| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Feanor |
Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 16:49:57
Just read Evermeet : Island of Elves. Nice writing, but the characterization of some of the main characters annoyed me quite a lot.
So, I will go straight to the point : am I the only one who has the impression that Elaine Cunningham is subjective about Zaor and Amlaruil and uses different standards to judge the worth of those 2 characters ?
Why I say that : Zaor is presented when he makes his appearance in the book as the one destined to be the king of Evermeet and Amlaruil his queen and Elaine adresses a lot of compliments towards this pair in her book. Well, the problem is that Elaine's compliments are not that much backed up by facts, at least in case of Zaor.
But, first of all, why I said "different standards". I shall give some quotation, which are quite interesting :
"Lamruil is a prince of Evermeet. Who in your mind is an elf worthy for me to bed—the king himself?
Do not even speak of such treachery against the crown and the queen! With my own hands would I kill any elf woman who so betrayed Evermeet's Amlaruil, even my own daughter"
So, if a woman sleeps with the king Zaor, she is the worst kind of traitor. Fine with that. Another quotation :
"Shanyrria nodded in grim agreement to the sentence that the moonblade had pronounced. The bladesinger felt no guilt over her part in the queen's death. She considered Lydi'aleera guilty, not only of her brother's death and her father's, but also of treason against the crown. "
So, Lydi'aleera is guilty of treason against the crown because she cheated on her husband, king Zaor. Fine with that, too.
But I remember something. Before Lydi'aleera became Zaor's wife, Amlaruil took the next oath, by her own free will : "I pledge my personal allegiance, as well as all the power of the Towers of the Sun and the Moon, to Zaor, King of Evermeet, and to Lydi'aleera his queen. May you both live long, and reign well." This could have been intended as a dramatic moment, meant to emphasize even more Amlaruil's worthiness. But, since ten pages later I see the same Amlaruil sleeping with Zaor and thus betraying her pledge to her queen, well this oath does not impress me too much.
My main problem is : why the different standards ? The rules should not apply to all characters, the main heroes included ? I fail to see the difference between the behaviour of Zaor and Amlaruil, on one side, and of Lydi'aleera, on the other side, yet the latter is named "traitor" while Zaor and Amlaruil are praised. Strange. And it annoys me a lot when I encounter such a situation : one character does something and he is a bastard, another does the same thing and all is fine, the only difference between them being that the author has decided the second one to be "the hero".
Second, Elaine Cunningham insists at every step that Zaor is "fit to rule". A quotation : "It is said that only those truly worthy of ruling can bear the sword of Zaor." The problem is that the way she characterized Zaor never managed to convince me that he is fit to rule. In fact, I think the opposite, that his moonblade should have destroyed him as well. I reached the end of the book strongly convinced that Zaor shares with Montagor the responsibility for Lydi'aleera's death and I had the feeling that, when he was killed by Kymil, he got what he deserved. But why is he unfit to rule :
1. One reasons I already mentioned. It is true that he was somehow forced into the marriage with Lydi'aleera, but he could have shown his wife some respect. Especially when we keep in mind that Lydi'aleera was not responsible at all for his loss of Amlaruil. Which he did not. By cheating on his wife and his queen, not only he had disgraced himself as a warrior and a man, but, more important, he undermined the prestige of the new born monarchy and created resentments among the most powerful elven clans.
2. Second, his attitude when he has to sacrifice his love for the sake of the elven people is pathetic.
quote:
Amlaruil sat silently as the Gold elf matron herded the others from the pavilion, as relentlessly and efficiently as a Craulnober hound might drive a flock of northland sheep from a pasture.
"She knows," the mage said simply when at last she and Zaor were alone. "She knows, and does not approve."
"Lady Durothil has been High Councilor for many years," Zaor said hastily. "She knows how the noble clans will respond to news of our love. She has spent a lifetime dealing with the nobles and their small intrigues."
"Which only give more weight to her opinion."
"It doesn't matter. None of it matters." Zaor covered the distance between them in a few steps and took both of her cold hands in his. "Amlaruil, we made a pledge to each other. Whatever happens, I intend to honor that! There can be no one for me but you."
Amlaruil’s gaze was sad, but steady. "If you refuse this alliance with Amarillis, war among the clans—the very threat that the moonblades were intended to forestall—seems possible. Even if you rule in peace, offending Amarillis will almost certainly ensure the failure of the very task for which you were chosen: bringing unity to the elves. You must understand that clan Amarillis forms both a link and a buffer between Moon elves and Gold. Without Amarillis, you might as well take scepter and crown and place them directly into Durothil hands."
Gently, she slipped her fingers from Zaor's grasp. "The gods have chosen you as Evermeet's king. They have chosen me to help you, and so I must."
