| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Silhouette |
Posted - 13 Oct 2004 : 18:32:26
Is it just me, or do the authors of many books make there characters too overpowered. An example is Drizzt and the rest of his gang...WHO HAS DIED??? Wow, Wulfgar but he came back, I mean, I know there is a lot of fan say in some of this. Salvatore knows that if he kills off Drizzt, many will be mad at him, but he shouldn't care, make it interesting...Drizzt and his friends can't live forever right??? We all have to part with them sooner or later...in any matter I wanted to see what you folks thought about this issue. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lina |
Posted - 26 Oct 2004 : 10:42:21
I don't think that Drizzt and his band are too overpowered. They are the heroes in the story after all. RAS probably wanted to seperate the heroes from the "commoners", making them stand out from the rest of the crowd by giving the band special abilities/powers and weapons. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 23 Oct 2004 : 16:00:36
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
On the issue of Arya's kill list: Sirius has said it better than I can. I'm also puzzled as to why Ignorance Personified would think saying "I couldn't disagree more" is going beyond the defensible. English isn't my first language, mind you, but I'm reasonably confident in my fluency.
In any case, if you'd like, come over here for further discussion; anonymous guests can post.
Ignorance Personified:
There is a forum devoted to Martin's series. If you enjoy discussing his works let me know and I'll provide a link.
SB |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 23 Oct 2004 : 05:35:03
Crust: even if you're both a Drizzt and Elminster fan, most of your post expresses my views where RAS' writing is concerned with eerie exactness. I think I'm in love. 
quote:
I also notice that whenever there is a moment of irony, a flashback, a metaphor, or some other element of literature working in the story, the narrator has to point it out some way, by saying, "Drizzt noted the irony immediately," as if the reader would never pick up on it unless we have it hand-fed to us. That drives me nuts, and it doesn't happen only in RAS's work.
Yes, that and the coy, clumsy omniscient third-person statements. I simply fail to see the need for them. And while they do occur in other authors' work, outside and inside FR novel line alike, the frequency at which they do come up in RAS' novels is certainly... special. Quoting Night Masks:
quote:
"It would seem that you could use the meal," Ghost offered. "I did not know that reading could be so strenuous."
Cadderly chuckled at the witticism.
Yes, because just saying "Cadderly chuckled" is obviously not enough. Ooooh, look, it's a witticism! It's so... witty! Look at me chuckling along with the character at such piercing wit!
Except, well, not really. I've seen this defined as "Laughtrack" here: Characters grandstand and tug the reader's sleeve in an effort to force a specific emotional reaction. They laugh wildly at their own jokes, cry loudly at their own pain, and rob the reader of any real chance of attaining genuine emotion.
On the issue of Arya's kill list: Sirius has said it better than I can. I'm also puzzled as to why Ignorance Personified would think saying "I couldn't disagree more" is going beyond the defensible. English isn't my first language, mind you, but I'm reasonably confident in my fluency.
In any case, if you'd like, come over here for further discussion; anonymous guests can post. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 23 Oct 2004 : 03:41:42
quote:
Originally posted by Ignorance Personified
I believe that I made a comparison to Demon Wars, where Salvatore does not have a problem killing characters as part of the story(the primary protagonist of the first trilogy being one example).
Sorry for the confusion. I guess I got confused as to whether or not you were comparing the Drizzt books, Demon Wars, or the Cleric series from R.A. Salvatore to Martin's Fire and Ice. Would you like to bring in any other books by R.A. Salvatore?
quote:
To a degree greater than what is possible to support or maintain in rational discussion.
Still confused. Sorry. English is not my first language. Bad English is but not proper English.
quote:
I concur.
Oh my goodness, did we just agree on something? Incredible. |
| Ignorance Personified |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 23:17:37
SiriusBlack stated:
quote:
A big difference also between the two when comparing Salvatore's Drizzt books versus the popular Martin series is that Martin has no problems killing characters as part of the story.
I believe that I made a comparison to Demon Wars, where Salvatore does not have a problem killing characters as part of the story(the primary protagonist of the first trilogy being one example).
quote:
What exactly do you mean by "beyond the defendable?" You're confusing me as to what exactly you mean there.
To a degree greater than what is possible to support or maintain in rational discussion.
quote:
I think that makes the second person to have trouble understanding you in this thread. I hope your fellow scribes can do better in the future.
I certainly hope so(please note the sarcasm).
(End Sarcasm)I hope that I will be able to articulate myself in a suitable fashion during future discussions.
quote:
To me that shows that plot drives Martin's work while characters drive Salvatore's.
I concur.
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 19:51:04
quote:
Originally posted by Ignorance Personified
The developement of that obsession is the point the author is trying to "hammer home." He could use different devices to display a characters growing obsession, I am certain that he does at points in the work, but he contstantly returns to this usage to clarify beyond doubt how Arya is responding to the difficulties she has endured.
No, I see it as Arya returning to dialogue to show an aspect of her character. I don't view as hammering at all in the context you are bringing up now.
quote:
It is possible to argue that Martin is showing his audience this instead of telling them, but after this point has been raised so many times it is essentially telling the audience how to view the situation.
We see it as clearly different. What Martin is doing is character development, an aspect I saw lacking in the works by the other author when I read them.
quote:
I did not mean that the works were similar in style,
Well then I apologize for misunderstanding you. I think that makes the second person to have trouble understanding you in this thread. I hope your fellow scribes can do better in the future.
quote:
I was using Martin and King to show that many authors often choose to tell their audience something rather than showing them. Though I do believe they possess some similarities, if you compare Martin's early works such as Wild Cards to The Legacy of Drizzt(the worst possible title for the entire series) and Demon Wars to A Song of .... Both of the later works have primary characters dying off throughout, both have civil wars that are majoring turing points in the work, both focus almost entirely on humans with other races only making "token" appearances, both have dragons in limited roles, both have viewpoint characters that range in age from early childhood to late adulthood, and both to show the developement of a younger childreb after they undergo a major turning point in their life and have different characters respound in vastly different manners. Both of the earlier works are action romps, Wild Cards is a series that has various characters being given "genetic aces" while all others are given "genetic jokers," the difference is that Salvatore is known for Drizzt while Martin is known for his epic Ice and Fire.
