Dragonlance Dragonlance: Dragons of Deceit Review

Dragonlance is back, and not just with the RPG adventure book Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen (I expect a release date announcement on August 18). Dragonlance: Dragons of Deceit is a new novel by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman and the start of the Dragonlance Destinies trilogy.

Of course, Dragonlance has never really gone away. Even after Weis & Hickman left TSR and other authors were hired to write Krynn novels, the original duo have regularly returned to their fan-favorite series in addition to some novels written by Weis alone. Still, the last completely new novel by the pair was 2009's Dragons of the Hourglass Mage so it's been a long time.

If you're a Dragonlance fan, you'll be happy with DDoD. Weis & Hickman are still at the top of their game, and while this is a new story, familiar faces make an appearance with even more named. Prior knowledge of Dragonlance isn't necessary, but if you are a fan, you'll immediately recognize a lot of references.

Destina Rosethorn, daughter of a Solamnic knight, has been raised to follow The Measure, care for her hereditary lands, and maintain Castle Rosethorn as a line of defense against the forces of evil. Even when tragedy strikes her family, Destina continues as she was taught – until another loss strikes and upends everything she expected from life. Destina decides the solution is to go back in time, using the Device of Time Journeying, to save her father during the War of the Lance.

While I think Dragonlance fans (and I've always considered myself one) will enjoy or even love this book, that last sentence is part of the reason why I didn't enjoy this novel as much as I expected. I've been a lifelong fan of science fiction and fantasy, and grew up on Star Trek time-space continuum shenanigans and Doctor Who, so time travel is not a deal breaker for me.

But...

Even in a world where dragons and magic exist, I trip over Destina's leap in logic. Citizens of Krynn have experienced magic, lived through the return of the gods and clerics, and likely have seen dragons fly overhead, but time travel is beyond rare. People view Tasslehoff Burrfoot's stories of his time-travel adventures as Kender exaggerations. I understand Destina's desperation, but that's quite the leap. Maybe it's just that Destina sometimes comes across to me as more immature than I expect from the Destina depicted in the early chapters.

Or maybe my tastes have changed since I originally read Dragons of Autumn Twilight. Both books open with a location description, but DDoAT focuses on Tika and her thoughts while also describing The Inn of the Last Home, whereas DDoD begins with a several paragraphs description of Castle Rosethorn before Lord Gregory even appears. It wasn't exactly a grabber.

I'm used to Tasslehoff being flighty, but his refusal to accept the truth of a plot-point, even after it's been repeatedly explained just rubs me wrong. There's a difference between being trusting and denying evidence.

Worse, I didn't feel an emotional connection to the characters or Destina's dilemma. I enjoyed DDoD, was interested in the plot, and I'm curious about the rest of the trilogy, but I didn't feel any tension or emotion like I did while reading Drew Hayes' NPCs or Travis Baldree's Legends & Lattes. Yet when I compare DDoD to Weis & Hickman's earlier Dragonlance novels they all fit together, so the disconnect is mine.

Also, time travel trilogies can be tricky to accurately evaluate while incomplete. I might look back when it's over and love this book. I hope so.

The hardcover is nicely made with end-papers that show the map of Ansalon. If you prefer audiobooks, reader Kirsten Potter is very good. Whether voicing Destina, her parents, Tika, Caramon, Tas, Dalamar, or others, Potter changes her voice so you know exactly who is speaking before you get to the attribution. Most fiction audiobook readers try to do that, but don't accomplish it nearly as well as Potter does.

If you love Dragonlance, Dragons of Deceit will likely be an A or an A+ for you even though for me, it's currently a solid B to B+. Fan of epic fantasy but new to Dragonlance? It'll be somewhere between a B and an A+, depending upon your exact tastes. And despite my hesitation, I am interested in the next book, Dragons of Fate, and I think that's a truer sign of my Dragons of Deceit review than a letter grade.

 

[Dire Bare]

Life is too short for "it's fine" books.

Heh. Fill your life with masterpieces only . . . . and quickly run out of things to read and do.

 

[Dire Bare]

Two points-

1. Never go full time-travel.

2. Do we grade D&D books on a curve? It definitely seems that way! In other words ...
a. Is this a good book? Compared to other good books that a person would read?
b. Is this a good fantasy genre book? If someone wanted to read a really good fantasy book, is this good?
c. Is this a good D&D book? D&D has put out a lot of books (approximately 3,497 Forgotten Realms books, of which 2/3 feature Drizzt ... my numbers are approximate, yet also completely accurate) ... is this "good for a D&D book?"
d. Is this a good Dragonlance book?

