Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="argo" data-source="post: 2056039" data-attributes="member: 5752">Now, see I'd disagree with that assesment.  I'd say that, with the possible exception of Sam, the hobbits in LotR define the "farmboy destined to save the world" archtype.  Frodo espically.  Sure there was no ancient prophecy of a 3' tall hero who would save the world but all the other elements are there.  A young man unaware of larger powers outside his idylic home, forced out of his comfort zone by forces he did not forsee and can't control, who once he finds out what is really going on makes the decision to do the right thing and take up the quest and then prevails through luck, courage and the goodness of his heart.  Throw in a little divine intervention on the part of the great powers of Middle Earth who entrust Frodo with the ring and give him aid on his quest and I don't think you can call him a "common man" anymore.Where Cook's characters, espically Croaker, differ is that their outlook on their world remains that of the "common man".  Their objectives are, in order of importance:1) stay alive2) keep your friends alive3) finish the job4) wreak bloody vengance on your enemies (a task which frequently overlaps with points 1-3 )They also are rarely handed a McGuffin such as the Ring (the only McGuffins they had that I can remember off the top of my head are the White Rose and the Silver Spike).  They aquire power through skill, cunning and strength of arms.  Forces in the world seek to ally with them or use/abuse them because of their power.  Their enemies seek to destroy them not because they are "carrying the Ring" but because they are powerful or because they pissed the enemy off.So yeah, I like the books in case you couldn't tell  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Speaking to the origional poster: I'd suggest you at least try to finish the first book (and the first three if you can) before giving up on them.  One thing about the minimalist, first person narrative that I really like but that I didn't realize until much later is that Cook really does write from the perspective of his narrator and the narrator will omit details, elaborate, stretch the truth, be ignorant of important facts, spin and conceal all based on his personal experiences and beliefs.  Often you will come to some bit of dialogue that indicates some other character's POV and realize that they have a completly different take on events that happened five chapters back and that you had taken as truth at the time.  I found that playing around with the believability of my source of information, questioning what I thought I knew and attempting to "read between the lines" were very satisfying mental exercises as a reader.  Props to Glen Cook for writing a nariative complex enough to hold up to that sort of thing.Later.</blockquote>

Verification