Why hate onthe drow? (Forked Thread: How is FR changing with 4E?)


log in or register to remove this ad

Sitting here waiting for the undercoat on my minis to dry. Thought I'd chime in.

On Drow hate: I hate them for all the reasons that have been given above about fanboys (and girls, I'm looking at you Rachel!) and the whole Mary Sue-ness of Drizzt. But I will join in with Drizzt in hoping for their redemption. That is, back to being hard core evil SOBs. With or without the bondage theme. (just remember though, when Drow do bondage there is no safety word.)

CSL: as per usual I really like your ideas on Drow and how you write them. Some day I would really like to play in one of your campaigns. That is if you ever ran one. And we lived on the same continent.

Good Writers of Fantasy: Ooh boy, where do I begin?
How about the not good ones?
RA Salvatore is NOT a good writer. Competent, but not good. I'd say the same for Jordan. And I've read enough of both to have a solid basis for this opinion. Erickson and the Malazan stuff: started reading the first one a couple of weeks ago, 200 pages in put it down and gave up waiting for something to happen; BORING. Hell, it made me go back to Moby Dick. (half of which is some rather unreliable facts on the biology of whales which Melville specifically calls Fish, although this may be Ishmael's opinon rather than Melville's.) Terry Brooks: Sword of Shanarra was an absolute Tolkien clone but at least it was a pretty good read from what I remember (been 20+ years.) The never ending series of follow-ons bored me plus it got it's own Mary Sue (name escapes me but the impossibly wonderful swordsman/ninja dude.) Gonna take a shot at Eddings here too. Not for the the first bunch, the Belgariad, these were enjoyable: good light style, easy to read, fun characterisations. Then came the clone, The Mallorean. Wasn't Eddings at least a bit ashamed to be writing exactly the same book and selling it to people? As a mate of mine said: cute characterisation can only get you so far.

A few others mentioned above I've not read, or in some cases, heard of.

Good ones:

Tad Williams. First thing of his I read was Otherland. FAntastic. Less impressed by his first fantasy ones (er, Memory SOrrow and Thorn?) but certainly some flashes of the writer he has since become. Eagerly awaiting the next in his Shadow... series.

Moorcock: Elric. Now this is the guy Drizzt wishes he could be. Except maybe for the being a bit evil and the thing he has for his cousin. Wouldn't that give Drizzt something to angst over? And all the rest of Moorcock's stuff: Eternal Champion, Dancers at the End of Time, Jerry Cornelius etc. Haven't read the Pyatt stuff but it's on the to-do list. As you can probably guess he's one of my faves. SPecial mention for The Warhound and the World's Pain, one of my all time favourite books.

Tolkien. Oh yeah, ther's some god awful turgid prose in there. But at it's best it's great. And the excessive world building actually helps with that. The background adds to the story rather than detracts. I still get a shiver when I read the Ride of the Rohirrim. (And I've read it over 20 times.)

ALso hear good things about China Mieville and he's on the to do list too. Well not him. His books.

Feist: agree with above poster who says half his stuff is good, half is not. Sure sign of crapness is when Pug makes an apperance. The stuff without him, specifically anything to with Jimmy the Hand, reads much better. The Daughter of the Empire series he co-wrote with Janny Wurts is fantastic!!

No-one's mentioned Donaldson. I like the 1st Chronicle of TC. Covenant is just a man you love to hate. He never fails to let you down. The sequels, not so good, as sequels usually are. But really liked Mordant's Need and the book of short stories.

Not fantasy but have just started reading Arturo Perez-Reverte's Captain Alatriste series. That's some damn good cloak and dagger swash buckle. Complete with in-jokes about Milady de Winter. Really nice, sparse style. No wasting words on endless boring descriptions. A bit like Howard in that regard.

MM, well that's enough of that. Ya know, should really fork this thread into a fantasy authors one.

Edit: Meant to bring up the new Pathfinder Adventure Path. At first glance it seems to be a Drow one. So can Pathfinder do for Drow what they did for Goblins and Ogrs?
 
Last edited:

No, my point is that popularity does not equate to quality.

