| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 05:20:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As for me, I can understand Drizzt feeling some angst over the differences between him and his people. But you know what? I got it after the first book. I didn't need to keep delving into his angst, book after book after book. Once was enough -- nay, more than enough. The topic is covered, friend Drizzt, let's move on to something else.
Agreed. There's angst, and then there's angst. |
 |
|
|
Ignorance Personified
Seeker
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2004 : 15:22:41
|
Winterfox Said:
quote:
My, aren't we getting a touch defensive here? A few thousand dollars? Hee! I'm almost expecting to see "If you think you can do it better..." come up next. Heh.
I was simply commenting on your broad emotional argument in the previous response, i.e. you used no evidence to support the argument(which I have done many times by now I am certain), with another emotional argument that unfortunately was directed at the individual(a very low-brow thing to do...but I am low-brow and juvenile).
quote:
Again, I'm directing this mostly at the idea that skills in combat or magic can make a good character (without anything else to add to the depth, personality, and background). As for why some things make money -- well, they sell. Pokemon makes money and Britney Spears makes money.
Well, actually Pokemon and Mrs. Spears *did* make money(thankfully). After only a few years their "empires" collapsed into the realm of the bargain bins of Wal-Marts everywhere. Fads can last a long time on one desirable quality, Mrs. Spears' being sex appeal(I hope no one thought it was musical quality) and Pokemon...social interaction(?), but the Drizzt books have lasted for over a decade and are increasing in popularity. My argument was that the novels possess qualties that are beneath the surface, i.e. written in a way that does not empede the pace of the novel.
quote:
"Great at whatever," if anybody can do this then why are so many authors making money off of it...
That is the point I was trying to make after this quote. I should not have said money, such an empty form of measuring the success of the work, but rather "reader commitment." Many of these characters are called one dimensional, many accuse the entire fantasy genre of possessing only one dimsensional characters. Nevertheless, these works have been immensely successful mainly due to the readers interest in the character I mentioned for each work(Roland being the most apparent and The Hound being the least). Clearly all of these books cannot be flukes read by individuals such as myself that are juvenile, their are not that many juvenile readers in the world as people who read generally tend to be above the mainstream in intellectual capacity and awareness of the world around them/maturity.
Therefore some desirable qualities must lie beneath the surface of the novel, which I pointed out with the Arty/Jarl comments, I will now attempt to do so with the CQ.
Rufo: At first glance he is a bully, but once you come to realize that his place in the faith is being taken by an individual who is currently having second guesses about the faith in general(Cadderly)he is not so eaily placed into the "bully" category(one that attacks people with absolutely no provacation). Cadderly is also stealing(in his mind) Danica, for whom he possesses strong sexual desires(would not call his feelings love though it could be argued). Is Rufo morally weak, abosolutely if one looks only at the surface of the work, but if one consideres the setting perhaps it is the enviroment that weakened the individual. Any person that is placed into a religious setting, such as the Library, must be extremely pious to make friends, be accepted, etc, in order to maintain mental stability. It is not easy to remain pious, particularly in youth when people have a tendency to question everything, and the author emphasizes this point with Cadderly's struggle at the beginning. Cadderly's struggle would be of interest to any other reader who has encountered similar problems within his or her self about their relationship(or the existence though this is more or a stretch within the Realms)with a divine being. Though I think it's point within the work, as we all do know that Cadderly will accept his place, is to hightlight the struggle within Rufo and show the reader that he is not misguided to undergo this question it is something that all people (well most people...something like 90% of the world believes in a higher power/being(s) of some sort) ask somethime within their lives. After he chooses is he misguided, yes, but that is not the point the author is questioning if the entire system is misguided(this is seen by the destruction of the library and the rebuilding of something new which is the primary reconciliation of the work not Cadderly and Danica's acceptance of love). This can be seen more clearly in the Demon Wars saga, which I know you haven't read and perphaps it is only because I read that before the CQ is the reason that I percieve the work as I do.