A big difference also between the two when comparing Salvatore's Drizzt books versus the popular Martin series is that Martin has no problems killing characters as part of the story. I doubt readers will ever see any of Drizzt or his comrades suffer such a fate. To me that shows that plot drives Martin's work while characters drive Salvatore's.
quote:
though you also went beyond the defendable by saying..."I couldn't disagree more," what if I said (for example) that Curious George was the greatest literary achievement of the 20th Century.
I'll hold back on what comment springs to mind with the Curious George reference. What exactly do you mean by "beyond the defendable?" You're confusing me as to what exactly you mean there.
SB |
| Ignorance Personified |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 15:07:42
SiriusBlack said:
quote:
I don't see it as an author hammering home a point, but an author showing a child developing an obsession.
The developement of that obsession is the point the author is trying to "hammer home." He could use different devices to display a characters growing obsession, I am certain that he does at points in the work, but he contstantly returns to this usage to clarify beyond doubt how Arya is responding to the difficulties she has endured. It is possible to argue that Martin is showing his audience this instead of telling them, but after this point has been raised so many times it is essentially telling the audience how to view the situation.
quote:
Having read the two writers, I couldn't disagree more.
I did not mean that the works were similar in style, I was using Martin and King to show that many authors often choose to tell their audience something rather than showing them. Though I do believe they possess some similarities, if you compare Martin's early works such as Wild Cards to The Legacy of Drizzt(the worst possible title for the entire series) and Demon Wars to A Song of .... Both of the later works have primary characters dying off throughout, both have civil wars that are majoring turing points in the work, both focus almost entirely on humans with other races only making "token" appearances, both have dragons in limited roles, both have viewpoint characters that range in age from early childhood to late adulthood, and both to show the developement of a younger childreb after they undergo a major turning point in their life and have different characters respound in vastly different manners. Both of the earlier works are action romps, Wild Cards is a series that has various characters being given "genetic aces" while all others are given "genetic jokers," the difference is that Salvatore is known for Drizzt while Martin is known for his epic Ice and Fire. Certainly the authors are different, though their more popular works make enhance their differnce more than it actually is. So yes I suppose I did take the comparison to far if you interpreted that as my intention, though it was not, though you also went beyond the defendable by saying..."I couldn't disagree more," what if I said (for example) that Curious George was the greatest literary achievement of the 20th Century. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 13:30:27
quote:
Originally posted by Ignorance Personified
Arya constantly repeats her kil list in Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, many times within the same page.
Arya is an eight year old child who has lost numerous friends and family members to those on her list. In that case, I can see why she is repeating the names. I don't see it as an author hammering home a point, but an author showing a child developing an obsession. Her list is something that gives her comfort, some stability in a chaotic environment.
quote:
Their is not much difference between the two if you compare the size of the works, Salvatore has to hammer home his point in 300 pages, while Martin has 900(even more in Storm of Swords).
Having read the two writers, I couldn't disagree more.
|
| Ignorance Personified |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 06:10:21
quote:
May I invite you to my Livejournal for a discussion? Or a FR LJ community, or another message board?
Certainly, if you will excuse my obvious lack of english skills, which is my first language.
quote:
Because, obviously, it’s not enough to state once how well Danica knows Cadderly. No, the point has to be driven home and hammered again – in exact same words, no less.
Yes this is common throughout his works, but in fairness(as Crust mentioned) it is common throughout many FR works and fantasy in general. Arya constantly repeats her kil list in Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, many times within the same page. Their is not much difference between the two if you compare the size of the works, Salvatore has to hammer home his point in 300 pages, while Martin has 900(even more in Storm of Swords). Similarily, Stephen King drives home the fighting prowess of Roland and his understanding of his weapons if The Drawing of the Three using similar sentences nearly one after the other in order to show that Roland is panicked(it is a given to any astute reader) but that author chooses to make it obvious to even the most ignorant member of his audience. Many authors choose to tell their audience about major character interaction and characters feelings for one another, as they view that they have a lack of time to display this to the level they desire. Is that the best thing to do, not in my view, but in a series that is based upon action(which is what draws most realms fans) it is sometimes necessary. This is often the case with popular authors, though by no means is it universal Gene Wolfe is one example).
I did not find the Cleric's Quintet series to be particularly overwhelming, but I was not overwhelmed by any of the characters either(Satisfied?). The book by Salvatore that overwhelmed (to effect deeply in mind or emotion) me the most was Servant of the Shard, my second favorite book of all(that is actually proper english).
|
| Crust |
Posted - 21 Oct 2004 : 22:00:33
I'll always read the Drizzt novels, even if I complain about them after reading them.
I do agree, Winterfox, that there are many, many pages wasted on fight scenes. Being that they're so complex and detailed, you'd think that there could be some way to link the fighting with some character element of the dark elf. It would be interesting if Drizzt's journal entries, his philosophy, his conflicts, etc., would go hand-in-hand with the next major fight scene he has with an antagonist, so that the reader might find a relationship between Drizzt's mind and his physical prowess.
I am also constantly annoyed at how many questions the narrator asks. Could Catti-brie be falling in love with Drizzt? Is Drizzt's heritage going to be the death of his friends? Will Wulfgar be angered to learn that Drizzt and Catti-brie are closer now? There's too much of the narrator explaining the entirety of what's going on, as if the narrator is an annoying gnome who wants to make sure the reader sees every little thing that's happening just so that the reader knows it's happening. It makes me feel like these books are targeted at jr. high kids.
