| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Inquisitor |
Posted - 26 Nov 2005 : 15:03:58
"Real" in the sense of cunning and powerful like dragons are in the PnP and not the pushovers dragons are in most novels.
In most FR Novels I have read so far dragons, which are supposed to be mighty and intelligent creatures, are either total pushovers (for example Cormyr, a novel where the purple dragon gets defeated by an elf with a stick or all Year of the Rogue Dragon books where the only thing which "shatters" in this officially "Realms shattering event" are dragon skulls which are killed by everyone who can hold a weapon while they can't raze a simple monastery yet alone a city and I was told dragons don't fare any better in the Archwizard books) or totally idiotic/irrational (Elminsters daughter where a dragon joins Vangey as consort in stasis and gives up its entire hoard to save his life and that while the only interaction between them was Vangey attacking, capturing and threatening to enslave the dragon and its whole race which is hardly a reason to be friendly with him let alone sacrificing so much for him).
So, are dragons just large toys in the FR which are at best vermin to be squished and it is a wonder that they aren't extincted yet or a pet for nobles to show around or are there at least some books which portrays dragons like they should be, as powerful and intelligent monster?
And whats the reason that many FR authors portray dragons in such a way as they do now? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Walking in the Light |
Posted - 03 Dec 2005 : 22:49:21
Cool thanks for the info Kuje and Wooly Rupert 
To be honest I was thinking that would help the battle make since If the Song Dragon was normally in mortal form allowing the reader to see why she was changed.
It would have been nice if the writer had given some quick background on what a song Dragon is so as to create more depth and fun for the reader.
Also Rinonalyrna Fathomlin is right that a personal struggle and some emotional challenges would give a deep feel to the story.
Don’t get me wrong.... the good guys don’t have to die or suffer huge losses.
But yaaaa its boring when the fight goes to easy.
Its better to make the victory of battle seesaw from one side to the other before someone wins.
I think that’s true if the bad guy wins to easily of a victory
Then she/he doesn’t look that great of an opponent and makes the story seem less enjoyable.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 03 Dec 2005 : 22:18:52
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
What I always struggle to fathom is the seeming resentment on the part of many readers who seem to be cheering on the bad guys and appear to be disappointed when the goods guys win or succeed.
I'm not sure there really are "many readers" who feel that way though--at least, I doubt it's overwhelming or anything. If I feel that the heroes win too easily, too conveniently, or without *any* losses (and these can be intangible things, like a change in one's sense of self), then I WILL point that out in my little reviews here. I like it when characters change throughout the story--my least favorite books are the ones where the characters never seem to change no matter what happens to them. It's a fact of life that much of a person's growth comes during times of pain and loss. I have faced and accepted the fact that I am a modern woman who likes characters that are pyschologically realistic, regardless of what their powers might be.
Also, not all heroism is about "winning". The story by Kameron M. Franklin in Realms of the Dragons II is a good example of a hero who does win, but not in the way that most readers would expect. And of course, it's possible to win in one way but lose in another. Not all heroes are people wearing plate armor and holding up a gleaming sword--there are many kinds of heroism, and a good book explores and acknowledges them.
Finally, the desire for "realism" is about keeping the story consistent and logical with it's setting--just because a story is fantasy doesn't mean logic can be safely thrown out the window (btw, I'm not applying this to RLB's novels, and I've always felt he was a good writer--my comments here are general).
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Dec 2005 : 11:31:54
quote:
Originally posted by Walking in the Light
Im not sure is a Song Dragon new to FR Realms?
Nope, they were introduced years ago in Dragon... I believe it was actually in 1E when they were intro'ed. We've just not seen them in novels until recently. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 02 Dec 2005 : 08:44:41
quote:
Originally posted by Walking in the Light
Well I just read the part with the dragon fight in the book Elminster Daughter
The Song Dragon was beaten so fast it was disappointing
Im not sure is a Song Dragon new to FR Realms?
Are they human in form normally?
Because that was one of the way the Dragon was beaten by changing it to a human.
Basically the Dragon rolled on top of and slapped around some floating Armor Horrors with swords and axes
But as soon as the wizard shows up BAM !
The Dragon is made human and cant do anything but get angry.
They even call the dragon a dog for its digging like one just to get to the wizard
I must say if all Dragon fights go that fast then I can see why Inquisitor brought the subject up.
