Elminster/I haven't been flamed in awhile...
NOIP
Is anyone else troubled by the dramatically unsatisfying character of
Elminster? Even if we leave aside Ed Greenwood's bad writing (which I
won't even address in light of how poorly-received my comments on Piers
Anthony were) lets just consider the way Elminster's been established.
First, he's the de facto Archmage Laureate of the Realms, leaving
aside the Harpers and the Seven Sisters. All right, I'll buy that,
since I can accept that he worked hard to get there. But dramatically,
there's nothing satisfying about a character who can smash any foe he's
likely to face without being in real danger.
No real danger? Well, I cite Elminster's Evasion as the ultimate
Munchkin spell in this case. This way, even if something, God forbid,
should threaten Ellie in any real sense, his contingency spells whisk
him away to lick his wounds.
Okay, we've all played with characters who stack the deck, and I don't
deny that in real life this is a likely pursuit. But it has no dramatic
value since we never really have to fear for Elminster's life. Even if
something gets past his best-laid plans, we have Mystra waiting in the
wings to snap him back into shape and resurrect him. Once again, this
is unsatisfying. How can we sympathize with a character who's in no
real danger, even from death? It's like Superman vs. just about anyone
else; once he's been established as a character able even to return from
death, from the one thing that actually threatened him, there's nothing
else to worry about. Any pain he suffers he can heal, or at least
endure; any injury can be repaired with a little help from his Mistress;
death itself is no barrier. What's left?
Does anyone remember a few months ago when someone asked for stats on
Elminster's Underwear and Pipe? Though we all scoffed at him, that does
point out what an unsatisfying, self-lampooning character Elminster has
become. When we accept that even his underwear is more powerful than
the average bear, what kind of concern can we have for him as a
character?
Boy, I can't wait for the flames I get on this one...
NOIP
E Gray
NOIP wrote in message <3481CA...@supernews.com>...
>Is anyone else troubled by the dramatically unsatisfying character of
>Elminster? Even if we leave aside Ed Greenwood's bad writing (which I
>won't even address in light of how poorly-received my comments on Piers
>Anthony were) lets just consider the way Elminster's been established.
Face you hate every author that is well liked by anyone and not dead for
the past hundred years.. Or something.. Either that or you're a no good
dirty rotten, mud sucking Troll.
> First, he's the de facto Archmage Laureate of the Realms, leaving
>aside the Harpers and the Seven Sisters. All right, I'll buy that,
>since I can accept that he worked hard to get there. But dramatically,
>there's nothing satisfying about a character who can smash any foe he's
>likely to face without being in real danger.
Well seeing as how he is not supposed to do be doing these things himself
it's hardly a concern for me. He's the Deus ex Machina for the Realms just
like Fizban, only Elminster is obviously powerful..
> Okay, we've all played with characters who stack the deck, and I don't
>deny that in real life this is a likely pursuit. But it has no dramatic
>value since we never really have to fear for Elminster's life.
DO you not understand the fact that Elminster is not normally
supposed to be the primary character? Heck the only FR book
I've seen him in that position is the one that described his
beginnings.. In every other book he's been a remote figure who
serves not to do things, but to help them happen...
> Boy, I can't wait for the flames I get on this one...
I can't even understand why you're complaining unless you want
Elminster to be just another character rather than the force of
motivation that he is supposed to be.... Elminster might help
things happen but he doesn't normally do them himself for
whatever reason... He's like the Emperor in Saberhagen's
Sword series or Dworkin in Zelazny's Amber, heck like
Atoning Unifex in Julian May's book. He's supposed
to be remote and not directly involved. It doesn't matter
that he could blast everything to kingdom come, because
for various reasons...he won't. He'll let someone else try to
do it for him...
Bardthoma
> Either that or you're a no good
>dirty rotten, mud sucking Troll.
>
Every referance I have seen says the term "trolling" is a fishing referance.
But what do flames have to do with normal fishing? What if this is a D&D
referance? Just an idea that I had floating around in my head.
Amoht
Jose Lozada
I think you have a good point. I believe the main reason Mr.
Greenwood did this is as a defense against "munchkins." I have been
playing D&D for over 18 years, and I remember countless players from
other campaigns telling me, and numerous letters to dragon Mag (usually
published in their April issue :-)) describing how they had killed all
the gods and archdemons (Demogorgon and Orcus were particularly
victimized back then).
This is probably one of the reasons TSR switched from the deities'
"real" stats to "merely" avatars' stats -- although anyone who
objectively peruses the original Deities and Demigods book will notice
that any ONE of these entities would have been a challenge to any group
of players, no matter how powerful, if the encounters were played by the
rules.
And that's why I think all these Misbegotten Re.... er... I
mean, Forgotten Realms archmages, and Elminster in particular, are so
powerful. Of course, who really cares what the individual DM chooses to
do in his campaign...
Just some thoughts,
Jose
--
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost.
-JRR Tolkien
E Gray
Bardthoma wrote in message <19971130214...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
It is a usenet reference. See the FAQ when it comes out for the answer..
Should be available in the next couple of days..
NOIP
E Gray wrote:
>
> Face it you hate every author that is well liked by anyone and not dead for
> the past hundred years.. Or something.. Either that or you're a no good
> dirty rotten, mud sucking Troll.
I think (hope) neither of those is really true. Actually, I like
Jordan, Donaldson, Pratchett, Tolkein, Bradley, and Lackey. I just find
Greenwood to be wordy and self indulgent, and, once again, a popular
writer is not necessarily good, and a good writer is not necessarily
popular.
> > First, he's the de facto Archmage Laureate of the Realms, leaving
> >aside the Harpers and the Seven Sisters. All right, I'll buy that,
> >since I can accept that he worked hard to get there. But dramatically,
> >there's nothing satisfying about a character who can smash any foe he's
> >likely to face without being in real danger.
>
> Well seeing as how he is not supposed to do be doing these things himself
> it's hardly a concern for me. He's the Deus ex Machina for the Realms just
> like Fizban, only Elminster is obviously powerful..
>
Ah ha! That _does_ explain a good deal for me. I object in general
to deux ex as a device, given that it retroactively destroys anything
the characters have fought for up to that point, but if that's the role
he's designed to fill then that's something different. What's he
supposed to do, exactly? I'm not being a smart ass; I just don't
understand his purpose.
> > Okay, we've all played with characters who stack the deck, and I don't
> >deny that in real life this is a likely pursuit. But it has no dramatic
> >value since we never really have to fear for Elminster's life.
>
> Do you not understand the fact that Elminster is not normally
> supposed to be the primary character? Heck the only FR book
> I've seen him in that position is the one that described his
> beginnings.. In every other book he's been a remote figure who
> serves not to do things, but to help them happen...
Well, I read Making of a Mage, and that, coupled with Greenwood's
other periodic ramblings have made me think of Elminster as an active
character, not a facilitator.
*Ding*- comprehension!
NOIP
jonesy
> >>dirty rotten, mud sucking Troll.
> >>
> >
> referance.
> >But what do flames have to do with normal fishing? What if this is a
> D&D
> >referance? Just an idea that I had floating around in my head.
>
> It is a usenet reference. See the FAQ when it comes out for the
> answer..
> Should be available in the next couple of days..
Well, mabey it's handed down from one of the usenet ancestors who played
FRPs and thought that troll sounded like a good discription for those
amoral, uncivilized types that can't hold a rational conversation. And
his usenet buddy, who also happened to play FRPs, decided that flameing
was a good way to descibe the process by which these unsavory characters
were delt with (Get it! *Troll*: dealt with by *flaming).
<Okay, okay. I know, its a stretch. Just stop throwing the rotton
veggies.> :)
--
-jonesy
People who don't want to do anything
about anything never achieve anything
and aren't good for anything.
-Figaro
from Figaro's Marriage (Act II)
by Beaumarchais
Simon Todd
NOIP <dms...@email.psu.edu> wrote in article
<3481CA...@supernews.com>...
> Is anyone else troubled by the dramatically unsatisfying character of
> Elminster?
I see him very much as a Merlin character, as in T.H. Whites version. dotty
on the outside but with a deep well of knowledge bubbling within. Over the
years he has learnt to listen more than speek and never think he knows
everything. I know he is very powerful, but it is not flaunted. Like any
npc in a game he is a generic lump of two dimensional material for the
individual Dm to use or not. I think the problem may be that some DM's
might not be able to attach enough wisdom and depth to him, not being able
to get away from the Disney like surface. he may like fizzy pop and
probably farts in the bath but he has earnt that right. He rarely needs to
face combat because he avoids it, and he is certainly aware of his own
mortality.
I see him as an npc in semi retirement from the world, above the hurley
burley of the openly serious minded mages.
Si
DuaneVP
>> Either that or you're a no good
>>dirty rotten, mud sucking Troll.
>>
>
>Every referance I have seen says the term "trolling" is a fishing referance.
>But what do flames have to do with normal fishing? What if this is a D&D
>referance? Just an idea that I had floating around in my head.
Now THAT'S a troll. :-)
Duane VanderPol
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" - Thomas Watson, IBM
Chairman, 1943
DuaneVP
My 2cp:
In my Realms campaigns I have never used Ellie as a NPC who gets deeply
involved in anything the PC's are doing. He may actually ask them to do
something for him, but there's the rub - THEY are doing it FOR him and I keep
him out of it. In one campaign I played in Elminsters appearance was a sure
sign that we, the PC's were about to get screwed in some annoying fashion
because of all the "big juju" that just seemed to go wherever he was. (We were
going through the Time of Troubles modules). We gave him the respect he
deserved as the worlds most powerful archmage but would have preferred to see
our characters die horribly than have to depend on HIM to save our butts. We
kept him out of it as much as possible and were doing our damndest to avoid any
need for him to meddle in ANY affairs ANYwhere near us. To do otherwise would
have made things far less enjoyable for our characters.
Like others say they've done, IMC I've treated him rather like Gandalf in
"Lord of the Rings" who would never take up the reins of power personally,
preferring instead to encourage others he thought worthy of the task to do so,
and then support THEM in the running of the world.
Gandalf would never accept the One Ring to use (or even carry!) because he
knew that he'd abuse that power whether he intended to or not. In a similar
way, IMC Elminster does NOT go around saving the Realms just because he can,
nor enforcing his will of "how things should be" upon the world - because that
would effectively place him in the position of declaring himself RULER OF THE
REALMS or some equivelent of that. Even if he did so with the best of
intentions he doesn't have that right, nor is it his responsibility, even if he
wanted to have that responsibility.
But, scince he wants to Do The Right Thing he travels a lot, keeps his eyes
open and his ears to the ground for news of what's happening in the world.
Sometimes he may see to a "problem" personally, but mostly he notifies the
Harpers that they might want to look into it, or asks some other group of
do-gooders (like PC's for example) to take an interest. Or perhaps he simply
works to convince some nearby ruler that it's in his own best interests to
handle things.
Unfortunately, I failed to make this distinction clear to the players and
they came to have that "If things get really bad Elminster will just handle it"
attitude that we all seem to despise. So, I killed him off. It wasn't even
hard to think up a reason: Elminster is not a god - therefore he must be
mortal. Yet, even though he's mortal he's effectively immortal in the sense
that he's going to live forever. That might have been okay if he were an Elf
who has a better understanding of what it means to be incredibly long-lived,
but El is human. So, El simply gets tired of living and for his lifetime of
hard work is _granted_ death and made a demi-god.
Though still concerned directly with the protection of the Realms, as a
quasi-deity he is prevented from interfering too much. (The last time the gods
did that sort of thing was the Time of Troubles and we all know how THAT turned
out.)
The trouble with Elminster is not his tremendous power, but in how the DM
(or even Ed Greenwood for that matter) allows him to make use of that power.
James N. Daniel, III
> > First, he's the de facto Archmage Laureate of the Realms, leaving
> >aside the Harpers and the Seven Sisters. All right, I'll buy that,
> >since I can accept that he worked hard to get there. But dramatically,
> >there's nothing satisfying about a character who can smash any foe he's
> >likely to face without being in real danger.
>
> Well seeing as how he is not supposed to do be doing these things himself
> it's hardly a concern for me. He's the Deus ex Machina for the Realms just
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> like Fizban, only Elminster is obviously powerful..
Shouldn't that be "Deus ex Munchkina?"
James Daniel
James N. Daniel, III
Bardthoma wrote:
>
> > Either that or you're a no good
> >dirty rotten, mud sucking Troll.
> >
>
> Every referance I have seen says the term "trolling" is a fishing referance.
> But what do flames have to do with normal fishing? What if this is a D&D
> referance? Just an idea that I had floating around in my head.
>
It is exactly that. When you're doing "trolling" as a fisherman,
you're putting along in your boat, your line in the water, waiting
to catch a bite.
When "trolling" in the newsgroups, it's the same thing. You're
not trying to say anything meaningful, rather you wish to provoke
a response ... waiting for a "bite" if you will.