As it seems that the argument is about to go full circle: My primary point has not been to *convert* anyone into liking Salvatore, it has been to explain why some people do not percieve his works as overpowering and that they can be enjoyed. Similar to the other works I listed, and basically any work in literature, some people relate to the story and enjoy it while others do not. Unlike most other authors, successful authors such as the ones I listed are often bashed by those who do not enjoy their works. This is most likely attributed to the fact that they pop up much more in discussion than other authors. I understand that you and many others don't like Salvatore. Great if everyone only liked one author then I would not have much to read. My point is that simply because you do not enjoy him or see his characters in a certain fasion does not make it a fact. Every person percieves works of literature differently and readers should not "bash" in a forum because he has become frustrated with the plot development(or as he/she may view it lack thereof). If that was not the persons intention, well it certainly came out that way as he asked a broad question and then only used Drizzt works within his argument. Similarly, any attempt to bring up another character, such as Elminister was overlooked by the members (perhaps this was caused by my montrous post...). I don't care if people dislike any author, if it is one I enjoy or not, but I do not like to be constantly reminded of a persons dislike of an author(it also seems that RAS is the only author bashed in this forums as all others are treated with a respect not to go out and call their work overpowering, simplistic). Perhaps this is my ignorance, if anyone has links to another example please post them. Please do not tell me that if I do not like the enviorment then leave, that is a very weak argument(used in America alot.."If you don't like this country then go back to "insert country of origin"). The RAS forum, will not be called that much longer, has a abundance of ignorant folks (nothing wrong with that), but they don't admit it. |
Carthago delenda est. |
|
|
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2004 : 05:59:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ignorance Personified
I was simply commenting on your broad emotional argument in the previous response, i.e. you used no evidence to support the argument(which I have done many times by now I am certain)
Which argument? I've made the attempt to clarify what I meant; combat prowess in a character alone – without anything else for depth, personality, etc – doesn't make a good character, which is the reason I’m puzzled as to why many people would view Drizzt’s combat skills as a “selling point.” I could, of course, try to show you some works that include shallow protagonists to make my point of “uber special character traits == no skill take.” I refrain from using examples from FR novels because that’ll make a kerfluffle erupt and people’ll start to spontaneously combust.
quote:
with another emotional argument that unfortunately was directed at the individual(a very low-brow thing to do...but I am low-brow and juvenile).
Oh, please. I've already said that I'm not condemning anyone's taste, so at least stop with the incessant self-effacing sarcasm. It'd have been somewhat valid, had I actually called you low-brow or juvenile. What directed at individual what? Are you seeing personal attacks in my posts now? Where? Bueller?
quote:
My argument was that the novels possess qualties that are beneath the surface, i.e. written in a way that does not empede the pace of the novel.
I’m scratching my head here. I’m curious -- why do you define “qualities beneath the surface” as “a way that does not impede the novel’s pace”?
quote:
Clearly all of these books cannot be flukes read by individuals such as myself that are juvenile, their are not that many juvenile readers in the world as people who read generally tend to be above the mainstream in intellectual capacity and awareness of the world around them/maturity.
I ask again: why are you persisting with the juvenile/low-brow thing?
quote:
Rufo… <snip>
I imagine you could, if you were so inclined, compose a whole doctoral thesis analyzing this, but the fact remains is that I have no idea as to what the author was intending, or doing (do you?). It’s the tricky thing with analyzing literature; sometimes a fleat-bitten dog is just a flea-bitten dog, not a grand symbol of declining fidelity. Either way, if that’s the way you see it, great. The way I see it is this: the plot devices – ahem, the fate – conspire to paint Cadderly as a shining, squeaky-clean hero, while making Rufo into the antithesis. I would have been a little less disdainful of this treatment, had Rufo not been too pathetic to be true (in the same way that Cadderly’s too good to be true). If there had been occasions where Rufo is right, and Cadderly is wrong, my views would have been significantly different.
quote:
I understand that you and many others don't like Salvatore. Great if everyone only liked one author then I would not have much to read. My point is that simply because you do not enjoy him or see his characters in a certain fasion does not make it a fact.
I haven’t meant to say that my opinions are, by any stretch of the imagination, factual, and I’d like to think I’ve sprinkled my posts with enough “I think” and “…to keep me interested” and “I find” to make it clear that they are opinions. If those are not enough, then I’m sorry. But hey, it’s not as if you attach an “IMO” and “…I think” to every single sentence you’ve typed, hmm?
quote:
Every person percieves works of literature differently and readers should not "bash" in a forum because he has become frustrated with the plot development(or as he/she may view it lack thereof).