I also notice that whenever there is a moment of irony, a flashback, a metaphor, or some other element of literature working in the story, the narrator has to point it out some way, by saying, "Drizzt noted the irony immediately," as if the reader would never pick up on it unless we have it hand-fed to us. That drives me nuts, and it doesn't happen only in RAS's work.
I think Greenwood is the only FR author who doesn't hand-fed us the story, which is why I think some people don't like his work.
I am also driven nuts when someone quotes the rulebooks. I recall a moment in Realms of Shadow where Entreri and Jarlaxle are attacked by some shadowy hounds or something. Jarlaxle whips out a portable hole (he has a magical item for EVERY possible situation), and mentions to Entreri the consequences of the hole coming into contact with a bag of holding, as if Entreri has one tucked in his back pocket. That was really awkward, and there was no place for it in the scene. The same thing happened in the latest WotSQ novel, when Gromph is being briefed by his lesser wizards. They practically quote the Monster Manual word-for-word concerning the weaknesses of a lich. I was very disappointed at the presentation of that scene.
And yet, I'll always buy the latest Drizzt novel the very day it comes out, and I'll savor the reading for about a week, just long enough to enjoy it, and soon enough to have my curiosity satisfied quickly. I'm a huge Drizzt fan. I'm a bigger Elminster fan, though. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 20 Oct 2004 : 11:22:44
Ignorance Personified said:
quote:
I was referring to my personal attack on you (in reference to my last post about "you should write and novel and make some money-->it was immature of me) and calling myself low-brow and juvenile, I am allowed to do that I suppose. I am sorry if you percieved it differently.
I apologize for misinterpreting it, then.
quote:
Many things are not always "spelled out," particularly in Realms like novels that are generally around three hundered or so pages. In this manner authors authors can adress issues, plot/character developement/etc., without hindering the fast pace of the novel(action/confrontation/major character shift) which is what many Realms readers want to read.
Mmm. Again, I'll have to disagree. One of the reasons I stopped reading anything by Salvatore is because I thought everything in his books gravitates toward the "clearly spelled out/spoon-fed to the reader." It's not as if the prose defies the "show, not tell" advice; rather, it shows, tells, and then tells some more just for good measure. Examples, from The Fallen Fortress:
quote:
"But not the most important of all you mean to do," the monk said coyly.
Cadderly's eyes widened, and he regarded Danica with sincere admiration. How well she knew him!
And then:
quote:
"You had to do it," Danica said unexpectedly. Cadderly blinked at her in disbelief that soon turned to amusement How well she knew him!
Because, obviously, it’s not enough to state once how well Danica knows Cadderly. No, the point has to be driven home and hammered again – in exact same words, no less. (I recall it being done in the other volumes, but I don’t have immediate access to them.) I won’t even bother quoting all the bits where the various “bad guys” are labeled evil (evil Ghost, the evil corpse, evil anticipation), or malignant (the malignant spirit, the malignant ghost, the malignant monster). Quite clearly, these people need to carry their alignments around on large, neon signs hanging around their necks for reasons that I evidently fail to comprehend. Sorry; loud, bold moral bipolarity’s not my cup of tea, and I’d like a leeeetle more subtlety and moderation here, please? (i.e., I get it that the undead Ghost is evil, the red dragon is evil, ad nauseum. I don’t need to be reminded every other sentence.) If that’s not “spelled out”, I don’t know what is.
quote:
You will notice that most of those were closed down shortly after they were created, particularly a rather large one disscussing his works wider role in the realms.
May I invite you to my Livejournal for a discussion? Or a FR LJ community, or another message board? (None of these requires you to be registered to post.)
quote:
I reckon I can accomplish that. Though one should note that the difference is not as you described them. The past tense use should only be applied when discussing the historical context of the work, such as RAS work overpowered the generation of the ninties into blah blah blah(in contrast one should use "literary present"). You could also say that an overpowering aspect of the work alienated the reader. Though under most circumstances the former part would be correct, but stating that I was overpowered by the work, since it would be in historical context, would not technically be incorrect. I believe what I said is right, I am not overly familiar with these things.
From m-w.com: 3 : to provide with more power than is needed or desirable <a dangerously overpowered car>
The thread originally discussed overpowered characters – characters that are too powerful, too good, too perfect. I assure you, I find nothing overpowering (in the sense of “overwhelming”) about RAS’ work; if anything, I’ve always been distinctly underwhelmed. (I suppose nitpicking on the overpowering/overpowered thing is rather trivial, but anyway, the various forms of the word “overpower” can have different meanings.)
Is your first language English, incidentally? |
| Ignorance Personified |
Posted - 19 Oct 2004 : 14:51:57
Winterfox Said:
quote:
t'd have been somewhat valid, had I actually called you low-brow or juvenile. What directed at individual what? Are you seeing personal attacks in my posts now? Where? Bueller?
I was referring to my personal attack on you (in reference to my last post about "you should write and novel and make some money-->it was immature of me) and calling myself low-brow and juvenile, I am allowed to do that I suppose. I am sorry if you percieved it differently.
quote:
I’m scratching my head here. I’m curious -- why do you define “qualities beneath the surface” as “a way that does not impede the novel’s pace”?
Many things are not always "spelled out," particularly in Realms like novels that are generally around three hundered or so pages. In this manner authors authors can adress issues, plot/character developement/etc., without hindering the fast pace of the novel(action/confrontation/major character shift) which is what many Realms readers want to read.
quote:
Mmm. Conversely, do you think other people like to be constantly reminded of a person’s adoration of an author’s work? Not pointing my finger at anyone; just turning the question around.
No. I am certain, that is why I commented on the "ignorace" of fans in a certain other messageboard. "Fanboyz" are certainly among the most annoying things on the internet, but I do not think I am one as I at least attempt to articulate my argument in something resembling a rational manner. Most of my posts are not about this author, expecially in other message boards, this discussion has been an exception.
quote:
Is that a cry of “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all”?