Any similarity to D&D is coincidental, though it's possible that
the fishing term derived from the classic trollish monster, that
would wait underneath a bridge, in hopes that someone would cross,
so that it might catch a bite to eat. A "fisher of men" in a very
unChristian sense.
James Daniel
James N. Daniel, III
NOIP wrote:
>
> Is anyone else troubled by the dramatically unsatisfying character of
> won't even address in light of how poorly-received my comments on Piers
> Anthony were) lets just consider the way Elminster's been established.
Well, I did have a problem with the diatribes against Piers Anthony.
Most of Anthony's books are just so much junk-food reading, but some
are very deep, powerful and meaningful. In particular, "On a Pale
Horse" from the incarnations series was very profound, and I think
would be a useful read for any young reader (15 to 30-ish) who's
had to face death in a personal manner. Others of his books
aren't quite so deep, but have a sense of personal honor and
integrity, and a common theme of his is the loss of that honor.
Ed Greenwood, on the other hand, is a munchkin through and through,
or rather his novels are. The design behind his games, such as the
first Undermountain set, and Myth Drannor, are very cohesive, and
qualify as power gaming, at the very worst, and usually better than
mere power gaming.
The design behind his spells leaves a bit to be desired. A perusal
of his Seven Sisters book leaves one with hundreds of spells that
a DM wouldn't dare give out to his players (except maybe the one
for making turtle soup), and probably wouldn't want NPCs to be using
(cuz realistically played NPCs would then trounce the PCs without a
problem). Some of the spells are OK for a high-powered game, but
some probably shouldn't have been mentioned except that they let the
Simbul do stuff that no one else can.
His stories, though, are miserable. At least the early Salvatore
novels let the players hear the dice rolls. In Greenwood's,
there is no dice rolling. Elminster doesn't have to roll dice, since
one of his powers is that he always makes his rolls. (The Spellfire
stuff is very similar, by the way.)
> First, he's the de facto Archmage Laureate of the Realms, leaving
> aside the Harpers and the Seven Sisters. All right, I'll buy that,
> since I can accept that he worked hard to get there. But dramatically,
> there's nothing satisfying about a character who can smash any foe he's
> likely to face without being in real danger.
> No real danger? Well, I cite Elminster's Evasion as the ultimate
> Munchkin spell in this case. This way, even if something, God forbid,
> should threaten Ellie in any real sense, his contingency spells whisk
> him away to lick his wounds.
Well, to be fair, things like Elminster's Evasion come about because
idiot players decide things like "Hey, let's go kill Elminster",
then succeed in killing Elminster because the DM was stupid enough
to let the PCs near, and now the DM needs Elminster to give out a
mission in the next adventure, so here he is back from the almost-
dead.
> Okay, we've all played with characters who stack the deck, and I don't
> deny that in real life this is a likely pursuit. But it has no dramatic
> value since we never really have to fear for Elminster's life. Even if
> something gets past his best-laid plans, we have Mystra waiting in the
> wings to snap him back into shape and resurrect him. Once again, this
> is unsatisfying. How can we sympathize with a character who's in no
> real danger, even from death? It's like Superman vs. just about anyone
> else; once he's been established as a character able even to return from
> death, from the one thing that actually threatened him, there's nothing
> else to worry about. Any pain he suffers he can heal, or at least
> endure; any injury can be repaired with a little help from his Mistress;
> death itself is no barrier. What's left?
The thing that munchkinizes Elminster is that he has no character.
I'm sure Ed Greenwood does great impressions at the conventions, but
Elminster is never anything other than a wise old man. He has no
wants, needs or ambitions other than to protect the realms and
send wannabee heroes on fun and exciting adventures.
Frankly, Ronald McDonald has about as much depth.
Just to give a contrast, Lynn Abbey has written a story about
the Simbul (the lastest in the "Nobles" books) in which she
a) has to face emotional problems
b) makes mistakes
c) has to keep her temper in check
and so on. She has wants and needs and ambitions. She doesn't
blast a Zulkir from Thay just because he's right there ready to
be blasted. She'd rather convice a boy to trust her than to just
run the Charm spell trick, which is very tempting for her. I'm
looking forward to the next book. Heck, the Simbul is supposed to
be even more ridiculously powerful than Elminster, even (read up
on the Seven Sisters), but is less munchkinish because she still
strives to learn self-control.
> Does anyone remember a few months ago when someone asked for stats on
> Elminster's Underwear and Pipe? Though we all scoffed at him, that does
> point out what an unsatisfying, self-lampooning character Elminster has
> become. When we accept that even his underwear is more powerful than
> the average bear, what kind of concern can we have for him as a
> character?
None, but it's because he has no character, not because he has
self-flushing underwear and other super-powers.
James Daniel
Dave Brohman
James N. Daniel, III (dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
Someone wrote:
> > Well seeing as how he is not supposed to do be doing these things himself
> > it's hardly a concern for me. He's the Deus ex Machina for the Realms just
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > like Fizban, only Elminster is obviously powerful..
> Shouldn't that be "Deus ex Munchkina?"
Good one :) (Though it translates as "God from the Munchkin" ;)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Brohman E-Mail : dbro...@chat.carleton.ca
Carleton University
"Dogs are not like cats, who amusingly tolerate humans only until
someone comes up with a tin-opener that can be operated with a paw."
- Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damien Vigar
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, James N. Daniel, III wrote:
> E Gray wrote:
> >
> > NOIP wrote in message <3481CA...@supernews.com>...
<snip Elmonster diatribe>
> > Well seeing as how he is not supposed to do be doing these things himself
> > it's hardly a concern for me. He's the Deus ex Machina for the Realms just
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > like Fizban, only Elminster is obviously powerful..
>
>
> Shouldn't that be "Deus ex Munchkina?"
>
>
> James Daniel
>
What, a god that is lowered from out of a munchkin to solve problems and
tie up loose storylines?
(I always wondered where some of these guys got their gods from...)
Cheers,
--
"Dogs are not like cats, who amusingly tolerate humans only until someone
comes up with a tin-opener that can be operated with a paw."
- Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms -
Damien <Damien...@jcu.edu.au>
K. Aspinall
>>Elminster? Even if we leave aside Ed Greenwood's bad writing (which I
>>won't even address in light of how poorly-received my comments on Piers
>>Anthony were) lets just consider the way Elminster's been established.
>
>the past hundred years.. Or something.. Either that or you're a no good
>dirty rotten, mud sucking Troll.
He's entitled to his opinions, and in this case I agree with him - Ed
greenwood and Piers anthony cannot write decent books. Both, IMO, have a
childish style of writing with no drama, tension or life in the stories.
Alos, Ed Greenwoods characters simply arnt real - they do not exist in the
books. His characters simply dont act real enough to be believable, which
spoils a book from the word go.
Also, both authors suffer from the "enemy is completely stupid" syndrome...
Now, Terry Goodkind / Robert Jordan / Raymond e. Feist are a different
story...
Waiting to be flamed,
Kris Aspinall
Erik Ward
In article <34849130...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu>, dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu
says...
I've always considered characters like Elminster as the more powerful guy
around the corner. No matter how powerful the party gets, there is always
someone more powerful just around the corner. Some, like Elminster, are good
(potential allies/patrons); others, like Manshoon and Fzoul, are evil
(long-term enemies). I'll admit that Elminster is pretty munchkin as written
(by munchkin, I mean he has access to power unavailable to others of
equivilant level), but that is more a necessary result of storytelling than a
flaw in the character: the heroes of fantasy are almost always exceptional
examples of their race/class/type. The solution is to draw back Elminster's
powers when using him in a campaign (or more accurately, making sure ALL
archmages - your quantity may vary - are roughly equal in power.)
As for Elminster's Evasion -- if *I* were an archmage of great power (is that
redundant?) I would create spell/spells/items to attempt exactly what the
Evasion does (or attempt to become a lich!) It is, IIRC, a 9th level spell.
Wishes CAN bring people back from the dead -- is it really unreasonable to
have a spell that wisks you away just prior to death? Most of the healing and
such, IIRC, are done by other contingencies and potions; the Evasion simply is
the escape mechanism (sort of equivilant to the Lich's hidden phylactery.)
As for his items, archmages should have all sorts of little, useful items. If
I were an archmage, I'd have temperature controled, instant tents,
dishwashers, lawnmowers, etc. My favorite spell would probably be cantrip
(especially the USEFUL ones -- clean, freshen, spice, cool, warm, dust, etc).
Yes, I would have powerful magics, but the fact is, the single most useful
(everyday) spell is probably unseen servant: 'Boy, this tower is a mess. Five
unseen servants should get it cleaned up quickly!'
The problem *I* have with Elminster is his 2-D portrayal. I'd like to see a
bit more of his (a) personality, instead of simple awesome magical powers. To
put it bluntly, spells and items do NOT define a character.
Alan Shutko
>>>>> "K" == K Aspinall <CSC...@leeds.ac.uk> writes:
K> He's entitled to his opinions, and in this case I agree with him -
K> Ed greenwood and Piers anthony cannot write decent books.
I disagree, in part. Piers Anthony _can_ write decent books, as he's
demonstrated on occasion. However, he doesn't care to write decent
books since the market will buy whatever crap he puts on paper.
That's why I don't like him.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
The surest sign that a man is in love is when he divorces his wife.
James N. Daniel, III
> > > it's hardly a concern for me. He's the Deus ex Machina for the Realms just
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > like Fizban, only Elminster is obviously powerful..
>
> > Shouldn't that be "Deus ex Munchkina?"
>
Yeah. So?
An appropriate task for a munchkin, wouldn't you say?
[Evil cackle]
James Daniel
James N. Daniel, III
NOIP wrote:
>
> James N. Daniel, III wrote:
> >
> > Well, I did have a problem with the diatribes against Piers Anthony.
> > Most of Anthony's books are just so much junk-food reading, but some
> > are very deep, powerful and meaningful. In particular, "On a Pale
> > Horse" from the incarnations series was very profound, and I think
> > would be a useful read for any young reader (15 to 30-ish) who's
> > had to face death in a personal manner. Others of his books
> > aren't quite so deep, but have a sense of personal honor and
> > integrity, and a common theme of his is the loss of that honor.
> >
>
> specifically about his _awful_ spells (why is it that every spell is
> named "spellname", as though making a compound word somehow makes the
> spell more interesting--"ironguard" "dweomerdire" "dweomerdeny" just to
> name a few), I'll stand by my complaints about Anthony. I don't buy the
> excuse that, since once in a great while he spits out a character with
> depth, it's okay for him to write shit the rest of the time. I, too,
> enjoyed On a Pale Horse, but that just makes worse the followup
> Incarnation books. I have difficulty crediting an author with literary
> prowess or even skillful character writing when simply by the law of
> averages he's almost bound to stumble on a good character accidentally
> once in a while. (And don't zap me for the misuse of the law of
> averages, I know, I know.)
Heh. Well, I could say the same thing about Mozart that you say
about Anthony. Mozart wrote hundreds of works, and a hundred or
so symphonies, most of which are unremarkable. He's guilty of
all the formulaic writing that Anthony is, and was writing for the
same purpose Anthony is: to please the public. Pleasing the public
is what pays the bills. There are a few works by Mozart which are
masterpieces, and are played over and over again, but the rest
are just "filler": good music, pleasant to hear, but nothing you'd
feel an overwhelming desire to hear again. Beethoven, on the other
hand, came out with only 9 symphonies, yet each is a masterpiece,
and 5 of those nine (3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th) are not merely
masterpieces, but music beloved of all who hear it, even to the point
of becoming profoundly influential to subsequent composers.
What I'm getting at is that for those who write for the public, in
order to make money, must write relative tripe at times just to get
the bills paid, and the work is good enough for the public to buy it.
I now look for other authors than Anthony, but I enjoyed many of
his books, and he is the author who got me back into reading
voraciously after I graduated high school. (High school English
courses made me rather sick of reading stuff.) I would heartily
recommend his Apprentice Adept series (the first three, not the
Robot Adept ones that came later), and several of the Incarnations
series, namely ones about Death, Nature and Evil (the others failed
to have the same enchanting qualities). The Xanth series is by
no means a collection of masterworks, but they would be a top
recommendation by me to any young readers who want to go beyond
children's books, but need something more interesting (and a bit
more comprehensible to a young mind) than a modern "bestseller"
novel.
Yes, he has "horrible" things, such as the silly stereotypes in
"A Spell for Chameleon", but the story isn't about justifying
those stereotypes: just the opposite, in fact. Tongue-in-cheek,
Anthony is demonstrating the silliness of it all, contrasting
the sour-tongued, ugly, but intelligent version of Chameleon
with the sweet but vapid personality with which she is replaced.
The moral of the story is that they _are_ the same person, and the
implication is that neither stereotype really applies. One
extrapolation is that we all have different aspects to our
personalities, some as drastic as Chameleon's (yes, I've known
women like her, who don't change physically, but do vary from
very sweet to very sour) and others not so drastic.