Is that a cry of “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all”? Oh, and I don't see actual bashing here. Bashing, m'friend, is this:
quote:
I go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book.
quote:
Jane is entirely impossible. It seems a great pity that they allowed her to die a natural death.
quote:
I haven't any right to criticise books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticise Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Everytime I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.
I give you three guesses as to who made these comments.
quote:
If that was not the persons intention, well it certainly came out that way as he asked a broad question and then only used Drizzt works within his argument. Similarly, any attempt to bring up another character, such as Elminister was overlooked by the members (perhaps this was caused by my montrous post...).
When I want to discuss certain topics in a less-than-positive light and with elaborations, I do it elsewhere, for the same reason that a professional writer shouldn’t stride into a fanfic-centric message board and cry, “Fanfic is teh EVIL!1!!” (That, and I haven't read all of the Elminster books. And no, I don't want to.)
quote:
I don't care if people dislike any author, if it is one I enjoy or not, but I do not like to be constantly reminded of a persons dislike of an author(it also seems that RAS is the only author bashed in this forums as all others are treated with a respect not to go out and call their work overpowering, simplistic).
Mmm. Conversely, do you think other people like to be constantly reminded of a person’s adoration of an author’s work? Not pointing my finger at anyone; just turning the question around.
Uh, and please make the distinction between "overpowering" and "overpowered." They're different. Really. (I'd say an "overpowering work" would be a compliment; "an overpowered character/Mary Sue/Gary Stu/munchkin" wouldn't be so complimentary.)
quote:
Perhaps this is my ignorance, if anyone has links to another example please post them.
Do a search. I’ve done my share of criticizing some of Ed Greenwood’s novels.
Edited to fix quote tags. |
Edited by - Winterfox on 19 Oct 2004 14:02:35 |
|
|
|
Ignorance Personified
Seeker
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2004 : 14:51:57
|
Winterfox Said:
quote:
t'd have been somewhat valid, had I actually called you low-brow or juvenile. What directed at individual what? Are you seeing personal attacks in my posts now? Where? Bueller?
I was referring to my personal attack on you (in reference to my last post about "you should write and novel and make some money-->it was immature of me) and calling myself low-brow and juvenile, I am allowed to do that I suppose. I am sorry if you percieved it differently.
quote:
I’m scratching my head here. I’m curious -- why do you define “qualities beneath the surface” as “a way that does not impede the novel’s pace”?
Many things are not always "spelled out," particularly in Realms like novels that are generally around three hundered or so pages. In this manner authors authors can adress issues, plot/character developement/etc., without hindering the fast pace of the novel(action/confrontation/major character shift) which is what many Realms readers want to read.
quote:
Mmm. Conversely, do you think other people like to be constantly reminded of a person’s adoration of an author’s work? Not pointing my finger at anyone; just turning the question around.
No. I am certain, that is why I commented on the "ignorace" of fans in a certain other messageboard. "Fanboyz" are certainly among the most annoying things on the internet, but I do not think I am one as I at least attempt to articulate my argument in something resembling a rational manner. Most of my posts are not about this author, expecially in other message boards, this discussion has been an exception.
quote:
Is that a cry of “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all”?
No.
quote:
Do a search. I’ve done my share of criticizing some of Ed Greenwood’s novels.
You will notice that most of those were closed down shortly after they were created, particularly a rather large one disscussing his works wider role in the realms.
quote:
I imagine you could, if you were so inclined, compose a whole doctoral thesis analyzing this, but the fact remains is that I have no idea as to what the author was intending, or doing (do you?).
No that was just my two cents, well maybe slightly more than two, but when does anyone ever *know* an author's intentions on a work? No people just take their best guess, granted most of the good ones have a Dr. before their name and get paid...I mean have lots of people read their view. Doctoral thesis, no, maybe a term paper or a master's thesis.
quote:
Uh, and please make the distinction between "overpowering" and "overpowered." They're different. Really. (I'd say an "overpowering work" would be a compliment; "an overpowered character/Mary Sue/Gary Stu/munchkin" wouldn't be so complimentary.)
