What is the attraction of Dragonlance?

[Matchstick]

The half-elf who's at odds with his dual heritage.

The brooding warrior type.

These are essentially the same, "at odds" meaning "brooding".

It might actually be shorter to compile a list of characters that are NOT brooding. Even Conan broods. Sure Boromir is the best example of a brooding warrior that we all know (caused by his parentage BTW). But it takes little effort to find more, including more who brood about their parentage.

John Carter, Tarzan, Springbuck (parentage, "Doomfarers of Coramonde", '77), Luke Skywalker (parentage), Garion/Belgarion ('82), Faramir (parentage), Aragorn (parentage/lineage), Lije Bailey ("Caves of Steel" '53), Alex Griffin ("Dream Park" '77), Istvan the Archer ("Dark Border" '82), and even Thomas Covenent ('77).

It wouldn't be hard to make a list many pages long here, the brooding warrior is a classic convention.

The halfling rogue who just can't keep his hands to himself.

The convention here is more "the thief with the childlike outlook", but it's interesting to note that in the TSR publication "Dungeon of Dread" ('82) there is a halfling thief that resembles the kender very much. So not only did this convention exist before DL, TSR was already using it.

More examples: Silk (Belgariad '82) is just a (slightly) taller version of a kender in many ways, Slippery Jim Di Griz (Stainless Steel Rat '73) certainly has the talent and attitude to have been a precursor to the kender, and keeping out thieves like the Grey Mouser ('68), Shadowspawn ('79), and Tananda the assassin ('78) would be overlooking similar characters.

The grouchy dwarf who complains about everything, but does it anyway.

Once again the convention here is "the grumpy guy" but it's no real challenge to find them even limiting the search to dwarves. Certainly every dwarf in "The Hobbit" could be classified as gruff, grumpy, or both. Gimli could be considered as well, but I don't think he's as good an example as Thorin (or most of his cronies). Again, right around the time of DL TSR published a book called "Revolt of the Dwarves" ('83) that is chock full of grouchy dwarves, and even Ahira ("The Sleeping Dragon" '83) is portrayed as a grumpy/grouchy/gruff dwarf.

The exiled princess (correct me if I'm wrong there, that detail is a bit sketchy in my memory).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not exiled - Laurana followed Tanis Half-Elven like a love-starved Puppy, and experiences the most growth of all the characters in the tales.

I'd give examples here but I'm not sure what you're saying Laurana is, and I'm not familiar enough with the books (having only read them once) to know what her archetype is. An unrequited love? A woman who changes over the course of the books? Both? Again, it wouldn't be too difficult to find numerous examples of either of those characteristics. If you want to clarify I can give examples.

Oops, almost forgot:

The wizard who has learned things he shouldn't, paid a terrible price for his power, and now refuses to act like a decent human being.

Usually this character is a bad guy, or a good guy that studied the bad guys too long. Saruman fits your description, as do Ctuchik and Zedar from the Belgariad ('82). Enas Yorl ('79) and Ghisteslwchlom ("Riddle of Stars" '76) fit the bill as well. I think the closest character might be Ged ('68), he's nothing if not a mage that learned things he shouldn't, and paid a terrible price for his power. He has the bad attitude too, if only for a while. I like that comparison because Ged is a main character ("the" main character in fact) like Raistlin.

Thanks!

 

[Dúnadan]

To all of those who despise or are simply bored by 'traditional' fantasy cliches, such as the forces of good vs. evil, loveable and mischievous side-kicks, brooding warriors, reluctant heroes, and deus-ex-machina, I cannot stress enough that Dragonlance is not the place to escape them. To me, it doesn't matter if they were original when first written, so much as what they are now. The biggest breath of fresh air in the genre now is in the form of George R.R. Martin's works, which take every fantasy cliche and throw them out the window.

If you loved the 'world-building' of DL, if it can even be called that, then Martin will leave you breathless and gasping for more. In addition, he's an author who stares deus-ex-machina in the face and tells it to take a hike. No character has plot immunity or any hope of survival if logic does not dictate so. What's more, there is no real clear-cut black or white, good and evil in the series; everything is just shades of grey, allowing the reader to sympathize with two characters who have almost nothing in common. Dragonlance finds itself severely lacking in most of these categories, and those that it does have are poorly done at best.

Getting back to the point of the thread, when you compare the writing and overall structure of the Dragonlance books to competant authors, you see that it is like comparing ambrosia to rat-poison. Martin is just an example (although a very good one) of superior writing that "Holds on to you and doesn't let go," as Robert Jordan put it. This, unfortunately, is something that you cannot get with Dragonlance.

 

[Aaron L]

Re: Re: Reasons I hate DL

Weis & Hickman were playing in their own world where they wanted dragons to be a large and integral part of the world. Thus they created the adventures and ran their own characters, Raistlin, Caramon, Tanis, etc. through the adventures. Then they wrote novels about the adventures and published the setting in the series of adventures they ran in their home campaign. Thus the adventures were designed to force you to play the books because the books WERE the adventures that they themselves played.

