Dragonlance 30th Anniversary!

[Gadget]

I think the legends series, written after the original series, was much better written and paced. The authors even admit this, as they were given more leeway and fee reign due to the success of the original trilogy. The problems really began when, in true D&D fiction tradition, they started having everybody and their dog write dragonlance books for a while there and really diluted the brand. As for comparisons to Tolkien, I see them as very superficial at best. I mean, in as much as there is Tolkien in most D&D, such as elves, dwarves, etc.

 

[M.L. Martin]

(Somewhat offtopic - has anyone else read Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising? I loved them as a boy but trying to read them again as an adult I couldn't get through more than a few pages.)

Are you referring to the whole series? Then based on my memories of reading them a decade back, and starting to reread them this past summer but getting distracted, try starting with The Dark is Rising proper, instead of Over Sea, Under Stone.

As for comparisons to Tolkien, I see them as very superficial at best. I mean, in as much as there is Tolkien in most D&D, such as elves, dwarves, etc.

Well, the authors admit in the Annotated Chronicles that they borrowed heavily from Tolkien in a lot of ways. The most glaring example for me is the similarities between the Downfall of Numenor and the Cataclysm, but part of that is because after the imperialism, class warfare, Morgoth-worship, human sacrifice, and mass defiance of the Valar in the Akallabeth, the corruption of Istar feels like a pale imitation and not worthy of the Cataclysm. But Krynn's history, theology and moral structure are, IMO, a mess.

 

[pemerton]

Are you referring to the whole series? Then based on my memories of reading them a decade back, and starting to reread them this past summer but getting distracted, try starting with The Dark is Rising proper, instead of Over Sea, Under Stone.

I actually started trying to read TDiR, because I remembered having found it exciting and interesting the first time.

I'll probably have another look in the next few years, as my kids will be taking it off the shelf.

 

[Ruzak]

...But Krynn's history, theology and moral structure are, IMO, a mess.

I find the complex, even bizarre, theology and morality one of the most intriguing elements. The need for a balance between good and evil is so foreign it really inspires thought about the nature of each.

 

[fjw70]

Isn't Tanis an archer warlord, perhaps with Ranger multiclass for Nature or Perception skill?

Tanis doesn't seem very warlordish. I don't recall him shouting commands during battle and or doing similar warlord things.

He leads the group but is not necessarily a battle leader.

 

[Raunalyn]

Dragonlance is still, today, one of my favorite settings. I even enjoyed the 5th age and the SAGA rules which were, to me, extraordinarily innovative. I think it got such a bad rep because people thought it was a card game ("Cards? This is D&D!!! How can you play D&D without dice!!!!")

I actually read Legends before Chronicles, and absolutely LOVED it. The character development was extremely well done; Caramon coming to the realization that his brother was evil through and through and could not be redeemed, and Raistlin learning that his own evil is responsible for destroying the world and coming to that last minute redemption. I then went back to read Chronicles to find out how Raistlin became like he was, and I was a little under-whelmed. I was quite shocked at how much better Legends was than Chronicles.

But then, everyone and their mother started writing novels about the companions....over and over and over again. It got old (except for the excellent Legend of Huma by Knaak...I really enjoyed that one). And there was the War of Souls...I can't tell you how disappointed I was in that series.

 

[GreyLord]

I still reread LotR from time to time. Tolkien has flaws as a writer and a stylist, but I think is well ahead of most fantasy.

I remember finding the Dragonlance books not that well written as a teenager. I haven't retried them as an adult, but wouldn't expect them to have improved in my eyes!

(Somewhat offtopic - has anyone else read Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising? I loved them as a boy but trying to read them again as an adult I couldn't get through more than a few pages.)

I've read them. I'm not certain what it is...I'm certain the books are still great...but I have had the same difficulty you've had in the past few years. When I've tried reading them these days, I've not been able to get more than a few pages into it, which is odd. Normally when reading more of the young adult/children's fantasy such as Narnia, Prydain, or even more modern YA fantasy such as The Blue Sword, I can finish a book in an hour or two. It's not that it's a terrible time taker, but for some reason I have not been able to really get into The Dark is Rising series these days either.

My daughter on the otherhand read them again just about a year ago, so I'm pretty certain it's still quality stuff...not sure why I have difficulty getting started.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I haven't experienced Dragonlance except by watching the animated movie. It was pretty terrible. It wasn't just the animation (it was actually better than I expected); it seemed like it was written by someone who didn't understand the basics of storytelling. It reminded me The Crystal Shard, which was similarly amateurish. The characters were just stereotypes with no characterization or humanity, and I couldn't empathize or care about any of them. The plot was predictable, had no real twists or complications ("Hey, let's do a thing..." and then they go do the thing and it's over). A lot of elements seemed like a ripoff of Lord of the Rings (even with a half-elf ranger fighter as the party leader? Come on). I said to my girlfriend at the time, "This is the kind of thing where the book could be better, but probably not by much."

My question for all you Dragonlance fans is... Are the books better?

 

[Ruzak]

The Dragonlance movie compares to the books about as well as the D&D movie compares to the game.
I find the characters particularly good in the books.

 

[Gadget]

Hmm..I suppose that If one looked at generalities, I can see the similarities to tLotR. But those are the sort of things that one expects to find when one reads high/epic fantasy. It is kind of like going swimming and complaining about getting wet in one sense. I'm not really seeing how people are getting these Tanis = Aragorn vibe. I submit that people who are doing so have not read one work or the other, because the two are not at all alike (other than perhaps a Ranger vibe). Aragorn is not half-elven (he has elven blood in his line a few thousand years and umpteen generations back), he is not at all conflicted about his parentage, and the two characters motivations, background, and actions and resolutions are completely different. In world building, I can see a lot more Tolkien, such as the aforementioned Ishtar/Numenor comparison, but even that is more telling the tale of a great, mythical civilization that falls into corruption, decadence and pride. The whole take that good and evil must be cosmically balanced like electrons & protons is a very un-Tolkien concept.

That being said, I agree that the Chronicles was not good writing and story telling (Though Legends was much better). It was more the setting and and world that enraptured me as a teenager. It seemed to focus much more on character, story, myth and world building the most D&D fiction did and made a much more coherent fantasy world than many D&D worlds did, though, as I later learned, not a better world for making a published campaign setting in. My main problem was everyone and their dog writing novels in the setting and messing it up, not to mention Weis and Hickman needing to blow up the world every time they came back to the setting. Just too many hands at the tiller. Not able to leave well enough alone. We have a pretty cool and flavorful organization in the Knights of Solamnia, but then we had to add a matching 'evil' organization in the Knights of Talkisis (didn't they also add a 'neutral' Legion of Steel?). Draconians where a great new evil monster invention long before we had dragonborn, but than we had to add 'good' Draconians.