Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Would you rather see Elminster limited in power?
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  09:02:24  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message
Thanks to the Simbul, the Red Wizards have been working their collective behinds off for years to find ways to magically thwart her.

The product of all that work? New magic.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  09:49:33  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul

The thing that gets me is that Mystra is supposed to be all about promoting and preserving all used of magic, and yet her chosen are always at the forefront of stopping magical organization's such as That and Shade.


I think you misunderstand the goals of Mystra and her clergy. Her primary goal, specifically, is to increase the spread and use of magic. This puts her in opposition to a lot of evil wizards as well as most other political power groups in the Realms. The simple reason being, that if she got her way magic would be in the hands of every person on Toril. People in power want to preserve their rule, and thus will actively seek to keep things like magic out of the hands of common folk. Otherwise they might be put on an equal playing field, and overthrow their rulers.

Mystra does not deliberately go after most wizards, even when they are evil, and has even gone out of her way to restrain the Simbul from going after the Red Wizards. Mystra does not really care how magic is being used--whether that is to destructively alter the weather to aid agricultural efforts (such as in Thay), as a tool for war, or as a tool for peace and prosperity. Mystra just wants people to use magic, and as many people as possible. In general, it may seem like she favors certain uses of magic over others, but that is primarily because they create less fear of arcane magic and thus encourage its adoption and widespread acceptance.

An ideal society for the clergy of Mystra is a place like Halruaa pre-Spellplague.
Go to Top of Page

LordofBones
Master of Realmslore

1477 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  11:14:21  Show Profile Send LordofBones a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

Thanks to the Simbul, the Red Wizards have been working their collective behinds off for years to find ways to magically thwart her.

The product of all that work? New magic.



Thay went the economy route.

Also, the last time they actually had a chance to successfully invade, Mystra personally revitalized the Simbul and Elminster. Is it any wonder the poor buggers have given up?

It's not like the Chosen have actually done stuff that put her ideals forward. Other than opposing the SW and Shade, only Khelben actually operates a magical academy. Sure, they've had apprentices, but so did Manshoon and Szass Tam. So do most Red Wizards (lolCircleMagic).

The thing is that too much emphasis is placed on Mystra and the Chosen. Yes, there are tons of high-level wizards running about (Runemasters, Sammaster, Sharn, Aumvor, Szass, etc), but when was the last time they actually had several novels dedicated to them and had all their enemies fumble like children in the dark?

Edited by - LordofBones on 27 Feb 2015 11:20:52
Go to Top of Page

Demzer
Senior Scribe

873 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  14:32:42  Show Profile Send Demzer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

Thanks to the Simbul, the Red Wizards have been working their collective behinds off for years to find ways to magically thwart her.

The product of all that work? New magic.



Bwahahahahahahah!

What new magic? You mean Ghorus Thot's Metal Melt, the Nybor's stuff, the spell that turns a rabbit into a magical bat and Thayan Bombards or something that exists only in Ed's Realms campaign? If the former, well congratulations to a nation built on organized spellcasting for creating 6-10 spells over 400 years of history, such a glorious achievement! If the latter then it's wonderful for Ed and his players i think, but out here in the cold published/canon Realms, the Red Wizards just produce infighting losers.
Go to Top of Page

Blueblade
Senior Scribe

USA
804 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  16:43:01  Show Profile  Visit Blueblade's Homepage Send Blueblade a Private Message
Methinks Lord of Bones has an extremely limited definition of successful villainy.
Anyone who's actually read Ed's four most recent Realms novels can't have failed - - unless they deliberately preferred to ignore - - Manshoon's soul-searching. Like Elminster, what he wants to achieve is changing.
It was changing before that, too, when he deliberately took a back seat to Fzoul (staying in the Zhentarim after his defeat, and manipulating more subtly from behind the scenes).
Ed wrote a Forging column about the Many Faces of Manshoon to clearly and explicitly explain this to gamers who don't read Realms fiction.
(And NOT to justfiy himself - - as creator of this whole shindig, he hardly needs to do that - - but to tell DMs the character's motives at various points, so they could run him properly as an NPC or offstage strings-puller, in reaction to PC actions/achievements.)
Ed has been SHOWING (not telling, despite your groundless assertion, LoB) us villains CHANGING as characters, just as the Chosen are changing. From book to book, in front of our eyes. You seem to think a villain is "successful" only in certain ways. I say: read more carefully to see what the individual villains think success is. They may see themselves as successful, or at least making solid progress, because they don't want what you seem to think they have to want. (Cue Inigo Montoya: "I do-na think it means what you think it means.")
I get that everyone isn't a fan of Ed's writing. What I don't get is why they feel they have to state motives for Ed, or tell us what Ed was thinking, or what Ed actually did on the page, that just isn't there if you read Ed's prose WITHOUT an agenda.
It gets in the way of real discussion.
BB
Go to Top of Page