No.
quote:
Do a search. I’ve done my share of criticizing some of Ed Greenwood’s novels.
You will notice that most of those were closed down shortly after they were created, particularly a rather large one disscussing his works wider role in the realms.
quote:
I imagine you could, if you were so inclined, compose a whole doctoral thesis analyzing this, but the fact remains is that I have no idea as to what the author was intending, or doing (do you?).
No that was just my two cents, well maybe slightly more than two, but when does anyone ever *know* an author's intentions on a work? No people just take their best guess, granted most of the good ones have a Dr. before their name and get paid...I mean have lots of people read their view. Doctoral thesis, no, maybe a term paper or a master's thesis.
quote:
Uh, and please make the distinction between "overpowering" and "overpowered." They're different. Really. (I'd say an "overpowering work" would be a compliment; "an overpowered character/Mary Sue/Gary Stu/munchkin" wouldn't be so complimentary.)
I reckon I can accomplish that. Though one should note that the difference is not as you described them. The past tense use should only be applied when discussing the historical context of the work, such as RAS work overpowered the generation of the ninties into blah blah blah(in contrast one should use "literary present"). You could also say that an overpowering aspect of the work alienated the reader. Though under most circumstances the former part would be correct, but stating that I was overpowered by the work, since it would be in historical context, would not technically be incorrect. I believe what I said is right, I am not overly familiar with these things.
|
| Winterfox |
Posted - 19 Oct 2004 : 05:59:41
quote:
Originally posted by Ignorance Personified
I was simply commenting on your broad emotional argument in the previous response, i.e. you used no evidence to support the argument(which I have done many times by now I am certain)
Which argument? I've made the attempt to clarify what I meant; combat prowess in a character alone – without anything else for depth, personality, etc – doesn't make a good character, which is the reason I’m puzzled as to why many people would view Drizzt’s combat skills as a “selling point.” I could, of course, try to show you some works that include shallow protagonists to make my point of “uber special character traits == no skill take.” I refrain from using examples from FR novels because that’ll make a kerfluffle erupt and people’ll start to spontaneously combust.
quote:
with another emotional argument that unfortunately was directed at the individual(a very low-brow thing to do...but I am low-brow and juvenile).
Oh, please. I've already said that I'm not condemning anyone's taste, so at least stop with the incessant self-effacing sarcasm. It'd have been somewhat valid, had I actually called you low-brow or juvenile. What directed at individual what? Are you seeing personal attacks in my posts now? Where? Bueller?
quote:
My argument was that the novels possess qualties that are beneath the surface, i.e. written in a way that does not empede the pace of the novel.
I’m scratching my head here. I’m curious -- why do you define “qualities beneath the surface” as “a way that does not impede the novel’s pace”?
quote:
Clearly all of these books cannot be flukes read by individuals such as myself that are juvenile, their are not that many juvenile readers in the world as people who read generally tend to be above the mainstream in intellectual capacity and awareness of the world around them/maturity.
I ask again: why are you persisting with the juvenile/low-brow thing?
quote:
Rufo… <snip>
I imagine you could, if you were so inclined, compose a whole doctoral thesis analyzing this, but the fact remains is that I have no idea as to what the author was intending, or doing (do you?). It’s the tricky thing with analyzing literature; sometimes a fleat-bitten dog is just a flea-bitten dog, not a grand symbol of declining fidelity. Either way, if that’s the way you see it, great. The way I see it is this: the plot devices – ahem, the fate – conspire to paint Cadderly as a shining, squeaky-clean hero, while making Rufo into the antithesis. I would have been a little less disdainful of this treatment, had Rufo not been too pathetic to be true (in the same way that Cadderly’s too good to be true). If there had been occasions where Rufo is right, and Cadderly is wrong, my views would have been significantly different.
quote:
I understand that you and many others don't like Salvatore. Great if everyone only liked one author then I would not have much to read. My point is that simply because you do not enjoy him or see his characters in a certain fasion does not make it a fact.
I haven’t meant to say that my opinions are, by any stretch of the imagination, factual, and I’d like to think I’ve sprinkled my posts with enough “I think” and “…to keep me interested” and “I find” to make it clear that they are opinions. If those are not enough, then I’m sorry. But hey, it’s not as if you attach an “IMO” and “…I think” to every single sentence you’ve typed, hmm?
quote:
Every person percieves works of literature differently and readers should not "bash" in a forum because he has become frustrated with the plot development(or as he/she may view it lack thereof).
Is that a cry of “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all”? Oh, and I don't see actual bashing here. Bashing, m'friend, is this:
quote:
I go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book.
quote:
Jane is entirely impossible. It seems a great pity that they allowed her to die a natural death.
quote:
I haven't any right to criticise books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticise Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Everytime I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.
I give you three guesses as to who made these comments.
quote:
If that was not the persons intention, well it certainly came out that way as he asked a broad question and then only used Drizzt works within his argument. Similarly, any attempt to bring up another character, such as Elminister was overlooked by the members (perhaps this was caused by my montrous post...).
When I want to discuss certain topics in a less-than-positive light and with elaborations, I do it elsewhere, for the same reason that a professional writer shouldn’t stride into a fanfic-centric message board and cry, “Fanfic is teh EVIL!1!!” (That, and I haven't read all of the Elminster books. And no, I don't want to.)
quote:
I don't care if people dislike any author, if it is one I enjoy or not, but I do not like to be constantly reminded of a persons dislike of an author(it also seems that RAS is the only author bashed in this forums as all others are treated with a respect not to go out and call their work overpowering, simplistic).
Mmm. Conversely, do you think other people like to be constantly reminded of a person’s adoration of an author’s work? Not pointing my finger at anyone; just turning the question around.