Ed is probably using the old version of song dragons, which are weredragons which are basically human females that can turn into dragons since he created them. :) |
| Walking in the Light |
Posted - 02 Dec 2005 : 07:30:47
Well I just read the part with the dragon fight in the book Elminster Daughter
The Song Dragon was beaten so fast it was disappointing
Im not sure is a Song Dragon new to FR Realms?
Are they human in form normally?
Because that was one of the way the Dragon was beaten by changing it to a human.
Basically the Dragon rolled on top of and slapped around some floating Armor Horrors with swords and axes
But as soon as the wizard shows up BAM !
The Dragon is made human and cant do anything but get angry.
They even call the dragon a dog for its digging like one just to get to the wizard
I must say if all Dragon fights go that fast then I can see why Inquisitor brought the subject up.
|
| Inquisitor |
Posted - 30 Nov 2005 : 07:02:03
Another thing which is kinda related to that, why are demons so strong?
In many books even lesser demons get portrayed as very powerfull and even old dragons are compared to that weak.
The authors should really pay more attention to the lore (which also includes to some point rules) of the worlds they are writing for, not even in 1st Edition were lesser demons stronger than older dragons. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Nov 2005 : 17:32:47
Let's stick to the topic, folks, and avoid the "you said"/"no, you said" debates. Those can get ugly, and we don't really need them here. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 28 Nov 2005 : 12:29:14
Unfortunately its not just Dragons that suffer from this particularly in the novels. Evil in a lot of the novels has come to = Stupid or blatently Incompetent.If you want to see a prime example of this read any of the pre time of Troubles novels that feature Manshoon (mostly Eds stuff) some of these books frequently make me wonder if Manshoon donned a hat of stupidity after he had sucessfully carried out his cunning plan to rule Zhentil keep!
Now in Eds defence apparently alot of the Dumbing down of manshoon was thrust upon his novels by the Novels department and the Hooded one has hinted that Manshoon isnt a fool in the home FR campaign
Now some will say who wants to read a novel where the bad guys win? We'll they dont always have to win but they should at least look competent. Now theres actually an FR hasnt made dumb villians for her novels, and thats Elaine Cunningham infact Elaine hasnt killed any of the principal bad guys from her novels (With the exception of Garnet)Kymbil, Dag, Lord Hune, Lady Thione, Her daughter all got away free as did Liriel Baenres main foe (The drow female with the Pitch fork)
Another good example is Troy Dennings Return of the Arch Wizards series the 2 main groups of Bad guys, the Phaerium and Shades didn come out ontop but they certainly did go quietly the Shades destroyed Tilverton and Phaerium depopulated the last major Elven city on Faerun
Those 2 examples show it can be done, the bad guys dont have to be idiots in the novels |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 28 Nov 2005 : 11:41:26
George Krashos:
quote:
Ahh Winterfox, your grasp on those cudgels is always so impressive.
And of course you're wielding a rapier. :p
quote:
This isn't the first time you've done it - I am keeping count, you know.
If you keep, uhm, a record of it, by all means point all the instances out.
quote:
I can't recall using the word 'ridiculous' and that's not what I meant at all.
I think you can differentiate between "Are you saying that it's ridiculous?" and "You are saying that it's ridiculous", right? One's a question, the other a statement.
And here? I put words in your mouth? Reeeeally?
quote:
I love that one. People who want stories about dragons to be 'realistic'.
Uh... yeah. How am I to interpret that, if not "Wow, you guys expect a story that has dragons and magic and stuff in it to be 'realistic'? Rofles!" Really. Do enlighten me.
quote:
What I always struggle to fathom is the seeming resentment on the part of many readers who seem to be cheering on the bad guys and appear to be disappointed when the goods guys win or succeed.
What's so strange about that? Again, such isn't the case with the Years of the Rogue Dragons trilogy for me, but there've been books where I root for the villains because the heroes are so irritating, so dull, or so idiotic, and seem to win only out of sheer luck or with a deus ex machina. (Of course, sometimes both sides are equally stupid, and it becomes a contest for "Who's the biggest moron in the story?", the plot suffers from Idiotis, and I chuck the book across the room.) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Nov 2005 : 06:20:05
quote:
Originally posted by Inquisitor
It was both Elminster and Vangerdahast. Elminster in the past but in the end she joins Vangerdahast as consort, giving her whole hoard away and accepting a life in stasis. She wouldn't do that if she wouldn't care much for Vangerdahast which is strange when you consider what he did and wanted to do to her.