A Publishing Lackey
Seeker

74 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  16:49:27  Show Profile  Visit A Publishing Lackey's Homepage Send A Publishing Lackey a Private Message
Oh, well said!
Blueblade, I am SO sending your post off to one of Ed's past editors.
It echoes what some other gamers were saying about Ed's writing more than a decade ago, that she reacted to by saying to me: "Do these dolts actually READ the same books I do? Because I just edited that one, well over a hundred thousand words of it, and I KNOW what I read!"
I know she'll get a chuckle. I guess people just see what they want to see.
Now, if even half the scribes here understood the real process of writing fiction for Wizards, a lot of the arguments advanced here would never get made. The writers DON'T have a free hand, and never have had. Nothing we read hasn't gone past very thorough editing, and what characters say and do has been approved and often changed editorially.
Our big beefs should be with the metaplot and those guiding it, not with the writers.
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  17:16:36  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message
In addition to new magic, there was the drive to acquire new apprentices and commit them to training and their own research..

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  18:02:13  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Blueblade

Methinks Lord of Bones has an extremely limited definition of successful villainy.
Anyone who's actually read Ed's four most recent Realms novels can't have failed - - unless they deliberately preferred to ignore - - Manshoon's soul-searching. Like Elminster, what he wants to achieve is changing.
It was changing before that, too, when he deliberately took a back seat to Fzoul (staying in the Zhentarim after his defeat, and manipulating more subtly from behind the scenes).
Ed wrote a Forging column about the Many Faces of Manshoon to clearly and explicitly explain this to gamers who don't read Realms fiction.
(And NOT to justfiy himself - - as creator of this whole shindig, he hardly needs to do that - - but to tell DMs the character's motives at various points, so they could run him properly as an NPC or offstage strings-puller, in reaction to PC actions/achievements.)
Ed has been SHOWING (not telling, despite your groundless assertion, LoB) us villains CHANGING as characters, just as the Chosen are changing. From book to book, in front of our eyes. You seem to think a villain is "successful" only in certain ways. I say: read more carefully to see what the individual villains think success is. They may see themselves as successful, or at least making solid progress, because they don't want what you seem to think they have to want. (Cue Inigo Montoya: "I do-na think it means what you think it means.")
I get that everyone isn't a fan of Ed's writing. What I don't get is why they feel they have to state motives for Ed, or tell us what Ed was thinking, or what Ed actually did on the page, that just isn't there if you read Ed's prose WITHOUT an agenda.
It gets in the way of real discussion.
BB



Then I guess these lads look at success as being made out to bumbling idiots who get their arses handed to them on a regular basis.

Doesn't matter what Ed was thinking, it's what he puts down on paper that counts.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

Demzer
Senior Scribe

873 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  18:14:24  Show Profile Send Demzer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

In addition to new magic, there was the drive to acquire new apprentices and commit them to training and their own research..



Okay, that's not laughable as your previous statement.
I could dispute that wizards Faerun-wide take apprentices without a mad woman killing them every other day or that in Thay apprentices are exploited by their masters way more than anywhere else so they've little time/energy/resources/drive for personal research. But that would just be steering the discussion off topic.