The Grand Mage of the Towers went down on her knees before the appalled elf. "I pledge my personal allegiance, as well as all the power of the Towers of the Sun and the Moon, to Zaor, King of Evermeet, and to Lydi'aleera his queen. May you both live long, and reign well." Tears sparkled in her eyes, but her voice was firm.
Before Zaor could speak, Amlaruil disappeared. Only a faint silver sparkle of magic in the air, and the tiny mark of two fallen tears upon the earthen floor of the pavilion, betrayed that she had ever been there at all.
The Moon elf warrior dashed from the tent, looking frantically about for a glimpse of Amlaruil's beautiful red-gold hair among the crowds of elves. She was nowhere to be seen.
Lady Durothil came forward and grasped him by his forearms, her eyes searching his stricken face. Relief and sympathy mingled on her countenance. "You have chosen well," she said gently.
"I did not choose at all!" he blurted out. For a moment, the Moon elf's loss and heartache was naked in his eyes.
"The Lady of the Towers has acted with honor," Lady Durothil said softly. "And she has taken the worst burden—the burden of choice—from your shoulders. She did what she must, and now so must you."
Zaor was silent for a long moment. "I have always heard that the sacrifices demanded of those who would lead can be great. Had I any idea of what would be required of me, I would have wanted no part of this!" he said passionately.
Well, after reading this sequence, I say that the moonblades can make mistakes and there was obviously something wrong with Zaor's moonblade if it chose such a king. After all, the moonblades must choose the most worthy to rule, but the idea is that the one who is "the most worthy" does not hesitate like Zaor when he puts in balance his personal happiness and the sake of his people. And his evolution only strenghtens my belief. |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 23:39:41
All right, I'm glad to hear it. :) It's not my intention to step on anyone's toes. |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 23:36:22
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
No, there is no controversy. I merely stated a disinclination to continue writing about and discussing moonblades, since game designers and other novelists have taken this concepts in directs I had not foreseen. Repeat: No controversy.
I didn't say the controversy was coming from you. I was talking about FR fans in general, but if I am mistaken I take back what I said.
No problem. Since this discussion recently came up in my Q&A thread, I thought it might be a good idea to put in a disclaimer.  |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 23:19:16
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
No, there is no controversy. I merely stated a disinclination to continue writing about and discussing moonblades, since game designers and other novelists have taken this concepts in directs I had not foreseen. Repeat: No controversy.
I didn't say the controversy was coming from you. I was talking about FR fans in general, but if I am mistaken I take back what I said. |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 23:15:49
No, there is no controversy. I merely stated a disinclination to continue writing about and discussing moonblades, since game designers and other novelists have taken this concepts in directs I had not foreseen. Repeat: No controversy.
Anyone who writes in the Realms goes in knowing that this is a shared-world, and that all creations are the property of Wizards of the Coast. Whatever WotC chooses to publish is canon, and you'll get no arguments from me. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 19:59:50
quote:
Originally posted by Feanor
Excuse me for asking, but what is the problem with the Moonblades (yes, I'm new here) ?
I believe there is some controversy regarding the original conception of moonblades vs. how moonblades are designed in 3.5 rules.
But my comments have nothing to do with that particular debate, they have to do with why I don't care that much for moonblades to begin with. |
| Feanor |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 19:06:03
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
With all due respect to my fellow scribes, I'll be greatly releived when some other Realmsian element catches our collective fancies, as these debates on moonblades are really starting to cause my synapses to misfire. Especially when I know how much it might potentially grate on the nerves of others that I greatly respect.
But in regard to the POOF aspect of the moonblades rejection . . . Its not like anyone is forced to take a Moonblade without being warned about the potential downside of them. If no one had known about the dangerous nature of being rejected, I could understand the controvery, but it was pretty well established how dangerous trying to claim one would be.
Excuse me for asking, but what is the problem with the Moonblades (yes, I'm new here) ? |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 18:51:37
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
With all due respect to my fellow scribes, I'll be greatly releived when some other Realmsian element catches our collective fancies, as these debates on moonblades are really starting to cause my synapses to misfire. Especially when I know how much it might potentially grate on the nerves of others that I greatly respect.
But in regard to the POOF aspect of the moonblades rejection . . . Its not like anyone is forced to take a Moonblade without being warned about the potential downside of them. If no one had known about the dangerous nature of being rejected, I could understand the controvery, but it was pretty well established how dangerous trying to claim one would be.
Agreed, but my beef with the moonblades is...why does the "poof" aspect even need to be there at all? I cannot see why, except to make the item all the more dramatic. I've not yet heard a good explanation for it, either in the book or in this thread, or elsewhere.