By joining him, she could, among other things, keep an eye on him.
quote:
Originally posted by Inquisitor
And while Vangerdahast only wanted to enslave some dragons he also knew fully well that when he developed this spells they would eventually spread over whole fearun and everyone would bind dragons enslaving the whole race and he accepted that.
Could, not would. And he didn't want that -- it wasn't his goal. He simply was doing what he's always done: serve and protect the realm. The fact that he changed his spells to prevent that shows that he's not power-hungry, nor interested in enslaving an entire race.
quote:
Originally posted by Inquisitor
Yes, that are only 2 individuals, but correct me if I'm wrong, that are 100% of all Song Dragons who appeared in novels, so yes one can judge all song dragons based on those two.
Even if only one song dragon has appeared in a novel, I disagree: we cannot judge the entire race based on a small selection of individuals from that race.
quote:
Originally posted by Inquisitor
On the "heroic nameless soldier" issue I use the term Hero in the PnP sense. Read it as powerfull individual. You won't expect a city guard of Waterdeep to fight nearly as good as Drizzt yet in the Year of the Rogue Dragons many namless characters rival the protagonists in power and slay multiple dragons. Who needs the heroes when normal folk can do their work just fine? Why try to prevent the rage as dragons don't pose much of a threat anyway?
Who are these nameless characters who are slaying multiple dragons?
And just because several individuals were able to kill a dragon or two, it doesn't mean it was easy for them, or that they rival the heroes in power. A hundred soldiers with swords can kill a dragon on the ground, provided that they can get close enough. Does that make them the same as a small group that has slain dragons in combat on multiple occasions? Nope, not at all. It just means that the heroes aren't the only capable folk in the Realms. |
| Inquisitor |
Posted - 28 Nov 2005 : 05:46:18
quote:
I'll admit that I'm still not sure what Kara really sees in Dorn (I can see why Dorn likes her, but not vice versa). As for Joysil, I could have sworn that her romantic partner was really Elminster, not Vangerdahast...
It was both Elminster and Vangerdahast. Elminster in the past but in the end she joins Vangerdahast as consort, giving her whole hoard away and accepting a life in stasis. She wouldn't do that if she wouldn't care much for Vangerdahast which is strange when you consider what he did and wanted to do to her.
And while Vangerdahast only wanted to enslave some dragons he also knew fully well that when he developed this spells they would eventually spread over whole fearun and everyone would bind dragons enslaving the whole race and he accepted that.
Yes, that are only 2 individuals, but correct me if I'm wrong, that are 100% of all Song Dragons who appeared in novels, so yes one can judge all song dragons based on those two.
On the "heroic nameless soldier" issue I use the term Hero in the PnP sense. Read it as powerfull individual. You won't expect a city guard of Waterdeep to fight nearly as good as Drizzt yet in the Year of the Rogue Dragons many namless characters rival the protagonists in power and slay multiple dragons. Who needs the heroes when normal folk can do their work just fine? Why try to prevent the rage as dragons don't pose much of a threat anyway? |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 28 Nov 2005 : 05:32:23
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
As for "realistic"? Are you saying that it's ridiculous for fantasy to be realistic? Oh, freaking please. Fantasy and sci-fi may not adhere to real-world laws and precedents, but it has to be internally logical and consistent. Or, at least, the good ones do.
Ahh Winterfox, your grasp on those cudgels is always so impressive. And you seem to love putting words in my mouth. This isn't the first time you've done it - I am keeping count, you know. I can't recall using the word 'ridiculous' and that's not what I meant at all. What I meant was that it appears from my point of view (which may be flawed - if it is, you'll bring it to my attention nothing surer) that there is a seminal difference between heroes in fantasy fiction and normal people. Heroes kill dragons and don't get killed themselves - well, most of the time they don't. Normal people get killed or saved by the heroes. Gandalf kills the balrog. Theoden's manservant gets killed at the Pelennor Fields. Lord Mhoram defeats the giant raver. Triock's companions get slain on the way to find the Unfettered One. It seems to happen all the time, dontcha think?
What I always struggle to fathom is the seeming resentment on the part of many readers who seem to be cheering on the bad guys and appear to be disappointed when the goods guys win or succeed. R L Byers is IMHO maturing into a more capable FR author (as Queen of the Depths illustrates). Not sure he would have been able to write much of a Rage of the Dragons novel trilogy if his protagonists never actually encountered any dragons (because according to the prevailing view, if the dragons were portrayed 'properly' his characters would be dead in a trice), were unable to stop Sammaster or his machinations (because as a powerful wizard lich he should just stomp on them) and were just static observers in a series of events (because the Realms is obviously too dangerous for those kind of heroes ...).