All of those are different ... and I get the suspicion reading the review (and some of the comments) that people are being really forgiving to the book. Which I get ... after all, if you're a fan of DL, you want new material from the creators! But ... maybe be very explicit about the review. I somehow doubt that this is a "B" book compared to most modern fantasy that gets published.

(If I am incorrect, and this is truly a remarkable book, let me know!)

On the one hand . . . I see the same old judgements from folks on the D&D novels WotC (formerly TSR) has produced over the years, the assumptions they are substandard compared to the rest of the fantasy genre. Whatever.

On the other hand, while the phrase "grading on a curve" is diminishing the opinions of others . . . you're close to something, something @brimmels brings up in her review. She scored the book a "B" for her own personal tastes, but acknowledged DL fans might just give it an "A".

People read books for different reasons. And that's okay. Most folks who pick this one up, at least right away, are doing it because they are DL fans, they want to continue in this world. Also, likely because they are fans of W&H, the authors. Folks who are not fans of the authors and/or the setting will likely enjoy this book less. Doesn't make it a bad or mediocre book.

I wouldn't distinguish between this being a "good book" and a "good fantasy book" . . . . as if somehow being in the fantasy genre automatically brings it down a few notches. This book being a D&D and Dragonlance book also doesn't automatically drop it down a few notches in quality, although again the setting and authors will be a draw and will increase the enjoyment some folks get out of this.

So many posts saying, "I read it, it was fun" followed by so many posts saying, "Wow, sounds terrible, how disappointing". The disconnect is strong, the assumptions are old and irritating.

Oh well. I read it. I enjoyed it. I noticed problems with the novel, but enjoyed it anyway.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

On the one hand . . . I see the same old judgements from folks on the D&D novels WotC (formerly TSR) has produced over the years, the assumptions they are substandard compared to the rest of the fantasy genre. Whatever.

On the other hand, while the phrase "grading on a curve" is diminishing the opinions of others . . . you're close to something, something @brimmels brings up in her review. She scored the book a "B" for her own personal tastes, but acknowledged DL fans might just give it an "A".

People read books for different reasons. And that's okay. Most folks who pick this one up, at least right away, are doing it because they are DL fans, they want to continue in this world. Also, likely because they are fans of W&H, the authors. Folks who are not fans of the authors and/or the setting will likely enjoy this book less. Doesn't make it a bad or mediocre book.

I wouldn't distinguish between this being a "good book" and a "good fantasy book" . . . . as if somehow being in the fantasy genre automatically brings it down a few notches. This book being a D&D and Dragonlance book also doesn't automatically drop it down a few notches in quality, although again the setting and authors will be a draw and will increase the enjoyment some folks get out of this.

So many posts saying, "I read it, it was fun" followed by so many posts saying, "Wow, sounds terrible, how disappointing". The disconnect is strong, the assumptions are old and irritating.

Oh well. I read it. I enjoyed it. I noticed problems with the novel, but enjoyed it anyway.

I think maybe my point (which was made in a short fashion) was a little unclear.

I think that, for example, "genre books" can be "good books." I think that fantasy books can be great books.

...but, it is also true that genre books in general (whether it's romance, fantasy, mysteries, westerns, or other genres) can be of, for lack of a better phrase, non-literary quality.

That's the first step in what I was getting at. Is this an "A" as a book qua book? I'm pretty sure it's not Murakami, to use an obvious example. And that's okay!

But is it good as a fantasy book? Not all books have to be great literature to be enjoyable. Sometimes, the pleasure of a good fantasy book is that it is readable. I'm not sure that the GoT Series, for example, is great literature (although it certainly borders on it, and I am amenable to arguments for it), but it is certain a great fantasy series.

And that's really the other major dividing line; most work-for-hire books (those that are required to be in a specific universe ... the D&D universe, the Halo universe, the Star Wars universe, etc.) may be fine writing and entertaining, but most (for various reasons) will not be as good fantasy as the best fantasy books that the author created on their own. It doesn't mean that they aren't entertaining, or that people who love that IP won't love it (after all, there is a reason that they are written), but IME if you're looking for the Greatest Fantasy Series (and/or Novels) of All Time you don't find works-for-hire based on corporate IP.

That's what I mean. I love fantasy. I grew up reading it; some of my fondest memories are snuggling up and having my mind blown by Roger Zelazny, while some of my earliest reading memories are of Prydain.

I just don't think it's weird to think that, for example, Tolkien and Jemisin and Zelazny and Donaldson and Schwab and Rothfuss were doing something different with fantasy than this book. And that's okay!

 

[Dire Bare]

I think maybe my point (which was made in a short fashion) was a little unclear.