Keep in mind that fairy tales are full of the same sorts of
horrible things, such as children being eaten by witches,
trolls and so on, but often have similar morality lessons,
such as the consequences of not keeping one's promises. (Fairy
tales, being fairy tales, lack much in the way of character
development, too, it seems.)
Another point: if you want to criticize any sort of work
of fiction as being morally despicable, it is easy to do so,
especially if it is concerned with morality. See, in order
make morality an issue, then the story must demonstrate bad
examples. Then your wannabee critic can latch on to the bad
example, and say, "Look! See? Here he shows how sexist he
is. Here he shows how racist he is," and so on. This is an
age-old practice, and has been used by minority advocacy groups
to ban books like "Tom Sawyer" and "The Grapes of Wrath" from
suggested/required reading lists, even though such books are
_the_ anti-racism books of their day!
> It seems to me Mr. Anthony is in love with himself and his process of
> writing, which can be great, but in his case it has led to too many
> books and not enough stories. You are correct in asserting that
> character is what drives a story, be it a novel, a film, a comic book,
> or an RPG adventure. But, lacking a plot, character in itself is
> insufficient to tie a story together.
In case you hadn't noticed, readers actually want his author's notes.
Many of them are young, and like the idea of getting to know what
an author was thinking while writing the book. He tells stories
in these notes, just as much as he is in the rest of the book. Yes,
it is a bit fatuous, but then, I write music, and I like listening
to what I've written. I solve physics problems, and I admire how
I have come up with a solution. For Piers Anthony, he likes
"talking" with his readers (though he's also learned the hard lessons
of dealing with the nut cases that are out there).
> Consider "Bearing an Hourglass," which lacked both plot _and_
> character. I confess openly that I have not read a adequately broad
> sampling of Anthony's "writing" to make a precise overall judgment. Yet,
> since he still releases the Incarnations and still makes money from
> them, I submit that these can be held as representative of his talents.
> Obviously he must think so, if he's content to let them remain in
> print. Thus it is with these that I justify my opinions.
As for your specific examples, yes, "Bearing an Hourglass" was barely
bearable [to insert a Xanthish pun!].
> It's not like he's Shakespeare and we're ignoring a single bad play in
> the face of a dozen great ones; he's Piers Anthony, who's penned a
> couple of passable works and a lot of garbage. I'm sure somewhere in
> his inkwell Ed Greenwood has a great character waiting to be written,
> but, even after that character is on the page, Greenwood will still be a
> bad author. Both are popular, yes, but neither is particularly good,
> from a _literary_ standpoint.
One fallacy of comparing modern literature to classic literature,
be it the written word or even music, is that the more "classic"
the work, the less that we remember of all the horrid stuff that
was also written during the same period. Yes, we have tons of
crap on music and bookstore shelves, and yet there's almost
always someone who likes it enough that publishers will publish
more of it. Somewhere in that crap is a gem or three, which will
be remembered 20 to 50 years from now, and a hundred years from now,
perhaps one gem or none is remembered.
You're comparing the author of the absolute best poetry and prose
of the Elizabethan era with a popular modern author of fairy tales.
I also disagree that Greenwood is popular. He's hardly written
anything, and there really isn't that much demand for it
except from a gaming standpoint.
> I had an argument with an English Prof recently. She asserted that
> Sci-Fi and Fantasy were both bad genres. Aspiring to those genres
> myself, I approached her after class and pursued the matter. She
> recanted slightly, expressing that the problem with the genres is not
> subject matter, but the authors working in it. Yes, you have your
> Tolkiens, but you also have your Anthonies.
I must disagree with the both of you. Sci-Fi and Fantasy aren't
"bad", per se. They're _popular_. Most people I know who read
voraciously tend to read science fiction and/or fantasy. These are
the ones with huge boxes of books (and often comic books, too)
that would much rather buy yet another book (for $6 or so these days)
and enjoy it at their leisure, rather than spend $3 to rent a movie
(for 1.5 hours of entertainment on one night) or $6 to go to a movie
(for the same kind of entertainment). So this is where the money
is. Other genres are popular, too, of course, but it is the
one genre other than what might be called the "bestseller" genre
(the one they make TV mini-series out of) and the various trash
genres (romance novels and the like) the keep the publishing
industry going.
Well, since there's more being put out, there's more crap. I would
argue, though, that on those shelves of the SF/Fantasy section at
the bookstore, there's a higher percentage of non-crap than many
would think. Not that all the non-crap has masterpieces, but
there are several authors who write consistent work. Anne McCaffrey,
Piers Anthony [largely responsible for a lot of non-crap, though
he writes some pretty lame stories, too], Isaac Asimov, Terry Brooks,
David Eddings, David Duncan, Robert Jordan [if only he'd FINISH that
damn series], Terry Goodkind, Robert Heinlein, Nina Kiriki Hoffman
[two books, but both are good, and the earlier one is a treasure], David
Weber, James Hogan, Lawrence Watt-Evans, L. E. Modesitt, and many
others that I've read over the years. Of these, Heinlein and
Eddings are superior, and would be far more widely regarded as
authors were they not relegated to the "SF/Fantasy" category.
Goodkind has a chance to become superior, if he keeps up the good
work, and broadens his horizons.
Tolkein doesn't hold a candle to many of these. Tolkein wrote the
best fantasy of his time, but the genre has developed beyond his
original ideas. I've never been able to read through The Lord of
the Rings more than the one time (I get too damned bored about
the middle of the second book), though the Hobbit is OK. Eddings'
Belgariad and Malloreon take the high fantasy genre much further,
developing extremely true-to-life characters, establishing a constant
tongue-in-cheek humor that doesn't get in the way of the plot, and
exploring how people would manage in such a world. Gandalf is
cute, but he's pretty much a 2-D old, wise wizard who doesn't seem
to want much more than to save the world (remind you of Elminster
at all?). Belgarath, however, is real. Yeah, he's 7000 years old
or so, but he can be wise, thoughtful, snippy, mischievous, drunk,
grumpy, he professionally spans the spectrum from scientist to
charlatan, and he desperately misses his wife since her death.
The only suspension of disbelief for the reader is his
age and magic powers. The rest is very, very real ... we know
people who are like this (or exhibit similar combinations of
similar facets of their personalities).
> Until I read something to the contrary, I have to maintain my view of
> Anthony's merits.
Well, if you haven't covered the first three Apprentice Adept books,
I suggest you try them out.
Otherwise, I'd have to say that Anthony is more or less a commercial
Mozart-type, writing novels that can either hit or miss, but have
playful aspects that make them entertaining, nonetheless. Eddings
has written a more enduring work, which I think will be a fantasy
staple (at least, if not a more widely accepted one: all the
Malloreon, and the Belgarath and Polgara books hit the bestseller
lists, which Anthony manages, too, on occasion.) If you were to
have your discussion with your English prof again, you would do well
to bring up Eddings. No one I've introduced to fantasy with
Eddings first has been disappointed, though they do look rather
glum once they start reading other random fantasy authors "Why
isn't this as good as that other stuff you showed me?" I'm asked.
I have to reply that Eddings is the best. Other authors, even
in non-fantasy, would do well to emulate him (and his wife,
as his recent books acknowledge.)
James Daniel
Backal Ergot
Add Salvatore, Hickman, and Weis to your list of good authors or I'll put
you in a headlock!(stretches arms threateningly)
Backal Ergot
Pat & Jen Younts
> Tolkein doesn't hold a candle to many of these. Tolkein wrote the
> best fantasy of his time, but the genre has developed beyond his
> original ideas. I've never been able to read through The Lord of
> the Rings more than the one time (I get too damned bored about
> the middle of the second book), though the Hobbit is OK. Eddings'
> Belgariad and Malloreon take the high fantasy genre much further,
> developing extremely true-to-life characters, establishing a constant
> tongue-in-cheek humor that doesn't get in the way of the plot, and
> exploring how people would manage in such a world. Gandalf is
> cute, but he's pretty much a 2-D old, wise wizard who doesn't seem
> to want much more than to save the world (remind you of Elminster
> at all?). Belgarath, however, is real. Yeah, he's 7000 years old
> or so, but he can be wise, thoughtful, snippy, mischievous, drunk,
> grumpy, he professionally spans the spectrum from scientist to
> charlatan, and he desperately misses his wife since her death.
> The only suspension of disbelief for the reader is his
> age and magic powers. The rest is very, very real ... we know
> people who are like this (or exhibit similar combinations of
> similar facets of their personalities).
I liked your post up until this part and there we have a parting of the
ways. I love Tolkien for the feel of epic myth his work contained. At
all times it feels as though it could be authentic legend from our own
past rather than novels written in the twentieth century. the
characterisation is very deep IMO, especially taken in its mythic
context. Tolkien was not interested in the bathroom breaks and day to
day of Gandalf or Aragorn, which is definately in keeping with our own
myths.
I love the Mallorian and the Belgariad, but much of Edding's dialogue
is trite and cliche, relying far to much on repetition of phrases for
cutesy effect. The example that sticks most readily in my mind is the
all the males use of the word "whatever" as a punchline to their wives
pointed comments. Speaking of which that brings up another point that is
true not only for Edding's work, but Jordan's and Goodkind's as well.
The women are always written to feel superior in wisdom to the men. This
is true of Polgara, Nynaeve, and whatever the womens name is from
Goodkind's work. It has become more than a bit cliche. Remember that
these comments are as always IMHO, as I am and always will be a diehard
Tolkiener through and through.
MiteeMatt
its only going to get worse... i noticed a book with elminster-as-giggalo
recently... praise g-d!!
NOIP
I guess my problem with the Evasion is that it's like using Wizard Eye
to scan every single room before entering it, and using Project Image to
do your dirty work without ever entering danger yourself. The bottom
line is that it makes for horribly bad roleplaying and boring encounter
after boring encounter.
All this puts me in mind of a semi-mythical character from about eight
or nine or so years ago. Does anyone remember Waldorf? He was some
multiclassed nth level everything who went around killing _everybody_.
His proud creator wrote to Dragon Mag for the stats of everything on
Oerth after Waldorf caused its sun to go nova, thereby (naturally)
entitling him to all the XP of everything in the star system.
Am I on crack or does anyone else recall this?
NOIP
Bertil Jonell
In article <665j4u$miu$1...@newsfep4.sprintmail.com>,
Pinochet <gray...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>MofM shouldn't be used in developing your opinion of Elminster as an
>active character seeing as how the book was about him, some other
>book like Spellfire or Crown of Fire should be used..
The main fault of MofM was that it totally contradicted the
earlier snippets about E's beginnings (essentially started as
a thief somewhere on or near the sword coast, went adventuring
(ie graverobbing) with mages and others, grew curious about
the stuff they found (including the magic), and eventually
(my impression was that it was during his early middle ages)
started as a mage.
(paraphrased from Greenwoods Dragon article way back
around #70 or so)
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Pinochet
NOIP wrote in message <348226...@supernews.com>...
>E Gray wrote:
>>
>
>> Face it you hate every author that is well liked by anyone and not dead
for
>> the past hundred years.. Or something.. Either that or you're a no good
>> dirty rotten, mud sucking Troll.
>
> I think (hope) neither of those is really true.
Then tell me why part of this thread's subject line is asking for flames?
>Actually, I like
>Jordan, Donaldson, Pratchett, Tolkein, Bradley, and Lackey.
I somewhat dislike Donaldson, assuming we're talking about the same one
who wrote the boring, overwritten, tedious books about some place called
the Land and an idiotic and just plain foolish fellow named Thomas Covenant.
> I just find
>Greenwood to be wordy and self indulgent,
Hey, he can write however he wants.
>and, once again, a popular
>writer is not necessarily good, and a good writer is not necessarily
>popular.
exactly how would this statement be different if you replaced writer
with politician?
> Ah ha! That _does_ explain a good deal for me. I object in general
>to deux ex as a device, given that it retroactively destroys anything
>the characters have fought for up to that point,
Well he doesn't exactly fill the role as used in the original Greek plays
so don't read to much into the statement.
>but if that's the role
>he's designed to fill then that's something different. What's he
>supposed to do, exactly? I'm not being a smart ass; I just don't
>understand his purpose.
Serve as the paternal figure for the stories in which he appears
who is shaping certain events so that the results which occur will be
to his liking(and Mystra's for that matter). He fills a role akin to that
of Macros the Black, The Emperor(from Saberhagen's Sword books)
or Oberon/Dworkin from Zelazny's Amber books..
Basically he's not a protagonist. Things don't really happen to him,
they happen around or through him..
> Well, I read Making of a Mage, and that, coupled with Greenwood's
>other periodic ramblings have made me think of Elminster as an active
>character, not a facilitator.
Since you don't like Greenwoods writings it's obvious you are at least
slightly biased against his characters..especially the prime one..
Pinochet
James N. Daniel, III wrote in message
<34847A21...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu>...
>
>Shouldn't that be "Deus ex Munchkina?"