Your mileage will vary.
-- George Krashos
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 22:28:17
quote:
Originally posted by Inquisitor
For me there are simply to many "The dragon kills some common soldiers and then the soldiers kill the dragon" scenes in the books. Maybe its just me who wants an actual report of what the dragons have done (so far there is not a single description in the books about what was destroyed by raging dragons except for some small villages no one cares about)
I kind of take issue with this too. If you lived in those villages, you'd damn well care about what happened to them (what *really* matters is whether or not the book can get you, the reader to care, and in my case it did). Also, the people who are defending villages (or a monastary) from rampaging dragons are no less heroic than the protagonists just because they, for the most part, remain nameless.
But I'd admit that wanting "reports" of what the dragons are doing is mostly a matter of personal taste. I don't care that there are no "reports" of that kind--I'm happy that the books stay focused rather than fly all over the place.
quote:
As for my second complain especially song dragons (kara in The Rage, Jostil in Elminsters Daughter) show very irrational behavior which one can describe as nearly nymphomanic. And the partners they choose are always very strange too. A dragon hating half golem and a power hungry wizard who wants to enslave whole dragonkind.
I'll admit that I'm still not sure what Kara really sees in Dorn (I can see why Dorn likes her, but not vice versa). As for Joysil, I could have sworn that her romantic partner was really Elminster, not Vangerdahast...
quote:
I can't comment on Queen of the Depths as under water adventures don't interest me much so I haven't read it yet.
But does the Rage interest you? If so, it's a good book to read. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 22:23:24
quote:
Originally posted by Inquisitor
As for my second complain especially song dragons (kara in The Rage, Jostil in Elminsters Daughter) show very irrational behavior which one can describe as nearly nymphomanic. And the partners they choose are always very strange too. A dragon hating half golem and a power hungry wizard who wants to enslave whole dragonkind.
I don't see how that even comes close to be being nymphomanical... And you're basing your opinion on two individuals -- it's kinda like looking at Kymil Nimesin and basing your opinion of the entire elvish race off of him.
Vangerdahast was not power-hungry, nor wanting to enslave whole dragonkind. He was wanting to bind a few dragons to defense of the kingdom. That's hardly enslaving a whole race, and doing it for the kingdom and not himself doesn't exact qualify as power-hungry. |
| Deverien Valandil |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 22:12:51
Dragons do seem to get killed off by the barrel-full, don't they?
In a story that I'm working on, I was originally going to include a scene that would be a more likely outcome to the whole notion of 'dragon slaying'. I ended up discarding the idea early on since it didn't really fit in with the rest of the plot, but it would have gone something like this...
*Knight charges into dragon's lair*
Heroic Knight: "Foul dragon, I have come to slay you. Fear my mighty Sword of Dragon-Slaying, and know that I bear the Blessed Armour of Holy Strength, and that you shall fall before me in the name of my ancestors, and my ancestors' ancestors, and my hamster Pooky, and my second cousin twice removed!"
*Knight charges forward*
Heroic Knight: YAAAAAAH!
*Dragons raises its claw and smushes the knight under its hand, leaving a crunchy red splotch on the ground*
Dragon: (Yawn) Damn fool adventurers... Now I'll have to have my floors cleaned again... *Goes back to sleep*
Mind you, I would never have used wording and dialogue like that, but I think you get the general picture. |
| Inquisitor |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 19:58:13
The fight between Lareth and whatever his name was was ok, but the fight in the beginning of "The Rite", the fight for the monastry or rather what the fight implied, namely that dragons weren't able to even take the courtyard before the heroes did arrive and the many fight where the Taegan(?) basically fights a dragon alone (Mighty Sunwyrm? Defeated by a single Avariel?) are my problem. And for not beeing a proffessional dragonslayer he seems much better in dragon slaying than all other heroes.
For me there are simply to many "The dragon kills some common soldiers and then the soldiers kill the dragon" scenes in the books. Maybe its just me who wants an actual report of what the dragons have done (so far there is not a single description in the books about what was destroyed by raging dragons except for some small villages no one cares about) and that let it look as if dragons are not more dangerous than ogres as they too can kill several soldiers before felled. Compared to that ogres and goblins appear much more dangerous than the dragons. Goblins destroyed the border fortresses of Damara and that is the largest destruction mentioned so far in the books and ogres captured and nearly killed some of the heroes which is more than what dragons were able to do.
