| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Alaundo
Head Moderator
United Kingdom
5696 Posts |
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Jun 2007 : 01:15:45
|
Didn't care for this book much at all. After reading it, I have to admit that I was overwhelmed by a feeling of...indifference. Even my passionate hatred for a certain character was drowned out by apathy (and that probably isn't a bad thing, although I still wish she had met her death). Certain plot threads went nowhere, like the plot involving that black dragon. Characters are barely developed and have little consistency to them. Ivar is still an author's darling, although thankfully he doesn't have any more "warrior savant" scenes, and he does seem a bit more human than he did in the last two books. And there are quite a few wtf-ish moments, like where Marek Rymut gets kicked in the face by that Shou who turns out to be some kind of bird/werecreature/celestial/thing. 
I am not one to criticize any novel for not being "Realms-changing", and I'm really not that upset that Ivar ended up destroying his own creation. It was actually not a surprise to me, because I read the summary of The Fountainhead, and that very plot point--protagonist destroys what he was attempting to create to preserve its integrity--is found in Ayn Rand's work. But at the same time, I can't say I was especially moved by it--I just couldn't bring myself to care. In addition, for a novel that is supposedly about the power and potential of man, it was awfully dark, negative and humorless, with many characters dying grisly deaths.
PS: I...didn't think nagas had hands, either. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 30 Jun 2007 01:32:32 |
 |
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2007 : 01:15:31
|
| Furthermore, in my chapter explorations, there's two chapter 73s in my copy. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2007 : 23:23:04
|
Nagas are described as having the bodies of snakes, and snakes, as far as I know, do not have hands. Perhaps it's cheeky of me, but I'd go so far as to say those novels are both wrong (I did double check water naga descriptions, as well).
It's a little thing, really--not enough to make or break my liking of a novel, certainly, but after reading the whole book I decided I was unimpressed with it, on the whole. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 05 Jul 2007 23:25:13 |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2007 : 04:24:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Nagas are described as having the bodies of snakes, and snakes, as far as I know, do not have hands. Perhaps it's cheeky of me, but I'd go so far as to say those novels are both wrong (I did double check water naga descriptions, as well).
It's a little thing, really--not enough to make or break my liking of a novel, certainly, but after reading the whole book I decided I was unimpressed with it, on the whole.
You know it's funny, I agree with every single complaint you have made about this book and the characters, but for some reason I still liked the series overall. I hated Phyrea (the most beautiful woman in the Realms? geez), didn't care much for Devorast, Rymut was a good villian, but he went out like a chump (I too thought wtf when he got clocked by the were-bird). That being said, I liked the dwarf pretty well and I ended up really liking Pristoleph and his wemics and I thought Wenefir and Willem were good characters. I almost even started to like Devorast when he started to become a real person while hanging out with Pristoleph. I guess I ended up liking it because it gave me alot to play with in my next campaign. Which is also odd because Lady of Poison was not that great of a novel either in my opinion, but I used it extensively in another campaign. |
War to slay, not to fight long and glorious.
Aermhar of the Tangletrees
Year of the Hooded Falcon
Xysma's Gallery
Guide to the Tomes and Tales of the Realms download from Candlekeep
Anthologies and Tales Overviews
Check out my custom action figures, hand-painted miniatures, gaming products, and other stuff on eBay.
|
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2007 : 14:03:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Nagas are described as having the bodies of snakes, and snakes, as far as I know, do not have hands. Perhaps it's cheeky of me, but I'd go so far as to say those novels are both wrong (I did double check water naga descriptions, as well).
It's a little thing, really--not enough to make or break my liking of a novel, certainly, but after reading the whole book I decided I was unimpressed with it, on the whole.
I think there was something in Serpent Kingdoms about a naga having learned how to graft arms (or maybe someone had created the armed nagas through magical experimentation - can't remember I'm afraid), but it's not entirely without precedence. |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2007 : 23:21:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase
I think there was something in Serpent Kingdoms about a naga having learned how to graft arms (or maybe someone had created the armed nagas through magical experimentation - can't remember I'm afraid), but it's not entirely without precedence.
My opinion: if something in a novel is an exception to a rule, the novel should explain it, not expect the reader to justify it on their own. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 06 Jul 2007 23:21:59 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2007 : 23:25:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xysma
You know it's funny, I agree with every single complaint you have made about this book and the characters, but for some reason I still liked the series overall. I hated Phyrea (the most beautiful woman in the Realms? geez), didn't care much for Devorast, Rymut was a good villian, but he went out like a chump (I too thought wtf when he got clocked by the were-bird). That being said, I liked the dwarf pretty well and I ended up really liking Pristoleph and his wemics and I thought Wenefir and Willem were good characters. I almost even started to like Devorast when he started to become a real person while hanging out with Pristoleph. I guess I ended up liking it because it gave me alot to play with in my next campaign. Which is also odd because Lady of Poison was not that great of a novel either in my opinion, but I used it extensively in another campaign.
