| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Faraer |
Posted - 22 Nov 2004 : 16:41:28
Here:quote:
Peter: I think fans look for different things in different worlds. Forgotten Realms is classic sword and sorcery. It's such a big world that adventurers can find almost anything in it. In addition, this means that events in the Realms tend to have purely local effects. There are some exceptions to that rule, but the upshot is that characters can have a big fight or adventure somewhere and it doesn't really affect the rest of the setting.
Dragonlance, on the other hand, is epic fantasy. There, a band of heroes affects the course of the world, and the smaller stories play out around that bigger story. I think what gives that setting legs is the power of Weis and Hickman's conception of the central conflicts in the world. A setting in which gods interact with humans is a pretty powerful idea.
This is reassuring. (Even if he does then use 'pulp fiction' as if it's a meaningful term.) Now, how do we get more novels with adventuring companies, other than buying the Knights of Myth Drannor books?
I haven't seen the 30 Years book yet -- wonder what it says about the Realms. |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Strahd Von Zarovich |
Posted - 08 Dec 2004 : 16:35:02
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I haven't read enough recent Dragonlance novels to argue that. My points were about the literary nature of Realms fiction and what its prospects are based on its current editors. I made them above, and I think Jim and I have reached the point of hashing over a small area of argument.
We have a standing disagreement over the legitimacy of TSR/WotC altering the nature of the published Realms much from Ed's design, if this sounds a bit like a private conversation.
Strahd, how do you feel the Dragonlance line is being run in that regard? How close are the metaphysics of the other novels to the Weis/Hickman ones? Do they have the same implicit morality? Do people talk similarly? That kind of thing. (Of course, though Weis & Hickman often get credited as Krynn's creators, they share that role with Niles, Grubb, and others.)
I would love to continue this discussion, but not to get Al's robe all knotted, it would probably best if we discussed it on neutral ground.
Malarick has started a thread based on your discussion with Mr Lowder Here
You know what the ol' sage is like when you mention DL or anthing else around here 
Regards
Strahd |
| Faraer |
Posted - 08 Dec 2004 : 16:24:21
I haven't read enough recent Dragonlance novels to argue that. My points were about the literary nature of Realms fiction and what its prospects are based on its current editors. I made them above, and I think Jim and I have reached the point of hashing over a small area of argument.
We have a standing disagreement over the legitimacy of TSR/WotC altering the nature of the published Realms much from Ed's design, if this sounds a bit like a private conversation.
Strahd, how do you feel the Dragonlance line is being run in that regard? How close are the metaphysics of the other novels to the Weis/Hickman ones? Do they have the same implicit morality? Do people talk similarly? That kind of thing. (Of course, though Weis & Hickman often get credited as Krynn's creators, they share that role with Niles, Grubb, and others.) |
| Strahd Von Zarovich |
Posted - 08 Dec 2004 : 14:59:51
quote:
Originally posted by JamesLowder
Beyond that, I disagree with the statement that the two lines are all that different. I know what Peter's getting at--as I said, it is a marketing niche distinction, not so mucha content classification. The content of the books to date--the series seen as a whole--just don't bear out a claim that the difference is more than cosmetic, even if there's a more formal decision now to consciously separate the lines. Yes, DL has a stronger central storyline/event, but not all books are tied to it, and many that are tied to it are tied in superficial ways.
I have to agree with Jim on this one.
As an avid reader of both FR and DL novels, I would find it hard to distinguish between both worlds.
Take the recent Ergoth trilogy for example, if they had not mentioned the word Kender, I could have sworn it was a Realms book akin to the recent Scions of Arabar.
I could probably just as say the same for the recent Year of Rogue Dragons, that could be easily transplanted into DL, and it would work quite well!
Books like that have no tie in whatsoever with the 'Core' books written by Weis & Hickman. Even Weis' own series 'The Dark Disciple' only has superficial links with the main events of War of the Souls, and is not as epic itself!
I think Jim also mentioned, it was because of these similarities which makes it easier for authors to switch. Take Niles for example who creates the Moonshaes, and then is now moving to DL to create more continent based lore in his Taladas Chronicles.
I think there is as equally much 'Epic' and 'Sword and Sorcery' in both settings.
Regards
Strahd |
| JamesLowder |
Posted - 07 Dec 2004 : 22:56:10
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I didn't say Bob's books had no effect on the line. There's the two series you name, plus, I assume, the tendency to use single protagonists, partly in an attempt to find another Drizzt or Elminster, as may be happening with Erevis Cale. No doubt they cast a long shadow, but the non-Bob books don't orbit them in terms of tone and content. Bob has his own enclave fenced off to a degree from the rest of the Realms, and some of his books' effect and popularity is due to that.
