to ensure that the secondary, and minor story points and events maintain the continuity of the shared world.
I would agree. The author shouldn't seek to break the continuity of a shared world, but if it happens, and can be explained in a reasonable fashion, I'm fine with that. I don't want the protagonists or antagonists in novels bound by books, but I agree that a red dragon breathing iceas an examplewould require explanation. However, the explanation needn't occur in advance. If orcs were closing on a party in a novel, and they suddenly all levitated into the air, and it wasn't until a couple of chapters later that they say, "Gods, but I'm glad we all had those toe rings of flight" I'd be okay with that. What used to bother me was how few of the wizards in lore had to use spell components, but that's been resolved in the later literature I've read, so that complaint goes away. Regardless, if the story compels me to read it, and to want to get to the end (just...one...more...page) it has served me well for my money. I think that Elaine, Bob, and Ed (and other Realms writers) have managed to do that. So, with respect to the topic of this scroll, I would say that editors do get a "bum rap" as do authors on occasion. I can handle minor continuity errors here and there, especially if jumping from author to author. I've read a good portion of the published novels, but I won't pretend that I have them memorized, nor do I have an instant recall for all of the various editions of the core rulebooks. So, I can't and don't expect an author to have read all other novels that have been written, and look to the editors to maintain continuity. Make sense?
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 18:35:18
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I don't think it's fair to restrain authors to a specific rule or gaming structure when writing in the Realms (or any other game-setting) because it just doesn't work like that. When I read Drizzt, I don't say to myself "Well, that's totally improbably since he has 5 attacks using a full-round action but in such-and-such scene he moved 40-ft. and killed 8 Orcs with only 3 attacks! He doesn't even have the Cleave feat!" This is because game rules, while interesting and useful at the table often have limiting explainations when expressing a specific's character unique-ness. This is even more true for those who cast spells, ofting injecting the reader's own Meta-game knowledge into the novel "Hey, that wizard was struggling with the Lightning bolt spell in the last chapter and now he's firing off 5 magic missiles? WTF?!"
The game rules are there for exactly that, the game aspect. Requiring authors to remain within those limits would surely hamper any sort of novel IMO.
-Rich said it best above. There's technical D&D rules that involve game minutia- how many attacks you get in a round, how far you can move in a round, how long a round actually is- that it doesn't matter if they get violated. If Drizzt killed 8 Orcs with three attacks within a 40' radius, whatever. It's believable fiction is all that matters. Certain things compromise the integrity of the setting as a whole, however. Red Dragons breathing ice, with no explanation as to why this is. Dwarves who can naturally fly, with no explanation as to how this happened. Waterdeep being ruled by an elected president, with no explanation as to where the Lords of Waterdeep went. Things like that is where the line gets drawn, so to speak.
-To me, ut is the job of the writer to ensure that main story points and events of his/her literature maintain the continuity of the shared world. It is the job of the editor to ensure that the secondary, and minor story points and events maintain the continuity of the shared world. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 18:26:08
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
Actually, Markustay has a point about the Tree of Souls. It's a distinctive elven artifact, and there was no question about the intention of the author who planted it.
For the record, I never actually SHOWED Lamruil planting the Tree of Souls. The novella that was supposed to tell that tale was never written (this was near the beginning of a long spate of health issues.) If memory serves, Lamruil's planting of the tree was described in a game product as a fait accompli (despite the fact that the story outline showed him deciding NOT to found the northen kingdom). Some wires got crossed, the tree got planted elsewhere by someone else. People starting talking about cuttings or acorns or what-have-you as a means of explaining multiple plantings. I gave up following it.
-I worked it out in Elves of Faerūn by kind of hand-waving away Lamruil's drive to found the northern kingdom (Auseriel), after it was attacked by Dragons, and Maura disappeared (AGHotR). The settlement was a failure, for a lack of better words, and Lamruil returned to Evermeet with the Tree of Souls in tow, having not gotten the chance to actually plant it. He left to find Maura (AGHotR), and in that time, the Tree of Souls was utilized by the "Elven Crusade" to retake Myth Drannor.
-I don't like it too much either, but... |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 18:04:42
I've said this before, but since this subject keeps coming around, it appears I'm going to say it again.
Fidelity to the essential, defining qualities of the imaginary world are important. In the Realms, red dragons breathe fire. A writer who depicts them breathing frost has screwed up.
