D&D 5E Out of the Abyss - No Drizzt afterall?

[delericho]

The only adventures i've ever seen where the big E was referenced in a way he couldn't be removed was the Time of Troubles modules - fortunately they havent made that mistake again.

I'm going to have to pick a nit with this: the execrable "Marco Volo" adventures star a named NPC who can't really be removed. It's a different NPC, but it's the same mistake.

Edit: worth noting, of course, that both the Time of Troubles and the "Marco Volo" adventures were done by TSR. AFAIK, WotC have never made that mistake.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. Or, for that matter, that you're a really fun person, just happening to pretend that you're a dour, humorless, Drizz't fan. But I digress.

I do find it instructive that you have repeatedly claimed that you have never read any of Salavatore's novels, and have never met a Drizz't clone, yet you spend so much time and energy defending a position on which you claim to not have a "dog in the race." But fair enough.

I did read the Drizz't books, back when they started (yes, back then). I didn't care for them. I tried again, oh, 5 years ago- and I didn't like them. You know why? Because I have taste- my taste. you seem to think this is BADWRONGHATE. But it isn't. It's my perspective. I can explain why, for example, I finished off the last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, even though I thought they weren't quite as good as the previous two. Or Zelazny's Lord of Light was amazing (for example), but pretty much all of Asimov's works are genre. Why I think Leiber's books are amazing pulp that I return to every 5-10 years, but Gord is terrible. Or, for that matter, we could discuss the differences between the literary styles of different writers, and whether you honestly think Salvatore is a good writer, a literary (high?) writer, a pulp writer, or a genre writer, and, for that matter, whether you think that I'm just one of those misbegotten people hatin' on him, but who will be proven wrong in the future, like a Lovecraft, a Leiber, or a Burroughs. Of course, you'd have to have read it to discuss that. I think that the characterizations were terrible, the writing was turgid, and the plotting was mechanical. It didn't have any of the good aspects of real pulp/genre writing that I love, and it wasn't good enough to be quote/unquote literature. But YMMV- if you read it.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, on this and other threads, people have serious reasons for disliking Drizz't, both as a character and as synecoche. And people have not-so-serious reasons for disliking Drizz't. And.... this may shock you... you are not the arbiter of what is, and isn't, good. Perhaps more importantly, people might not view you as credible when you spend a great deal of time "not having a dog in the race" when you are defending books you claim to have never read, and you are defending clone you claim to have never seen (these are not the droi.... clones that you're looking for).

And as I have also said, there are people that love them some Drizz't. But I find that the argument from popularity is rarely a good one. But if they like it, and it makes people money, more power to them. But popularity != good. In fact, many people are arguing that the popularity of Drizz't is the reason that they see so many Drizz't clones, which you haven't.

Pretty much this. As far as Salvatore, I think he's a pretty good writer. Sure, he goes a bit verbose when it comes to fight choreography, but every writer has their "signature" style that might not resonate with everyone. I enjoyed the Crystal Shard books back in the 80s as much as I enjoyed the original Dragonlance series at the same time. But both series don't hold my interest as much now as they did when I was a teenager reading them. Probably for obvious reasons there

I also don't blame Salvatore for drizzt being a huge Gary Stu either. Remember, DRizzt was only originally supposed to be a sidekick to Wulfgar, created at the last minute. I think fan pressure, and the popularity created from that, is what made Drizzt a Gary Stu

"Hey Bob! This Drizzt guy is hugely popular. Why don't you churn out several more novels just around him and how awesome he is."---sincerely, publisher

 

[delericho]

"Hey Bob! This Drizzt guy is hugely popular. Why don't you churn out several more novels just around him and how awesome he is."---sincerely, publisher

Doesn't even need to be from the publisher. If I were a somewhat-unknown writer who had created a wildly-popular character, you can be quite certain I'd cash in real quick. Even if I aspired to writing "quality" books (whatever that means), I'd still do it - far better to do so from a position of having a name people know, and an in-built fanbase, than from obscurity.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[delericho]

Um... here's where I'd disagree, and it depends on the type of writer and the audience. If you're a genre or pulp writer (fantasy, sci-fi, mysteries, thrillers, etc.), using the same character is common.