Uh, and please make the distinction between "overpowering" and "overpowered." They're different. Really. (I'd say an "overpowering work" would be a compliment; "an overpowered character/Mary Sue/Gary Stu/munchkin" wouldn't be so complimentary.)
quote:
Perhaps this is my ignorance, if anyone has links to another example please post them.
Do a search. I’ve done my share of criticizing some of Ed Greenwood’s novels.
Edited to fix quote tags. |
| Ignorance Personified |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 15:22:41
Winterfox Said:
quote:
My, aren't we getting a touch defensive here? A few thousand dollars? Hee! I'm almost expecting to see "If you think you can do it better..." come up next. Heh.
I was simply commenting on your broad emotional argument in the previous response, i.e. you used no evidence to support the argument(which I have done many times by now I am certain), with another emotional argument that unfortunately was directed at the individual(a very low-brow thing to do...but I am low-brow and juvenile).
quote:
Again, I'm directing this mostly at the idea that skills in combat or magic can make a good character (without anything else to add to the depth, personality, and background). As for why some things make money -- well, they sell. Pokemon makes money and Britney Spears makes money.
Well, actually Pokemon and Mrs. Spears *did* make money(thankfully). After only a few years their "empires" collapsed into the realm of the bargain bins of Wal-Marts everywhere. Fads can last a long time on one desirable quality, Mrs. Spears' being sex appeal(I hope no one thought it was musical quality) and Pokemon...social interaction(?), but the Drizzt books have lasted for over a decade and are increasing in popularity. My argument was that the novels possess qualties that are beneath the surface, i.e. written in a way that does not empede the pace of the novel.
quote:
"Great at whatever," if anybody can do this then why are so many authors making money off of it...
That is the point I was trying to make after this quote. I should not have said money, such an empty form of measuring the success of the work, but rather "reader commitment." Many of these characters are called one dimensional, many accuse the entire fantasy genre of possessing only one dimsensional characters. Nevertheless, these works have been immensely successful mainly due to the readers interest in the character I mentioned for each work(Roland being the most apparent and The Hound being the least). Clearly all of these books cannot be flukes read by individuals such as myself that are juvenile, their are not that many juvenile readers in the world as people who read generally tend to be above the mainstream in intellectual capacity and awareness of the world around them/maturity.
Therefore some desirable qualities must lie beneath the surface of the novel, which I pointed out with the Arty/Jarl comments, I will now attempt to do so with the CQ.
Rufo: At first glance he is a bully, but once you come to realize that his place in the faith is being taken by an individual who is currently having second guesses about the faith in general(Cadderly)he is not so eaily placed into the "bully" category(one that attacks people with absolutely no provacation). Cadderly is also stealing(in his mind) Danica, for whom he possesses strong sexual desires(would not call his feelings love though it could be argued). Is Rufo morally weak, abosolutely if one looks only at the surface of the work, but if one consideres the setting perhaps it is the enviroment that weakened the individual. Any person that is placed into a religious setting, such as the Library, must be extremely pious to make friends, be accepted, etc, in order to maintain mental stability. It is not easy to remain pious, particularly in youth when people have a tendency to question everything, and the author emphasizes this point with Cadderly's struggle at the beginning. Cadderly's struggle would be of interest to any other reader who has encountered similar problems within his or her self about their relationship(or the existence though this is more or a stretch within the Realms)with a divine being. Though I think it's point within the work, as we all do know that Cadderly will accept his place, is to hightlight the struggle within Rufo and show the reader that he is not misguided to undergo this question it is something that all people (well most people...something like 90% of the world believes in a higher power/being(s) of some sort) ask somethime within their lives. After he chooses is he misguided, yes, but that is not the point the author is questioning if the entire system is misguided(this is seen by the destruction of the library and the rebuilding of something new which is the primary reconciliation of the work not Cadderly and Danica's acceptance of love). This can be seen more clearly in the Demon Wars saga, which I know you haven't read and perphaps it is only because I read that before the CQ is the reason that I percieve the work as I do.
As it seems that the argument is about to go full circle: My primary point has not been to *convert* anyone into liking Salvatore, it has been to explain why some people do not percieve his works as overpowering and that they can be enjoyed. Similar to the other works I listed, and basically any work in literature, some people relate to the story and enjoy it while others do not. Unlike most other authors, successful authors such as the ones I listed are often bashed by those who do not enjoy their works. This is most likely attributed to the fact that they pop up much more in discussion than other authors. I understand that you and many others don't like Salvatore. Great if everyone only liked one author then I would not have much to read. My point is that simply because you do not enjoy him or see his characters in a certain fasion does not make it a fact. Every person percieves works of literature differently and readers should not "bash" in a forum because he has become frustrated with the plot development(or as he/she may view it lack thereof). If that was not the persons intention, well it certainly came out that way as he asked a broad question and then only used Drizzt works within his argument. Similarly, any attempt to bring up another character, such as Elminister was overlooked by the members (perhaps this was caused by my montrous post...). I don't care if people dislike any author, if it is one I enjoy or not, but I do not like to be constantly reminded of a persons dislike of an author(it also seems that RAS is the only author bashed in this forums as all others are treated with a respect not to go out and call their work overpowering, simplistic). Perhaps this is my ignorance, if anyone has links to another example please post them. Please do not tell me that if I do not like the enviorment then leave, that is a very weak argument(used in America alot.."If you don't like this country then go back to "insert country of origin"). The RAS forum, will not be called that much longer, has a abundance of ignorant folks (nothing wrong with that), but they don't admit it. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 05:20:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As for me, I can understand Drizzt feeling some angst over the differences between him and his people. But you know what? I got it after the first book. I didn't need to keep delving into his angst, book after book after book. Once was enough -- nay, more than enough. The topic is covered, friend Drizzt, let's move on to something else.