I think that, for example, "genre books" can be "good books." I think that fantasy books can be great books.

...but, it is also true that genre books in general (whether it's romance, fantasy, mysteries, westerns, or other genres) can be of, for lack of a better phrase, non-literary quality.

That's the first step in what I was getting at. Is this an "A" as a book qua book? I'm pretty sure it's not Murakami, to use an obvious example. And that's okay!

But is it good as a fantasy book? Not all books have to be great literature to be enjoyable. Sometimes, the pleasure of a good fantasy book is that it is readable. I'm not sure that the GoT Series, for example, is great literature (although it certainly borders on it, and I am amenable to arguments for it), but it is certain a great fantasy series.

And that's really the other major dividing line; most work-for-hire books (those that are required to be in a specific universe ... the D&D universe, the Halo universe, the Star Wars universe, etc.) may be fine writing and entertaining, but most (for various reasons) will not be as good fantasy as the best fantasy books that the author created on their own. It doesn't mean that they aren't entertaining, or that people who love that IP won't love it (after all, there is a reason that they are written), but IME if you're looking for the Greatest Fantasy Series (and/or Novels) of All Time you don't find works-for-hire based on corporate IP.

That's what I mean. I love fantasy. I grew up reading it; some of my fondest memories are snuggling up and having my mind blown by Roger Zelazny, while some of my earliest reading memories are of Prydain.

I just don't think it's weird to think that, for example, Tolkien and Jemisin and Zelazny and Donaldson and Schwab and Rothfuss were doing something different with fantasy than this book. And that's okay!

I got your point. And I disagree with it strongly.

"Literary quality"? Fancy way of saying, genre books are a grade below "real" books. It's an arrogant and elitist position.

Any book can be good, any book can be bad. Regardless of genre. In and outside of shared-world franchises like Dragonlance. Regardless if the book is work-for-hire, traditionally published, self-published, or even fan fiction. And of course, which books are good and bad is subjective. Shakespeare was the trash fiction of his day.

 

[Morrus]

The book is fine. Perfectly enjoyable. The only people who appear to be saying otherwise are people who haven’t read it. Not every book has to be the best book ever, and if that’s your standard, then I guess you only get to read one book.

If you liked W&H’s previous DL books you’ll probably enjoy this. If you didn’t, you probably won’t. Either way it won’t change your life. That’s about all there is to it.

 

[rooneg]

I got your point. And I disagree with it strongly.

"Literary quality"? Fancy way of saying, genre books are a grade below "real" books. It's an arrogant and elitist position.

Any book can be good, any book can be bad. Regardless of genre. In and outside of shared-world franchises like Dragonlance. Regardless if the book is work-for-hire, traditionally published, self-published, or even fan fiction. And of course, which books are good and bad is subjective. Shakespeare was the trash fiction of his day.

So, you're not wrong, any book can be good and any book can be bad. That said, "good" and "bad" are not enormously useful descriptors here. Authors of Genre Fiction and authors of Capital L Literature are (typically) trying to do different things, because they're satisfying desires of different populations of readers. It's also most definitely not a binary thing. There's a spectrum. My wife makes her living as an author of mystery novels, and her work definitely has elements in it that are further along the spectrum towards Literature (i.e. more work on making sure various elements of the novel contribute to theme, scenes are there to serve multiple purposes, etc). That said, she also will be the first to admit that she's not really doing precisely the same thing as Captial L Literature. There are also definitely books that fit in the same genre as hers that are further towards the "genre fiction" end of the spectrum, and they don't necessarily do the same sort of thematic work, instead they concentrate on setting or plot or other things. They're just targeting a different set of readers who are looking for different types of books. It's not about "good" or "bad" in the abstract, it's about how well you're providing what your readers want.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I got your point. And I disagree with it strongly.

"Literary quality"? Fancy way of saying, genre books are a grade below "real" books. It's an arrogant and elitist position.

Any book can be good, any book can be bad. Regardless of genre. In and outside of shared-world franchises like Dragonlance. Regardless if the book is work-for-hire, traditionally published, self-published, or even fan fiction. And of course, which books are good and bad is subjective. Shakespeare was the trash fiction of his day.

1. Thank you. I AM arrogant and elitist. That's why I have been eagerly awaiting the return of the greatest comedy duo in history.

First, a movie! Now ... A SERIES! They're back, and better than ever.

2. Shakespeare was not the trash fiction of his day. Let's start with the obvious- when he was alive, he wasn't ... you know .... SHAKESPEARE. Um, well, he was I guess. But not considered one of the all-time greatest writers ever. However, during his lifetime, he was incredibly popular.* No writer was more published. Other people began (falsely) attributing their work to him. And not just his plays- his poetry was incredibly popular. By the time of the First Folio, it was generally acknowledged that Shakespeare was the greatest writer of all of his contemporaries. Not a great example!