So far nothing "Realms Shaking" has happened despite that this books are listed as Realms Shaking Event.
As for my second complain especially song dragons (kara in The Rage, Jostil in Elminsters Daughter) show very irrational behavior which one can describe as nearly nymphomanic. And the partners they choose are always very strange too. A dragon hating half golem and a power hungry wizard who wants to enslave whole dragonkind.
I can't comment on Queen of the Depths as under water adventures don't interest me much so I haven't read it yet. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 19:24:55
quote:
Originally posted by Inquisitor
I don't have a problem about the heroes in the Year of the Rogue Dragon books, my problem ist that the non-heroes also have no problem when dealing with dragons.
Much like KnightErrantJR, I honestly fail to see how this is the case. The really powerful dragons in these books (and we are told and shown who they are) definitely have not gone down "with no problem" or without having caused serious damage first. There is even a battle in The Rite between very powerful good dragons that I thought was particularly intense even for me, as a reader. I didn't think the outcome was all that clear and obvious.
Also, if you read another book by Mr. Byers that deals with the effects of the Rage, Queen of the Depths, you can see that the author shows how devasting raging dragons are to undersea creatures and cities, and I certainly cannot say that the heroes or non-heroes (where is that line drawn, anyway?) won quickly, easily, and without taking any losses. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 15:43:34
Should a rampaging dragon be able to kill thousands of commoners and do a lot of damage to a city? Yes. Should a dragon that rages in the middle of armed solidiers already prepared to fight dragons do some serious damage? Yes. Should the same amount of damage and carnage be visited upon armed soldiers ready to fight dragons, even if they are surprised by their own allies turning on them? I personally don't think so.
As far as the Year of Rogue Dragons goes, I don't think any dragon has died too easily, but what I am starting to suspect is that since there are so many dragons featured in the book, even if they die taking hundreds of people with them, that dragons as a whole aren't as rare and wonderous since they are on nearly every other page. That would be the nature of this particular series of novels though.
|
| Drakul |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 15:35:15
Refer to the part where I said 'Each novelist has his/her own point of view in the books that they write.'. That is what it boils down to. It is too clichè when a hero defeats a dragon, so an author has a non hero character defeat a dragon. Is there a fault in that?? IMO, I think not. |
| Inquisitor |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 15:23:09
Imo "slightly downgrade" is a understatment. It has nothing to do with showing that dragons are mortal, we see then even when they are killed after a long and hard battle with the heroes. But in some books the death of a dragon by the hand of a unnamed character is reduced to a footnote. See "The Rage" when the queens bronzes raged in the middle of their own army. Many of them weren't even able to kill their surprised rider and even with dragons raging in their middle and beeing assaulted by a Cult of Dragon army including a dracolich, the army sustained only minor losses and afterwards were still able to successfully assault an Cult of Dragon fortress. |
| Drakul |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 13:35:30
And yet, this is why dragons in novels are seperated from those in player based campaigns. In the novels, it is all about imagination, as it is in player based campaigns. A book is meant to entertain and a player based campaign has rules attached to it. Each novelist has his/her own point of view in the books that they write. Just because they slightly down-grade the might of a dragon is to show that even THEY are mortal as well.
Try to differentiate the dragons in FR novels to the dragons in the movies. Those examples are nearly the same. They show that the dragons are mortal and can die just as easily as we can. |
| Inquisitor |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 11:54:37
I don't have a problem about the heroes in the Year of the Rogue Dragon books, my problem ist that the non-heroes also have no problem when dealing with dragons. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 11:49:34
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Again, I'm getting the impression from this thread that if the protagonists of the story don't suffer deaths, maiming or the loss of loved ones - then they haven't "earned" their victory and are being 'favored' by the author because the story isn't 'realistic'. I love that one. People who want stories about dragons to be 'realistic'.
-- George Krashos
And...?
Yes, there's such a thing as author's darlings, and yes, if protagonists get what they want too easily, it does look contrived (though I wouldn't say such is the case in the Year of the Rogue Dragons books, thus far). As for "realistic"? Are you saying that it's ridiculous for fantasy to be realistic? Oh, freaking please. Fantasy and sci-fi may not adhere to real-world laws and precedents, but it has to be internally logical and consistent. Or, at least, the good ones do. |
| Ignorance Personified |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 06:17:34
quote:
Originally posted by Inquisitor:
"Real" in the sense of cunning and powerful like dragons are in the PnP and not the pushovers dragons are in most novels.