Not unless you think every other tool of the Gods
is also munchkin...or maybe the Gods themselves
should be a little more realistic..
Personally I don't think Elminster, Mordenkainen, or
Raistlin should be quantified like PCs are...IT just ruins
the game..
Alan Shutko
>>>>> "B" == Backal Ergot <al...@janofsky.com> writes:
B> Add Salvatore, Hickman, and Weis to your list of good authors or
B> I'll put you in a headlock!(stretches arms threateningly)
You need to read some _good_ authors!
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
IBM: Incredibly Botched Machines
Gregory Bernath
Pinochet <gray...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Personally I don't think Elminster, Mordenkainen, or
>Raistlin should be quantified like PCs are...IT just ruins
>the game..
I might agree with you about E., but I kind of like seeing Mord.'s
stats, just because he's so darn ordinary. No special powers at all
(beyond a 20th level mage). No super magic items. Just a guy with
powers any of the PC's could obtain, who stays alive mainly by
being smart. The stats emphasize that, and it's a good thing to
see.
If anyone's curious, these are Mordenkainen's stats and items.
ST:10 DX:17 CO:17 IN:18 WI:15 CH:18 HP:66 AC:-3 MU-20
(Okay, 2 17's and 2 18's is kind of high, but not horribly so.)
Bracers AC2
Ring of Protection +2
Dagger +2, +3 vs Large Creatures
Dagger +1 (must have sentimental value)
Bag of Holding (500 pounds)
Carpet of Flying
Crystal Ball with ESP
Pearls of Power (1 each 1st, 2nd and 3rd level)
Wand of Fear
Wand of Frost
Not even a nifty staff or robe. Sheesh! My minotaur fighter/assassin/
psionicist could waste this guy easy! :-)
--
Greg Bernath gber...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
Dacileva
>Now, Terry Goodkind / Robert Jordan / Raymond e. Feist are a
>different story...
>
>Waiting to be flamed,
Sorry to disappoint, but I agree completely. :)
The above authors are perfect examples of the Elminster thing done right (at
least the two I've read).
Terry Goodkind: Zedd, the First Mage - very real, has his own motivations,
makes mistakes quite often, usually lies to Richard, etc.
Raymond E. Feist: Macros the Black - very real, has even more incomprehensible
motivations than Elminster, but still seems to be a real person, especially
while his powers were "gone".
Of course, neither of those authors made the mistake of basing a book on those
characters... :)
-----
-Dacileva Inore Lalaith (Nikolas Izak Landauer) -daci...@aol.com
-hey spambots - here's some to send to: rhu...@fcc.gov
- jqu...@fcc.gov sn...@fcc.gov rch...@fcc.gov sse...@fcc.gov
Pinochet
Dacileva wrote in message <19971204085...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>The above authors are perfect examples of the Elminster thing done right
(at
>least the two I've read).
>>Feist and Goodkund details were snipped<<<
>Of course, neither of those authors made the mistake of basing a book on
those
>characters... :)
Yet }:+)
...and of course the two you mentioned are on a different scale than
Greenwood
who is an average writer at best, though his ability to create a fantasy
world adored
by the masses is obviously quite good...
Not that this has anything at all to do with Elminster..
Alan Shutko
>>>>> "P" == Pinochet <gray...@sprintmail.com> writes:
P> James N. Daniel, III wrote in message
P> <34847A21...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu>...
>> Shouldn't that be "Deus ex Munchkina?"
P> Not unless you think every other tool of the Gods is also
P> munchkin...or maybe the Gods themselves should be a little more
P> realistic..
P> Personally I don't think Elminster, Mordenkainen, or Raistlin
P> should be quantified like PCs are...IT just ruins the game..
Why? Does the game exist to serve the PCs, or to serve the DMs wish
for godly NPCs?
If any DM came up with an NPC like this on their own and posted it to
the group, they'd be flamed to hell and back.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
This Fortune Examined By INSPECTOR NO. 2-14
Pinochet
Derek Copelin wrote in message <348663...@ozemail.com.au>...
>Pinochet wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't think Elminster, Mordenkainen, or
>> Raistlin should be quantified like PCs are...IT just ruins
>> the game..
>
>Strange considering 2 of the 3 began as PC's
How do you know all of them didn't? They had to have
been created sometime..
And have you ever heard of Advancement? Hmmm?
Raistlin in say Autumn Twilight or what the first DL book
was is different from said character in Spring Dawning
and the Legends Series..
Pinochet
Alan Shutko wrote in message ...
>P> Personally I don't think Elminster, Mordenkainen, or Raistlin
>P> should be quantified like PCs are...IT just ruins the game..
>
>Why? Does the game exist to serve the PCs, or to serve the DMs wish
>for godly NPCs?
NPC's exist to serve the DM, and if he wants to create Godly ones
go ahead. More power to him so to speak..
The reason they shouldn't be quantified is so that PCs won't be
tempted to go off Elminster or something at some point. Happens
mostly with munchkins but you get the point. Also since they exist
to serve the DM, if the DM has any sense of the plot/fairness the
NPCs like Elminster and Mordy won't be put in roles where stats
and such are really needed..
It saves trouble and such..now an NPC of lower power or who
directly opposes the PCs is a different matter.
>If any DM came up with an NPC like this on their own and posted it to
>the group, they'd be flamed to hell and back.
Another reason why they shouldn't be quantified.
Derek Copelin
Pinochet wrote:
> Personally I don't think Elminster, Mordenkainen, or
> Raistlin should be quantified like PCs are...IT just ruins
> the game..
Strange considering 2 of the 3 began as PC's
Derek
vr...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
James N. Daniel, III (dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
You had a good post going and I agreed with most of it until you started
spewing this trash. (Sorry for the harsh tone, I respect your opinion but
must vehemently disagree.)
: Tolkein doesn't hold a candle to many of these. Tolkein wrote the
: best fantasy of his time, but the genre has developed beyond his
: original ideas. I've never been able to read through The Lord of
: the Rings more than the one time (I get too damned bored about
: the middle of the second book), though the Hobbit is OK.
To each their own I guess, but Lord of the Rings is the true masterpiece
of these two works. The detail and depth of his world are truly awe
inspiring. His characters are the most realistic and truly alive of any I
have ever read in a fantasy novel.
Eddings'
: Belgariad and Malloreon take the high fantasy genre much further,
: developing extremely true-to-life characters, establishing a constant
: tongue-in-cheek humor that doesn't get in the way of the plot, and
: exploring how people would manage in such a world.
I really have to disagree with these statements. I really enjoyed the
Belgariad when it came out, and had hope for Eddings as an author, but
then the Malloreon came out and we find out he only had one story in him.
His characters are not true to life, they are incredibly stereotypical,
cartoon figures with little depth. His humour makes it an enjoyable light
hearted read, but drains away the dramatic tension that Tolkien maintains.
Gandalf is
: cute, but he's pretty much a 2-D old, wise wizard who doesn't seem
: to want much more than to save the world (remind you of Elminster
: at all?).
But that's Gandalf's job, the reason he was sent to middle earth. He is
a seriously dedicated individual focused on one cause for a very long
time. He has his lighter side relaxing and blowing smoke rings, working
with fireworks. These add to his mystique, whereas Belgarath being a
drunken goofball make him seem much smaller.
Belgarath, however, is real. Yeah, he's 7000 years old
: or so, but he can be wise, thoughtful, snippy, mischievous, drunk,
: grumpy, he professionally spans the spectrum from scientist to
: charlatan, and he desperately misses his wife since her death.
: The only suspension of disbelief for the reader is his
: age and magic powers. The rest is very, very real ... we know
: people who are like this (or exhibit similar combinations of
: similar facets of their personalities).
The realness of his personality works against his long term strength as a
character. Gandalf is an epic mythical figure always busy with important
work. Belgarath's work is so unimportant that he can waste time drinking
and relaxing rather then working on his mission.
Staffan Johansson
>
>Derek Copelin wrote in message <348663...@ozemail.com.au>...
>How do you know all of them didn't? They had to have
>been created sometime..
According to Greenwood, Elminster was designed by him as a "plot
device." Mordenkainen was, IIRC, a character of Gary Gygax's, and
Raistlin was a PC in the game that predated the DL series, with
Margaret Weis as the DM.
Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
Thoughts good! Slogans bad! Thoughts good! Slogans bad!
Ron Dafoe
Alan Shutko wrote in message ...
>P> Personally I don't think Elminster, Mordenkainen, or Raistlin
>P> should be quantified like PCs are...IT just ruins the game..
>
>Why? Does the game exist to serve the PCs, or to serve the DMs wish
>for godly NPCs?
>
>If any DM came up with an NPC like this on their own and posted it to
>the group, they'd be flamed to hell and back.
Actually, I am a little vague on this munchkin thing after reading this
newsgroup.
First off, why would someone be flamed for a powerful (N)PC. IMO, if a
player (DM) wants to play something like that, more power to him, as long as
he is having fun.
K. Aspinall
>Add Salvatore, Hickman, and Weis to your list of good authors or I'll put
>you in a headlock!(stretches arms threateningly)
>
>
>>Now, Terry Goodkind / Robert Jordan / Raymond e. Feist are a different
>>story...
Only when I am burning in hell being tortured by demons from my worst
nightmares... :)
Seriuosly - Robert Salvatore is quite possibly the worst author I have ever
read. His books are absolutely terrible. The characters are completely 2D,
bland and pathetic that dont seem real. Nothing ever seems to threaten them.
I bought his books where Drizzt travels south to find Mithral Hall with the
dwarf and halfing, and gave up on the second because it was so bad.
Sorry to sound if I have a chip on my shoulder, but after reading Goodkind,
Feist, Jordan and Tolkien etc., its physically impossible to read one of
salvatores books.
As for Weis and Hickman - some of their books are good reads - especially the
most recent. The Deathgate Cycle was a very good series, with a fresh look at
the genre - but although good, I wouldnt call them classic reds for fantasy
novels.
Kris Aspinall
Alan Shutko
>>>>> "R" == Ron Dafoe <ab...@127.0.0.1> writes:
R> First off, why would someone be flamed for a powerful (N)PC. IMO,
R> if a player (DM) wants to play something like that, more power to
R> him, as long as he is having fun.
Typically, if the DM is having fun with an NPC like this, the
characters aren't having fun.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
Xerox does it again and again and again and ...
Pinochet
Staffan Johansson wrote in message <34868740...@news.lth.se>...
>>How do you know all of them didn't? They had to have
>>been created sometime..
>
>According to Greenwood, Elminster was designed by him as a "plot
>device." Mordenkainen was, IIRC, a character of Gary Gygax's, and
>Raistlin was a PC in the game that predated the DL series, with
>Margaret Weis as the DM.
But who did Greenwood base Elminster on(other than himself of
course). Bet he had a PC like El at one point.
Pinochet
Alan Shutko wrote in message ...
>>>>>> "R" == Ron Dafoe <ab...@127.0.0.1> writes:
>
>R> First off, why would someone be flamed for a powerful (N)PC. IMO,
>R> if a player (DM) wants to play something like that, more power to
>R> him, as long as he is having fun.
>
>Typically, if the DM is having fun with an NPC like this, the
>characters aren't having fun.
Depends upon how the DM is using it. If he's getting in
stand up fights with the PCs yes that could be problamatic,
no matter which side he/she is on.. If he's in the background
as a plotter or something then no it's not a problem..
As for what's typical...well it would be probably be
in a munchkin campaign that the first would occur
so why worry..
Adam Griffith
Alan Shutko wrote:
>
> >>>>> "K" == K Aspinall <CSC...@leeds.ac.uk> writes:
>
> K> He's entitled to his opinions, and in this case I agree with him -
> K> Ed greenwood and Piers anthony cannot write decent books.
>
> I disagree, in part. Piers Anthony _can_ write decent books, as he's
> demonstrated on occasion. However, he doesn't care to write decent
> books since the market will buy whatever crap he puts on paper.
> That's why I don't like him.
>
> --
> Alan Shutko
The thing about Piers Anthony is that there is a horrible sameness to
all his books. You can read a few of them and be entertained, but after
you read enough of them you start to overload, and pretty soon you start
to hate him (at least that is how it was for me). Watching him work an
idea to death is like watching a starfish eat a clam.
Adam
Adam Griffith
> > > Well, I did have a problem with the diatribes against Piers Anthony.
> > > Most of Anthony's books are just so much junk-food reading, but some
> > > are very deep, powerful and meaningful. In particular, "On a Pale
> > > Horse" from the incarnations series was very profound, and I think
> > > would be a useful read for any young reader (15 to 30-ish) who's
> > > had to face death in a personal manner. > > >
> >
> > Incarnation books.
I'm suprised by this. I thought On a Pale Horse blew. I have to admit
that I only made it to the part where the hero (who's name I've
forgotten) was becoming Death and figuring out what all the magical
doo-dads were for. I thought it was a very clever idea totally ruined
by bad execution.