Just to be clear (in light of some recent posts, this thread seems to be spiraling in some weird "bash-Ed VS defend-Ed-at-all-costs" thing, which is bad) this is not a problem caused or perpetrated by Ed, it's a problem with the published Realms as a whole. Everytime i read something about Red Wizards (in novel or sourcebook) interacting with other powers, they get butchered and fail miserably:
- being killed in scores by horse nomads that fear magic CHECK!
- being killed in scores by Chosens of Mystra appearing out of thin air CHECK!
- failing to overcome hippy witches CHECK! (multiple times)
- being killed because they didn't bother memorizing or tattooing one of the many safe-escape spells every wizard should have in his/her every day allotment CHECK! (multiple times)
Off the top of my head (disclaimer: i haven't read all FR novels, not even half probably, i have all the sourcebooks up to and including 3e) i recall just two instances of Red Wizards depiction that made them justice: Lynn Abbey's The Simbul's Gift and Erin M. Evans The Adversary.
And before anyone says anything, Szassy is an argument for another thread so let's avoid swamping this one with that too, okay?
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  20:11:55  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by A Publishing Lackey

Our big beefs should be with the metaplot and those guiding it, not with the writers.


quote:
Originally posted by Demzer

...this is not a problem caused or perpetrated by Ed, it's a problem with the published Realms as a whole.


I think these two points are the most important being made here, and I am in entire agreement with both of them. I agree with the majority of criticisms being made, particularly those of LordofBones and Shadowsoul. I believe they are valid, in so far as they relate to the portrayal of various groups in the Realms. Where I think they are wrong is to place the blame squarely on an authors shoulders--be it Ed's or someone else's.

The blame for these problems rests entirely on the shoulders of TSR/WotC. There is nothing that is written that does not get approved by WotC, and in most cases WotC is telling the authors what to write. The authors are then writing within the confines of that narrative, and if something happens that they don't like it gets changed. This is all to serve the metaplot, which WotC has made very RSE driven.

Ed Greenwood does not have the authority or the power over the Realms to destroy the Shades in a novel. That approval has to come down from WotC, and almost certainly it came down before he started writing. They likely told him what needed to happen in his novel, and two of those things were to get rid of Myth Drannor and to get rid of the Shades. If you are going to get rid of the Shades in a single novel, you are going to get Telamont looking like an idiot because you are forced to do a rush job.

This is not a problem with a single author. This is a problem with the entire published Realms, and it in part stems from WotC driving the metaplot. Rather than opening the Realms up for authors to write in somewhat freely (i.e. "submit us an outline of what you'd like to write, and the major changes you are making to the setting"), WotC became focused on the big booms they could make with the RSE's. They knew if they blew things up people would buy novels to figure out what happened. They overreached with the Spellplague, when they realized they needed "space" to write more stories--after they had pretty much blown a hole right through the middle of the current published Realms. The Spellplague was to fix a problem that they had created.

Now we have the Sundering to try and fix the problem that the Spellplague created, and we can only hope that WotC has learned its lesson. All we can really do at this point is sit back and give WotC the opportunity to try and put Humpty Dumpty back together again. If they fail...well, then, the blame rests on their shoulders. All of the problems that the setting faces--across the board--is their fault.
Go to Top of Page

Tanthalas
Senior Scribe

Portugal
508 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  20:35:42  Show Profile Send Tanthalas a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lilianviaten
I didn't see Telamont as incompetent though. We know Larloch to be nearly peerless as a schemer, so it doesn't surprise me that he was playing Telamont the whole time. And Elminster didn't outsmart him. He just sneak attacked him and chumped him (which I did have a big problem with). So I didn't think Telamont defeated himself via arrogance or stupidity. He just plain old got destroyed by the intervention of 2 powerful beings that he didn't see coming.



It's been a while since I've read The Herald, but I guess what made Telamont incompetent to me was the way he acted. The way he talked and thought. The way he groveled to Shar. He certainly didn't feel like the calculating villain he was in previous books when a big part of his plan was to send two forgettable agents to Candlekeep and Myth Drannor. I mean that was his master plan. Not really impressive for a wizard of his power and standing.

quote:
Originally posted by Blueblade
I get that everyone isn't a fan of Ed's writing. What I don't get is why they feel they have to state motives for Ed, or tell us what Ed was thinking, or what Ed actually did on the page, that just isn't there if you read Ed's prose WITHOUT an agenda.
It gets in the way of real discussion.
BB



I'm sorry, but just because I don't like how Ed portrays villains in his books doesn't mean that I read his books "with an agenda". Nice way of completely dismissing arguments you don't like though. It's certainly a "one size fits all" argument. *thumbs up*

quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
The blame for these problems rests entirely on the shoulders of TSR/WotC.