3. Work-for-hire for novels based upon corporate IP tend to be of ... a different type of quality ... for a very good reason. BECAUSE IT'S WORK FOR HIRE. It's not a passion project of the author. And, in many cases (not all!) the author doesn't get royalties on the books sold, or the royalties are insignificant compared to the amount paid initially. Again, if you look at the lists of the best books in any given genre category (from fantasy to science fiction to ... well, any kind) you don't find those novels.

4. Finally, yeah- I do think it's important to let people know in a review what the intended audience for a book is. Obviously, this isn't comparing this book to a new book by Murakami. Or Patricia Lockwood. But I do think it is helpful to understand if the book is something that a person who likes fantasy, but hasn't read prior Dragonlance books ... would like. I read the original trilogy, couldn't get past it (back when they were released) and tried to re-read them again a while ago and couldn't because the writing was ... not great. But that's me. Different people like different things.


AND THAT'S THE POINT OF A GOOD REVIEW. To explain to people if this is something that they might like.



*And just to head this one off at the past- being popular doesn't mean trashy. His poetry was insanely popular and well-regarded; when the literacy rate ... for men ... was under 30%, that means that he was popular with the elites.

 

[DarkCrisis]

The book is fun. I don't know what else someone could want from a hobby item.

I also started reading the Elric stuff, and while that's entertaining, the new DL is far more fun.

As a DL fan, this book is like coming home. And it's sad this trilogy may be the last EVER. So I plan to cherish it and the next 2 as much as possible.

 

[Mort]

It was an easy, quick read and most of it was fun. I liked the depiction and portrayal of almost all the old characters. And some of the new ones, Wolfstone in particular, were really interesting. The writing is not "top notch" but it's serviceable (IMO).

BUT (and much of this has already been covered):

1. The protagonist (Destina) goes from an interesting sympathetic character to a pretty horrible person FAST. Yes, she's young (though the early chapters try to make a point of how mature she is), yes she's gone through tragedy and is hurting. But, come on - it's just a lot.

2. They Make Tasslehoff act REALLY dumb, over the top REALLY, REALLY stupid. To the point of losing any believability that it's happening for anything other than plot reasons. It's hard to get past. and considering how well they portray the other heroes of the lance and how much emphasis there is in the book about not believing in stereotypes, it's a really odd decision.

3. I'm not sure what to make of how easily items are acquired. Destina gets 2 of the premier artifacts of Dragonlance with little more effort than going to the store (ok it's a BIT more than that, but not much). It's for obvious plot reasons, but it's just off putting. I mean, the protagonist concocts what can only be described as a lunatic hairbrained scheme and within no time at all - she's acquired exactly what she needs (which involves, not 1 but 2 actual D&D artifacts). It's hard to swallow.

 

[Dire Bare]

So, you're not wrong, any book can be good and any book can be bad. That said, "good" and "bad" are not enormously useful descriptors here. Authors of Genre Fiction and authors of Capital L Literature are (typically) trying to do different things, because they're satisfying desires of different populations of readers. It's also most definitely not a binary thing. There's a spectrum. My wife makes her living as an author of mystery novels, and her work definitely has elements in it that are further along the spectrum towards Literature (i.e. more work on making sure various elements of the novel contribute to theme, scenes are there to serve multiple purposes, etc). That said, she also will be the first to admit that she's not really doing precisely the same thing as Captial L Literature. There are also definitely books that fit in the same genre as hers that are further towards the "genre fiction" end of the spectrum, and they don't necessarily do the same sort of thematic work, instead they concentrate on setting or plot or other things. They're just targeting a different set of readers who are looking for different types of books. It's not about "good" or "bad" in the abstract, it's about how well you're providing what your readers want.

Yes, writers have different purposes in crafting their work. Readers go into books with different reasons.

But ultimately, as a reader, you either like or don't like any given book. If you like it, it's "good". If you don't, it's "bad". You may (or not) take a more nuanced opinion towards a work, liking and disliking certain aspects of it, of course.

As a writer, you're work either connects with a larger audience or it doesn't. It is either "good" or "bad", broadly speaking. You will (hopefully) always have at least a few folks who genuinely enjoyed your work, and always at least a few who think it's terrible. The hope is that most folks, after reading it, enjoy your work and are eager for more.

But I strongly reject the objective reality of "literary quality" work, or "Capital L Literature". It is essentially stereotyping literature.

But hey, that's just me.