Is Drizzt destined to become a Classic?

[Tsyr]

He doesn't even stand up compared to contemporary authors, such as Murakami. RAS novels will never be taught in schools, they have no literary merit.

According to most of the literary elite, neither does Tolkien. Yet he is taught in school.

 

[Sirius_Black]

Salvatore is the third-highest selling fantasy author who is still alive. The first two being Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks.

Can you please provide a reference source for your statement. I'd be curious to see these figures. Thanks.

 

[CCamfield]

Salvatore is the third-highest selling fantasy author who is still alive. The first two being Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks.

Oh, right.

Pardon me while I go bang my head against the wall.

 

[Mog Elffoe]

Can you please provide a reference source for your statement. I'd be curious to see these figures. Thanks.

Yeah, I kind of have a feeling that J. K. Rowling does a little better than these guys...

Or is Harry Potter somehow NOT considered fantasy...?

 

[Dark Jezter]

Can you please provide a reference source for your statement. I'd be curious to see these figures. Thanks.

Ugh.

I couldn't remember where I first heard that statistic, and I just spent an hour on Google trying to find statistics for the highest-selling fantasy authors with no success. I'll keep looking, but no promises.

I do promise that I didn't make that statistic up, though. I really did hear it somewhere. Whether its true or just an internet rumor I haven't verified yet.

 

[Welverin]

Yeah, I kind of have a feeling that J. K. Rowling does a little better than these guys...

Well it could just be old or it could be because they've been around longer and have more books to add up.

 

[Mog Elffoe]

Well it could just be old or it could be because they've been around longer have more books to add up.

Agreed. I'd really like to see some accurate stats. The HP thing is such a huge crazy big numbers phenomenon that I don't think either Jordan or Brooks, as beloved/reviled as they may be, even come close.

 

[rowport]

RA Salvatore vs. Jack Kerouac.
RA Salvatore vs. F. Scott Fitzgerald.
RA Salvatore vs. Ernest Hemingway.
RA Salvatore vs. James Conrad.
RA Salvatore vs. Haruki Murakami.
RA Salvatore vs. David Eggers.
RA Salvatore vs. Emily Bronte.
RA Salvatore vs. William S. Burroughs.

I could go on. There is a great difference between writing and writing. The Drizzt novels will never be classics. I don't believe that you could tell me, with a straight face, that Drizzt is as complex, or well-written, a hero as, say, Jay Gatsby. Or that any of his villians are a Heathcliff.

He doesn't even stand up compared to contemporary authors, such as Murakami. RAS novels will never be taught in schools, they have no literary merit.

Fantasy Genre Trash are the twinkies of the writing world.

I find it notable and highly revealing that none of the authors you mention write in the fantasy genre. In addition, most of them are dead and none are active. Is that a valid basis of comparison?

 

[rowport]

Objective standards of good and bad literature are a joke. Plain and simple.

I have to wade through the murky waters of academia on a daily basis, working towards a degree in english literature, and I came to that conclusion after about... oh... three months? Tops?

The amount of times I, or my fellow classmates, have had discussions with various professors that went something like this are too many to easily count:

"This was a good book."

"No, it's bad. See, the author didn't do X, X, and X..."

"But the book was good."

"Yes, but the writing was bad."

"I liked the writing."

"Well you're wrong. It's bad writing."

"Why is it bad?"

"Because it didn't do X, X, and X."

"Why would doing X, X, and X make it better?"

"Because then it would be good writing."

"Why would that make it good writing?"

"Because it did X, X, and X. It doesn't right now."

"But how would doing X, X, and X improve the book?"

"Because then the book would be good writing. Like book B, because it does X, X, and X."

"Book B was boring and the writing had no life to it."

"But it did X, X, and X. It's good writing."

Repeat until someone gets sick of the conversation.

To me, there is exactly one acid test of good writing: Does it endure. Anything else is subjective. It's just like these "These movies are good" lists magazines publish... I have a friend who swears that if you don't like movies on that list, you are simply, objectivly, wrong for not liking them. Hogswash. It's opinion. Maybe a guideline at best. Not immutable law.

Tsyr has found the meat of this debate: what are your standards for judging literature. By most academic literary standards, any fantasy (or sci-fi, for that matter) novel is fatally flawed regardless of its author. Tolkien is fard from universally considered "classic" by these standards, and no other fantasy writer comes close. That said, Salvatore's books are much admired and much read, which is the only valuable mark of success that most authors could reasonable aspire to reach in any case. Debating the relative merits of his work versus others in the genre, given the context that virtually no other fantasy authors meet classic literary conventions, is an exercise in futility.

Even abandoning the "classic" label, and comparing Salvatore's work with his peers, I personally believe that it is well worth reading. Admittedly, his depth of plot is not as strong as Martin's, for example, but a better stylistic comparison is with more action-focused work, like Howard or Moorcock. Here, he fares well. While his strength of characterization may not be as developed, his evocative action sequences are superior.

 

[hunter1828]

Even abandoning the "classic" label, and comparing Salvatore's work with his peers, I personally believe that it is well worth reading. Admittedly, his depth of plot is not as strong as Martin's, for example, but a better stylistic comparison is with more action-focused work, like Howard or Moorcock. Here, he fares well. While his strength of characterization may not be as developed, his evocative action sequences are superior.

Very good post. You're one of the very few people in this thread to state areas they feel Salvatore is either good or bad in. Most of us (myself included), whether detractor or supporter, have simply said, "Salvatore is good/bad" and given no real reason for why we say this.

Personally, I think that Salvatore is good with character development, but you have to look beyond the Drizzt books to find it. That, of course, is because he is limited in what he can and can't do with Drizzt and the other characters. Everyone seems to forget that writing in the Forgotten Realms means writing characters you don't own rights to, even if you did create them. It means writing in a world you are only partially responsible for building and devoloping. It means that what Wizards of the Coast wants to see done in the long run, what they feel is best for the Forgotten Realms, is what ultimately dictates how Salvatore's Drizzt books will progress.

I've often wondered, "I bet Salvatore would like to kill Drizzt." But I bet WotC wouldn't let him if he tried. Can't have your cash cow drop dead, after all.

hunter1828