But the thing is, while WotC does indeed give authors a set plot that they have to work with, lets not pretend that authors have zero liberty. In the vast majority of Realms books, the villains end up losing, and invariably, the way that Ed handles this makes them look pretty pathetic. I really enjoy his books, but this is one of the things I dislike with his writing style.

Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  21:42:05  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas

But the thing is, while WotC does indeed give authors a set plot that they have to work with, lets not pretend that authors have zero liberty. In the vast majority of Realms books, the villains end up losing, and invariably, the way that Ed handles this makes them look pretty pathetic. I really enjoy his books, but this is one of the things I dislike with his writing style.


I think it's true, in terms of style, Ed prefers a more... whimsical?... type of villain. Yes, they do have a Saturday Morning Cartoon type of flare to them. However, that still falls onto the back of WotC who are his editors.

There is an actual role for editors in this process. Their role is the gatekeepers of the lore, making sure it is consistent with the setting, vetoing story ideas that harm the setting, and making sure that the books written meet a certain level of quality control.

There is nothing wrong with saying Ed's writing style is not for me. The fact of the matter is, this is going to be true for every author. I am a huge fan of a Song of Ice and Fire, and I love George R. R. Martin's work. However, there is a large segment of the fantasy community who just can't stand it. That's okay. That doesn't make George a bad writer, it just means the stories he likes to tell and the way he likes to tell them doesn't match up with a certain reader.

What I am objecting to is the sense that certain events and villains rest entirely on Ed's or another authors shoulders. It does not. It rests entirely on the shoulders of WotC because they are responsible for what gets published.

I think keeping the focus on WotC is important, because it is only WotC who has any power and authority to fix the problem. It makes no sense to go after Ed, who has no power over what is or is not published for the Realms. It is just bad strategy and tactics, if people really want to see the problem solved.
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 27 Feb 2015 :  23:14:20  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
There is a difference between having a lot of power and actually using that power. While WoTc holds the ultimate power, I don't think they exercise as much of it as you think. If they did, then they wouldn't need Ed Greenwood or any of the other authors to be honest. They could hire a few cheap authors and tell them what to write.

I believe that ask the authors for their advice on how to do things and what routes to take.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  00:09:16  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul

There is a difference between having a lot of power and actually using that power. While WoTc holds the ultimate power, I don't think they exercise as much of it as you think. If they did, then they wouldn't need Ed Greenwood or any of the other authors to be honest. They could hire a few cheap authors and tell them what to write.

I believe that ask the authors for their advice on how to do things and what routes to take.


I don't think it works like that at all. It may work like that for some, such as RAS, but I don't think it works that way for most others. I believe WotC hires an author to write a book, and has an idea about what they want to be in that novel. They give the general outlines of some of the major events they want to take place (such as the destruction of Shade) to the author, and then the author works within the confines of those limitations. Then once the original draft is sent to WotC they look over it, make the necessary edits, and send it back to the author to be corrected.

I'm not against editing. In fact, I think editors have a critical role to play. I just think WotC is doing a poor job of it. Even if we wanted to place the blame 100% on the authors shoulders, as the editors it is WotC's responsibility to avoid letting crap be put out there. That's their job as editors--they are supposed to be the gatekeepers who keep bad stuff from getting published. If crap is being shoveled out the door, they are the ones allowing it to be shoveled out.
Go to Top of Page

Tanthalas
Senior Scribe

Portugal
508 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  13:57:37  Show Profile Send Tanthalas a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
I think it's true, in terms of style, Ed prefers a more... whimsical?... type of villain. Yes, they do have a Saturday Morning Cartoon type of flare to them. However, that still falls onto the back of WotC who are his editors.


I think you're giving way too much credit to the editors at WotC. Authors have a lot more liberty with what they write than you're giving them credit for.

quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
If crap is being shoveled out the door, they are the ones allowing it to be shoveled out.



I would never claim that Ed's novels are crap, far from it. But some other novels that have been released? Certainly. However, I really wonder if editors have the power to prevent a book from being released. Some books are simply that bad and they were still released.

Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".