In fairness, if I were a somewhat-unknown writer, that would be my genre.

And, yeah, I had something like Dan Brown's lead from "The Da Vinci Code" in mind when I wrote that.

It is far less common in non-genre writing. Sure, Updike might have his Rabbit (in addition to other books). But it is much more common to see literature as self-contained- hence, the jokes-
What about "The Great Gatsby II?"
Sure, we can get a ghost writer to pen "Infinter Jest"....
Do you know when Pynchon will get around to "The Other End of Gravity's Rainbow"?

For an example of that, just look at the recent furor surrounding the "sequel" of To Kill a Mockingbird.

I'm honestly not convinced that "The Great Gatsby" or "To Kill a Mockingbird" would get published today. I'm not familiar with the other two.

 

[Remathilis]

Oh, I agree with what you wrote as well (mutual admiration society!). Before anyone gets the wrong impression, I think Salvatore's writing is "bad," in the sense that it isn't literary (literature) and it's not the type of fun pulp/genre literature that I like and that will (likely) be remembered 50 years from now. That said, he's a working writer. Seriously- how amazing is that nowadays? And he gives people what they want. I don't blame him for that. Moreover, I still think he's a highly competent writer that has published a huge amount of work. Kind of like, um, a lesser Piers Anthony trapped in WoTC IP?

It's like when people discuss their musical tastes- there's a lot of bad music out there, and I don't mind critiquing it (and hating on it can be fun!), but when it comes right down to it- any musician making money is doing something right.

Salvatore's done more than than Drizzt novels, include Star Wars. And while none of it might be rank on the freshman Harvard reading list, just because YOU don't like it doesn't make it bad. Personally, I would prefer a lighter-read like Crystal Shard to trudging through any of Tolkien's supplementary books, and I certainly don't consider Howard or Lovecraft's work to be high art.

 

[delericho]

Salvatore's done more than than Drizzt novels, include Star Wars. And while none of it might be rank on the freshman Harvard reading list, just because YOU don't like it doesn't make it bad.

Judged as literature, yeah, they're pretty damn bad.

Fortunately, I don't think Salvatore was aiming for "literature" so much as "unabashedly entertaining". So saying he doesn't stack up against, say, Steinbeck is to miss the point, much like saying a "Fast & Furious" movie doesn't stack up against "Citizen Kane".

 

[Remathilis]

Let me give a similar example in a different genre.

In Star Wars, there is no more polarizing* figure than Boba Fett. Any fan who has waded into supplemental material knows you can't get very far without him being a HUGE part of the lore, before (thanks the the Clone Wars connection), During, and After (he didn't stay in the Sarlacc for long in the original EU). Some people love him: he's ice cold, has a ruthless swagger, talks crap to Darth Vader, and has a silent, menacing appearance. Some people think his is the most over-rated piece of the OT and should barely be a footnote: appears briefly in Empire, has four lines of dialog total, and dies in a horribly comedic fashion early in Jedi. Yet he remains popular (so popular, some added footage of him was added to the Special Editions, and his origin was a side-story in the prequels). T-shirts, video games, comics, novels, even rap songs bare his name, and he's a perennial favorite of cosplayers beyond Stormtroopers and Slave Leia. Ask 100 different Star Wars fans their opinion on Boba Fett, and you'll find very few middle-ground; they love him or they hate him.

Drizzt is like Boba Fett. A fairly minor character in Realms lore who for combination of mystery, looks, and attitude, became wildly popular. And like how Lucasfilm wasn't stupid to squander Boba Fett, TSR/WotC isn't stupid to squander Drizzt. So for those who like him, the saturation level is sufficient. For those who cannot stand him, even the smallest amount is too much. (I once recall an online forum years ago which asked if they were going to change the OT further, could they digitally remove Boba Fett from it, or make his death far more gruesome and finite to stop the EU Fett from existing.)

And not-ironically, the Star Wars RPGs have a dark-elf-ranger problem of their own: the second most popular archetype (beside Jedi) is masked bounty hunter. Hmmmm....

* You might think Jar-Jar is more polarizing, but really Jar-Jar is universally reviled or moderately tolerated. Full throated Jar-Jar supporters are rare, where as Boba Fett fans are numerous.