<snip>
> > I had an argument with an English Prof recently. She asserted that
> > Sci-Fi and Fantasy were both bad genres. Aspiring to those genres
> > myself, I approached her after class and pursued the matter. She
> > recanted slightly, expressing that the problem with the genres is not
> > subject matter, but the authors working in it. Yes, you have your
> > Tolkiens, but you also have your Anthonies.
>
I think part of the problem is also that if a work is highly regarded
enough, it isn't put in the sf/fantasy section anymore. For example, go
look for "Dracula," "Frankenstein," "Melmoth the Wanderer," "The End
of the World News," Pretty much anything by Fanz Kafka, Pretty much
anything by Italo Calvino, "1984," or "Brave new World." All these
will be in the literature section of the book store.
Adam
Pinochet
MadAfro wrote in message <19971205021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Eddings also writes some of the most cardboard characters I've EVER seen.
It's
>scary how much the characters in the Elenium match up with the ones in the
>Belgariad/Malloreon. It's almost like the dialogue was cut-and-pasted in,
and
>a global Find and Change was executed. ;)
Have to agree with this point. The two books while entertaining are
basically
the same old thing as the work of Tolkien.
>I will say that I have not read the books on Belgarath or Polgara, so I
have no
>idea if they are an improvement...I hope so.
On a related note has anyone read any other books by Eddings for example
High Hunt or The Losers?
Rob Hertel
Pinochet wrote:
>
> But who did Greenwood base Elminster on(other than himself of
> course). Bet he had a PC like El at one point.
Gandalf?
Mr. Tines
###
On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 16:12:56 -0600, in
<3485D968...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu>
"James N. Daniel, III" <dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu> wrote.....
> NOIP wrote:
> > It's not like he's Shakespeare and we're ignoring a single bad play
in
> > the face of a dozen great ones;
>
> One fallacy of comparing modern literature to classic literature,
Let's not forget that Shakespeare was writing potboilers
with plenty of crude humour to get the plebs filling
the gallery.
> Tolkein doesn't hold a candle to many of these. Tolkein wrote the
> best fantasy of his time, but the genre has developed beyond his
> original ideas. I've never been able to read through The Lord of
> the Rings more than the one time (I get too damned bored about
> the middle of the second book), though the Hobbit is OK. Eddings'
> Belgariad and Malloreon take the high fantasy genre much further,
> developing extremely true-to-life characters, establishing a constant
> tongue-in-cheek humor that doesn't get in the way of the plot, and
Oh my god!! The Belgariad is such a blatant rip-off from
Tolkien and others (plot-line : keep the magic bauble out
of the hands of an evil one-eyed demigod - does that sound
familiar from somewhere?). I encountered that series at a
time when I was desperate enough for reading matter to have
actually read some Piers Anthony[*], but I could not stomach
Eddings. I gave up around book 1, page 70 when it went from
Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser meet Gandalf to "Oops! nearly
ended the book there." to the party where everyone reveals
their secret identity.
Indeed Eddings is close to being the person who finally
persuaded me that modern swords and sorcery fantasy was
no longer worth bothering with.
[*] thinking as I did "This man should not be allowed to
write sex scenes."
-- PGPfingerprint: BC01 5527 B493 7C9B 3C54 D1B7 248C 08BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a08470}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {69c10bcfbca894a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0}
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk PGP key on page
### end pegwit v8 signed text
c128dcce6102fc4ff3ba7926532ac96cb8eb6fac41d18e9994917ac8adbd
5990ea36a195d1106335f496907d4849560d18ae1f79acf62e5fc9f0bad1
Mr. Tines
###
On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:54:48 -0800, in <6659mq$j0u$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>
"Backal Ergot" <al...@janofsky.com> wrote.....
> Add Salvatore, Hickman, and Weis to your list of good authors or I'll put
> you in a headlock!(stretches arms threateningly)
I've not read any Salvatore, but I have read the original
Dragonlance trilogy, and they were, frankly, pretty much
the worst things I've ever read.
About the only person working in the swords and sorcery
field these days whose books I feel worth reading is Glen Cook.
- PGPfingerprint: BC01 5527 B493 7C9B 3C54 D1B7 248C 08BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a08470}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {69c10bcfbca894a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0}
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk PGP key on page
### end pegwit v8 signed text
798ae7183a4eff00f09d8da5a4247924ac3f57d5293656042a96c4059db6
e85f3b86cfa3c48f17d60cd31627cb53a668a99b50fe1056671f79f9e83e
NOIP
Adam Griffith wrote:
>
> > > I had an argument with an English Prof recently. She asserted that
> > > Sci-Fi and Fantasy were both bad genres. Aspiring to those genres
> > > myself, I approached her after class and pursued the matter. She
> > > recanted slightly, expressing that the problem with the genres is not
> > > subject matter, but the authors working in it. Yes, you have your
> > > Tolkiens, but you also have your Anthonies.
> >
>
> I think part of the problem is also that if a work is highly regarded
> enough, it isn't put in the sf/fantasy section anymore. For example, go
> look for "Dracula," "Frankenstein," "Melmoth the Wanderer," "The End
> of the World News," Pretty much anything by Fanz Kafka, Pretty much
> anything by Italo Calvino, "1984," or "Brave new World." All these
> will be in the literature section of the book store.
>
I agree; her concern was more for the fastfood-type writing that has
such a high profile today. She commends Clarke, Asimov, and Bradbury,
for instance, and she recognizes the power of such films as Star Wars
and Blade Runner. She's just dissatisfied with what frequently passes
for "good" these days.
NOIP
Generalfeldmarschall Blucher
At Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:35:13 -0600 sharp, I received this vital message
from Commander Pinochet detailing enemy movement near the small town
of rec.games.frp.dnd:
[snip]
>I somewhat dislike Donaldson, assuming we're talking about the same one
>who wrote the boring, overwritten, tedious books about some place called
>the Land and an idiotic and just plain foolish fellow named Thomas Covenant.
LOL!
HA! I just _had_ to laugh here! These are exactly the sentiments I
feel about the Thomas Covenant books. Donaldson had some really
_great_ ideas (like those bloodguard(?) dudes who wouldn't touch a
weapon (IIRC) but were still the baddest @$$-whuppinest guys around,
those healing berries, the giant's Earthship and the whole white gold
deal ...) but I remember feeling like it was a chore to read those
first 3 books and later, more of the same, when I decided to give the
second trilogy a chance.
Maybe (but I doubt it) I'd like it a bit more these days as it was
around '79 or so when I read it and I was only 9 years old at the time
...
Also, the character was not so endearing (to an impressionable 9-yr.
old kid) when one of his first actions after being transported to a
fantasy world is raping a young girl. As a result I was never able to
gain much empathy with a boorish, stupid & whiny "hero" like Covenant
and I spent most of the time reading the book wishing the character
would just shut up and die or something less pleasant.
[snip]
ObD&D: I wonder if anyone out there stole the Bloodguard (or any other
idea from the books) from the stories and converted them to an AD&D
setting. And if so, then how did it turn out?
Yours,
--
Generalfeldmarschall Blücher zh...@jbeyqarg.ngg.arg
N.X.N. : Wbr Zhyrv uggc://ubzr.ngg.arg/~zhyrv/
"Believe me, nothing except a battle lost, can be half so
melancholy as a battle won." - Arthur Wellesley
MadAfro
nost...@labyrinth.net.au (Nostromo)saith:
>James N. Daniel, III (dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
> Eddings'
>: Belgariad and Malloreon take the high fantasy genre much further,
>: developing extremely true-to-life characters, establishing a constant
>: tongue-in-cheek humor that doesn't get in the way of the plot, and
>: exploring how people would manage in such a world.
>I really have to disagree with these statements. I really enjoyed the
>Belgariad when it came out, and had hope for Eddings as an author, but
>then the Malloreon came out and we find out he only had one story in him.
>His characters are not true to life, they are incredibly stereotypical,
>cartoon figures with little depth. His humour makes it an enjoyable light
>hearted read, but drains away the dramatic tension that Tolkien maintains.
Eddings is one of my favorite authors because I've found his books
entertaining, and I like the way he orchestrates politics, organized religion
and intrigue.
Now that *that's* out of the way... ;D
Eddings also writes some of the most cardboard characters I've EVER seen. It's
scary how much the characters in the Elenium match up with the ones in the
Belgariad/Malloreon. It's almost like the dialogue was cut-and-pasted in, and
a global Find and Change was executed. ;)
Any differences in personality the characters might have had is reduced to
cheap schtick, a schtick that is repeated in every book...
This one is the responsible, yet hapless main protagonist.
This one is the insanely useful peasant.
This one is the wisecracking sidekick for the hapless protagonist.
This one is the wizened spell-chucker who talks down to the hapless
protagonist.
This one is the morally deprived but witty rogue.
This one is the disgusting asshole the good guys all detest.
The list goes on and on...
And, past the Elenium and Belgariad, the reader is failed to be surprised by
any story developments. I forget the name of the trilogy after the Elenium,
but by the end of the last book, the reader is left without a doubt in his or
her mind how it's going to end, well before the last chapter.
I *do* like the strength of the female characters. However, Eddings does take
the henpecking to almost comic levels. There have been a handful of times I
wanted Sparhawk to say, just once, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." ;D
I will say that I have not read the books on Belgarath or Polgara, so I have no
idea if they are an improvement...I hope so.
Just some rambling...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro @8)
MadAfro
"Pinochet" <gray...@sprintmail.com> saith:
>>and, once again, a popular
>>writer is not necessarily good, and a good writer is not necessarily
>>popular.
>
>exactly how would this statement be different if you replaced writer
>with politician?
Or "beer?"
Just thought I'd chuck that in.... ;D
Jason Hatter
MadAfro (mad...@aol.com) wrote:
: Any differences in personality the characters might have had is reduced to
: cheap schtick, a schtick that is repeated in every book...
: This one is the responsible, yet hapless main protagonist.
Garion, but said character is not repeated in the Elenium or Tamuli, as
I'd hardly be one to claim that Sparhawk is hapless.
: This one is the insanely useful peasant.
Durnik, Kurik, Kalten
: This one is the wisecracking sidekick for the hapless protagonist.
Silk, Tynian
: This one is the wizened spell-chucker who talks down to the hapless
: protagonist.
Belgarath, Polgara, Beldin, Sephrenia
: This one is the morally deprived but witty rogue.
Silk, whatsisname who was a minor feature in the Elenium.
: This one is the disgusting asshole the good guys all detest.
Hmm. Depends. Torak somewhat fills that role for the first world, and
Martek somewhat fills that role for the second, but there isn't a concrete
match for this one, IMO.
: I will say that I have not read the books on Belgarath or Polgara, so I have no
: idea if they are an improvement...I hope so.
Belgarath is worth reading, IMO. Haven't read Polgara yet, but a friend
of mine tells me that she will eventually buy every Eddings book EXCEPT
that one. Which tells me a lot.
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Jason Hatter
Pinochet (gray...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: But who did Greenwood base Elminster on(other than himself of
: course). Bet he had a PC like El at one point.
Probably Gandalf. IIRC, Ed was writing short stories (mostly to amuse
himself and friends, from what I recall) in the late 60's/early 70's, and
created Elminsters precursor, who evolved into Ed's mouthpiece in his D&D
campaigns, once the game appeared. From what few sources I've seen
(Dragon articles, mentions in others, etc) El might appear at Cons...but
only as an NPC.
Jason Hatter
Pinochet (gray...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: On a related note has anyone read any other books by Eddings for example
: High Hunt or The Losers?
I've got both of them, but haven't made time to read HH. THE LOSERS is,
IMO, the best work Eddings has done. I've only read it once, and I
probably will never read it again, lest i spoil my memories of it, but I
do recomend it heartily.
Jay Knioum
In article <6684ud$p...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Towo...@cris.com (Jason Hatter) wrote:
>
>
> MadAfro (mad...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Any differences in personality the characters might have had is reduced to
> : cheap schtick, a schtick that is repeated in every book...
> : This one is the responsible, yet hapless main protagonist.
>
> Garion, but said character is not repeated in the Elenium or Tamuli, as
> I'd hardly be one to claim that Sparhawk is hapless.
Granted, Sparhawk is a LOT more on the ball than Belgarion, but they both
have the same problem of being dragged around by the earlobes..."You're
going to be the hero, dammit, whether you like it or not!" ;)
Tamuli! That's what it's called. Thanks!
> : This one is the disgusting asshole the good guys all detest.
>
> Hmm. Depends. Torak somewhat fills that role for the first world, and
> Martek somewhat fills that role for the second, but there isn't a concrete
> match for this one, IMO.
Actually, there are quite a few of these in both worlds. The Elenium has
that guy who fills the same role as Krychek in the X-Files (Krager,
IIRC), the one everyone wants to kill very badly, but they can't because
he knows too much. The Tamuli also makes use of that one gent who
Sephrenia used to respect, but turned out to be a major butthead due to
his obsessive love for her. God, it's been so long since I've read those
books, I can't remember anyone's name...