Edited by - Tanthalas on 28 Feb 2015 14:01:00
Go to Top of Page

A Publishing Lackey
Seeker

74 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  14:44:14  Show Profile  Visit A Publishing Lackey's Homepage Send A Publishing Lackey a Private Message
Tanthalas and Shadowsoul, in this case Aldrick is quite correct. Realms novels are "works for hire," and the publisher has the right to change every word an author writes.
For Wizards, the process recently went something like this: an author is contracted to write a novel (and if they're a first time writer, Wizards NEVER takes a book they've written on their own and presented, it's always in a place, situation, and with major characters Wizards assigns). Writer drafts an outline, hands to editor. Editor (usually in consultation with the game designers in-house) reviews outline, suggests changes. Writer changes outline (if necessary, several times until editor approves it - - and changing the outline can mean changing the entire plot, moving the action to other places in the Realms, adding and removing characters, monsters...everything).
Finished outline is used as a guide for the cover artist (writer never gets any input, though they used to in the old days, and usually but not always gets to see a tiny e-pic of the finished cover before the book gets published) and to generate "catalog copy" for Amazon, Books-A-Million, etc.
Writer writes a first draft (to deadline). Editor reviews it and asks for changes (sometimes minor, sometimes "Scrap this and tell it this way," depends on the draft). Writer writes a second draft that's usually a final draft to deadline, but if the first draft was way off, there might be time to have "milestones" or partial turnovers so an editor can see what the writer's working on and steer things. Then the writer delivers a final draft.
Depending on the draft, it may then just be copyedited (in recent years, that was done by freelancers, out of house) and then reviewed by the editor. Time permitting, the writer may or may not get to see "galleys" for proofreading to catch mistakes (no major changes allowed, just typo and other tiny fixes).
A final draft that comes in "bad" may result in the book being cancelled, or given to another writer to fix or finish (Paizo did this recently), or more likely the writer gets asked to rewrite individual scenes or chapters, until the editor is satisfied.
I have heard that Salvatore has always had pretty much a free hand, and that Ed, in part because he's the "expert on the Realms" writer who loves to put in Realmslore details, often gets asked to include this or that character and these mentions of other things that tie into other events in the world, and so on.
This is by no means more controlling or onerous than most work-for-hire publishers, but it is very far from writers having a "free hand." It has to be this way to protect the integrity of the game rules.
Writers are expected to come up with brilliant or fresh ideas for stories. But there is NO WAY a Realms author writing for Wizards could surprise an editor with an idea during the writing process, or sneak something into print without it going through the editor (and usually game designers reading the work in progress and commenting, something Paizo does heavily).
So before this argument goes on and gets more heated, everyone should understand: if Ed or anyone else presents a villain like this, or has some event happen like that, an editor approved it. And if it's something major like killing major characters, destroying cities, and that sort of thing, it not only got approved by editors - - it was likely decided in-house and assigned to the writer.
Don't believe me? Why not pose direct yes/no questions about it to Ed in his thread about THE HERALD? If you phrase the queries to be direct and limited enough, it shouldn't trigger NDAs.
I'm tired of reading posts by scribes who don't understand the basic process, and therefore make incorrect assumptions about what Realms writers are free to do or not do.
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  16:09:38  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message
There ought to be a "How Things Work" page for posts like yours. Good stuff, and necessary reading before fingers land on the keyboard.

Regarding destroying cities: an example of in-house decision making in the lead up to the 3E Realms was the desire by the writing team to blow up a chunk of the Realms south of Anauroch when Shade arrived. The game designers argued it down to just Tilverton, and we were presented with the results of that decision in a novel.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Lilianviaten
Senior Scribe

489 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  16:43:22  Show Profile Send Lilianviaten a Private Message
A Publishing Lackey, if the editorial reins are that strict, then why have we seen so many inconsistencies between sourcebooks and novels (or even between novels and other novels)?
Go to Top of Page

LordofBones
Master of Realmslore

1477 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  16:47:44  Show Profile Send LordofBones a Private Message
Here's the problem: the issue is chronic with Mr Greenwood's writing. Virtually every memorable villain he's written about is a joke. Telamont's portrayal in the last Sundering novel is so out of touch with his portrayal in previous books in the very same series...and they were all done by different authors who kept Telamont's character consistent. Manshoon has been consistently portrayed as a walking Villain Ball. Larloch, of all beings, got the same treatment.