I'm a firm believer in taking the author's word for things, but I'm still human and of course I'm not always going to agree with them. Some things just don't sit well with me. Moonblades rubbed me the wrong way (for more than just one reason), and that's that. I don't want anyone to take my opinions personally--they are my opinions, and I'm willing to simply agree to disagree with anyone who thinks I am way off base.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 18:46:36
With all due respect to my fellow scribes, I'll be greatly releived when some other Realmsian element catches our collective fancies, as these debates on moonblades are really starting to cause my synapses to misfire. Especially when I know how much it might potentially grate on the nerves of others that I greatly respect.
But in regard to the POOF aspect of the moonblades rejection . . . Its not like anyone is forced to take a Moonblade without being warned about the potential downside of them. If no one had known about the dangerous nature of being rejected, I could understand the controvery, but it was pretty well established how dangerous trying to claim one would be.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 18:26:33
quote:
Originally posted by Feanor
quote:
Eh, I'm not moved by this explanation. It still struck me as wanton and unnecessary.
But it IS unnecessary. I mean, people do unnecessary things and no one behaves like master Yoda all the time. Especially, when boys wants to prove themselves... 
I just found it strange that the one elf whom was deemed the most worthy to rule over Evermeet, and all its people, would be involved in starting fights like a brainless adolescent. I'm not saying Zaor has to be perfect, but I got the impression that his mistakes (and Amlaruil's) were condoned and forgiven whereas the mistakes of other elves in the book (like Lydi'aleera) where not. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 18:22:24
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
For the record, I was replying to Feanor's disagreement with the idea that criticism should be polite and constructive, not anything else he said.
That, I agree with.
To add to what I said before, if Zaor and Amlaruil have a destiny (because of the sword/the Seldarine), and they know about their destiny, then why should I root for them?
Also, while I enjoyed a lot of the little stories and the characters that appeared in them (Evermeet reminded me a little of the Bible at times), the characters never stick around long enough for the reader to grow really attached to them. And the characters that DID stick around for a long time--Zaor and Amlaruil--where the ones I didn't like very much. |
| Feanor |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 18:19:38
quote:
But how would that be a problem, if you have to draw the sword to inherit the throne anyway? Or did I miss something? And if such an offspring was found worthy, why would it matter who his/her mother was?
There is the possibility that Zaor thought that a child of his with Lydi'aleera will be unworthy and he did not want to see his child blasted by the Moonblade. (This reason seems silly for me, but it is not unlikely that Zaor could have thought in such terms). Also, another possibility was that Zaor considered that a child would give Lydi'aleera too much influence at court and Lydi'aleera was not a good ruler, by all means.
quote:
My problem with the whole "adultery" scenerio--if Amlaruil gave up Zaor for the sake of what she deemed was the right thing to do, yet still slept with him and had children with him, how was her sacrifice (noble or mistaken) really such a sacrifice? I like the idea that she did the wrong thing there, but at least she had good intentions. I realize that in the end, Lydi'aleera did do some bad things, and I am not going to condone them. But I think the book would have had much more depth if she was in fact a decent person, and wasn't subjected to such constant "bashing" (as Feanor put it before).
Exactly my thoughts. But it depends on the intention of the author. If that sequence was one about sacrifice, then yes, it's wierd. But it also struck me the idea that Elaine could have intended something different : maybe to emphasize that blind devotion to what you consider duty can lead to bad decisions. Amlaruil decides to sacrifice herself for Evermeet, yet she soon realizes that her sacrifice is to no avail : Zaor's marriage with Lydi'aleera is a failure and to no benefit for Evermeet. Even more, it has dire consequences for Amlaruil herself : she sleeps with Zaor while he was still married, thus betraying her own vow to the queen. From my experience with literature, breaking vows, no matter the circumstances and possible excuses, has usually tragic consequences. Amlaruil was to be the perfect Queen of Evermeet, yet she cannot be anymore, because she has this taint upon her. Later in the book, Amlaruil takes some great blows from life : she loses Zaor to the hand of an assassin and several of her children. It would be odd how someone like Amlaruil is so deeply hurt, unless we came back to her adultery with Zaor : to use a metaphor, I have a slight feeling that Lydi'aleera's ghost takes her revenge on the one who took her place.
quote:
Eh, I'm not moved by this explanation. It still struck me as wanton and unnecessary.
But it IS unnecessary. I mean, people do unnecessary things and no one behaves like master Yoda all the time. Especially, when boys wants to prove themselves...
quote:
I'm not arguing about the alignment check, just the way the moonblades where described in the actual novel. By the way, I thought that one Coronal of Myth Drannor (who was he, anyway?) acted incredibly stupid when he didn't tell his own subjects that the blades would only choose moon elves. It doesn't matter if certain people wouldn't listen--it was irresponsible not to tell them, period.