> : I will say that I have not read the books on Belgarath or Polgara, so I have no
> : idea if they are an improvement...I hope so.
>
> Belgarath is worth reading, IMO. Haven't read Polgara yet, but a friend
> of mine tells me that she will eventually buy every Eddings book EXCEPT
> that one. Which tells me a lot.
Me too. Thanks. Ah, well. :P :)
I remembered more archtypes that show up in both worlds...
This one is the massively powerful, ancient magical rock that the
protagonist gets to carry around...it's his destiny, after all.
This one is the diety in mortal coil that's just tagging along with the
protagonist and his funky bunch.
;)
Stay loose...
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Wkmccarthy
>Of course one wonders about the origins of Gandalf, Mordenkainen and
>Raistlin(before the PC incarnation for the first 2). }:+)
Gandalf was a PC before Tolkien wrote him into the Ring series...?
I didn't know D&D was around that long ;-)
William McCarthy
Wkmcc...@aol.com
Ron Dafoe
Alan Shutko wrote in message ...
>>>>>> "R" == Ron Dafoe <ab...@127.0.0.1> writes:
>
>R> First off, why would someone be flamed for a powerful (N)PC. IMO,
>R> if a player (DM) wants to play something like that, more power to
>R> him, as long as he is having fun.
>
>Typically, if the DM is having fun with an NPC like this, the
>characters aren't having fun.
Ahhh, but having a powerful "bad guy" (not that Elminster is a bad guy),
makes for a villian that is always in the way of the characters, and the
characters have to find another way to "foil the bad guy" than by killing
him.
Pinochet
Wkmccarthy wrote in message
<19971205152...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>Of course one wonders about the origins of Gandalf, Mordenkainen and
>>Raistlin(before the PC incarnation for the first 2). }:+)
>
>Gandalf was a PC before Tolkien wrote him into the Ring series...?
>I didn't know D&D was around that long ;-)
Maybe I Meant the last two.. Silly Goof.. Before the literary incarnation
for Gandalf..
Jason Hatter
Pinochet (gray...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: >Durnik, Kurik, Kalten
:
: Kalten? He goes on the one below.. Not to mention
: Kurik's Son in the Tamuli..
Thats who I meant by Kalten. Had a brain fart. 8)
: >: This one is the wisecracking sidekick for the hapless protagonist.
: >
: >Silk, Tynian
:
: Silk,ok.....Tynian? I think Kalten truly belongs here.
As does Tynian. Tynian was telling more jokes & was the more humorous of
the two in the Elenium.
:
:
: >: This one is the wizened spell-chucker who talks down to the hapless
~~~~~~~
: Not to mention Flute.
She doesn't qualify. 8)
: >: This one is the morally deprived but witty rogue.
:
: Talen...
No, I'm talking about the bastard son of a merchant that runs the guild up
in Ulaths home...
: Of course you forgot the Ultra-Pious Total Do-Good..
? No one matches that in the Belgariad OR Mallorean. And Bevier is by no
means a "total do-good".
: And don't forget the uncouth barbarian and the super-intelligence who
: advises the main protagonist through his troubles..
None of the series has an uncouth barbarian. Closest thing to that is
Barak and Ulath, and I wouldn't care to debate with either of them, with
or without weapons handy.
Pinochet
Jason Hatter wrote in message <669mun$i...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>As does Tynian. Tynian was telling more jokes & was the more humorous of
>the two in the Elenium.
>: >: This one is the wizened spell-chucker who talks down to the hapless
> ~~~~~~~
>: Not to mention Flute.
>She doesn't qualify. 8)
Not in the above, but as the mystic guide who knows all part...definetly..
>: >: This one is the morally deprived but witty rogue.
>:
>: Talen...
>
>No, I'm talking about the bastard son of a merchant that runs the guild up
>in Ulaths home...
Stragen I believe...though Platime in Elenia might also qualify as a bit
part.
>: Of course you forgot the Ultra-Pious Total Do-Good..
>
>? No one matches that in the Belgariad OR Mallorean. And Bevier is by no
>means a "total do-good".
Mandorallen? Bit of exaggeration in my example, but honorbound didn't
seem dramatic enough..
>: And don't forget the uncouth barbarian and the super-intelligence who
>: advises the main protagonist through his troubles..
>
>None of the series has an uncouth barbarian. Closest thing to that is
>Barak and Ulath, and I wouldn't care to debate with either of them, with
>or without weapons handy.
Also a bit of exaggeration, but you have to admit they came from the more
primal segments of society..
And have you noticed the similarity between the Mallorean and Tamuli...both
series bring an even more deadly foe and a great and ancient empire into
the mix..
Now here's a question who would we stereotype Hattar and Reg with in
the Elenium/Tamuli?
Benjamin Foy
On 4 Dec 1997, Mr. Tines wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:54:48 -0800, in <6659mq$j0u$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>
> "Backal Ergot" <al...@janofsky.com> wrote.....
>
> > Add Salvatore, Hickman, and Weis to your list of good authors or I'll put
> > you in a headlock!(stretches arms threateningly)
>
> I've not read any Salvatore, but I have read the original
> Dragonlance trilogy, and they were, frankly, pretty much
> the worst things I've ever read.
The Darksword Trilogy wasn't any good either. The world concept was
somewhat interesting but beyond that it wasn't worth reading. Of course,
once you've read 200-300 fantasy novels, your standards get very high.
> About the only person working in the swords and sorcery
> field these days whose books I feel worth reading is Glen Cook.
I agree that Glen Cook is an excellent author, but I wouldn't go that
far. Brust is very good and Jordan is very popular (alittle slow for me).
I am sure that I could come up with some other good fantasy authors
without working up a sweat.
- Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
Removes the colours from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which one is right.
And which is an illusion???."
from Nights in White Satin by The Moody Blues 1967
Ubiquitous
In article <6622b2$p...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, dbro...@chat.carleton.ca (Dave Brohman) says:
>James N. Daniel, III (dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
>> > Well seeing as how he is not supposed to do be doing these things himself
>> > it's hardly a concern for me. He's the Deus ex Machina for the Realms just
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > like Fizban, only Elminster is obviously powerful..
>
>> Shouldn't that be "Deus ex Munchkina?"
>
> Good one :) (Though it translates as "God from the Munchkin" ;)
It should be "God =OF= the Munckins", but I don't know Latin. ;-)
barbara haddad
> B> Add Salvatore, Hickman, and Weis to your list of good authors or
> B> I'll put you in a headlock!(stretches arms threateningly)
>
> You need to read some _good_ authors!
Try Dan Crawford. He has done 3 really good books that sound like
they were taken from a gaming universe. (& an interesting one, to boot)
'Sure Death of a Mouse'; 'Rouse a Sleeping Cat' & 'A Wild Dog &
Lone'. Good reads
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from barbara haddad -> (bha...@LunaCity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 650 968 8140
Malcolm Coull
> ObD&D: I wonder if anyone out there stole the Bloodguard (or any other
> idea from the books) from the stories and converted them to an AD&D
> setting. And if so, then how did it turn out?
were 3 volumes, I think it appeared in #1 but don't quote me on that!)there
is a reprint of an article from a fairly early issue (no idea the no. I'm
afraid) which did indeed have a set of stats for bloodguard, viles and
searach giants (and others I think). I would have given you mine but I've
just sent it to someone else - damn!
Hope that is of some use.....
MCC
Bardthoma
>About the only person working in the swords and sorcery
>field these days whose books I feel worth reading is Glen Cook.
>
Garret. You got to love a guy like that, all he wants to do is drink and chase
skirts, but that damn paladin side keeps getting in the way. And the company he
keeps, Morley Dotes is CN without being totaly bizzare. And nothing like using
The Dead Man as an NPC. "He is what....?"
Amoht
Jason Hatter
Pinochet (gray...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
: Now here's a question who would we stereotype Hattar and Reg with in
: the Elenium/Tamuli?
Hmm. Relg would be Bevier's match. I'd forgotten about him. Usually,
when I re-read the Belgariad, I skip the first three books and concentrate
on Castle & Enchanters. Hattar, like Lelldorin, doesn't have a match up.
Blend those two together, with Durnik (sans Will), and you have Kurik.
Toby Mekelburg
mite...@aol.com (MiteeMatt) wrote:
>its only going to get worse... i noticed a book with elminster-as-giggalo
>recently... praise g-d!!
I believe you're referring to "The Simbul's Gift". The advertisement
for that book is way off. It has nothing to do with Elminster as a
gigolo.
Toby Mekelburg
to...@lava.net meke...@hawaii.edu
My Realms page at http://www.lava.net/~toby
Remove SPAMSUCKS from my e-mail address to reply to me
Pinochet
Ubiquitous wrote in message <88136421...@nexus.polaris.net>...
>It should be "God =OF= the Munckins", but I don't know Latin. ;-)
Why? Elminster isn't a PC, he's a DM controlled NPC. If the Dm's
running munchkin NPCs that's the problem not in Elminster.
Jason Hatter
MiteeMatt (mite...@aol.com) wrote:
: its only going to get worse... i noticed a book with elminster-as-giggalo
: recently... praise g-d!!
You obviously didn't read the book. I haven't yet, myself, but the
reviews I've seen don't mention Elminster at all, except for the little
subplot that is, iirc, quickly resolved.
Barry Smith
Mr. Tines wrote:
>
> ###
>
> On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 16:12:56 -0600, in
> <3485D968...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu>
> "James N. Daniel, III" <dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu> wrote.....
>
> > NOIP wrote:
> > > It's not like he's Shakespeare and we're ignoring a single bad play
> in
> > > the face of a dozen great ones;
> >
> > One fallacy of comparing modern literature to classic literature,
>
> Let's not forget that Shakespeare was writing potboilers
> with plenty of crude humour to get the plebs filling
> the gallery.
>
> > Tolkein doesn't hold a candle to many of these. Tolkein wrote the
> > best fantasy of his time, but the genre has developed beyond his
> > original ideas. I've never been able to read through The Lord of
> > the Rings more than the one time (I get too damned bored about
> > Belgariad and Malloreon take the high fantasy genre much further,
> > developing extremely true-to-life characters, establishing a constant
>
> Oh my god!! The Belgariad is such a blatant rip-off from
> Tolkien and others (plot-line : keep the magic bauble out
> of the hands of an evil one-eyed demigod - does that sound
> familiar from somewhere?). I encountered that series at a
> time when I was desperate enough for reading matter to have
> actually read some Piers Anthony[*], but I could not stomach
> Eddings. I gave up around book 1, page 70 when it went from
> Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser meet Gandalf to "Oops! nearly
> ended the book there." to the party where everyone reveals
> their secret identity.
>
> Indeed Eddings is close to being the person who finally
> persuaded me that modern swords and sorcery fantasy was
> no longer worth bothering with.
>
> [*] thinking as I did "This man should not be allowed to
> write sex scenes."
Personally, I've never had a problem with Eddings work. In fact, I
rather enjoy his stories. Sometimes, methinks there is a bit too much
scrutiny and criticism over fantasy novels. It's escapism to me and not
a debate on writing etiquette or an opportunity to have it put under a
microscope to be probed for every fault. I've always had an open mind
when it comes to evaluating how good a author's work is and I've found
very few novels that I didn't find something useful to inspire me in
RPGs. Oh well. Good gaming to you and have fun! 8-)
Dave Brohman
Mr. Tines (ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> I've not read any Salvatore, but I have read the original
> Dragonlance trilogy, and they were, frankly, pretty much
> the worst things I've ever read.
Reading Salvatore is like watching an old Schwarzenegger film. Don't
expect character development, well-constructed plots or an form of
realism (even magical realism), but expect super-characters and lots of
over-the-top action.
As to the Dragonlance books, I have only read the first trilogy and the
main problem I had was that it did not read like a novel, it read like
the transcript of a gaming session. I know that this is, essentially,
what it was, but they could have expanded it a bit from there. It was
like listening to someone describe the action of a play rather than seeing
the play itself (which is what a good fantasy novel should be like, you
should be able to see it before your minds-eye).
> About the only person working in the swords and sorcery
> field these days whose books I feel worth reading is Glen Cook.
He is not exactly S&S, but the best "fantasy" author of the modern era is
Terry Pratchett. Discworld is by for the FUNNIEST fantasy you will EVER
read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Brohman E-Mail : dbro...@chat.carleton.ca
Carleton University
"Dogs are not like cats, who amusingly tolerate humans only until
someone comes up with a tin-opener that can be operated with a paw."
- Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat & Jen Younts
>
> Personally, I've never had a problem with Eddings work. In fact, I
> rather enjoy his stories. Sometimes, methinks there is a bit too much
> scrutiny and criticism over fantasy novels. It's escapism to me and not
> a debate on writing etiquette or an opportunity to have it put under a
> microscope to be probed for every fault. I've always had an open mind
> when it comes to evaluating how good a author's work is and I've found
> very few novels that I didn't find something useful to inspire me in
> RPGs. Oh well. Good gaming to you and have fun! 8-)
I can also find something useful in even the biggest pile of crap, 400
pages of fertilizer is bound to grow 1 page of roses.