Agreed. There's angst, and then there's angst. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 04:24:40
As for me, I can understand Drizzt feeling some angst over the differences between him and his people. But you know what? I got it after the first book. I didn't need to keep delving into his angst, book after book after book. Once was enough -- nay, more than enough. The topic is covered, friend Drizzt, let's move on to something else. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 03:47:22
Ignorance Personified said:
quote:
"[N]o skill." It is is that simple why don't you just write a book and make few thousand dollars(if you have a problem with this as it "violates" the literary medium then just write a screen play).
My, aren't we getting a touch defensive here? A few thousand dollars? Hee! I'm almost expecting to see "If you think you can do it better..." come up next. Heh.
To clarify, when I said that, I meant the combat prowess of a character as a sole, isolated trait. To write a character that has that, and only that, and not much else going for him? I stand by what I said: it takes no skill at all.
You keep bringing Drizzt and other characters from the Drizzt books up, but I don't feel qualified to discuss them, since I've blocked most of what I've read out from my memory and have no desire to re-read them.
quote:
Entreri, Jarlaxle, Ghost(not to the extent of the others listed), the elf Drizzt killed in Sea of Swords all have positive qualities.
*shrugs* I was discussing the CQ, yes? As I said -- haven't read all the Drizzt books; have already forgotten what I've read, so not going to go there.
As for Ghost? Well, I'll quote the Peter's Evil Overlord list and say unto you: "I will only employ bounty hunters who work for money. Those who work for the pleasure of the hunt tend to do dumb things like even the odds to give the other guy a sporting chance."
quote:
Which brings up another point...Drizzt went on a raid while in Menzo where many elfs were killed. In this book one of them comes back and fights him, when he fatally wounds her it also wounds him. He therefore tells the companions to give the healing potion to her, as it is the ethical thing to do, but they do not and give it to him so he lives and the girl dies. The girl was not evil, obsessed with revenge, but not evil. That is trajedy, the death of an innocent that one had tried to save, in the raid Drizzt saved her by coverng her in her mother's blood, and walking away from it because someone else decided you should live.
I haven't read this part, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. She isn't portrayed as a villain in the first place, is she? Doesn't she go to prove my point about "all who oppose the hero(es) are wrong, misguided, jealous, etc"? From what I've heard, the elf girl is obsessed with revenge -- and falls squarely into the category of "misguided."
quote:
"Great at whatever," if anybody can do this then why are so many authors making money off of it...
Again, I'm directing this mostly at the idea that skills in combat or magic can make a good character (without anything else to add to the depth, personality, and background). As for why some things make money -- well, they sell. Pokemon makes money and Britney Spears makes money. While I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, or that people who enjoy them have no taste, I'm saying that I don't share this taste. (Mind you, I'm not saying that anything popular is bad, either -- many of the things I enjoy are pretty mainstream, after all. Like Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.) |
| Ignorance Personified |
Posted - 17 Oct 2004 : 20:15:16
Winterfox said:
quote:
That takes no skill. It's just words on paper, after all. Writing a human, realistic character who can intrigue the reader and make the reader care is another thing entirely. So I don't see what combat prowess has to do with it and, in Drizzt's case, it seems to be a fairly large part of his character.
"[N]o skill." It is is that simple why don't you just write a book and make few thousand dollars(if you have a problem with this as it "violates" the literary medium then just write a screen play).
Let's use Artemis, my favorite RAS character, as the example of a "human realisitic character." Artemis is currently trying to find his place in the world, he has no friends, and has defined himself by his fighting ability throughout his life. He is now trying to escape this reality that he has made for himself, meanwhile he must always watch his back because can anyone trust Jarlaxle(another interesting character)? As RAS notes at the end of his latest short, such was the fog of friendship among theives(or something like that), Artemis finds this relationship to be less than stellar but finds himself trapped because he has no where else to go. At the end of "Servant of the Shard" he writes to Dwarvel stating that he was his only true friend and will miss him. It was in Dwarvel's brothel that Enteri was able to relax and enjoy things for the first time in his life. Entreri defined himself by his fighting ability, something Drizzt does to a much lesser extent, and as a result he is near a psychological breakdown, something that can be noted byt he way he reacts to the dragons in "Wickless in the Nether" and the way he almost reveals himself to the lady after he glaces in his direction(does anyone think the Artemis of the first few novels would have been the least bit worried about these things as he had supreme confidence in his abilities). Another interesting aspect of the character is how he is dealing with aging, he is trying to deny it adding to his psychological concerns, and how Jarlaxle is constantly taunting him about it(Does anyone think that Jarlaxle is trying to "break" Entreri...after all Jarl does love a challenge?). A character that was defined by his physical prowess, and defined himself by his physical prowess, has one of the most interesting conflicts in the realms, this can be seen through popularity of even those who do not enjoy the Drizzt novels. No one knows what he will do now, he obviously does not see the challenge of the kill as encompassing his entire existence anymore therefore he is abou to undergo a major personality/lifestyle shift.
quote:
The bad people are not only evil; they have to be ugly and incompetent, as well. I wish more people would see that it's okay for the heroes not to be right sometimes, and to let the antagonists have actual positive qualities.
Entreri, Jarlaxle, Ghost(not to the extent of the others listed), the elf Drizzt killed in Sea of Swords all have positive qualities. Which brings up another point...Drizzt went on a raid while in Menzo where many elfs were killed. In this book one of them comes back and fights him, when he fatally wounds her it also wounds him. He therefore tells the companions to give the healing potion to her, as it is the ethical thing to do, but they do not and give it to him so he lives and the girl dies. The girl was not evil, obsessed with revenge, but not evil. That is trajedy, the death of an innocent that one had tried to save, in the raid Drizzt saved her by coverng her in her mother's blood, and walking away from it because someone else decided you should live.
quote:
If I admire a character, it'll be because he/she possesses wit and complexity. Boils down to this: anybody can write a character that's great in combat, magic or whatever.