But in my opinion, most of the specific D&D rules do not represent essential, defining qualities of the imaginary world. They represent abstractions, simplifications, and conventions that allow us to simulate situations in the imaginary universe with numbers and dice, and for that purpose, they're great. But it does not serve a purpose for a fiction writer to follow them obsessively. and in fact, the results can look pretty stupid if he tries.
Let the games be games and the fiction be fiction. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 17:45:15
What bugged me about the Tree of Souls thingy was that Rich Baker was traffic cop for a while, if anyone should have known better it should have been him... *returning to silence |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 17:23:05
quote:
Originally posted by Azuth
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
No-one caught the fact it was used twice, by two different authors - that's a huge problem, and I don't think the 'fix' offered by the GHotR really covered the issue (how do you re-plant a tree that can only be planted ONCE?)
Oh, yeah. That.
I'm going to respond to a lot of posts, and try to do it in a short one (a challenge for me).
First, Bob can write whatever he wants. Elaine can write whatever she wants. That's called being an "author." The editor, who is usually an agent of the publisher, can say "you can't write that part there because of X" if he chooses. If it gets by the editor, then the last review would be either the publishing house, or the copyright holder where applicable. If an agent of Wizards (or formerly TSR) reviewed the book and had no objection, the book gets published.
Without intending to insult anybody, I must say that I've always tried to imagine battles in my head, but never have I spent a moment on a character's feats, skills, or anything else. For lack of a better term, I consider characters "Chosen" when they reach a certain level of infamy. I don't care how Drizzt does what he does; I enjoy reading about it. And to Elaine's very valid point, how can an author possibly predict what changes will be brought into the Realms? The change from infravision to "dark vision" completely changes so many scenes and battles that I found it a ridiculous change.
With respect to Lolth, let's remember that Bob's first book was written pre-Internet, and (really) pre-word processor. If Bob accidentally spelled her name wrong, and nobody bothered to correct it (this is why there are copy checkers, by the way) then that's that. Regarding the "Tree of Life," I'd argue that's a pretty generic term, and that many societies are likely to have such a thing. You only run into conflict if the same group of citizenry or characters uses the term in wildly different ways.
Just my two copper's worth.
Actually, Markustay has a point about the Tree of Souls. It's a distinctive elven artifact, and there was no question about the intention of the author who planted it.
For the record, I never actually SHOWED Lamruil planting the Tree of Souls. The novella that was supposed to tell that tale was never written (this was near the beginning of a long spate of health issues.) If memory serves, Lamruil's planting of the tree was described in a game product as a fait accompli (despite the fact that the story outline showed him deciding NOT to found the northen kingdom). Some wires got crossed, the tree got planted elsewhere by someone else. People starting talking about cuttings or acorns or what-have-you as a means of explaining multiple plantings. I gave up following it. |
| Azuth |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 16:57:30
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
No-one caught the fact it was used twice, by two different authors - that's a huge problem, and I don't think the 'fix' offered by the GHotR really covered the issue (how do you re-plant a tree that can only be planted ONCE?)
Oh, yeah. That.
I'm going to respond to a lot of posts, and try to do it in a short one (a challenge for me).
First, Bob can write whatever he wants. Elaine can write whatever she wants. That's called being an "author." The editor, who is usually an agent of the publisher, can say "you can't write that part there because of X" if he chooses. If it gets by the editor, then the last review would be either the publishing house, or the copyright holder where applicable. If an agent of Wizards (or formerly TSR) reviewed the book and had no objection, the book gets published.
Without intending to insult anybody, I must say that I've always tried to imagine battles in my head, but never have I spent a moment on a character's feats, skills, or anything else. For lack of a better term, I consider characters "Chosen" when they reach a certain level of infamy. I don't care how Drizzt does what he does; I enjoy reading about it. And to Elaine's very valid point, how can an author possibly predict what changes will be brought into the Realms? The change from infravision to "dark vision" completely changes so many scenes and battles that I found it a ridiculous change.
With respect to Lolth, let's remember that Bob's first book was written pre-Internet, and (really) pre-word processor. If Bob accidentally spelled her name wrong, and nobody bothered to correct it (this is why there are copy checkers, by the way) then that's that. Regarding the "Tree of Life," I'd argue that's a pretty generic term, and that many societies are likely to have such a thing. You only run into conflict if the same group of citizenry or characters uses the term in wildly different ways.
Just my two copper's worth.
|
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 05 Apr 2011 : 15:50:33
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
No-one caught the fact it was used twice, by two different authors - that's a huge problem, and I don't think the 'fix' offered by the GHotR really covered the issue (how do you re-plant a tree that can only be planted ONCE?)
Oh, yeah. That.
|
|
|