Calling it is escapism doesn't render it immune to criticism. Bad
writing is bad writing, whether it is meant to be simple escapism or
not. I personally enjoy reading Eddings but that does not mean I cannot
critisize his skills in comparison to his peers. Many of us have open
minds as well, but that doesn't mean we have to accept substandard work
with a smile.
Vince Childs
NOIP wrote:
>
> I guess my problem with the Evasion...
<Snip>
> All this puts me in mind of a semi-mythical character from about eight
> or nine or so years ago. Does anyone remember Waldorf? He was some
> multiclassed nth level everything who went around killing _everybody_.
> His proud creator wrote to Dragon Mag for the stats of everything on
> Oerth after Waldorf caused its sun to go nova, thereby (naturally)
> entitling him to all the XP of everything in the star system.
>
> Am I on crack or does anyone else recall this?
>
> NOIP
I think he finally got killed of by the Space Hamsters. If I'm not
mistaken, the letters were published in Dragon somewhere around the
#160's or #170's.
Vince Childs
Jason Hatter
Dave Brohman (dbro...@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
: Mr. Tines (ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: > I've not read any Salvatore, but I have read the original
: > Dragonlance trilogy, and they were, frankly, pretty much
: > the worst things I've ever read.
:
: Reading Salvatore is like watching an old Schwarzenegger film. Don't
: expect character development, well-constructed plots or an form of
: realism (even magical realism), but expect super-characters and lots of
: over-the-top action.
Sounds like a Stallone film, to me. 8)
Joe Slayton
NOIP wrote:
>
> I guess my problem with the Evasion is that it's like using Wizard Eye
> to scan every single room before entering it, and using Project Image to
> do your dirty work without ever entering danger yourself. The bottom
> line is that it makes for horribly bad roleplaying and boring encounter
> after boring encounter.
>
> All this puts me in mind of a semi-mythical character from about eight
> or nine or so years ago. Does anyone remember Waldorf? He was some
> multiclassed nth level everything who went around killing _everybody_.
> His proud creator wrote to Dragon Mag for the stats of everything on
> Oerth after Waldorf caused its sun to go nova, thereby (naturally)
> entitling him to all the XP of everything in the star system.
>
> Am I on crack or does anyone else recall this?
>
> NOIP
Didn't that letter show up in an April issue of Dragon?
Pinochet
Pat & Jen Younts <#pyo...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
<3489B0...@popd.ix.netcom.com>...
> I can also find something useful in even the biggest pile of crap, 400
>pages of fertilizer is bound to grow 1 page of roses.
>Calling it is escapism doesn't render it immune to criticism. Bad
>writing is bad writing, whether it is meant to be simple escapism or
>not. I personally enjoy reading Eddings but that does not mean I cannot
>critisize his skills in comparison to his peers. Many of us have open
>minds as well, but that doesn't mean we have to accept substandard work
>with a smile.
Why are people so concerned with the "writing skills" of various writers..
makes no sense to me, so why don't you shut up about it or at least
change the subject line to something accurate....Elminster hasn't been
in this thread since the first two or three..
Barry Smith
Oh yeah. Waldorf! Hehehe. The epitome of munchkinism ever realized in
print. And he wasn't from the Realms 8-P. BTW, yes, I believe he was in
Dragon magazine in or around the 160-170s. It was a good thing that
Waldorf couldn't defeat the deathgrip from the gravity well of the black
hole that eventually pulped him(I know it wasn't a black hole, but
WTH!). *whew*
Barry Smith
Pat & Jen Younts wrote:
>
> >
> > Personally, I've never had a problem with Eddings work. In fact, I
> > rather enjoy his stories. Sometimes, methinks there is a bit too much
> > scrutiny and criticism over fantasy novels. It's escapism to me and not
> > a debate on writing etiquette or an opportunity to have it put under a
> > microscope to be probed for every fault. I've always had an open mind
> > when it comes to evaluating how good a author's work is and I've found
> > very few novels that I didn't find something useful to inspire me in
> > RPGs. Oh well. Good gaming to you and have fun! 8-)
>
> pages of fertilizer is bound to grow 1 page of roses.
> Calling it is escapism doesn't render it immune to criticism. Bad
> writing is bad writing, whether it is meant to be simple escapism or
> not. I personally enjoy reading Eddings but that does not mean I cannot
> critisize his skills in comparison to his peers. Many of us have open
> minds as well, but that doesn't mean we have to accept substandard work
> with a smile.
True enough. How right you are. I stand corrected. And so do you, I
believe. I still feel, though, that, while criticism is required for
authors to improve their substandard works, escapism IS the point of why
I read fantasy. Why else would someone read a fantasy novel? Thanks for
your thoughts. Good gaming to you.
Jakir
The best Piers Anthony has done (even he says so) was the TAROT series in
the 70's. God of Tarot, Vision of Tarot, and Faith of Tarot. Three of the
best books I've read. I admit Anthony's writing is not the best, but the
ideas are there, and presented pretty well in the Tarot series. Before you
go talking about how he's a terrible author, read them.
--
Jakir
(George Christie)
And we are young,
Wandering the face of the earth,
Wondering what our dreams might be worth,
Learning that we're only immortal,
For a limited time
(Rush, Dreamline, 1991)
Visit my web site at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1677/index.html
Pat & Jen Younts
> Pinochet wrote:
> Why are people so concerned with the "writing skills" of various writers..
> makes no sense to me, so why don't you shut up about it or at least
> change the subject line to something accurate....Elminster hasn't been
> in this thread since the first two or three..
Rudeness gets you nowhere Pinochet. If you are so bothered by the
subject line you change it. The rest of us couldn't care less.
mike brokowski
Jason Hatter wrote:
>
> MiteeMatt (mite...@aol.com) wrote:
> : its only going to get worse... i noticed a book with elminster-as-giggalo
> : recently... praise g-d!!
>
> You obviously didn't read the book. I haven't yet, myself, but the
> reviews I've seen don't mention Elminster at all, except for the little
> subplot that is, iirc, quickly resolved.
> Jason
> http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
> Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Well, sorta and sorta not. The Elminster subplot is alledgedly the
basis for the rest of the story (and the title). The Simbul wants to
give Elminster a gift which he will have to visit her to pick up. She
plans to seduce him because she wants a child. Is this plot device
tissue-thin? Yes, but the rest of the story deals with her attempt to
get this gift and the repercussions therefrom. That's why the subplot
isn't quickly resolved.
In general, though, Elminster shows up in the first chapter or so and
then doesn't show up again. Frankly, I don't recall if the Simbul ever
gets back to Elminster or confronts him directly about her desires. In
this sense, the book has nothing to do with Elminster.
FWIW, my impression is that El and the Simbul have been "seeing each
other" for a while now (their relationship is mentioned in Greenwood's
awful _Stormlight_ as well). Did anyone pick up on why they might be
more fertile if the dead were done at her place rather than at his?
BTW, though Lynn Abbey is a better writer than Greenwood, IMO _The
Simbul's Gift_ suffers from the same sorts of weaknesses that plague
Greenwood. The central characters are extremely powerful but not that
well-developed or believable. Call me a cynic, but anyone who manages
to live 600+ years should have an iota or two more wisdom than the
Simbul, even if she is supposed to be "the fiery tempered storm queen".
Also, regarding Elminster, I agree with others' comments that part of
his trouble is that Greenwood can't seem to resist the temptation to
make the character's history more and more godlike as time passes. The
original Elminster as presented in the 1989 _Hall of Heroes_ accessory
and such books as _Spellfire_ or the Avatar Trilogy is a somewhat
believable, if powerful, wizard who has taken steps to live a long life
and keep himself intact. (This may make him a munchkin as far as
playing such a character goes, but at least you can imagine that a
wizard might do this.) The retroactive history, c.f. _E:tMoaM_ and the
_Shadow of the Avatar_ series, is just silly. What makes Greenwood do
this sort of thing? Where is his sense of perspective: One minute
Elminster is nearly killed by some shapechanging flunkies and the next
he is casually chastizing Lord Ao? Please! It's not as though El (and
the other Chosen) aren't already powerful enough. At this point, most
of the Chosen may as well be demipowers in the pantheon; there is no
practical limit to their power and any DM thinking to use them to "keep
the party in line" may as well just go for direct divine intervention
and skip the middleman.
Mike
brok...@nwuREMOVE.TOeduREPLY
(remove all leters in caps to send me email)
Phase
Oh btw, <looking at the subject header> I like Piers Anthony.
And Salvatore (who was my favorite author for a while). :P'
--
PHASEFX @ VM.SC.EDU - http://www.cs.sc.edu/~jason-e
Phase
at...@netcom.com (Stephanie) writes:
>Tolkien. The next generation derived their inspiration from the previous
>generation, etc.
The Faerie in my gameworld have been inspired mostly from mythology.
However, sadly enough, I use 'orcs' and 'goblins' for two of my monster
races, rather than some spiffy original names. (:
>Of course, authors who write for game companies (i.e. TSR, er WOTC ;>) are
>hampered by the limitations of the game mechanics and story.
Heh, you should see the rule modifications and rationalizations needed
to incorporate common TSR novel characters into an AD&D game. :-)
I loved how Cunningham's Drow character used a cantrip to detect magic.
<smile> I let players in my game do that now (you can tell if an item
you're holding is magical with a cantrip).
Adam Griffith
NOIP wrote:
> You've hit on what has been termed the great weakness and the great
> strength of these series. Covenant is painted as an asshole precisely
> so the reader grows to despise him, because it is from that wretch of a
> character Donaldson forges a sympathetic hero. Certainly rape is about
> the worst thing one person can do to another, and its very extremity
> shows what Donaldson had in mind.
> In interviews and author's notes Donaldson has discussed his lack of
> interest in 2-D characters and melodrama. Melodrama is in this cas
> describe a condition where the Hero saves the Victim from the Villain,
> with no blurring of the edges and no evolution of character. Donaldson
> doesn't care to write a likeable character whom we continue to like
> throughout the story and whom we end up liking at the end. Neither
> should an intelligent reader be interested in exploring such a
> character, though they litter popular writing today.
I don't think that there is any reason to be against writing about a
character that is likeable all throughout a book. In fact, the hero is
almost always at least a little sympathetic in nearly every novel you
can name, famous or otherwise. There is no reason why this always has
to be true, but it is significantly harder, for me at any rate, to get
into reading a book about someone I don't like.
> The fact that
> Covenant can go from a self-absorbed, self-pitying, selfish asshole to a
> generous, loving, and self-sacrificing person demonstrates Donaldson's
> grasp of character and skillful manipulation of it.
Either that or his inability to be consistent.
> It seems a widespread criticism of Donaldson is his wordiness. These
> people have obviously never read James Joyce, to pick a reasonabl
> modern author, much less someone like Milton or Dante.
I never found James Joyce to be particularly wordy, unless you count
"Finnegan's Wake," and Milton and Dante's famous works were poetry which
calls for more wordiness. I realize I am nit-picking here, because
there are many wordy writers who are considered great (Henry James,
William Faulkner, etc).
> What these
> writers have in common is an interest in and love for the texture,
> style, and methodology of language: the process by which a said thing
> gets said. Donaldson's pursuit in portraying the land was to paint it
> as a vibrant, energetic, and alive place which mundane, stacatto, and
> rapid-fire speech fails to embrace. Thus he tailored his writing to
reflect that. To a thoughtful reader, aware of the deliberate richness
> of the language, this becomes apparent and necessary.
I don't know, I haven't made any attempts to read Donaldson for a long
time so maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I don't remember being
that i with impressed either his style nor the texture of his imagery,
it seemed like typical over-romanticized fantasy stuff to me. I would
argue that Jack Vance, for example, creates a lot richer and more unique
texture.
Adam
Quentin Stephens
On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 14:04:47 -0800, NOIP wrote:
:>I guess my problem with the Evasion is that it's like using Wizard Eye
:>to scan every single room before entering it, and using Project Image to
:>do your dirty work without ever entering danger yourself. The bottom
:>line is that it makes for horribly bad roleplaying and boring encounter
:>after boring encounter.
:>
:> All this puts me in mind of a semi-mythical character from about eight
:>or nine or so years ago. Does anyone remember Waldorf? He was some
:>multiclassed nth level everything who went around killing _everybody_.
:>His proud creator wrote to Dragon Mag for the stats of everything on
:>Oerth after Waldorf caused its sun to go nova, thereby (naturally)
:>entitling him to all the XP of everything in the star system.
:>
:> Am I on crack or does anyone else recall this?
