Tools to hurt - too much focus?

Remove all ads!

In this day of fantasy books, we encounter a lot of warriors. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with that; among the first and greatest stories were of Gilgamesh, David, Odysseus, etc. But is there too much on the weapons that help define a character than the character himself? Sometimes I wonder if a hero were to be stripped of his (or her) weapons, it would be near-equivalent to castration.

I can think of quite a few examples when it comes to weapons.

-Legolas*: bow and arrows

-Gimli*: axe

-Drizzt: a pair of scimitars (which often strikes me as silly, but that's beyond the point)

-Shura: sword (apparently a katana or of similiar style)

Anyways, those maybe are a few dim examples of how the characters can be intimately related to their weapons.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that it's stupid for characters to have weapons - or other objects that help characterize them. Holden Caulfield's hunting hat helps define him. The guy in Hatchet is helpless without his, er, hatchet.

But do weapons have to be so much of a character? After all, a weapon is a tool to hurt, a tool to kill. It's funny when many characters are so greatly defined by something that is often so reviled.

* - heresy, I know. But I really haven't read all of the Trilogy, so I won't make a definite stance on this one.

 

Well, depending on how you think of it, the weapon the character uses can often give you some insight into the character. I won't get into too much detail, but you get the idea.

 

I think that weapons kind of let you know what to expect in the character. Why do you think drizzt using scimitars is silly?

 

Salvatore probably only wanted him to use as exotic weapon as possible...

 

If I keep seeing people wielding weapons, I really can't get much of an impression beyond that they hurt and kill others.

I find Drizzt wieldling scimitars silly because he has no apparent lineage to a Middle Eastern culture. Why curved blades in a place (Icewind Dale, I believe) where more Western weapons are used?

 

Ahm. I don't see why a scimitar should be an "exotic" weapon. In NWN, scimitar is translated as "Krummsäbel". Which is a "Säbel" which is more "banana" then usual. I think with "scimitar" they mean the curved sword of the turks and the russians. Which are East-European. And the other Europeans took over the "scimitar" of the turks, made it to the "Säbel" and used it in their cavalary.

At least, a Säbel is a curved sword.

[ April 26, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Woah. My creation actually got mentioned alongside those guys?



OK, self-preening aside, I guess a warrior is defined by his/her weapon to a certain extent. Look and Elric and his runesword Stormbringer, for example. Without one, the other would not be able to survive.

Yes, weapons are merely tools of pain but to a warrior, it is nearly the entirety of his/her existence. Drizzt would be a pacifistic wimp without his scimitars, Gimli would look pretty stupid trying to headbutt everyone in the groin if he did not have his axe handy and Legolas could probably play skip-rope with his bowstrings, deprived of his bow.

Hence, a warrior hero/main character/protangist draws a great deal of his/her identity from his/her weapon of choice.

 

Actually drizzt first got his scimitars in menzoberranzan which is quite the exotic place, so I don't see a problem there.

Same thing goes for spellcasters, if they were stripped of magic who would they be?

 

As far as I understand drow, they aren't particulary common among their race. Besides, I've always thought that Drizzt would have gotten killed in the Underdark or some other place. It's fairly difficult to fight with two large curved weapons, after all.

Asides from that, the martial heroes are always portrayed as fighting, fighting, and occasionally solving. But it never seems like they are really fleshed out. What happens when a warrior is stripped (castrated?) of his prized weapons? Or for that matter, what happens when a sorcerer does lose his magic powers?

 

I think you raise a good point on this. I know that Terry Goodkind gets beat up (deservedly) on this forum, but he made an interesting transition in the later Sword of Truth books. Early on, Richard was the Seeker because of the sword (more or less), later he realized that the person is more important than the weapon. In fact the sword gets destroyed, and he keeps going.

Conan learned the same thing in the riddle of steel. Flesh is indeed more powerful than steel.

Good authors flesh out characters beyond the weapons. The weapon is just a tool, no more important to the plot than James Bond's car, or a doctor's scalple.

heh ... just saw a good example of this. A terrible Disney movie called "The Black Cauldron" features a boy who willing gives up an immensly powerful sword to save lives. The character proved to be much stronger than the "tool to hurt".

 

Please explain.

The scimitars drizzt is wielding aren't large curved sword you know, the are describe as slender and very lightweight, you can actually see them on the cover of Salvatores last book 'the thousend orcs'.
I think your are confused with Falchions seen for example in the movie 'the thirteenth warrior'
Bad movie BTW

 

Well, the second quote was pretty much the explanation for the first one. To digress, scimitars are still large compared with say, knives or daggers. It's still quite difficult to wield a pair of rapiers at a time, although a rapier and a dagger, I have seen before. But this whole argument is moot, since we don't know exactly how fighting and weapons work in the Forgotten Realms. But it still seems alien and even absurd to me.

 

Scimitar is old term for oriental curved sword, like Tulvar.
BTW I think in DnD manual is written Drow usualy use maces and short swords, which seems right as they dwell in close areas. In narrow passages two scimitars can be really clumsy. Apart of that, Scimitars are slashing weapons, which would make their cooperation quite hard... (I am no expert)