Well, if it gave you ideas, that's not a bad thing. 
I honestly wasn't very impressed with Pristoleph, though. I thought he and Devorast made friends too quickly (and with little explanation), and if I'm remembering things correctly, his character in the novel deviates somewhat from what the FRCS describes him as (IIRC, a CE sorcerer/arcane devotee of Cyric). I was also a little offended at how the novel wanted us to accept him as a decent guy (it seemed) when many of his actions throughout the series contradict that (not unlike how the novel wants us to care about that spoiled pig Phyrea).
And the scene where Pristoleph "judges" the people who changed the canal while he was away was ridiculous--a circus. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 06 Jul 2007 23:27:21 |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2007 : 06:25:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Xysma
You know it's funny, I agree with every single complaint you have made about this book and the characters, but for some reason I still liked the series overall. I hated Phyrea (the most beautiful woman in the Realms? geez), didn't care much for Devorast, Rymut was a good villian, but he went out like a chump (I too thought wtf when he got clocked by the were-bird). That being said, I liked the dwarf pretty well and I ended up really liking Pristoleph and his wemics and I thought Wenefir and Willem were good characters. I almost even started to like Devorast when he started to become a real person while hanging out with Pristoleph. I guess I ended up liking it because it gave me alot to play with in my next campaign. Which is also odd because Lady of Poison was not that great of a novel either in my opinion, but I used it extensively in another campaign.
Well, if it gave you ideas, that's not a bad thing.
I honestly wasn't very impressed with Pristoleph, though. I thought he and Devorast made friends too quickly (and with little explanation), and if I'm remembering things correctly, his character in the novel deviates somewhat from what the FRCS describes him as (IIRC, a CE sorcerer/arcane devotee of Cyric). I was also a little offended at how the novel wanted us to accept him as a decent guy (it seemed) when many of his actions throughout the series contradict that (not unlike how the novel wants us to care about that spoiled pig Phyrea).
And the scene where Pristoleph "judges" the people who changed the canal while he was away was ridiculous--a circus.
Hmmm, I must have missed that entry in the FRCS, he didn't display any arcane talent and repeatedly ridiculed Wenefir's faith in Cyric. I'd guess from the novel Rogue/Aristocrat or something to that effect. Also the two of them going away for five months with all that was going on was stupid, what did they think would happen? I will say that I took the changes in Pristoleph in the last novel to stem from an awakening within himself that he actually cared for the city he grew up in. |
War to slay, not to fight long and glorious.
Aermhar of the Tangletrees
Year of the Hooded Falcon
Xysma's Gallery
Guide to the Tomes and Tales of the Realms download from Candlekeep
Anthologies and Tales Overviews
Check out my custom action figures, hand-painted miniatures, gaming products, and other stuff on eBay.
|
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2007 : 16:17:04
|
Pristolph is one of those NPC's for 3e that is in flux. :) FRCS says he is a genasi, Shining South said he was human, the trilogy says he is a genasi. His classes were also changed between the two books. FRCS says he is a sorcerer/devotee, SS says he is a wizard. His alignment also changes between the two sourcebooks.
However, both books do say that he is a follower of Cyric.
And, I noticed an error in my NPC file about him, which will be changed in my next update. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2007 : 22:43:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xysma
Hmmm, I must have missed that entry in the FRCS, he didn't display any arcane talent and repeatedly ridiculed Wenefir's faith in Cyric.
My point exactly.  Pristoleph's portrayal in the novel doesn't match any of the references Kuje mentioned. In the novel, he has no magical powers (just some genasi abilities) and he has no particular love for Cyric.
quote:
Also the two of them going away for five months with all that was going on was stupid, what did they think would happen?
Yes, I felt the same way you did. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 08 Jul 2007 22:44:57 |
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2007 : 05:12:35
|
Because it annoyed me that I couldn't recall the exact details about the "armed" nagas I had to go look up the exact quote:
quote:
from Serpent Kingdoms, page 133
"Two disconcerting rumours have emerged from the Nagaland... The other rumour holds that a dark naga named Calliope, consort of Pristoleph the Purple (LE male Chondathan human wizard 12), has hatched a clutch of dark nagas with arms in the depths of the Chondalwood. Her progeny are said to be growing to maturity even now in the catacombs of Pristal Towers in Innarlith. In fact, the arms of these nagara are Yuan-ti grafts placed on them by Phelriss.)
|
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2007 : 02:25:45
|
Thanks for the quote. It's funny how that Pristoleph is totally different from the one in the book. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2007 : 04:22:12
|
| What really made me go "whoa!" when I wrote the quote down, though, was the bit about him having the naga as a consort. I know it probably means accomplice in this case, but still... eww. |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2007 : 05:54:00
|
Even if I liked the books, I'm a bit angry about the fact that the author ignored completely the previous lore on Pristoleph and Innarlith in general.