"Great at whatever," if anybody can do this then why are so many authors making money off of it, Roland of Gilead was defined by his fighting prowess early on in The Dark Tower(S. King). Gandalf (LOTR) is defined by his humor, magical abilites, and his ability to be stead fast. Raj Ahten, Farland's The Runelords, is defined by his need to be the best and that he has the strength of 1000 men, the speed of 500, the metabolism or 6 etc... Similarly, The Hound is defined by his skill with the sword and his nature to be a "son born out of wedlock" in Martin's Song of Ice and Fire (his brother is defined by his size. Drizzt is defined by his fighting skills and his "angst" as many people put it. He also has to recouncile his frienship with his place in the world, his faith in a god while the god his people worship is cruel and evil, and his place in a world where is kind are hated. Many people complain because this comes up in every single book, but if you went to the south during the reign of Jim Crow laws I can assure you that the African American community would be constantly reminded of their place in soceity.
Literature reflects society, not all of it obviously and therefore each work will show just a few aspects of it. Salvatore's works have characters trying to find out their place in soceity, their identity, their faith, the reconcliation of a diety within a world where evil is everywhere (see Cleric's Quintet book 5 "where is Ogmah where is Denier after Rufo takes over). These are not simple matters that are easily answered, indeed many of the characters die before they get a response. Not the main characters mind you but other characters. Parhaps RAS has the main characters to guide the readers through the world where people are making these decisions that will shape their lives while the main characters do make other difficult decisions during the process. Is that not a reflection of "realistic" human qualities, as most humans make some hard decisions and help others through theirs, everything does not work out for the characters(Wulfar does not marry Cattie-Bree, Bruenor has to be king, Drizzt will have to watch her die in a short time the way the drow see time). To make a character undergo a series of radical changes and overcome several internal conflicts is unrealistic, unhuman, or if you prefer superhuman. People get upset because it is unrealistic for Drizzt not to change quickly, I disagree how many people drastically change during their lifetime, not many, it is a slow change that occurs throughout the years. Even in military service only a few come back drastically altered, usually those people are dianosed with PTSD, and others only come back with different world views. Even those do not emerge over night but rather over their entire service.To have a character have a sudden insight that launches to a change is "overpowering" is it not? It makes the person have a superhuman mental ability to reconcile all possible problems in a nanosecond.
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 17 Oct 2004 : 03:42:22
quote:
Originally posted by VEDSICA
Do either of you think that if RAS wants to stop writing about Drizzt.
Last I heard and this is a big paraphrase, RAS attitude was, I like writing the Drizzt books, people like reading them. Thus, why stop?
quote:
Would WoTC have another author write about him??
That was done once. The novel never saw publication. I doubt it will ever come that close again.
quote:
Would the masses accept that??
No idea there.
quote:
Also where was it mentioned that The Serpent had a son???I can't remember if I saw that or not,or if it is new to me.
Evermeet: Island of Elves by Elaine Cunningham. |
| VEDSICA |
Posted - 17 Oct 2004 : 03:15:51
I guess I can also agree with both SB and WR.See that's why I am always on the fence when the issue arises about Drizzt and company being to powerful,and do they need to go.When I said that Drizzt was the most compelling ever.I got a little clouded there.I meant that he was RAS most compelling IMO.Wooly I like all of those characters you mentioned.They all have depth,and are a treat to read.Now that you also mention it.Do either of you think that if RAS wants to stop writing about Drizzt.Would WoTC have another author write about him??Would the masses accept that??Also where was it mentioned that The Serpent had a son???I can't remember if I saw that or not,or if it is new to me. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 21:52:18
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And Elaith Craulnober... Wow. Thoroughly evil, but honorable and loyal and full of a deep racial pride... What more could you possibly want in a character?
For him to find out he has a son and that others have been keeping this fact from him for...decades. 
Thank you, my oft-sarcastic friend. 
While that does generate a serious "oooooh, yeah!", I was referring to depth of character, not things happening to a character... Though I suppose that seeing that would show us more of the Serpent's intriguing personality.  |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 18:40:01
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And Elaith Craulnober... Wow. Thoroughly evil, but honorable and loyal and full of a deep racial pride... What more could you possibly want in a character?
For him to find out he has a son and that others have been keeping this fact from him for...decades. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 16:08:56
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by VEDSICA
SB,I'm not trying to make him out to be a cash cow.
Thank you for the clarification.
quote:
No one has brought us a character with more depth than RAS has with Drizzt IMO.
A big IMO. I couldn't disagree more.
quote:
I think that if he is to be killed off.It would be because RAS is bored with him,and wants to go with other characters to focus on.
Last I checked WOTC still had the rights to Drizzt.
Yup. As I said earlier, RAS already tried killing off a character, and was forced to bring him back... I don't see WotC ever letting anything happen to Drizzt.
As for Drizzt's depth... I've never found him to be a particularly deep or compelling character. Drizzt is known for two things: his skill with the sword, and angst. While I like the swordplay, it's not enough to hold my interest for long. And I generally skip the angst-ridden sections of the novels when I read them.
No, you want to talk about character depth, read some of Elaine Cunningham's work. Danilo Thann, Arilyn Moonblade, Liriel Baenre... Those are deep and compelling characters. And Elaith Craulnober... Wow. Thoroughly evil, but honorable and loyal and full of a deep racial pride... What more could you possibly want in a character? |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 14:31:44
quote:
Originally posted by VEDSICA
SB,I'm not trying to make him out to be a cash cow.
Thank you for the clarification.
quote:
No one has brought us a character with more depth than RAS has with Drizzt IMO.
A big IMO. I couldn't disagree more.
quote:
I think that if he is to be killed off.It would be because RAS is bored with him,and wants to go with other characters to focus on.
