Salvatore compared to Tolkien

Remove all ads!

When I mentioned that I see "Americanisms" it is not meant to be a failing. I see them because that is not what I would do. The same for Tolkien as well, I don't think that anyone where I live talks like Samwise. There are a lot of "Englishisms" in Tolkien's work. And if it was relavent I could give you Australian "Ockerisms" from Australian authors. (Are there such a thing?)

Merely an observation.

I don't find making a comparison pointless because it helps me to learn about new authors, writing styles and other peoples' feedback. I don't see every book "perfectly", most likely others will be able to help me to understand and appreciate more books.

Anyway I am enjoying the book...

 

Good for you khazraj, I thought you would!

 

I like the mysterious plot twists, especially when we slowly work out that "Regis" is acting strangely. Well done. I also like the description of drow "family love" and other drowish things, it really brings back the sheer horror that foreigners should feel about the drow. When I first read about the old ADND GDQ modules and "Descent into the Earth" with "Vault of the Drow" I realised how truly terrifying and powerful drow would be. BG2 and IWD2 made them weak and pathetic. They were a bit challenging in IWD1.

Spellbound will be pleased to know that I think that Drizzt is a very interesting and well thought out character. He has a personality, I feel the others are very pale shadows compared to him. He is not all "hack and slash" and if was real, would truly be a "personality worth knowing". All the same, Jarlaxle and Artemis both seem very interesting, but Jarlaxle mo so.

I think on the whole it is a good book and a fun read. My only critcisms and these are wholly personal, they won't make the book "bad" in any way is Salvatores presentation of dwarves and the fact that the book is slightly straitjacketed to fit the DND game. 6.5 out of ten, up to 8 for the good bits and about 2 for the corny bits.

Apeman. Perhaps I am a bit more "mature" about reading than if I was still only 15 (I'm not criticising 15 year olds, I just know that at 15 I was not mature) and so I can appreciate the good bits, state that I don't like the bad bits get over it and enjoy the book as a whole.

I've been sucked in and I want to read all the Dark ELf and Icewind Dale trilogies. Oh no what's happening to me?.... (I hope that Twinkle will speak to me in the future and that I don't burn myself...)

 

Jarlaxle won't get a major role until the third and especially the fourth trilogy. Then you will get to know him.

 

I prefered Jarlaxle as the mystery character. And have you read the first two books of Paths of Darkness, trust me, you don't want to.
As I have stated many times before, the series needs closure

 

IMHO you cannot compare Tolkine with Salvatore. The LotR was an experiment or an attempt to create a modern fairy tale.
Salvatore writes for entertainment. His books are full of clichees. He even makes continuity errors.
The Icewinddale-Trilogy were the worst books I've ever read. The charakteres are stereotype and Salvatore goes out of his way to find enemies growing more and more powerful so that his main charakters have the chance to show of their exceptional skills and powerful equipment. The part with the banshee was the most ridiculous. No sane being would fight a ghost who is capable to kill with his (or her) voice.
The Dark Elf Trilogy ist a lot better than that, because Salvatore tried to give his main charakter a real life. But considering those continuity errors its is still just a 6 out of 10.
Personaly, I like the Dragonlance-Books from Weis/Hickman a lot better, because they tried to give every charakter his/her own thoughts, opinion and edges. They feel like real people.
The first three books are a true adventure story which could be part of an pen&paper-game, agreed. But the protagonists stumble from one catastrophe into another, they get hurt and they die. Which feels more realistic than an allmighty darkelf-ranger who is allways the 'Lord of the Battlefield' like in Salvatores Icewinfdale-Trilogy.

@ Khazraj: If you like Tolkien try Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea-Cycle. It has the an equal pace and an equal story compared to LotR.

 

If we want to start about Salvatore using cliches, his setting of Drzzt vs. Entreri is more or less amusing from my very screwed up point of view. Have you noticed how Entreri turns from pale to tanned in the course of the books? In their first confrontations, RAS stressed the point that Drizzt had dark skin and white hair, and Entreri had pale skin and dark hair. And somehow, over the course of the books, when Entreri's Calim****e origins solified, his skin became tanned... go figure.

But in comparision to Tolkien, however...Salvatore's characaterization is modern. We must realize that Tolkien wrote his books a long time ago. He did not have the psychological or sociological background Salvatore does. Also, we must take into account the fact that Tolkien wrote about characters in a world he had created from a scratch. Salvatore had to create characters based on templates, so to say. He doesn't have the same grasop on them because he did not creater them as in Creation creation.

I'll rant more in the future

(*runs after Elrond and Legolas in order to retrieve her sanity*)

 

Khazraj -- I already have the Icewind Dale Trilogy, but haven't started it yet....finishing up The Chronicles. And.. yes... Weis and Hickman are quite good.