I'm curious what'll be considered the official canon lore now...
|
Edited by - Skeptic on 29 Jul 2007 05:54:56 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2007 : 04:26:26
|
Well, the short answer is that Pristoleph will be gone in 100 years . . .
The first two books were quirky, but they still held my attention. This particular one felt like it was trying too hard to resolve issues from the first two books, almost like elements in the first part of the trilogy really were thought out in terms of resolution, so the resolution felt kind of artificial.
After feeling like Ivar was a bit more human through most of the book, when he was constantly noted as being calm and not afraid, only confused, when he was facing Willem, I just didn't quite like that. Back to Ivar being more of a literary construct than a character.
I know that this book had strong objectivist themes to it, but I don't think that one can just "decide" to not be mentally ill any more, which seems to be what Phyrea did. Phyrea's turn around was just too dramatic, and I held out hope that there was some kind of tragic resolution coming, but to no avail (probably not for entirely the same reasons as RF, but because I really thought that was what was being foreshadowed with the character).
Regardless of the other changes that happened to Pristoleph, it just seemed strange that not only was he suddenly a fair minded ruler, but suddenly patriotic about Innarlith, which in earlier books he seemed to regard somewhat disparagingly.
In the end I think that Phil Athas does a really good job of introducing character elements that other authors wouldn't think of using, and writing really creepy scenes as well, but I think even though he comes up with some interesting, non standard character traits, he takes them to extremes that start to undermine the characters a bit.
I'm glad I read the books. They were an interesting experiment, but in the end, it felt a little "too" much like an experiment, and not enough like a fleshed out story arc.
|
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2007 : 05:16:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Well, the short answer is that Pristoleph will be gone in 100 years . . .
quote:
After feeling like Ivar was a bit more human through most of the book, when he was constantly noted as being calm and not afraid, only confused, when he was facing Willem, I just didn't quite like that. Back to Ivar being more of a literary construct than a character.
One could say that if you are unafraid of a dangerous, undead killer (and "only confused"), you are more insane than anything else.
quote:
I know that this book had strong objectivist themes to it, but I don't think that one can just "decide" to not be mentally ill any more, which seems to be what Phyrea did. Phyrea's turn around was just too dramatic, and I held out hope that there was some kind of tragic resolution coming, but to no avail (probably not for entirely the same reasons as RF, but because I really thought that was what was being foreshadowed with the character).
*snorts*
quote:
Regardless of the other changes that happened to Pristoleph, it just seemed strange that not only was he suddenly a fair minded ruler, but suddenly patriotic about Innarlith, which in earlier books he seemed to regard somewhat disparagingly.
It seemed to me that towards the end of this book, he turned into a good ruler, a man of deeply held convictions, and an all around nice guy...rather different from how he was portrayed before. Someone who is good friends with a priest of Cyric can't be that decent, even if they don't share the religion. Indeed, his character did quite the turnaround for the sake of the plot...
|
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Starchaserva
Acolyte
10 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2008 : 20:35:56
|
| I was mostly unsatisfied with the series, and it seems like a lot of the stuff that happens is simply because Athans wants it to happen, rather than it making sense, or having a viable explanation why it happened. Devorast is a warrior savant because Athans wants him to be, not because it makes sense. And there are other examples. There were a lot of grisly deaths, including Halina's, that I just thought were dealt with fairly un-ceremoniously, and I was confused that the big bad evil dragon subplot is resolved simply by the dragon leaving and never returning just like that. Things just happen, characters are inconsistent, and Devorast is an author's darling if ever there was one. I could barely bring myself to care about most of the characters. Phyrea was just annoying as hell, for a number of reasons. Athans references her body as "the most insidious weapon in Innarlith" like she's some kind of James Bond superthief when we've only really seen her skills like...once or twice? In the first book? Not only that, but I also agree that her being the most beautiful woman in the realms to be a big pile of horsefeathers. Innarlith maybe. Devorast defeats all his problems by just being obstinant and self beleiving, though he's less robotic in this story |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 26 Nov 2008 : 22:13:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starchaserva
Athans references her body as "the most insidious weapon in Innarlith" like she's some kind of James Bond superthief when we've only really seen her skills like...once or twice?
Ah yes, I distinctly remember that line. I consider it to be, in all likelihood, the dumbest line I've ever read in any piece of fiction. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Scream of Stone: Chapters 71 - 79 & Epilogue