I don't think the moonblades were designed to strike down any gold elf touching them. It is simply that gold elves are mostly described as arrogant and racist in most books (quite unfair, IMO), so most of them will fail. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 18:05:59
For the record, I was replying to Feanor's disagreement with the idea that criticism should be polite and constructive, not anything else he said. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 17:50:04
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
It almost seems malicious to me.
Yes. Malicious, and quite wasteful too. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 17:48:37
quote:
Originally posted by Feanor
Well, I think they started the fight to prove they were good warriors ; gold elves always thought less of other races of elves, so they wanted to give them a lesson and gain admissiom in the army at the same time.
Eh, I'm not moved by this explanation. It still struck me as wanton and unnecessary.
quote:
About the moonblades, yes, I also think that the elf mage who designed them made a mistake with them. Yes, the idea was that no unworthy wielder could take them, but it seems that the moonblades are much more demanding than a simple check of alignment. Even good characters can be rejected by the moonblades. IMO, the moonblades can damage the elvish people as much as serving it.
I'm not arguing about the alignment check, just the way the moonblades where described in the actual novel. By the way, I thought that one Coronal of Myth Drannor (who was he, anyway?) acted incredibly stupid when he didn't tell his own subjects that the blades would only choose moon elves. It doesn't matter if certain people wouldn't listen--it was irresponsible not to tell them, period.
But it just comes down to the fact that the moonblades are, to me, just another example of something very important (in this case, rulership) being decided by some magic item. I know Evermeet's not the only novel that has something like this, and yes, my modern American values are showing here. I love it when a character shapes his/her own fate through choices, not because of a deity or a magic item. I do like the Chosen of Mystra, but most other types of "chosen" just don't do much for me. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 17:43:25
I echo Rinonalyrna Fathomlin in this: why did the moonblades have to blast any "unworthy" contestant to a crisp? That idea bothers me because elves aren't that fertile to begin with, and well-trained individuals can surely serve the elven people in ways other than becoming a moon fighter or a ruling monarch. They should be valued -- why waste away their lives like that? It almost seems malicious to me. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 17:42:17
quote:
Zaor quickly realized that a mistake had been made; he didn't "withhold affection" from Lydi-aleera so much as try to ensure that the offspring of such an elfwoman would not inherit Evermeet's throne.
But how would that be a problem, if you have to draw the sword to inherit the throne anyway? Or did I miss something? And if such an offspring was found worthy, why would it matter who his/her mother was?
My problem with the whole "adultery" scenerio--if Amlaruil gave up Zaor for the sake of what she deemed was the right thing to do, yet still slept with him and had children with him, how was her sacrifice (noble or mistaken) really such a sacrifice? I like the idea that she did the wrong thing there, but at least she had good intentions. I realize that in the end, Lydi'aleera did do some bad things, and I am not going to condone them. But I think the book would have had much more depth if she was in fact a decent person, and wasn't subjected to such constant "bashing" (as Feanor put it before). |
| Feanor |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 17:36:26
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I can tell Feanor's opinion is quite unpopular here, but I want to say that I pretty much agree with it. I'm actually happy that someone else feels the same way about these two characters as I did...
Another thing about Zaor I didn't get: why did he and his friends start a fight with that one gold elf? Does anyone remember that scene? That scene was rather dodgy to me...it certainly didn't raise my opinion of Zaor or his friends very much.
I also (gasp!) didn't like the concept of moonblades. I understand there is some controversy about how moonblades have evolved from what they once were, but upon reading Evermeet I decided I didn't like their original concept. I just prefer characters who make their own choices and destiny over characters who are "chosen" by some magic item or deity or whatever. That's just me. I didn't like it that those who are deemed unworthy are killed outright. One can be unworthy of a sword, but still be worthy to serve the elven people in some other way.
Well, I think they started the fight to prove they were good warriors ; gold elves always thought less of other races of elves, so they wanted to give them a lesson and gain admissiom in the army at the same time.
About the moonblades, yes, I also think that the elf mage who designed them made a mistake with them. Yes, the idea was that no unworthy wielder could take them, but it seems that the moonblades are much more demanding than a simple check of alignment. Even good characters can be rejected by the moonblades. IMO, the moonblades can damage the elvish people as much as serving it. |
| Feanor |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 17:20:36
A very good explanation was given by Elaine Cunningham about the motivations and the behaviour of these 2 characters in the "question" thread, explanation which serves for better understanding the context :
Elaine says :
Again, the "perfection" of Zaor and Amlaruil is very much a matter of perception. I certainly didn't view either character in that light; indeed, their complicated relationship was intended, in part, to portray them as being (for lack of a better word) more "human."