Most fans of a genre of writing, style of music, particular band, etc. would argue the opposite, that the very best stuff is the stuff that doesn't get popular attention.

But the object of a novel, in today's world, is to make money, which is why some lame 1600 year old story like oh-so-'controversial' The DaVinci Code sells like hotcakes, while Foucault's Pendulum is a footnote. By the standard of the day, which is how much money it makes, Drizzt is the greatest fantasy hero, ever, much like Losing My Religion would be the best R.E.M. song ever, if how much radio play it got was the sole criteria for 'best.'
 


Written by Set

By the standard of the day, which is how much money it makes, Drizzt is the greatest fantasy hero, ever, much like Losing My Religion would be the best R.E.M. song ever, if how much radio play it got was the sole criteria for 'best.'

Heh heh heh. I agree. Every song on Green is brilliant and much better than Losing my Religion. But when do they ever get airplay?

Minor niggle: Money has always been the standard of the day re. professional art. Shakespeare wrote stuff that he thought would get bums on seats. Mozart wanted to impress his patron. The fact that they turned out brilliant stuff is kinda incidental. Not to them; I'm sure they wanted to create great art for its own sake. But they also wanted to eat. It's a devil's deal, being an artist.
 

Truth.

Seriously, although he can tend to the melodramatic, Tigana is one of the finest works of fantasy ever written.

-O

... which leads to why I consider Kay a great crafter of prose (and sometimes a pretty good worldbuilder), but not a complete great writer. Sometimes when you take a few steps back from all that beautiful prose, you realize either that this makes no sense or that he just spent a few pages saying nothing important.
 

... which leads to why I consider Kay a great crafter of prose (and sometimes a pretty good worldbuilder), but not a complete great writer. Sometimes when you take a few steps back from all that beautiful prose, you realize either that this makes no sense or that he just spent a few pages saying nothing important.
It's funny about tastes. It has been a while but I couldn't get through a book-and-a-half of the Tapestry series and haven't given Kay the time of day since. But to others he is wonderful. And to yet others he says nothing important, like the above. Interesting, is all. My wife doesn't like Moorcock after giving up on one of his books but I like him immensely.
 

Drizzt hate is pretty simple - Mary Sue.
Drizzt is talented, I'll give you that... but a Mary Sue?

Jarlaxle 1-ups Drizzt in every encounter they ever have. Errtu frequently tricks, outsmarts, and outmanuevers Drizzt throughout the series. Drizzt sets out to kill Artemis and never can do it (can't even keep him from getting away), yet Artemis essentialy kills Drizzt later in the series. Drizzt gets two different shots at Crenshinibon and can't destroy it, so others eventually have to do it for him. Zaknafein and Kelnoz both beat Drizzt in battle. I mean, even Belwar the gnome defeated Drizzt in combat and captured him. Riders of Nesme (what?!) clobbered Drizzt and Wulfgar had to defend him. One of the first fights Drizzt ever had in the novels, two yeti beat him down and only Bruenor saves him. Obloud flat out overpowered and out fought Drizzt in every way. Drizzt just had to give up and run away (and never did defeat him in any fashion).
 

Minor niggle: Money has always been the standard of the day re. professional art. Shakespeare wrote stuff that he thought would get bums on seats. Mozart wanted to impress his patron. The fact that they turned out brilliant stuff is kinda incidental. Not to them; I'm sure they wanted to create great art for its own sake. But they also wanted to eat. It's a devil's deal, being an artist.

Don't forget, too, that much of the astoundingly beautiful art of the Renaissance was in fact varying degrees of crass commercialism, political propaganda, or self-glorification. Artists such as Leonardo, Donatello, Raphael and Michaelangelo routinely sold their services to the highest bidders, who in practice came out to be the wealthy clergy and aristocracy, and freely incorporated whatever their patrons wanted into the finished products.

Hell, if they were alive today, a lot of the great Renaissance artists would probably be condemned as selling out to corporate culture.

Go figure.
 

Cruel Summer Lord wrote:
Hell, if they were alive today, a lot of the great Renaissance artists would probably be condemned as selling out to corporate culture

Hell yeah. And they'd deserve it. Then again, they'd still be turning out some great art.
 

Remove ads

Top