I reckon I can accomplish that. Though one should note that the difference is not as you described them. The past tense use should only be applied when discussing the historical context of the work, such as RAS work overpowered the generation of the ninties into blah blah blah(in contrast one should use "literary present"). You could also say that an overpowering aspect of the work alienated the reader. Though under most circumstances the former part would be correct, but stating that I was overpowered by the work, since it would be in historical context, would not technically be incorrect. I believe what I said is right, I am not overly familiar with these things.
|
Carthago delenda est. |
|
|
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2004 : 11:22:44
|
Ignorance Personified said:
quote:
I was referring to my personal attack on you (in reference to my last post about "you should write and novel and make some money-->it was immature of me) and calling myself low-brow and juvenile, I am allowed to do that I suppose. I am sorry if you percieved it differently.
I apologize for misinterpreting it, then.
quote:
Many things are not always "spelled out," particularly in Realms like novels that are generally around three hundered or so pages. In this manner authors authors can adress issues, plot/character developement/etc., without hindering the fast pace of the novel(action/confrontation/major character shift) which is what many Realms readers want to read.
Mmm. Again, I'll have to disagree. One of the reasons I stopped reading anything by Salvatore is because I thought everything in his books gravitates toward the "clearly spelled out/spoon-fed to the reader." It's not as if the prose defies the "show, not tell" advice; rather, it shows, tells, and then tells some more just for good measure. Examples, from The Fallen Fortress:
quote:
"But not the most important of all you mean to do," the monk said coyly.
Cadderly's eyes widened, and he regarded Danica with sincere admiration. How well she knew him!
And then:
quote:
"You had to do it," Danica said unexpectedly. Cadderly blinked at her in disbelief that soon turned to amusement How well she knew him!
Because, obviously, it’s not enough to state once how well Danica knows Cadderly. No, the point has to be driven home and hammered again – in exact same words, no less. (I recall it being done in the other volumes, but I don’t have immediate access to them.) I won’t even bother quoting all the bits where the various “bad guys” are labeled evil (evil Ghost, the evil corpse, evil anticipation), or malignant (the malignant spirit, the malignant ghost, the malignant monster). Quite clearly, these people need to carry their alignments around on large, neon signs hanging around their necks for reasons that I evidently fail to comprehend. Sorry; loud, bold moral bipolarity’s not my cup of tea, and I’d like a leeeetle more subtlety and moderation here, please? (i.e., I get it that the undead Ghost is evil, the red dragon is evil, ad nauseum. I don’t need to be reminded every other sentence.) If that’s not “spelled out”, I don’t know what is.
quote:
You will notice that most of those were closed down shortly after they were created, particularly a rather large one disscussing his works wider role in the realms.
May I invite you to my Livejournal for a discussion? Or a FR LJ community, or another message board? (None of these requires you to be registered to post.)
quote:
I reckon I can accomplish that. Though one should note that the difference is not as you described them. The past tense use should only be applied when discussing the historical context of the work, such as RAS work overpowered the generation of the ninties into blah blah blah(in contrast one should use "literary present"). You could also say that an overpowering aspect of the work alienated the reader. Though under most circumstances the former part would be correct, but stating that I was overpowered by the work, since it would be in historical context, would not technically be incorrect. I believe what I said is right, I am not overly familiar with these things.
From m-w.com: 3 : to provide with more power than is needed or desirable <a dangerously overpowered car>
The thread originally discussed overpowered characters – characters that are too powerful, too good, too perfect. I assure you, I find nothing overpowering (in the sense of “overwhelming”) about RAS’ work; if anything, I’ve always been distinctly underwhelmed. (I suppose nitpicking on the overpowering/overpowered thing is rather trivial, but anyway, the various forms of the word “overpower” can have different meanings.)
Is your first language English, incidentally? |
|
|
|
Crust
Learned Scribe
USA
273 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2004 : 22:00:33
|
I'll always read the Drizzt novels, even if I complain about them after reading them.
I do agree, Winterfox, that there are many, many pages wasted on fight scenes. Being that they're so complex and detailed, you'd think that there could be some way to link the fighting with some character element of the dark elf. It would be interesting if Drizzt's journal entries, his philosophy, his conflicts, etc., would go hand-in-hand with the next major fight scene he has with an antagonist, so that the reader might find a relationship between Drizzt's mind and his physical prowess.