Every other novelist has managed to keep both sides relatively consistent in overall competence throughout the novels starting from the 3E period (Thay, Archwizards, Blackstaff, WotSQ, Rage). Not the Elminster novels. There's a reason no other character divides the fanbase as much as Elminster does (and the Silver Sisters); not Szass, not Larloch, not Karsus. The same goes for Mystra (and Cyric, to a lesser extent).

Interestingly enough, even with all the vitriol hurled at Elminster and the Seven, Khelben generally escapes unscathed.
Go to Top of Page

Tanthalas
Senior Scribe

Portugal
508 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  17:00:11  Show Profile Send Tanthalas a Private Message
A Publishing Lackey, you're basically comparing apples with oranges.

I'm not saying that stuff doesn't get approved by editors, or that they don't have any say in what ultimately ends up published.

But your views that authors basically have no freedom in how their work ends up (and thus Ed should not be faulted by how villains are portrayed in his books) is simply not true.

Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  17:13:36  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message
Sweeping generalizations are easy to make.

What examples can you provide that show Telamont's portrayal as being "so out of touch?"

The idea that villains are deemed incompetent if they don't win is silly. Villains overextend themselves, make mistakes and fail. Even everyone's favorite leader of Shade.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

Eltheron
Senior Scribe

740 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  17:23:52  Show Profile Send Eltheron a Private Message
I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, because it's such an eyerolling trope for internet conversations, but I'm gonna do it anyway.

Personally, I'm not terribly fond of many of the high-level enemies in the Realms - but it isn't because they're written poorly or that they're whimsical or a joke. I just can't get into overly powerful characters, because I prefer low-power adventuring (even in novels). I don't agree that the villains like Telamont or Manshoon are poorly written or jokes, either. They're immensely powerful, and they're OLD beyond any kind of old that we've ever seen. A huge amount of hubris HAS to go along with that level of power, and a huge amount of eccentricity HAS to go along with becoming that old and seeing regular society and people (even cultures) die out or destroy themselves. They have a different kind of psychology to them, at least that's how I've perceived them over the years in novels.

So where does Godwin's Law fit in? Well, in some ways these villains are Hitler-like. They are so sure of their own intelligence and power, deeply convinced that other people are either sheep or barriers to what they want, they have big blind spots. They can't imagine failing, and when they take on way more than they can handle they don't see it as an error on their part. They just get angry and often double-down on the tactics they're certain will win - because they always have won. Hitler made the mistake of fighting on too many fronts, and Telamont did the same thing. Manshoon is so smarmily convinced of his own superiority, it also naturally creates blind spots.

The more powerful one is, the more ancient one becomes, the bigger the blind spots. At least that's how I've seen the writing. When you read about the villains where they're mowing down commoners and weaklings, they look insanely powerful. When they meet up in conflict with someone on their own power level or intelligence level, they're probably going to make really big, dumb mistakes.

Anyway, I don't think this is the fault of any one particular novelist. When you see Szass Tam or Larloch or whomever in non-Greenwood novels, they're often put up against a couple of ragtag heroes of middling power. When you see them in a Greenwood novel, they're put up against Elminster or the Srinshee, or a couple of the Seven Sisters, often many at the same time. So the reactions of the villains are going to be very very different indeed.

Again, this isn't some attempt to kiss butt or defend anyone, it's just a realistic observation IMO. Super-powered, ancient villains are going to react differently to an Elminster or Srinshee than they are to a motley mix of mortal mid-level adventurers.



"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer
Go to Top of Page

Tanthalas
Senior Scribe

Portugal
508 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  17:33:03  Show Profile Send Tanthalas a Private Message
Besides seeing him groveling to Shar? Or how his master plan to drain Myth Drannor and Candlekeep was basically sending two forgetable agents? A cornerstone of his plan to drain the mythal was to send an agent that was pretty much one-shotted once the more powerful elves (including the coronal) bothered with him. The case for Candlekeep is even worse. He sends armies and armies to Myth Drannor, but a lone agent to Candlekeep. When everyone and their mother apparently managed to infiltrate Candlekeep, it just looks bad when that was the best that Telamont could do. He's also supposed to be a powerful wizard yet he spent the book confined to Shade Enclave wimpering about his fate until the very end. Did we even see Telamont succeed in anything in the book? The only thing I can remember is him putting some minor rebelious family members in their place, he didn't even need to bother with this stuff in other books.