Now whether or not these adventures are good for your campaign is a different matter, but that is why they were released as they were.

Uhh, I'm sorry to say that Weis and Hickman were writing a scripted story about characters designed by comittee. TSR handed them designed characters and said "write a story where they do this." They've talked about this. They didn't have these constraints in the Legends, and I feel it is a far better set of books. But the apocryphal story of them writing about their home D&D game is entirely fictional.

 

[Tsyr]

Re: Re: Re: Reasons I hate DL

Uhh, I'm sorry to say that Weis and Hickman were writing a scripted story about characters designed by comittee. TSR handed them designed characters and said "write a story where they do this." They've talked about this. They didn't have these constraints in the Legends, and I feel it is a far better set of books. But the apocryphal story of them writing about their home D&D game is entirely fictional.

You're correct about this part, but the fact remains that the adventures came first, not the other way around, as someone claimed.

 

[Aaron L]

I won't argue about the adventures coming out before the novels, becuase I haven't got a clue if they did or not. If you know, I'll take your word on it.

 

[Tsyr]

Well, to clarify, I don't know which was released first in terms of date, but according the annotated chronicals, the books were based off the adventures, not 'tuther way 'round.

 

[ThenHeCame]

To all of those who despise or are simply bored by 'traditional' fantasy cliches, such as the forces of good vs. evil, loveable and mischievous side-kicks, brooding warriors, reluctant heroes, and deus-ex-machina, I cannot stress enough that Dragonlance is not the place to escape them. To me, it doesn't matter if they were original when first written, so much as what they are now. The biggest breath of fresh air in the genre now is in the form of George R.R. Martin's works, which take every fantasy cliche and throw them out the window.

Not only does this not belong in this thread, you have been hanging around college professors and snobbish coffehouse book newts a bit too much

Stories don't have have to be epic intricate webs of plots that have hidden meanings behind contexts. To many, simple is better. With Dragonlance, what you see is what you get.

You can have your opinions and give them. Thats fine, but no need to look down on some books becuase they don't hold up to your standards for the genre. Thats just being pompus



P.S - All readers notice the various glowing smiles scattered about the post. Instead of angry replies, let their glowing happiness soothe you

 

[Dúnadan]

Whoa, sorry if I came off as a pompous literature-elitist. Those college professors really get to you after a while . Those books are definately not the worst things out there, as I've read far worse, but for the sake of the thread, I only wished to express why DL has little attraction to me. I by no means look for deep philosophical questions about the nature of humankind and the meaning of life in what I read, only a good, entertaining story. For me Dragonlance did not fulfill this function, yet I nonetheless respect others' opinions on the books.

And to lighten up the thread a bit:

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I'll admit: DL Chronicles was the 3rd fantasy story I've ever read---the 1st was Chronicles of Llyr, followed by The Hobbit/LOTR. It helped get me into D&D, & made half-elves a favored race to play for years to come. I quite enjoued the books back in the day (over 10 years ago).

However, a key thing for me w/ any book is the reread. If I can't reread it & still enjoy it, I probably shouldn't keep it. 2 books I enjoyed reading in high school but failed the reread test were Gygax's Saga of Old City and Artifact of Evil. Loved them the 1st time through, but couldn't finsh them at all the 2nd time.

Then again, I think that what I've read & when I've read it has had an impact on my tastes. Couldn't finish either Sword of Shannara or The Belgariad because the seemed too close to Tolkien (the Belgariad seemed to have its own version of Fafhrd & Grey Mouser, too; the were-bear character made me think of Fafhrd, while Silk reminded me of Mouser).

I enjoyed DL Chronicles, Legends, & Tales; I disliked DL's fate thanks to Dragons of Summer Flame. However, whether or not they endure the reread test is key for me keeping them at all.

On a somewhat related note: I think that DL, as well as the Realms, has suffered from having too many cooks in the kitchen---all the spice & variety has killed my taste for any more works in these settings.

 

[Thyrkill]

Reading this thread has made me dust off my Chronicles and start reading them again. It has been years but I am enjoying them emmensely. Why? Because they are a game of high fantasy D&D in prose form, just like Salvatore's Realms novels. No, they are not intricate and beautifully written tales, such as Martin's or Tolkein's. Nor are they meant to be. They are meant to be D&D novels, and very good ones at that.

I speak only for myself, but Dragonlance captures the spirit of D&D and why I play it. Martin and several others do not. Dragonlance is about a group of adventurers on a quest, fighting for what they believe is right, saving the world, and getting the treasure. Good, fun D&D fiction...with dragons. I, for one, love it.

And that's my 2 cents worth.

Thyrkill