I am also constantly annoyed at how many questions the narrator asks. Could Catti-brie be falling in love with Drizzt? Is Drizzt's heritage going to be the death of his friends? Will Wulfgar be angered to learn that Drizzt and Catti-brie are closer now? There's too much of the narrator explaining the entirety of what's going on, as if the narrator is an annoying gnome who wants to make sure the reader sees every little thing that's happening just so that the reader knows it's happening. It makes me feel like these books are targeted at jr. high kids.
I also notice that whenever there is a moment of irony, a flashback, a metaphor, or some other element of literature working in the story, the narrator has to point it out some way, by saying, "Drizzt noted the irony immediately," as if the reader would never pick up on it unless we have it hand-fed to us. That drives me nuts, and it doesn't happen only in RAS's work.
I think Greenwood is the only FR author who doesn't hand-fed us the story, which is why I think some people don't like his work.
I am also driven nuts when someone quotes the rulebooks. I recall a moment in Realms of Shadow where Entreri and Jarlaxle are attacked by some shadowy hounds or something. Jarlaxle whips out a portable hole (he has a magical item for EVERY possible situation), and mentions to Entreri the consequences of the hole coming into contact with a bag of holding, as if Entreri has one tucked in his back pocket. That was really awkward, and there was no place for it in the scene. The same thing happened in the latest WotSQ novel, when Gromph is being briefed by his lesser wizards. They practically quote the Monster Manual word-for-word concerning the weaknesses of a lich. I was very disappointed at the presentation of that scene.
And yet, I'll always buy the latest Drizzt novel the very day it comes out, and I'll savor the reading for about a week, just long enough to enjoy it, and soon enough to have my curiosity satisfied quickly. I'm a huge Drizzt fan. I'm a bigger Elminster fan, though. |
Edited by - Crust on 22 Oct 2004 01:13:42 |
|
|
|
Ignorance Personified
Seeker
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 06:10:21
|
quote:
May I invite you to my Livejournal for a discussion? Or a FR LJ community, or another message board?
Certainly, if you will excuse my obvious lack of english skills, which is my first language.
quote:
Because, obviously, it’s not enough to state once how well Danica knows Cadderly. No, the point has to be driven home and hammered again – in exact same words, no less.
Yes this is common throughout his works, but in fairness(as Crust mentioned) it is common throughout many FR works and fantasy in general. Arya constantly repeats her kil list in Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, many times within the same page. Their is not much difference between the two if you compare the size of the works, Salvatore has to hammer home his point in 300 pages, while Martin has 900(even more in Storm of Swords). Similarily, Stephen King drives home the fighting prowess of Roland and his understanding of his weapons if The Drawing of the Three using similar sentences nearly one after the other in order to show that Roland is panicked(it is a given to any astute reader) but that author chooses to make it obvious to even the most ignorant member of his audience. Many authors choose to tell their audience about major character interaction and characters feelings for one another, as they view that they have a lack of time to display this to the level they desire. Is that the best thing to do, not in my view, but in a series that is based upon action(which is what draws most realms fans) it is sometimes necessary. This is often the case with popular authors, though by no means is it universal Gene Wolfe is one example).
I did not find the Cleric's Quintet series to be particularly overwhelming, but I was not overwhelmed by any of the characters either(Satisfied?). The book by Salvatore that overwhelmed (to effect deeply in mind or emotion) me the most was Servant of the Shard, my second favorite book of all(that is actually proper english).
|
Carthago delenda est. |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 13:30:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ignorance Personified
Arya constantly repeats her kil list in Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, many times within the same page.
Arya is an eight year old child who has lost numerous friends and family members to those on her list. In that case, I can see why she is repeating the names. I don't see it as an author hammering home a point, but an author showing a child developing an obsession. Her list is something that gives her comfort, some stability in a chaotic environment.
quote:
Their is not much difference between the two if you compare the size of the works, Salvatore has to hammer home his point in 300 pages, while Martin has 900(even more in Storm of Swords).
Having read the two writers, I couldn't disagree more.
|
|
|
|
Ignorance Personified
Seeker
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 15:07:42
|
SiriusBlack said:
quote:
I don't see it as an author hammering home a point, but an author showing a child developing an obsession.
