The Conqueror's Shadow SPOILERS

[Crothian]

In this thread we discuss in detail Ari Marmell's new book The Conqueror's Shadow. There will be open spoilers in this thread so be warned.

In thinking of the questions I want to ask one comes to me and it might have been a detail I missed as when I read it I was expecting more from these characters but I don't recall anything more with them.

In the prologue there are two kids; a girl who gets taken and the boy who gets buried alive. Did I miss something with them or are we to assume they didn't make it? The way both of them got saved from that tragedy made me think at the time we'd be seeing them again.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Appreciate you starting a new thread, Crothian.

But yes, it was a detail that you missed, since they're both important characters throughout the book. The teenage girl was Tyannon, whom Corvis ends up marrying (this was revealed in chapter one, explained/built up in several of the chapter-start flashbacks); her brother was (Baron) Jassion.

 

[Crothian]

I saw the flash backs and such but I just missed were it said that was her. But it makes sense now were it bagan and went. So, now to more improtant things.

I found it interesting in the names for races you used compoared to D&D. I know this isn't a D&D world but ogres seemed to be like Ogres are and gnomes are a familiar race though yours are different. And then the undead creatures which were like vampires but you didn't call them that. What went into the descions of using names peopel know verse creating a name like you did the undead?

Was that iron to wood spell used on the blood to kill the undead evil dude something you thought of or something you saw or heard about? I can see a D&D player argueing with a DM to let that happen.

Are you concerned with D&D similiarites? The different circle of spells really seems like spell levels for instance.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I know this isn't a D&D world but ogres seemed to be like Ogres are and gnomes are a familiar race though yours are different. And then the undead creatures which were like vampires but you didn't call them that. What went into the descions of using names peopel know verse creating a name like you did the undead?

Well, my experiences are obviously going to be shaped somewhat by D&D, just given how much a part of my life it's been for so long. But when it comes to things like that, I prefer to draw on the various myths/tales that D&D drew on, rather than D&D itself.

So the use of ogres as big, nasty, violent creatures was pretty much a no-brainer, because when you say "ogre," everyone knows at least vaguely what you're talking about. I changed them up in the details a little--making them cyclopean, making their violence driven by their religion, that sort of thing--but I still wanted to draw on the classic ogre trope.

With the gnomes, I wanted something different. I didn't want this world to include the traditional type of goblin/orc villain. Once I'd come up with these creepy, twisted (literally and figuratively), awkward, vile, almost alien little things, using the term "gnome" just felt really appropriate.

As far as not using the term "vampire," I don't really have answer to that except that it felt right. That's obviously what they are, despite differing from traditional vampires in a lot of way, but it just felt appropriate never to name them as such. (I make a lot of my creative decisions by instinct, rather than by process. Not all, not even most, but many.)

Was that iron to wood spell used on the blood to kill the undead evil dude something you thought of or something you saw or heard about? I can see a D&D player argueing with a DM to let that happen.

Fantasy (D&D and otherwise) has often included spells designed to render an enemy's weapon harmless. I'm sure I must have seen metal turned to wood somewhere over the years; I can't think of where, but I don't pretend the concept is original to me. I do like to think that my particular use of it in this fashion was fairly creative, though.

Are you concerned with D&D similiarites? The different circle of spells really seems like spell levels for instance.

Not especially so. I've actually written columns about D&D's influence on fantasy (on Suvudu, not here), and about how many concepts either introduced or embraced by D&D have become fantasy tropes. So on a general level, I've no problem being part of that pattern.

Are there a few places where, in retrospect, I wish I'd gone in slightly different directions? Probably; I don't want to be pigeonholed as "the D&D guy." But they're minor details here and there, nothing more--and while any further Corvis Rebaine books will obviously still have them (as will The Goblin Corps, but in that case, it was quite deliberate), I'll be moving away from them in other upcoming projects, just to keep myself from getting too stuck in any given rut.

 

[Crothian]

Are we going to see Shadow Conquer'or's the RPG?

Is it challenging to write magic? Magic can potenitally do anything so how do you know what limits to place on it for the characters? Are there times when you feel that magic is to easy of a plot device to get past a situation?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Are we going to see Shadow Conquer'or's the RPG?

I'm not currently planning to write one myself, but I'd be happy to field offers from any interested companies.

Is it challenging to write magic? Magic can potenitally do anything so how do you know what limits to place on it for the characters? Are there times when you feel that magic is to easy of a plot device to get past a situation?

It certainly can be. It's important to have at least a strong sense of how magic works in a given fantasy world. I don't think you have to have every law of magic ironed out and carved in stone, necessarily, but at least a general sense of it.

And yes, it absolutely can be a "get out of plot free" card. The trick is to earn it; if yuo've shown the audience how magic works, and they've seen it accomplish something similar to X, then you can much more readily include it when X comes up later on.

And it's important to be consistent with individual casters, as well. For instance, the book establishes multiple times that Corvis is only a mediocre caster--unless he's got some sort of cheat (such as Khanda, or the page from the spellbook). So I had to make sure that Corvis never did anything on his own to violate that. (He's a somewhat better caster by the time of the forthcoming sequel, but still not exactly powerful on his own.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

New contest! You can win a signed copy of one--or possibly more --of my novels. Details here: Best of the Worst Contest

 

[Klaus]

Finished it yesterday!

Love it! Corvis is, IMHO, a Sword & Sorcery Jack Bauer.

Just two minor quibbles:

1) Whatever became of the gnomes? We see them when Corvis is captured, but there's no resolution to them as there was for Mithraen.

2) The final fate of Nathaniel Espa made me uneasy. I was supporting Seilloah and the others until that moment, which shattered my sympathy for Seilloah (and the fact that Corvis was so pedestrian about it clashed with his "new self"). If Espa had been shown to be more of a douche (like planning or trying to kill Corvis, Seilloah or Ellowayne in spite of the truce... and being interrupted by Mithraen), it wouldn't break my image of the protagonists as much.

Anyone else sees Liam Neeson as Corvis?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Finished it yesterday!

Love it! Corvis is, IMHO, a Sword & Sorcery Jack Bauer.

Just two minor quibbles:

1) Whatever became of the gnomes? We see them when Corvis is captured, but there's no resolution to them as there was for Mithraen.

They pretty much scattered when the rest of the invading army fell apart. But they suffered no "final fate" the way Mithraem did, and in fact, the gnomes briefly pop up again (so to speak) in the sequel.

2) The final fate of Nathaniel Espa made me uneasy. I was supporting Seilloah and the others until that moment, which shattered my sympathy for Seilloah (and the fact that Corvis was so pedestrian about it clashed with his "new self").

It was supposed to. Now, obviously, that doesn't mean it's going to work for all readers--and if it doesn't work for you, I fully understand--but I thought it was important as a way of emphasizing that Corvis and Seilloah are still who they are. Corvis may like to pretend he's a better man than he was, and his goals may indeed have improved, but he's not "redeemed." (I think the very end shows that.) And Seilloah never even claimed to be a better person than she used to be; she was involved because the people she cared about were involved.

As I said, not everyone's going to appreciate that, and that doesn't make them "wrong." I understand completely why you were uncomfortable with it. I just wanted to explain that, for better or worse, it was intentional on my part.

 

[Klaus]

Oh, I totally got that it was to show Seilloah's true character. It's one thing for her and Davro to talk about recipes and faceless travellers for dinner, but it's another to have Seilloah eat (man, how fast could she eat?!) a heroic secondary character.