I didn't mean to blow off your comments, and I hope you didn't read my response as such, but long experience has taught me that it's usually best to let the books speak for themselves. Also, I did read the other EVERMEET thread, and most of the issues raised seemed to be a matter of personal viewpoint. If a someone feels that a character who has a sexual relationship outside of marriage is tarnished beyond redemption, there's not much room for discussion. I'm a former history teacher, so I could name enough royal (and papal) mistresses and illegitimate offspring to challenge the notion that adultery carried a death sentence in medieval Europe--at least, where kings were concerned. But this argument, too, speaks to a particular viewpoint. Obviously you feel strongly about this matter; in such cases, there is little point in discussion. I grew up in a conservative fundamentalist environment, and I understand that certain issues can become a very powerful lens.
While I respect your viewpoint and have no desire to change it, perhaps a bit of backstory might add another facet to the characterizations. EVERMEET is, at heart, an Arthurian novel. The ordeal by sword, the otherwise great king whose personal life is, shall we say, less than straightforward, the legendary queen. Amlaruil reflects elements of both Gwenevere and Morgan le Fey. She is the magic-wielding kinswoman who owns the king's first love and bears his child, but she is also the true queen, and she was recognized as such at her first meeting with Zaor.
So when Zaor was confronted by Amarillis demands, his conflict was based on a series of moral dilemnas, not simply upon the love he and Amlaruil shared. She'd already been acknowledged by his moonblade. They were already joined in a very deep sense--the moral and spiritual equivalent of marriage. Ceding to Amarillis demands and marrying Lydi'aleera was not only a violation of this union--moral bigamy--but also a repudiation of the moonblade's acknowledgement of Amlaruil. The moonblades' purpose was to recognize a royal family, and it was abandantly clear that this purpose had been achieved. The Amarillis demands subverted the process. But no canny politician would make such a demand unless he could back it with powerful support and a legal loophole that lent a certain legitimacy to his demands. Zaor felt that no matter what he decided, he would be betraying Evermeet in one sense or another. It was a difficult decision for many reasons, not just because he loved Amlaruil.
So it was Amlaruil who made the decision, and it is my opinion that she made a mistake--an opinion that was tacitly reinforced throughout the rest of the book. She was Evermeet's queen, but she turned away from her duty and destiny in a tragic, impulsive decision. Amlaruil was pregnant at the time, and any woman who's ever dealt with the first-trimester emotional roller coaster was probably nodding in recognition when she read that passage. But this goes beyond hormones: Amlaruil was proud. She wanted Zaor to choose her for herself, not for the child she carried, and her pride caused her to overreact. I think Amlaruil is a great queen, but she is far from perfect. She went a little nuts in her grief over Zaor's assassination: she exiled her own daughter, ordered that the moonblade Amnestria carried be dismantled (tampering with an artifact is a HUGE no-no...), and carried a potentially lethal grudge against her half-elven granddaughter, Arilyn Moonblade.
Zaor had reason to be wary of Lydi-aleera, first from the first. She and her brother declined to undergo the test of the moonblade; instead, they used blackmail to achieve royalty. It's LEGAL to decline a moonblade, but it's very much like "taking the fifth:" there's a presumption of guilt involved. If someone doesn't attempt to claim a family moonblade, the assumption is that he (or she) is pretty sure he won't live to brag about it. Big strike against her right there. Lydi-aleera was hardly a shy, demure elfmaiden. Her conversation with her brother showed that she was hardly under his thumb, and was every bit as manipulative and ambitious as he. She cared so little for Zaor that she was willing to let him die rather than warn him of danger. She blackmailed Zaor into marrying her and blackmailed Amlaruil into providing a love potion. She committed rape through magical means, and in the process, caused a noble elf to act so greatly against his conscience that he took his own life in remorse. She was willing to risk the almost certain death of her son against the very slight chance of covering her own ass and concealing her lies. Zaor never spoke of his life with Lydi-aleera, but his silence indicated that her private conduct was more of the same. Zaor quickly realized that a mistake had been made; he didn't "withhold affection" from Lydi-aleera so much as try to ensure that the offspring of such an elfwoman would not inherit Evermeet's throne.
As for the quote about "Amlaruil IS Evermeet," this was not intended to be a statement of fact. It's the sort of hyperbolic compliment commonly used in talking about royalty. Read some of the courtly verse dedicated to Elizabeth I, and you'll have a better idea of the context.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 20 Feb 2006 : 15:29:19
I can tell Feanor's opinion is quite unpopular here, but I want to say that I pretty much agree with it. I'm actually happy that someone else feels the same way about these two characters as I did...