The developement of that obsession is the point the author is trying to "hammer home." He could use different devices to display a characters growing obsession, I am certain that he does at points in the work, but he contstantly returns to this usage to clarify beyond doubt how Arya is responding to the difficulties she has endured. It is possible to argue that Martin is showing his audience this instead of telling them, but after this point has been raised so many times it is essentially telling the audience how to view the situation.
quote:
Having read the two writers, I couldn't disagree more.
I did not mean that the works were similar in style, I was using Martin and King to show that many authors often choose to tell their audience something rather than showing them. Though I do believe they possess some similarities, if you compare Martin's early works such as Wild Cards to The Legacy of Drizzt(the worst possible title for the entire series) and Demon Wars to A Song of .... Both of the later works have primary characters dying off throughout, both have civil wars that are majoring turing points in the work, both focus almost entirely on humans with other races only making "token" appearances, both have dragons in limited roles, both have viewpoint characters that range in age from early childhood to late adulthood, and both to show the developement of a younger childreb after they undergo a major turning point in their life and have different characters respound in vastly different manners. Both of the earlier works are action romps, Wild Cards is a series that has various characters being given "genetic aces" while all others are given "genetic jokers," the difference is that Salvatore is known for Drizzt while Martin is known for his epic Ice and Fire. Certainly the authors are different, though their more popular works make enhance their differnce more than it actually is. So yes I suppose I did take the comparison to far if you interpreted that as my intention, though it was not, though you also went beyond the defendable by saying..."I couldn't disagree more," what if I said (for example) that Curious George was the greatest literary achievement of the 20th Century. |
Carthago delenda est. |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 19:51:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ignorance Personified
The developement of that obsession is the point the author is trying to "hammer home." He could use different devices to display a characters growing obsession, I am certain that he does at points in the work, but he contstantly returns to this usage to clarify beyond doubt how Arya is responding to the difficulties she has endured.
No, I see it as Arya returning to dialogue to show an aspect of her character. I don't view as hammering at all in the context you are bringing up now.
quote:
It is possible to argue that Martin is showing his audience this instead of telling them, but after this point has been raised so many times it is essentially telling the audience how to view the situation.
We see it as clearly different. What Martin is doing is character development, an aspect I saw lacking in the works by the other author when I read them.
quote:
I did not mean that the works were similar in style,
Well then I apologize for misunderstanding you. I think that makes the second person to have trouble understanding you in this thread. I hope your fellow scribes can do better in the future.
quote:
I was using Martin and King to show that many authors often choose to tell their audience something rather than showing them. Though I do believe they possess some similarities, if you compare Martin's early works such as Wild Cards to The Legacy of Drizzt(the worst possible title for the entire series) and Demon Wars to A Song of .... Both of the later works have primary characters dying off throughout, both have civil wars that are majoring turing points in the work, both focus almost entirely on humans with other races only making "token" appearances, both have dragons in limited roles, both have viewpoint characters that range in age from early childhood to late adulthood, and both to show the developement of a younger childreb after they undergo a major turning point in their life and have different characters respound in vastly different manners. Both of the earlier works are action romps, Wild Cards is a series that has various characters being given "genetic aces" while all others are given "genetic jokers," the difference is that Salvatore is known for Drizzt while Martin is known for his epic Ice and Fire.
A big difference also between the two when comparing Salvatore's Drizzt books versus the popular Martin series is that Martin has no problems killing characters as part of the story. I doubt readers will ever see any of Drizzt or his comrades suffer such a fate. To me that shows that plot drives Martin's work while characters drive Salvatore's.
quote:
though you also went beyond the defendable by saying..."I couldn't disagree more," what if I said (for example) that Curious George was the greatest literary achievement of the 20th Century.
I'll hold back on what comment springs to mind with the Curious George reference. What exactly do you mean by "beyond the defendable?" You're confusing me as to what exactly you mean there.
SB |
|
|
|
Ignorance Personified
Seeker
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2004 : 23:17:37
|
SiriusBlack stated:
quote:
A big difference also between the two when comparing Salvatore's Drizzt books versus the popular Martin series is that Martin has no problems killing characters as part of the story.