Bob's fans are in addition to the core Realms base, not a separate circle altogether. Most Realms readers read Bob's book, plus some or all of the others. Bob then draws in a large number of readers who have either given up all the rest of the Realms books (which have declined in average readership over the past ten years by a huge amount) or readers who otherwise don't read Realms books. The Spider Queen books, and Elaine's drow books, do orbit around them in terms of content and tone. Bob was story advisor for the SQ series and reviewed the manuscripts. That means he wrote the bestselling books in the past two years and the second-most bestelling series had his name on the cover, too. I'd say that's a pretty direct influence on the line--one equal to the influence of the epic plot on the DL series in most given years.
Both Realms books and DL books allow writers a chance to develop new characters. Giving Richard Knaak free hand to develop Kaz and the minotaurs is precisely the same thing as having Paul Kemp develop a new Realms character. Yes, this is done partly to build the world and create successful icons. But it's motivated by the fact that such "independant" books are easier to edit and write. Continuity for DL has been nightmarish, particularly when Hickman & Weis are on the outs with the company. Allowing writers to pursue characters like Kaz or Weasel, or Ervis Cale, allows everyone a lot more creative freedom. But both lines do this, sometimes with the same writers.
Beyond that, I disagree with the statement that the two lines are all that different. I know what Peter's getting at--as I said, it is a marketing niche distinction, not so mucha content classification. The content of the books to date--the series seen as a whole--just don't bear out a claim that the difference is more than cosmetic, even if there's a more formal decision now to consciously separate the lines. Yes, DL has a stronger central storyline/event, but not all books are tied to it, and many that are tied to it are tied in superficial ways. And the Realms has strong central storyline books/series, but they are usually the secondary or tertiary books in any given year. And many of the secondary books are tied to the epic storylines--through characters like Elminster and Azoun--that make them very much like the less centrally driven DL books.
It's not a difference in kind of approach between the lines, but rather a difference of degree--and slight degree, when the series are considered as a whole.
Cheers,
Jim |
| Faraer |
Posted - 07 Dec 2004 : 21:44:27
I didn't say Bob's books had no effect on the line. There's the two series you name, plus, I assume, the tendency to use single protagonists, partly in an attempt to find another Drizzt or Elminster, as may be happening with Erevis Cale. No doubt they cast a long shadow, but the non-Bob books don't orbit them in terms of tone and content. Bob has his own enclave fenced off to a degree from the rest of the Realms, and some of his books' effect and popularity is due to that.
Sure, the differences between the current Realms and Dragonlance lines are not a matter of either/or -- and we won't and needn't agree on slightly vs somewhat vs rather. But it's not mere coincidence that Krynn's bestselling authors are writing epic fantasy -- its original and continuing conception is very heavily Tolkien-influenced. The Realms is much less Tolkien-influenced and more sword & sorcery in its roots: and it looks like, based on what Peter says -- we have to guess as to how seriously to take it, but I would bet on 'more than nominal' -- its immediate future will be too. I take Ed's Knights trilogy -- optimistically perhaps -- as a sign of that.
Are we disagreeing much except in nuances of extent and priority, and in what angles we prefer?
Anyway, it would be fun to chat about this with you, and the WotC editors, in person some time. |
| JamesLowder |
Posted - 07 Dec 2004 : 20:58:14
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Looking at the list, the number of books per year has increased from 8 in the early 90s to 13 in 2004, with the increase coming in character/area-driven books.
In one way, yes, Bob Salvatore's are the core Realms books. They can also be seen as a constant that keeps on at its own thing, bringing in revenue, without much effect on what other novels are published.
War of the Spider Queen, the Elaine Cunningham drow books, etc, all suggest you are wrong about Salvatore's impact on the line. And Salvatore was the one tapped to write the new computer game. So he has become very much the "face of the Realms" and a major driving force behind the IP as a whole. I'll be happy to wager on what author's Realms books would likely be adapted next to comics or film.
And, yes, there are more books in the Realms now. And many are character driven. But the same thing was true when the DL line expanded--you got more and more books like Weasel's Luck and the Defenders of Magic trilogy, which were hardly tied to the "epic" plot at all. And the books about the DL iconic characters' pasts--the DL Babies series, as they are sometimes smirkingly called--are not epic at all. They are character books tied to the epic by later events, not the events in the books themselves.
The proportion may slightly tilt to epic for DL and s&s for the Realms, but if you look at the lines as a whole, they are far more similar than not.
quote:
Originally posted by FaraerAnd Peter's statement that I quoted implies, seems to me, that (regardless of how the recent lineups seem to either of us) he sees sword & sorcery as the basic Realms mode with the large-scale epic stuff (I know I'm conflating different distinctions here) a kind of extra, whereas that's central to the conception of Dragonlance.