Another thing about Zaor I didn't get: why did he and his friends start a fight with that one gold elf? Does anyone remember that scene? That scene was rather dodgy to me...it certainly didn't raise my opinion of Zaor or his friends very much.
I also (gasp!) didn't like the concept of moonblades. I understand there is some controversy about how moonblades have evolved from what they once were, but upon reading Evermeet I decided I didn't like their original concept. I just prefer characters who make their own choices and destiny over characters who are "chosen" by some magic item or deity or whatever. That's just me. I didn't like it that those who are deemed unworthy are killed outright. One can be unworthy of a sword, but still be worthy to serve the elven people in some other way.
I tried to like the moonblades, I tried to like Amlaruil, and I tried to like Zaor. I really did. But I didn't. We can discuss elven nature and law vs. chaos until we are blue in the face, but the bottem line is I didn't care for these characters, and I did feel that there was a double standard going on. Zaor was an unremarkable individual--I liked him better when I knew very little about him. Amlaruil was far too stoic for my tastes--she liked the fire and spirit of other, far worthier characters in the book, like that one Moonflower woman who makes a real sacrifice and becomes a sea elf. |
| Feanor |
Posted - 17 Feb 2006 : 06:58:31
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Well, I know that this is probably too simple an explanation, but elves are, by nature, chaotic. While they have rules and traditions, sometimes emotions are more revered by them then even traditions they hold dear.
A simple explanation, but a good one.
But, on the other hand, a king is supposed to uphold the law. And adultery is against the law, especially in medieval societies like the ones from Forgotten Realms, no matter what arguments can be brought in its favor. In some societies was even punished by death. Certainly, not all societies are that harsh, but I still have to find one where adultery is regarded as something commendable, no matter the circumstances. That's why I said Zaor was unfit for kingship : it stroke me as extremely unlawful that a king himself would do such a thing. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 17 Feb 2006 : 01:24:54
Well, I know that this is probably too simple an explanation, but elves are, by nature, chaotic. While they have rules and traditions, sometimes emotions are more revered by them then even traditions they hold dear. |
| Feanor |
Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 21:57:53
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
If the narrative describes Zaor as being worthy of kingship, how is he supposed to have put it, especially when -- as far as I remember -- the book's told in third-person omniscient (where the narrator's usually objective)? Feanor's hardly putting words into EC's mouth, you know.
That is exactly what I meant.
First, the book insists that both Zaor and Amlaruil are great (by direct statements and suggestions), but I'm not that convinced that they are THAT great. Certainly, they are not evil, but they are not the embodiement of perfection either.
Second, the book is told in an omniscient style, so the author should be objective. Yet, after reading the book, I remained with the feeling that EC is always on the side of the couple Zaor/Amlaruil, when everything they do, no matter how questionable could be, is correct and everyone who opposes them is either misguided or evil.
And I also disliked the constant bashing of Lydi'aleera, despite that her fall is a direct result of Zaor's carelessness and her brother's manipulations. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 21:27:54
Wooly already asked for this to be toned down, if it isn't then the thread will be locked. Final warning. |
| Winterfox |
Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 21:26:32
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
When you pay for something and you have something to criticize, you don't start with "Sweetie, I really like you, but I have some objections..."
You do if you want to be civil, or for the author and those who respect her to spend their precious time reading your comments. And you restrict yourself to what they wrote, not gossiping about what they might personally think.
Where was he not civil, or "gossiping about what [authors] might personally think"? The most I can see is that he's expressing low opinions of fictional characters. (Oh, gasp! Oh, horror! Oh, libel!) If you mean things like:
quote:
Second, Elaine Cunningham insists at every step that Zaor is "fit to rule".
Then I'd have to question your definition of "gossiping." If the narrative describes Zaor as being worthy of kingship, how is he supposed to have put it, especially when -- as far as I remember -- the book's told in third-person omniscient (where the narrator's usually objective)? Feanor's hardly putting words into EC's mouth, you know. |
| Feanor |
Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 20:42:54
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
And you restrict yourself to what they wrote, not gossiping about what they might personally think.
HUH ? What are you refering to ?
Well, as I said, I don't like the way Evermeet deals with Zaor and Amlaruil, because I think the book is too subjective about them. I mean, nor Zaor is without any fault either, yet this is totally overlooked.
After all, Zaor is "the hero", yet I finished the book totally disliking for this character, because I don't think he is what he was supposed to be. 
quote:
You do if you want to be civil, or for the author and those who respect her to spend their precious time reading your comments.
Well, I was not going to bash Evermeet anyway.  |
| Faraer |
Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 20:06:10
quote:
When you pay for something and you have something to criticize, you don't start with "Sweetie, I really like you, but I have some objections..."