You say that sweeping generalizations are easy to make, and that's very true, but it's also true that Ed's books usually give me this feeling about the villains that I don't get from reading most FR authors. Sometimes the problems aren't just the big things but the little ones that keep adding up and up.

Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  17:37:20  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by A Publishing Lackey

Tanthalas and Shadowsoul, in this case Aldrick is quite correct. Realms novels are "works for hire," and the publisher has the right to change every word an author writes.
For Wizards, the process recently went something like this: an author is contracted to write a novel (and if they're a first time writer, Wizards NEVER takes a book they've written on their own and presented, it's always in a place, situation, and with major characters Wizards assigns). Writer drafts an outline, hands to editor. Editor (usually in consultation with the game designers in-house) reviews outline, suggests changes. Writer changes outline (if necessary, several times until editor approves it - - and changing the outline can mean changing the entire plot, moving the action to other places in the Realms, adding and removing characters, monsters...everything).
Finished outline is used as a guide for the cover artist (writer never gets any input, though they used to in the old days, and usually but not always gets to see a tiny e-pic of the finished cover before the book gets published) and to generate "catalog copy" for Amazon, Books-A-Million, etc.
Writer writes a first draft (to deadline). Editor reviews it and asks for changes (sometimes minor, sometimes "Scrap this and tell it this way," depends on the draft). Writer writes a second draft that's usually a final draft to deadline, but if the first draft was way off, there might be time to have "milestones" or partial turnovers so an editor can see what the writer's working on and steer things. Then the writer delivers a final draft.
Depending on the draft, it may then just be copyedited (in recent years, that was done by freelancers, out of house) and then reviewed by the editor. Time permitting, the writer may or may not get to see "galleys" for proofreading to catch mistakes (no major changes allowed, just typo and other tiny fixes).
A final draft that comes in "bad" may result in the book being cancelled, or given to another writer to fix or finish (Paizo did this recently), or more likely the writer gets asked to rewrite individual scenes or chapters, until the editor is satisfied.
I have heard that Salvatore has always had pretty much a free hand, and that Ed, in part because he's the "expert on the Realms" writer who loves to put in Realmslore details, often gets asked to include this or that character and these mentions of other things that tie into other events in the world, and so on.
This is by no means more controlling or onerous than most work-for-hire publishers, but it is very far from writers having a "free hand." It has to be this way to protect the integrity of the game rules.
Writers are expected to come up with brilliant or fresh ideas for stories. But there is NO WAY a Realms author writing for Wizards could surprise an editor with an idea during the writing process, or sneak something into print without it going through the editor (and usually game designers reading the work in progress and commenting, something Paizo does heavily).
So before this argument goes on and gets more heated, everyone should understand: if Ed or anyone else presents a villain like this, or has some event happen like that, an editor approved it. And if it's something major like killing major characters, destroying cities, and that sort of thing, it not only got approved by editors - - it was likely decided in-house and assigned to the writer.
Don't believe me? Why not pose direct yes/no questions about it to Ed in his thread about THE HERALD? If you phrase the queries to be direct and limited enough, it shouldn't trigger NDAs.
I'm tired of reading posts by scribes who don't understand the basic process, and therefore make incorrect assumptions about what Realms writers are free to do or not do.



Are you speculating or do you know for certain this is how it is?

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

Tanthalas
Senior Scribe

Portugal
508 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  17:41:27  Show Profile Send Tanthalas a Private Message
Eltheron, the problem I see with your argument is that these "incompetent villains" are also present in Ed's books where Elminster either doesn't even appear (Waterdeep) or where his role is small (Shandril's Saga, The Knights of Myth Drannor). This issue can't be explained away by just saying that "super powerful wizards have a tendency to mess up when dealing with other powerful wizards", quite the contrary, that's when they're more careful.

Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".

Edited by - Tanthalas on 28 Feb 2015 17:42:03
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  17:47:46  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer

Sweeping generalizations are easy to make.

What examples can you provide that show Telamont's portrayal as being "so out of touch?"