Last I checked WOTC still had the rights to Drizzt. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 10:17:52
Ignorance Personified said:
quote:
Similarly, Americans are extremely competitive, you can see this best in the popularity of professional sports. That is why, in my view, Salvatore's works are so popular because the reader wants to know who is the best (hence the popularity of the Artemis/Drizzt rivalry) and the first comment on the thread dedicated to the Two Swords has "I think Drizzt lost to much." Drizzt's popularity arouse out of his battle prowess, I don't think anyone will argue that his "morality" caused them to enjoy reading about him, in countries theoften "worhship" professional sports icons("Real" Football players in Europe and professional sports icons in the US).
I find that attitude, when regarding fictional (particularly in the novel medium), a little puzzling. Obviously, for me, combat prowess (magical or otherwise) doesn't do much. If I admire a character, it'll be because he/she possesses wit and complexity. Boils down to this: anybody can write a character that's great in combat, magic or whatever. That takes no skill. It's just words on paper, after all. Writing a human, realistic character who can intrigue the reader and make the reader care is another thing entirely. So I don't see what combat prowess has to do with it and, in Drizzt's case, it seems to be a fairly large part of his character.
quote:
What is wrong with characters being overpowering anyway, many of the most popular characters in literature and movies are those that are the best at somehting(The hero is after all someone who excels over what the normal individual is capable of so are all characters "overpowering.")
There's a difference between "overpowered" and "skilled", you know. (Ala, "He's a competent fighter" and "He's the best fighter in the whole Realms omg!") 'Course, there's nothing wrong with it per se; it's just that I (and apparently, some other people) find these characters dead boring, especially when every single thing works out for them. There's also the perfect characters who excel in every single thing they try their hands at, of course.
quote:
I always thought of him as the dark mirror of Rufo, a character that certainly had the opportunity to go to the "dark-side" throughout the series and finally did in the final volume.
Really? I've always found Rufo to be so utterly pathetic he's not even worth reading about. His entire purpose in existence seems to be making Cadderly look better, as if Cadderly isn't glorified thoroughly already.
quote:
This shows how evil weakens an individual, which is displayed throughout many books, movies, etc.
*shrugs* I don't see that. From the start, Kierkan Rufo is a pathetic, talentless generic bully who doesn't have a single positive quality. (Oh, right, that fits Aballister, too, so I guess the similarities are there.) The moral bipolarity, which I find extremely aggravating, is only emphasized here. The bad people are not only evil; they have to be ugly and incompetent, as well. I wish more people would see that it's okay for the heroes not to be right sometimes, and to let the antagonists have actual positive qualities. (Or, even better, be better at something than the hero. Gasp shock horror. Jeeze.) |
| VEDSICA |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 06:15:31
SB,I'm not trying to make him out to be a cash cow.Though I am sure we agree that he is RAS most successful character.If people like him or not.They are still buying his books.Meaning Drizzt books.I personally would keep him around for awhile longer.He's still to young for a drow to be killed off as some folks suggest.So what I am implying is that he is RAS most auccessful character,and people still want to read about him.That's what I mean when I say bread and butter.No one has brought us a character with more depth than RAS has with Drizzt IMO.That's what I am trying to get at,and if he makes a few coppers along the way.All the more better.
Wooly I am not against the killing off of characters.I just don't think that he needs to be killed off at this point in time.Whatever he decides to do with him.It would have a lasting impact on the realms,and most likely it would be positive.Besides Drizzt being dead would be like Hendrix,or Morrison.He would make more money dead than alive...But I jest....I think that if he is to be killed off.It would be because RAS is bored with him,and wants to go with other characters to focus on.Hence my call for an Entreri and Jarlaxle series.I mean I salivate thinking about it.Well maybe not salivate,but you get my meaning.But I still think that Drizzt has one more go around with Entreri.Whatever happens there can well define those two great characters. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 02:15:36
quote:
Originally posted by VEDSICA
Why in the world would RAS kill off his bread and butter aqt this point???
You're making the character sound less like something that is interesting and more like a cash cow that is being milked. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 16 Oct 2004 : 01:07:25
I'd like to see RAS move to another part of the Realms and give us a new character(s), new plot threads and new places to detail/describe. Which reminds me, I have to get my North Timeline to him somehow as he has got Gauntlgrym wrong, wrong, wrong!
-- George Krashos
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Oct 2004 : 18:53:08
quote:
Originally posted by VEDSICA
Why in the world would RAS kill off his bread and butter aqt this point???I wouldn't make sense...
Sure it would, if he was tired of writing about him, or if Drizzt's death somehow had a positive and lasting impact on the Realms.
Just because an author is making money off of a character doesn't mean they might not kill them off. If you read Alexandre Dumas, you will find that of the four Musketeers, three of them died in the end. The only surviving one was the one that had sold out...
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is best known for one character: Sherlock Holmes. And yet, Sir Arty attempted to kill off Holmes... |
| VEDSICA |
Posted - 15 Oct 2004 : 17:51:04
When I've debated this issue.It always came down to this.You can't compare a character from a novel,and apply it to gaming,if that is what you are doing.It's totally different.I don't mind that Drizzt,and the companions are powerful.Or that they come back to life.In the gaming world there is such a thing that's called a ressurection spell.It was used many times in my gaming days.As for Wulfgar.I have said in the past that it really didn't matter if he came back or not.I don't care too much about him.To me he just doesn't seem a major part of the group anymore.I haven't gotten a good feel for him in RAS latest trilogy.As for killing off Drizzt.I'm with Capn Charlie on this.Why in the world would RAS kill off his bread and butter aqt this point???I wouldn't make sense...What I am hoping for though is that RAS take some time out,and concentrate on Entreri and Jarlaxle...As for Elminster...Maybe it is time for him to go...I don't know.I'm still on the fence about this one.... |
|
|