You do if you want to be civil, or for the author and those who respect her to spend their precious time reading your comments. And you restrict yourself to what they wrote, not gossiping about what they might personally think. |
| Feanor |
Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 19:38:10
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Oh, and because we want to keep things civil, I'll repeat one of the rules in the Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct (B.2, to be exact):
quote:
2. Be polite when reviewing any novels or products. If you didn’t like the novel, then fine, let the author know with constructive criticism, not by a barrage of abuse or slating the whole book in an aggressive manner. On the other hand, if you liked the book, then please say so, i’m sure the author would love to hear that his work was appreciated by you.
Well, not the novel itself is my target, but the way Zaor and Amlaruil is characterized.
But on the other hand I strongly disagree with this idea, because novels or products are not for free. When you pay for something and you have something to criticize, you don't start with "Sweetie, I really like you, but I have some objections..."
quote:
I had no problem with either character... Zaor did everything he could to do right by his people. That's worth something, to me.
It is not enough. He repelled a drow invasion, he tried to rule wisely, true, but that is not any other decent elf would not have done. But the problem is that all the preparations for the arrival of the king of Evermeet (the whole "Moonblades who shall choose the most worthy ruler" stuff, the direct involvement of the gods and so on) seemed to announce the appearance of an exceptional character. But Zaor is not exceptional by any means, he is just... a normal man, so the dissapointment was great. Even if I accept your arguments as valid, Zaor is a decent person, but by no means exceptional. There was no need to wait that much to choose such a ruler, there were plenty. Any elf of good alignment could have been as fit as him.
quote:
The difference is that Zaor and Amlaruil were acting out of love, which is something most elves readily support. Lydi'aleera was, as I recall, working against Amlaruil -- and thus working against Evermeet, as Amlaruil was (and remains) a major part of its defenses
You know something, Wooly Rupert, I don't think that a king should cheat on his wife, no matter what arguments about love are brought. Not to mention that Zaor is not considering his wife at all : he could not love her, but he could have at least the consideration not to humiliate her, since this marriage was not her fault either.
Second, it's hard to say that Lydi'aleera was acting against Amlaruil. Because she did that because she wanted a child. Certainly, this would have prevented Amlaruil's ascension to the throne, but without other consequences. She would have still remained a Grand Mage.
Third, Amlaruil was betraying her queen and her oath. It's a logical deduction.
To sleep with King Zaor = betrayal of the queen (according to what the book states anyway)
Lady'aleera was queen of Evermeet. ==> Amlaruil betrayed her queen. That's it.
quote:
It could be argued that the marriage itself was a disgrace, and dishonored him. After all, he couldn't be with the woman he loved; he was stuck with someone he'd been forced to marry out of political expediency.
In such a case, you do not right a disgrace by commiting a greater one. If, after relinquishing his love, he would have been capable to raise himself above his own misery and keep his emotions in check, then hats off to Zaor. But unfortunately he did not.
quote:
Again, most elves will respect acting out of love a lot more readily than they will acting for political reasons.
Lady Durothil's attitude is evidence of the contrary. Second, Amlaruil himself was deeply dissapointed of the relationships Amnestria/Bran and Lamruil/Maura and she accepted them reluctantly. So no.
quote:
Please. When presented with a conflict between emotions and duty, hesitation is natural. I'd've been more bothered if Zaor had simply shrugged his shoulders and gone about his duty, because then he would have come across as one to whom emotions weren't important. And emotions are important to a ruler -- it's hard to be a good ruler if you don't truly have the best interests of your people in your heart.
His hesitation, in and of itself, is natural and in no way reflects negatively on his ability to rule. It would only have reflected negatively if he chose love over duty, because that's not what's expected from a ruler.
You seem to ignore the fact that Amlaruil forced this decision upon him. If a king needs his girlfriend to decide in his stead, then no comment. And it's not only his hesitations, but the way they are depicted as well : Zaor behaves like a teen-ager, really. Amlaruil has more backbone than him. There is no dignity in his outbursts, no wisdom in his words. And he does not gain this wisdom later.
But anyway I want to give you a quotations from another book I've read some time ago, "The Cursed Kings". What king Philip the Fair replied when his daughter, Isabelle, complained that she was not happy with her husband : "Happiness ? But in what consist happiness if not in being worthy of the fate which was given to us, in learning to say yes to what needs be done and say no to your own desires ? To you shall I remind you what we owe to our peoples and that we are not born to let us prey to our pain ? We do not live our lives, but those of our countries and only in those we can find our happiness... if we are worthy of our destiny." These are the principles which should guide a true king in such a situation, at least in my opinion. They lack from Zaor's notebook.