I remember it well. AFAIR he ended up as Waldorf slaad :}
qts
Mark Bradley
In article <348796...@email.psu.edu>, dms...@email.psu.edu wrote:
> Adam Griffith wrote:
> >
> > > > I had an argument with an English Prof recently. She asserted that
> > > > Sci-Fi and Fantasy were both bad genres. Aspiring to those genres
> > > > myself, I approached her after class and pursued the matter. She
> > > > recanted slightly, expressing that the problem with the genres is not
> > > > subject matter, but the authors working in it. Yes, you have your
> > > > Tolkiens, but you also have your Anthonies.
> > >
> >
> > I think part of the problem is also that if a work is highly regarded
> > enough, it isn't put in the sf/fantasy section anymore. For example, go
> > look for "Dracula," "Frankenstein," "Melmoth the Wanderer," "The End
> > of the World News," Pretty much anything by Fanz Kafka, Pretty much
> > anything by Italo Calvino, "1984," or "Brave new World." All these
> > will be in the literature section of the book store.
> >
>
> I agree; her concern was more for the fastfood-type writing that has
> such a high profile today. She commends Clarke, Asimov, and Bradbury,
> for instance, and she recognizes the power of such films as Star Wars
> and Blade Runner. She's just dissatisfied with what frequently passes
> for "good" these days.
>
> NOIP
Sadly I don't remember the author of the article, but someone once stated
in this newsgroup that the problem is that today's scifi and fantasy
writers, at least the bad ones, aren't in touch with their roots, so to
speak. For example, Tolkien based his works on folk tales and mythology.
The next generation of fantasy writers aspired to and based their works on
Tolkien. The next generation derived their inspiration from the previous
generation, etc.
Of course, authors who write for game companies (i.e. TSR, er WOTC ;>) are
hampered by the limitations of the game mechanics and story.
Looking forward to comments,
Stephanie
Wilson, M.D.
> No real danger? Well, I cite Elminster's Evasion as the ultimate
>Munchkin spell in this case. This way, even if something, God forbid,
>should threaten Ellie in any real sense, his contingency spells whisk
>him away to lick his wounds.
To kill Elminster:
Cast Anti-Magic Shell.
Knock on his tower door.
Wait for him to come out, and then
Stick a a poisoned (E) dagger in his ribs.
Repeat as necessary.
Hemlock
Of course, a truly foolproof plan would be a tiny bit more complex.
Wilson, M.D.
> Eddings'
>: Belgariad and Malloreon take the high fantasy genre much further,
>: developing extremely true-to-life characters, establishing a constant
>: tongue-in-cheek humor that doesn't get in the way of the plot, and
>
>I really have to disagree with these statements. I really enjoyed the
>Belgariad when it came out, and had hope for Eddings as an author, but
>then the Malloreon came out and we find out he only had one story in him.
I don't really have a problem with the Mallorean, but if you're going
to read Eddings, pick either the Belgariad/Mallorean or else the
Elene/Tamuli universe. DON'T READ BOTH!!!! They are populated by the
exact same characters. <wry grin>
> Belgarath, however, is real. Yeah, he's 7000 years old
>: or so, but he can be wise, thoughtful, snippy, mischievous, drunk,
>: grumpy, he professionally spans the spectrum from scientist to
>: charlatan, and he desperately misses his wife since her death.
>: The only suspension of disbelief for the reader is his
>: age and magic powers. The rest is very, very real ... we know
>: people who are like this (or exhibit similar combinations of
>: similar facets of their personalities).
>
>The realness of his personality works against his long term strength as a
>character. Gandalf is an epic mythical figure always busy with important
>work. Belgarath's work is so unimportant that he can waste time drinking
>and relaxing rather then working on his mission.
Belgarath only wastes time drinking and relaxing when he doesn't
_have_ a pressing mission. If need be, he can be deadly serious. The
only one I kind of have a problem with is Garion. Like Jason Cosmo,
he's just a little too wholesome to be true. (Though Jason is meant to
be that way.)
Hemlock
P.S. Does anybody know when the next Dan McGirt novel is coming out?
MacDonald
In article <88136421...@nexus.polaris.net>, web...@polaris.net
says...
>
>In article <6622b2$p...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
dbro...@chat.carleton.ca (Dave Brohman) says:
>>James N. Daniel, III (dan...@ziggy.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
>> Someone wrote:
>
>>> > Well seeing as how he is not supposed to do be doing these things
himself
>>> > it's hardly a concern for me. He's the Deus ex Machina for the
Realms just
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> > like Fizban, only Elminster is obviously powerful..
>>
>>> Shouldn't that be "Deus ex Munchkina?"
>>
>> Good one :) (Though it translates as "God from the Munchkin" ;)
>
>It should be "God =OF= the Munckins", but I don't know Latin. ;-)
Salve!
IIRC. it would be "Munchkini Dei" (munch-KIN-ee day-ee)
or perhaps "Pumilies Dei" (poo-milly-ace day-ee) since there is no
classical latin word for "munchkin", as such. Pumilio is the latin word
for "midget" or "pygmy" ...
Vale!
Malcomus Caesar
Pinochet
Pat & Jen Younts <#pyo...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
<348AD8...@popd.ix.netcom.com>...
If you think that was Rude, I have to suggest you check some of the
flame-heavy threads (like that Proliferation one still going on).
Personally I haven't had anything to say for quite a while so why
should I go to the trouble of changing the subject line especiallly
when most people will probably be stuck in the old one..
And you still haven't answered the first question....
Pinochet
Wilson, M.D. wrote in message <66ftck$sp5$2...@gte2.gte.net>...
>To kill Elminster:
>
>Cast Anti-Magic Shell.
>Knock on his tower door.
>Wait for him to come out, and then
>Stick a a poisoned (E) dagger in his ribs.
>Repeat as necessary.
First of all Elminster doesn't answer his own door, he has Lhaeo do
it for him, second he's rarely home, third he probably has some local
divination spells to warn him of the event, and finally the Tower of
Ashaba is full of some royal ass-kickers and even if most of them
weren't home, you can bet they'd find you.. Then there's what's her
name the old witch that broke the staff of the Magi on a dragon and
is still around in spirit form.. One of the Seven Sisters..
>Of course, a truly foolproof plan would be a tiny bit more complex.
Yes, it would almost have to be..
Jason Hatter
mike brokowski (_@_._) wrote:
: his trouble is that Greenwood can't seem to resist the temptation to
Greenwood, or TSR? According to some info I've seen, Ed, as well as other
authors, were being told the type of stories they had to write. I've
noticed El's power increase as well (read the blurb about why El lives so
long in the 2nd Ed Avatar modules: basically, Ao thought Mystra, as sole
guardian of the Weave, had too much power, and placed some of it in random
mortals. That is how El, Sammaster, and Khelben Blackstaff originally got
their longevity).
NOIP
Adam Griffith wrote:
>
> I don't think that there is any reason to be against writing about a
> character that is likeable all throughout a book. In fact, the hero is
> almost always at least a little sympathetic in nearly every novel you
> can name, famous or otherwise. There is no reason why this always has
> to be true, but it is significantly harder, for me at any rate, to get
> into reading a book about someone I don't like.
>
at the beginning, then there's no real reason to become interested in
him in the interim. I agree that it's almost universally necessary to
have some degree of sympathy for a character, or you won't give a damn
what happens. I think Donaldson rolled the dice on Covenant and went
for broke, trying to achieve the greatest transformation of character.
> > The fact that
> > Covenant can go from a self-absorbed, self-pitying, selfish asshole to a
> > generous, loving, and self-sacrificing person demonstrates Donaldson's
> > grasp of character and skillful manipulation of it.
>
> Either that or his inability to be consistent.
He would be inconsistent if he oscillated from one to the other, but
the fact that he undergoes a gradual change from one to the other shows
a dynamic character responding to changing circumstances. It's not as
though he's changing willy-nilly, fluctuating from nice-guy to asshole
and back.
> I never found James Joyce to be particularly wordy, unless you count
> "Finnegan's Wake," and Milton and Dante's famous works were poetry which
> calls for more wordiness. I realize I am nit-picking here, because
> there are many wordy writers who are considered great (Henry James,
> William Faulkner, etc).
I think Ulysses was pretty wordy. "To reflect that each one who
enters imagines himself to be the first to enter whereas he is always
the last term of a preceding series even if the first term of a
succeeding one, each imagining himself to be the first, last, only and
alone, whereas he is neither first nor last nor only nor alone in a
series originating in and repeating ot infinity." That's one sentence,
and if that's not wordy, I don't know what is. I know Milton and Dante
were pursuing tradition and therefore undertook their verbose styles; I
was just using them as examples.
> I don't know, I haven't made any attempts to read Donaldson for a long
> time so maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I don't remember being
> that i with impressed either his style nor the texture of his imagery,
> it seemed like typical over-romanticized fantasy stuff to me. I would
> argue that Jack Vance, for example, creates a lot richer and more unique
> texture.
Fair enough. Guess it's down to personal tastes on this one.
NOIP
NOIP
> >> Pinochet wrote:
> >> Why are people so concerned with the "writing skills" of various
> writers..
> >> makes no sense to me, so why don't you shut up about it or at least
> >> change the subject line to something accurate....Elminster hasn't been
> >> in this thread since the first two or three..
> >
> >Rudeness gets you nowhere Pinochet. If you are so bothered by the
> >subject line you change it. The rest of us couldn't care less.
>
> If you think that was Rude, I have to suggest you check some of the
> flame-heavy threads (like that Proliferation one still going on).
>
> Personally I haven't had anything to say for quite a while so why
> should I go to the trouble of changing the subject line especiallly
> when most people will probably be stuck in the old one..
>
> And you still haven't answered the first question....
If it troubles you that the thread changes though the name does not,
don't read it. That, or change the name yourself; no one else really
cares all that much.
As to why we're "concerned with the writing styles of various
authors," I ask you how can you not be? Are you so jaded that you can
read any crap indiscriminately, drawing equal enjoyment from the best
and the worst? If so, then I salute your benighted reading style; you
obviously have a grasp different from the rest of us.
This is a fantasy forum, and if topics come in that don't directly
relate to AD&D, I say great. It keeps the NG from getting stagnant and
allows the casual reader to explore others' opinions without having to
go to a zillion different sources.
Don't criticize those who maintain a more critical eye when reading
fantasy. Such criticism only serves to strengthen the genre and should
be applauded.
NOIP
MacDonald
In article <348b7...@ntnews.compusmart.ab.ca>,
bad...@compusmart.ab.ca says...
>Malcolmus Caesar
Ummmm ... let's try this again :) What I wrote above actually
translates as "the munchkins/midgets of God" which, I suppose, is only
relevant if your campaign features a Holy Army of Halfling Paladins!
(Now we know why I never got that "A" in latin!)
To write "the god of of the munchkins" one would write:
"Deus munchkinorum" (DAY-oos munch-ki-NOR-um)
OR
"Deus Pumilium" (DAY-oos Poo-MILL-ee-um)
"the god of the midgets/pygmies" if you want to be technically correct
in your classical latin.
Michael J. Tedin
NOIP wrote:
>
> Adam Griffith wrote:
> >
> > I never found James Joyce to be particularly wordy, unless you count
> > "Finnegan's Wake," and Milton and Dante's famous works were poetry which
> > calls for more wordiness. I realize I am nit-picking here, because
> > there are many wordy writers who are considered great (Henry James,
> > William Faulkner, etc).
>
> I think Ulysses was pretty wordy. "To reflect that each one who
> enters imagines himself to be the first to enter whereas he is always
> the last term of a preceding series even if the first term of a
> succeeding one, each imagining himself to be the first, last, only and
> alone, whereas he is neither first nor last nor only nor alone in a
> series originating in and repeating ot infinity." That's one sentence,
> and if that's not wordy, I don't know what is. I know Milton and Dante
> were pursuing tradition and therefore undertook their verbose styles; I
> was just using them as examples.
If you think that's wordy, try Kafka in the original German. He wrote a
short story of about 4 to 5 pages that was made up of just two
sentences. "Auf der Galerie" or something along those lines.
JohnnyB
Pinochet wrote:
>
>
> First of all Elminster doesn't answer his own door, he has Lhaeo do
> it for him,
Not anymore. Lhaeo got buff and reclaimed his birthright
(sorry for the pun) as King of Tethyr. He seems to have
learned magic, swordplay and grew about 1 & 1/2 feet to do
it too.
second he's rarely home, third he probably has some local
> divination spells to warn him of the event, and finally the Tower of
> Ashaba is full of some royal ass-kickers and even if most of them
> weren't home, you can bet they'd find you..
None of which would be much use against an Anti-Magic Shell.
But insted of using a poison dagger, I'd make it a
grandmaster swordsman with two weapon style specialization
with excellent quality weapons, poison optional. Anybody
else still think the PO books are great? I don't (since I'm
a DM not a player).
Then there's what's her
> name the old witch that broke the staff of the Magi on a dragon and
> is still around in spirit form.. One of the Seven Sisters..
Again, no use against AMS. The real trick (as is almost
always the case in these scenarios) is to catch him at home.
JohnnyB
JohnnyB
JohnnyB