I have played IWDI and II, as well as BG2 (I'm playing BG1 now). It's my understanding, however, that the Icewind Dale Trilogy is not based on the games.

 

@ Arabwell: What's so modern about using the clichees that Tolkien created in the first place? What's so hard about to write about a dwarf who is not a grumpled, bloodthirsty bonehead?
Nothing in the worlds of D&D is so rigid that you can't modify it to your liking. As long as you don't change the outlines that the sourcebooks give, you can create a dwarfen druid or a halfling priest of Tyrannos. (Okay, the latter is rather unlikely )

 

Fabius Maximus. I like your thoughts on non-steroetyped characters. I think that we should invent our characters as we see fit. Let's be different.

Bruenor seems almost 2 personalities in one. He was so touching and sensible with Cattie-Brie when Wulfgar was crushed, but such a "dwarf" in other parts of the story.

I am fairly wary of Dragonlance though. I don't have good memories of them. Perhaps.

Jarlaxle is so interesting. Spooky and mysterious. Artemis is becoming a bit of a.... I am not finding him very believable, certainly not a truly evil assassin. Just some guy with a personality crisis. He's the sort of character that you want to push out of the book. So my opinion of him is not high.

Spellbound. Please keep me posted about the trilogy, I'd really appreciate that.

 

A question for you Khazraj: How fast do you read because I am getting the impression that you already read 5 or 6 of salvatores books??

 

@ Khazraj:
I only read the Darkelf and Icewinddale-Trilogies. I didn't want to loose more money.
If Salvatore gets better from book to book, good for him and his readers, but I don't think I will ever buy one of his books again.

 

Apeman. Only 1, so far. I read The Legacy. I can't get my hands in any others until I check another library.

The posts above are as I went through the book...

 

@ Fabius Maximus: I should have separated my paragraphs... I did not mean to associate Salvatore's modern background and his using templates together. What I meant is that Tolkien and Salvatore have completely different set of morals, views, and just about everything that is based on the fact that they were born a rather freaking long time apart.

What I meant about templates is that Tolkien nurtured his characters from the beginning of the entire universe to being; Salvatore used templates. I am not saying the D&D templates can't be bent to do massive twist and turns and such, and allow characters such as Drizzt be born... what I am saying is that with Tolkien you have the weight of the world bearing on every character because he made not only them but their lineage and such, the stories of their families, how their races came to being... Am I making mysel clearER this time?

(Elrond! Get your hands off that lipstick!)

 

@Arabwel: Okay, but then I don't get your point. I agree that Salvatore is younger than Tolkien but I don't see the connection between this fact and the quality of his charakters.

And I'm not quite sure if you got my drift. I understand the problems of using an precreated world, but the author must have ability of dealing with this, otherwise he will fail. The Icewinddale-Trilogy IMHO is bad even by normal standards, not speaking of Tolkien's.

 

I read the LOTR 3 times, and I have to say it was a little slow. I am proud to say tht I read all of Salvatore's books and I have found them much much more interesting and fast-paced. If I had to choose I would definitaly choose Salvatore's books. @ Fabius Maximus how can you say that, he is one of the best writers I have ever read, the Dark Elf Trilogy and Icewind Dale trlogies are my favorite books.

[ March 19, 2003, 02:05: Message edited by: Icingdeath45 ]

 

Icingdeath: Read my other posts. I don't want to repeat myself.
But let me ask just one question: How old are you?

 

@Tal: Perhaps your mind didn't mature as your body did?

I was referring to the fact that icingdeath said, salvatore's books are his(or her) favorites. I agree that you can like them, but if post something along these lines you cannot be that old or have read rather few books. IMHO.

 

@Fabius Maximus

So basically this is the classical case of "you're allowed your opinion as long as it doesn't differ from mine"? You know, there's a phase in ever persons mental development where they hit the stage of the so called "age-elitism". It usually begins in the ending stages of puberty. Most people are able to leave that stage of puberty behind, but then there are the not-so-rare few who just can't get ríd of it.

These people feel that because they feel they are more experienced in life (usually = older) than others, they have to be better and more worthy persons. Which leads to what we see here now. Sadly, that is not the case.

If you were mentally developed enough to understand that age really isn't that big a thing (and certainly not something you'd want to use as an argument in stead of something actually intelligent that you can *prove*), then you would simply leave it out of it. As things are, you offer this "age" issue because of realising that save your opinion, you've nothing else to say. With a weak ego, there really isn't much else you can do in case you don't have the information and facts required to make a good liable argument.

So, conclusion is..? A few simple questions. What is *your* age? And what kind of an educational or literature -orientated background do you have? Do you have *any* concrete material at all to offer for why we should expect your views be worth anything? Aside from reading a pile of books which you like, then offering a bag of horsedung to the ones you don't?