I believe that I made a comparison to Demon Wars, where Salvatore does not have a problem killing characters as part of the story(the primary protagonist of the first trilogy being one example).
quote:
What exactly do you mean by "beyond the defendable?" You're confusing me as to what exactly you mean there.
To a degree greater than what is possible to support or maintain in rational discussion.
quote:
I think that makes the second person to have trouble understanding you in this thread. I hope your fellow scribes can do better in the future.
I certainly hope so(please note the sarcasm).
(End Sarcasm)I hope that I will be able to articulate myself in a suitable fashion during future discussions.
quote:
To me that shows that plot drives Martin's work while characters drive Salvatore's.
I concur.
|
Carthago delenda est. |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 23 Oct 2004 : 03:41:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ignorance Personified
I believe that I made a comparison to Demon Wars, where Salvatore does not have a problem killing characters as part of the story(the primary protagonist of the first trilogy being one example).
Sorry for the confusion. I guess I got confused as to whether or not you were comparing the Drizzt books, Demon Wars, or the Cleric series from R.A. Salvatore to Martin's Fire and Ice. Would you like to bring in any other books by R.A. Salvatore?
quote:
To a degree greater than what is possible to support or maintain in rational discussion.
Still confused. Sorry. English is not my first language. Bad English is but not proper English.
quote:
I concur.
Oh my goodness, did we just agree on something? Incredible. |
|
|
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
Posted - 23 Oct 2004 : 05:35:03
|
Crust: even if you're both a Drizzt and Elminster fan, most of your post expresses my views where RAS' writing is concerned with eerie exactness. I think I'm in love. 
quote:
I also notice that whenever there is a moment of irony, a flashback, a metaphor, or some other element of literature working in the story, the narrator has to point it out some way, by saying, "Drizzt noted the irony immediately," as if the reader would never pick up on it unless we have it hand-fed to us. That drives me nuts, and it doesn't happen only in RAS's work.
Yes, that and the coy, clumsy omniscient third-person statements. I simply fail to see the need for them. And while they do occur in other authors' work, outside and inside FR novel line alike, the frequency at which they do come up in RAS' novels is certainly... special. Quoting Night Masks:
quote:
"It would seem that you could use the meal," Ghost offered. "I did not know that reading could be so strenuous."
Cadderly chuckled at the witticism.
Yes, because just saying "Cadderly chuckled" is obviously not enough. Ooooh, look, it's a witticism! It's so... witty! Look at me chuckling along with the character at such piercing wit!
Except, well, not really. I've seen this defined as "Laughtrack" here: Characters grandstand and tug the reader's sleeve in an effort to force a specific emotional reaction. They laugh wildly at their own jokes, cry loudly at their own pain, and rob the reader of any real chance of attaining genuine emotion.
On the issue of Arya's kill list: Sirius has said it better than I can. I'm also puzzled as to why Ignorance Personified would think saying "I couldn't disagree more" is going beyond the defensible. English isn't my first language, mind you, but I'm reasonably confident in my fluency.
In any case, if you'd like, come over here for further discussion; anonymous guests can post. |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 23 Oct 2004 : 16:00:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
On the issue of Arya's kill list: Sirius has said it better than I can. I'm also puzzled as to why Ignorance Personified would think saying "I couldn't disagree more" is going beyond the defensible. English isn't my first language, mind you, but I'm reasonably confident in my fluency.
In any case, if you'd like, come over here for further discussion; anonymous guests can post.
Ignorance Personified:
There is a forum devoted to Martin's series. If you enjoy discussing his works let me know and I'll provide a link.
SB |
|
|
|
Lina
Senior Scribe
Australia
469 Posts |
Posted - 26 Oct 2004 : 10:42:21
|
| I don't think that Drizzt and his band are too overpowered. They are the heroes in the story after all. RAS probably wanted to seperate the heroes from the "commoners", making them stand out from the rest of the crowd by giving the band special abilities/powers and weapons. |
“Darkness beyond twilight, crimson beyond blood that flows! Buried in the flow of time. In thy great name. I pledge myself to darkness. All the fools who stand in our way shall be destroyed…by the power you and I possess! DRAGON SLAVE!!!”
"Thieves? Ah, such an ugly word... look upon them as the most honest sort of merchant."
-Oglar the Thieflord |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Overpowering