Well, the dragon depicted in Richard Baker's story within Realms of Dragons is in accordanace with your definition.
In addition, the dragon sisters within RAS' contribution to the same anthology may also meet the criteria you laid out.
-->Warning, as I am the personification of ignorance, you will almost certainly disagree.
quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfox:
But in general, if say, the story's mostly about humans but a handful of central characters are not, I want them to be different.
Yes, it is mesmerizing (sp--probably?) to read about truly alien characters who are drastically different than humans, but it is a very rare occurence and I do not believe it will become more frequent in the foreseeable future.
As an aside, Dan Simmons' Illium is the most recent book I have read that accomplishes this remarkable task--see warning above. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 05:55:27
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I love that one. People who want stories about dragons to be 'realistic'.
Well, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting a story to follow the established logic of its setting. But still, in this case I don't think the Rogue Dragons books "violate" setting logic, and like you said not all dragons are immensely powerful to begin with. If the heroes do at times get "too lucky", I don't think it's enough to ruin the story or make them author's darlings (at least I never got the impression that they were, and I've seen a good share of author's darlings). |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 04:40:53
Not every dragon is a Great Wyrm with years of guile, battle experience and maturity behind them. If you can expect your players to kill all manner of creatures (and from the threads I've seen over the years there are some campaigns where the players kill Larloch, Elminster, Asmodeus, the tarrasque and the Elder Evils and then have a break for lunch ...), why not dragons? Again, I'm getting the impression from this thread that if the protagonists of the story don't suffer deaths, maiming or the loss of loved ones - then they haven't "earned" their victory and are being 'favored' by the author because the story isn't 'realistic'. I love that one. People who want stories about dragons to be 'realistic'.
-- George Krashos
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 27 Nov 2005 : 03:29:23
Well, I also don't want to get into this again, but suffice to say, if someone can show me in the Year of Rogue Dragons where a protagonist kills a dragon in one shot, or walks away saying, "Stupid dragons are so easy to kill," I'll concede your point.
Also, we see all through the book that the Rage starts to affect the dragon's reason and temperment before it fully consumes them. Several dragons are shown as doing things against their nature without being fully in the Rage, do I don't think it follows to assume that if a dragon isn't a mindless killing machine incapable of speech that it is fully in control of all of its faculties. It seems to be a bit more gradual than that. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 26 Nov 2005 : 22:44:17
Here we go again...
I honestly didn't feel that the dragons in the Rogue Dragons trilogy weren't powerful enough, or that they were little more than toys. Yes, maybe the heroes in the books got lucky more times than one would expect. But when you get right down to it, I didn't care. What I liked was the actual story, and character interactions. It doesn't bother me that the book doesn't try to whiz around Faerun showing us scenes of dragons destroying cities in the Shining South, Savage Frontier, Cormyr, etc. The books stay focused on the people involved, and I like that. |
| Inquisitor |
Posted - 26 Nov 2005 : 22:22:38
I too am not offended, its a rather intelligent attitude you have.
And despite how it might look don't think that I have something against you books. I do like them, especially how Kara is incooperated into the hero group and, as a gamer, I also like to recognize some PRCs in novels. Its just that after reading some other books and discussing with other readers I discovered that most FR books I have read follow the trend of devalueing dragons and your books are simply good examples for dragons in novels because of their thematic but there are books which I consider much worse in dragon behaviour than yours. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 26 Nov 2005 : 21:55:12
No offense taken, Inquisitor. And I trust you won't be offended if I decline to respond to your criticisms. It's nothing personal against you. I try not to respond to anybody's criticisms of my work. Arguing with readers who find fault with one's stuff is a losing game for writers, for reasons I've posted previously (although I can post them again if anybody missed the previous discussion and is curious. Let me know. Maybe in Chamber of Sages, since it would be off topic for this thread)
The answer to your question (or the non-answer) is that I honestly don't remember anymore. Please understand, I wrote the novel years ago and have written a lot of other stuff since. You don't retain every detail, or at least I don't. Sorry. I'm pretty sure it was too many dragons and not enough monks to improve your opinion of the book. |
|
|