The idea that villains are deemed incompetent if they don't win is silly. Villains overextend themselves, make mistakes and fail. Even everyone's favorite leader of Shade.



I'm not sure you completely understand what some of us are saying because of your response. Nobody is saying just because a villain loses means he is incompetent. It is the way these villains are portrayed throughout various books to the point where they seem to be a complete bad ass, but then they seem to make those stereotypical villain blunders that you know damn well they wouldn't normally make.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  17:50:09  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron

I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, because it's such an eyerolling trope for internet conversations, but I'm gonna do it anyway.

Personally, I'm not terribly fond of many of the high-level enemies in the Realms - but it isn't because they're written poorly or that they're whimsical or a joke. I just can't get into overly powerful characters, because I prefer low-power adventuring (even in novels). I don't agree that the villains like Telamont or Manshoon are poorly written or jokes, either. They're immensely powerful, and they're OLD beyond any kind of old that we've ever seen. A huge amount of hubris HAS to go along with that level of power, and a huge amount of eccentricity HAS to go along with becoming that old and seeing regular society and people (even cultures) die out or destroy themselves. They have a different kind of psychology to them, at least that's how I've perceived them over the years in novels.

So where does Godwin's Law fit in? Well, in some ways these villains are Hitler-like. They are so sure of their own intelligence and power, deeply convinced that other people are either sheep or barriers to what they want, they have big blind spots. They can't imagine failing, and when they take on way more than they can handle they don't see it as an error on their part. They just get angry and often double-down on the tactics they're certain will win - because they always have won. Hitler made the mistake of fighting on too many fronts, and Telamont did the same thing. Manshoon is so smarmily convinced of his own superiority, it also naturally creates blind spots.

The more powerful one is, the more ancient one becomes, the bigger the blind spots. At least that's how I've seen the writing. When you read about the villains where they're mowing down commoners and weaklings, they look insanely powerful. When they meet up in conflict with someone on their own power level or intelligence level, they're probably going to make really big, dumb mistakes.

Anyway, I don't think this is the fault of any one particular novelist. When you see Szass Tam or Larloch or whomever in non-Greenwood novels, they're often put up against a couple of ragtag heroes of middling power. When you see them in a Greenwood novel, they're put up against Elminster or the Srinshee, or a couple of the Seven Sisters, often many at the same time. So the reactions of the villains are going to be very very different indeed.

Again, this isn't some attempt to kiss butt or defend anyone, it's just a realistic observation IMO. Super-powered, ancient villains are going to react differently to an Elminster or Srinshee than they are to a motley mix of mortal mid-level adventurers.






So why can't Elminster and the rest of the Justice League get their arses kicked and run with their tails between their legs and have to seek another tactic?

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe

Ireland
705 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  17:56:10  Show Profile Send Shadowsoul a Private Message
There is also another theme I see in the novels that I have a problem with.

Elminster and the others are written to where they are not cautious about going in and tackling the powers they are supposed to be on par with. Elminster and Telemont should be sending in those that are less powerful than they are to battle each other. The super powers should be smart enough not to engage each other directly but the league is almost written like they somehow know they have plot armour.

“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien

*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*.
Go to Top of Page

Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader

USA
2717 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  17:59:39  Show Profile Send Jeremy Grenemyer a Private Message
Tanthalas, after reading your reply I have to ask: did you actually read The Herald, or just a summary of events?

I am not being facetious here. It's just that your reply glosses over the events in the book, or ignores them all together.

For example: Candlekeep wasn't taken on by a lone agent from Shade.

Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver).
Go to Top of Page

LordofBones
Master of Realmslore

1477 Posts

Posted - 28 Feb 2015 :  18:05:24  Show Profile Send LordofBones a Private Message
I'd imagine that when they're facing equals, powerful villains do their best to tip the scales in their favor, from a dozen contingencies to invisible summons hiding in the rafters to anything they can bring that lets them save on their spell slots. Otherwise, it simply doesn't make sense. When facing an equal, and with the very real possibility of death or at least a significant hampering of their plans, villains aren't going to go around twirling their mustaches.

And then we have Manshoon blundering his way through the Elminster series. In one novel, he just shows up to get blown to bits by some random Jane archlich's kamikaze attack.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000