But a more interesting is : what was the purpose of that sequence ? Such crucial moment do have a purpose in the story. Often the main characters are offered this choice "duty or love" and the purpose is to create a no-win situation, to emphasize the value of the main character. The idea is that you can't have everything and you have to sacrifice something. Some sacrifice their duty, some sacrifice their love and both cathegories can be admired. In this case, it seems that love was to be sacrificed to emphasize that Zaor was indeed fit to rule. In this sequence, the author intended to create such a dramatic sequence, but, at least in my opinion, she missed, because, ten pages later, we see Zaor banging with his lost love. Not to mention that, in the end, when Lydi'aleera fails the test of the moonblade, Amlaruil becomes queen. So, if Zaor did not sacrifice anything, what was the purpose of that sequence ? After all, not only that Zaor had his love back, but this was done probably in the most unappropriate way possible, Amlaruil being proclamed queen 5 minutes after Lydi'aleera's death, when her ash was not even cold yet. And, even more, with her corpse only 10 feet away.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 17:40:09
Oh, and because we want to keep things civil, I'll repeat one of the rules in the Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct (B.2, to be exact):
quote:
2. Be polite when reviewing any novels or products. If you didn’t like the novel, then fine, let the author know with constructive criticism, not by a barrage of abuse or slating the whole book in an aggressive manner. On the other hand, if you liked the book, then please say so, i’m sure the author would love to hear that his work was appreciated by you.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 17:35:02
quote:
Originally posted by Feanor
Just read Evermeet : Island of Elves. Nice writing, but the characterization of some of the main characters annoyed me quite a lot.
So, I will go straight to the point : am I the only one who has the impression that Elaine Cunningham is biased about Zaor and Amlaruil and uses double standards to judge the worth of those 2 characters ?
I had no problem with either character... Zaor did everything he could to do right by his people. That's worth something, to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Feanor
But, first of all, why I said "double standards". I shall give some quotation, which are quite interesting :
"Lamruil is a prince of Evermeet. Who in your mind is an elf worthy for me to bed—the king himself?
Do not even speak of such treachery against the crown and the queen! With my own hands would I kill any elf woman who so betrayed Evermeet's Amlaruil, even my own daughter"
So, if a woman sleeps with the king Zaor, she is the worst kind of traitor. Fine with that.
If that is the part I'm thinking of, it had nothing to do with King Zaor. It was an example of the prejudice that exists between the elven races, and the fact that Amlaruil is so well-loved that most elves think of her as being the same race as them.
quote:
Originally posted by Feanor
My main problem is : why the double standards ? The rules should not apply to all characters, "author's darlings" included ? I fail to see the difference between the behaviour of Zaor and Amlaruil, on one side, and of Lydi'aleera, on the other side, yet the latter is named "traitor" while Zaor and Amlaruil are praised. Strange. And it annoys me a lot when I encounter such a situation : one character does something and he is a bastard, another does the same thing and all is fine, the only difference between them being that the author has decided the second one to be "the hero".
The difference is that Zaor and Amlaruil were acting out of love, which is something most elves readily support. Lydi'aleera was, as I recall, working against Amlaruil -- and thus working against Evermeet, as Amlaruil was (and remains) a major part of its defenses.
quote:
Originally posted by Feanor
1. One reasons I already mentioned. It is true that he was somehow forced into the marriage with Lydi'aleera, but he could have shown his wife some respect. Especially when we keep in mind that Lydi'aleera was not responsible at all for his loss of Amlaruil. Which he did not. By cheating on his wife and his queen, not only he had disgraced himself as a warrior and a man, but, more important, he undermined the prestige of the new born monarchy and created resentments among the most powerful elven clans.
It could be argued that the marriage itself was a disgrace, and dishonored him. After all, he couldn't be with the woman he loved; he was stuck with someone he'd been forced to marry out of political expediency. Again, most elves will respect acting out of love a lot more readily than they will acting for political reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Feanor
2. Second, his attitude when he has to sacrifice his love for the sake of the elven people is pathetic.
(snip) Well, after reading this sequence, I say that the moonblades can make mistakes and there was obviously something wrong with Zaor's moonblade if it chose such a king. After all, the moonblades must choose the most worthy to rule, but the idea is that the one who is "the most worthy" does not hesitate like Zaor when he puts in balance his personal happiness and the sake of his people. And his evolution only strenghtens my belief.
Please. When presented with a conflict between emotions and duty, hesitation is natural. I'd've been more bothered if Zaor had simply shrugged his shoulders and gone about his duty, because then he would have come across as one to whom emotions weren't important. And emotions are important to a ruler -- it's hard to be a good ruler if you don't truly have the best interests of your people in your heart.
His hesitation, in and of itself, is natural and in no way reflects negatively on his ability to rule. It would only have reflected negatively if he chose love over duty, because that's not what's expected from a ruler. |
|
|