The "Realms is s&s, DL is epic fantasy" distinction was first claimed in the late 80s/early 90s as a way to differentiate the lines to Random House sales reps, people who did not read the books but wanted a way to keep them straight when talking to bookstores. The dept. knew the distinction was not particularly meaningful back in when it was created, but it was an easy distinction and a lot of people have picked up on it since then. And it's only slightly truer now than it was then.
WotC may be using that distinction as a -loose- guide these days as to what fits in what line, but that doesn't change the fact that when you stack up the two lines side-by-side, they are not clearly one or the other. Peter would surely admit that, too. You can't look at the PR behind Year of the Dragon and say the Realms has no epics, or that they are unimportant to the line. Moreover, Peter noted that gods interacting with mortals was the sign of an epic storyline. Well, that would be Avatar, no? The basic way magic and religion works in the Realms -requires- some interaction between gods and men.
And as I said, the epic is perceived to be central to the DL world, but that is a matter of who the most successful authors are there--the books that are seen as the iconic DL books. They're the central epics. But the rest of the book line contains a high proportion of non-epic books.
Same with the Realms. Salvatore is the iconic writer, so his books are perceived as the "norm." But if you look at the line as a whole, there are world-shaking epics in about as equal a proportion to the DL line. It's just that the highest profile books might make it seem otherwise.
It's also telling that many authors have jumped between lines--Rabe, Niles, Grubb, Herbert. The two lines have slightly different tones, but in terms of subject and content, they are not all that different. One is orange-red, the other red-orange. You're making too big a deal out of a casual differentation that is more a matter of market position than content.
Cheers,
Jim Lowder |
| Faraer |
Posted - 07 Dec 2004 : 19:57:36
Looking at the list, the number of books per year has increased from 8 in the early 90s to 13 in 2004, with the increase coming in character/area-driven books.
In one way, yes, Bob Salvatore's are the core Realms books. They can also be seen as a constant that keeps on at its own thing, bringing in revenue, without much effect on what other novels are published.
And Peter's statement that I quoted implies, seems to me, that (regardless of how the recent lineups seem to either of us) he sees sword & sorcery as the basic Realms mode with the large-scale epic stuff (I know I'm conflating different distinctions here) a kind of extra, whereas that's central to the conception of Dragonlance. |
| JamesLowder |
Posted - 07 Dec 2004 : 18:09:38
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
It looks to me that while the number of RSE books per year has kept steady, the number of others has increased. So that however the book department conceived the Realms c.1990, it now sees it as mainly sword and sorcery, as in Peter's statement (which doesn't sound as loose as all that). Which is a good thing.
Actually, the Realms ratio of character books to RSE books has not changed all that much at all since 1990. There is usually one RSE event per year, pitched as the "central event", and a bunch of other character/area-driven books. It used to be that those character- or area-driven books were included in series like the Harpers, or in author-driven books like Novak's & Grubb's, but they are now scattered in smaller series.
The same is true with DL. For every Hickman & Weis core book, there are many, many books that tell character-driven stories that are fairly far removed from the central "epic" plot.
The "core" DL books are the original six H&W books and the core Realms books are Bob Salvatore's, which outsell all the other Realms books several times over. So you can say, based on this, that the identity of DL might be perceived as epic and the identity of the Realms is perceived as sword & sorcery, but when you look at the lines as a whole--in 1990 or now--the distinction doesn't hold up.
Cheers,
Jim Lowder |
| Faraer |
Posted - 07 Dec 2004 : 14:56:52
It looks to me that while the number of RSE books per year has kept steady, the number of others has increased. So that however the book department conceived the Realms c.1990, it now sees it as mainly sword and sorcery, as in Peter's statement (which doesn't sound as loose as all that). Which is a good thing. |
| JamesLowder |
Posted - 06 Dec 2004 : 21:14:53
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
A setting in which gods interact with humans is a pretty powerful idea.
[/quote]
The fantasy subgenre categories Peter uses for the Realms and DL are very, very loose. Avatar, after all, was an early Realms concept. In fact, most of the early Realms books have gods interacting and protagonists playing out a smaller, defined role in a larger, epic plot. (Empire Trilogy, Threat from the Sea, the Year of the Dragons stuff now, etc.)
Cheers,
Jim Lowder |
| Valondil the Ranger |
Posted - 27 Nov 2004 : 02:50:57
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Here:[quote]Peter: I think fans look for different things in different worlds. Forgotten Realms is classic sword and sorcery. It's such a big world that adventurers can find almost anything in it. In addition, this means that events in the Realms tend to have purely local effects. There are some exceptions to that rule, but the upshot is that characters can have a big fight or adventure somewhere and it doesn't really affect the rest of the setting.
Maybe that's because it is sword and sorcery.  |
|
|
