"The archdevil’s tentacles were suddenly writhing above his shoulders,
like the limbs of an excited and gigantic spider."
Did I just happen to catch a bad part of Greenwood's writing? Is there hope?
And where in the bloody hells was a Paladin in that book? They're in Cormyr for crying out loud! You'd think there would have been a Paladin of Helm/Tyr/Lathander/whoever walking around somewhere... Well, there probably was, but Ed never mentioned one. I want more FR books with Paladin's who aren't half wits. Like Algorind from/by Elaine Cunningham. I mean, at least Bars, from the novel Ghostwalker, was a cool Paladin. Algorind? Not so much... Although he does improve by the short story featuring him after Thornhold. So there's some hope...
On a positive note I think I may pick up DDI if Ed and guys like Keith Baker write large monthly articles (or bi-weekly in Eds case ;) ) about the setting that they created. Ed's ideas on little inns or magical locations gave me ideas for FR and EB games.
I skimmed through a part of Elminster in Hell and I realized something: it was awful. I mean, we're talking absolute crap here. The writing...good grief. I mean, it's just...
"The archdevil’s tentacles were suddenly writhing above his shoulders,
like the limbs of an excited and gigantic spider."
Did I just happen to catch a bad part of Greenwood's writing? Is there hope?
I think you're absolutely right. I wouldn't have used your exact words, though.
"Making of a Mage" is almost unbearable bad, and the first Spellfire book is even worse. So, no, you didn't just happen upon the one bad Greenwood novel out there.
And where in the bloody hells was a Paladin in that book? They're in Cormyr for crying out loud! You'd think there would have been a Paladin of Helm/Tyr/Lathander/whoever walking around somewhere... Well, there probably was, but Ed never mentioned one. I want more FR books with Paladin's who aren't half wits.
That's something that's always bugged me about the Realms. The dearth of good Paladin characters. A shame, cause I'd love to read more novels starring Paladins in the Realms.
That said, there are, of course, a couple of books I don't like. Specifically, I thought Silverfall was average, and I hated Temptation of Elminster. I spoke to Ed about this at a con once, and he said that he tries to do different things in each book, so it's no surprise that some of us like this one over here, and dislike that one over there.
That said, Elminster in Hell was my favourite El novel, tied perhaps with Elminster in Myth Drannor.
So yes, I'd say you read something you might call bad, but it is all personal preference.
Most people liked Depths of Madness, while I myself found it a most painful read. So to each their own.
-RW
I skimmed through a part of Elminster in Hell and I realized something: it was awful. I mean, we're talking absolute crap here.
Elminster in Hell is much the most ambitious and probably the most accomplished of Realms novels. How pointless, not to mention crass, to insult Ed's prose like that without the least argument.
That's something that's always bugged me about the Realms. The dearth of good Paladin characters. A shame, cause I'd love to read more novels starring Paladins in the Realms.
No joke, if lightning struck, and I became a writer. I would bombard WotC and every FR novelist I could with a Paladin book. I already have a few in my head... I just gotta get 'em onto paper. But then, I also play Paladin's who don't let their Int be their dump stat. I like playing Paladin's who try to outsmart their foes. :P
Howeve, his battle scenes are pretty bad: long, rambly, and often incoherant. Parts of the Spellfire books (as well as his band of 4 books) seem to read like about 10 mins of plot exposition, followed by 351 consecutive fight scenes.
Did I just happen to catch a bad part of Greenwood's writing? Is there hope?
Maybe you this book just didn't work for you. Not everyone loves Greenwood's writing.
However, the title you used for this topic is nasty. *I* like Greenwood's writing, and I loved Elminster in Hell.
And where in the bloody hells was a Paladin in that book? They're in Cormyr for crying out loud! You'd think there would have been a Paladin of Helm/Tyr/Lathander/whoever walking around somewhere... Well, there probably was, but Ed never mentioned one. I want more FR books with Paladin's who aren't half wits. ...
Check out Holly Harrowslough (I think that was her name?) in Finder's Bane and Tymora's Luck.
"Making of a Mage" is almost unbearable bad, and the first Spellfire book is even worse. So, no, you didn't just happen upon the one bad Greenwood novel out there.
On the other hand, I found Spellfire to be a genuine page-turner.
Didn't care for the two books that followed it, but they still had their moments.
Check out Holly Harrowslough (I think that was her name?) in Finder's Bane and Tymora's Luck.
Must keep that in mind... Hmm... Maybe I should make a thread for everyone to post about what good Paladin is in what book. So we can all go "Huh, so THAT'S where they are." :P
I spoke to Ed about this at a con once, and he said that he tries to do different things in each book, so it's no surprise that some of us like this one over here, and dislike that one over there.
Well, that explains it. I never quite understood how I could enjoy the other books by him that I'd read, but so thoroughly despise Shadow of the Avatar.
No joke, if lightning struck, and I became a writer. I would bombard WotC and every FR novelist I could with a Paladin book. I already have a few in my head... I just gotta get 'em onto paper. But then, I also play Paladin's who don't let their Int be their dump stat. I like playing Paladin's who try to outsmart their foes. :P
Hence why they call you the SmartPaladin. :P
But yeah, you're not the only one. I hate playing dumb Paladins. Hell, in a current Eberron game I'm playing with 25-point buy, I gave my Paladin In 12, despite the heavy MAD I was suffering with so few points. I very nearly made it Int 14, but that would've meant reducing my Con from 12 to 10, so I backed off on that. Good thing, too. I was at 9 hit points and I got hit for a 18 point critical, leaving me at -9. Without that one hit point from Con I would've been reduced to -10 and my smart Paladin would've died then and there.
On the other hand, I found Spellfire to be a genuine page-turner.
As did I. Still need to get around to reading the sequels. So are they any good?
And hopefully the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide has rules for Spellfire Wielders in it. I've always thought it'd be fun to have a Spellfire Wielder in the group, but so far no one in any games I've played in has made one. Oh well. With any luck, if it's in the FRPG, then maybe I'll run into one or two in LFR games.
No joke, if lightning struck, and I became a writer. I would bombard WotC and every FR novelist I could with a Paladin book. I already have a few in my head... I just gotta get 'em onto paper. But then, I also play Paladin's who don't let their Int be their dump stat. I like playing Paladin's who try to outsmart their foes. :P
-You know...There was a Rogues series of stand-alon novels, a Fighters series, a Wizards series, and a Clerics series...But, there was no Paladins series...
-As for more Paladins in novels...Well, there was that Paladin in Pool of Radiance: Myth Drannor, the one that Rino mentioned...Um....
As did I. Still need to get around to reading the sequels. So are they any good?
Well, as I said, I didn't quite care for them.
People sometimes say Spellfire was a glorified chase scene--I thought the two subsequent novels were the repetitive, glorified chase scenes. However, they still had memorable moments in them (such as the Hidden House in Cormyr), and if you loved Spellfire, I don't see a reason not to give the sequels a try.But, there was no Paladins series...
I actually remember e-mailing someone involved with that and asking if there would be a Paladin series. This was years back, so yeah, sad to see it never materialized. Hopefully they do something similar, again, but with four other classes. Fighters, Wizards, Clerics, and Rogues have already been covered. So how about Paladins, Rangers, Warlocks, and Warlords?
I actually remember e-mailing someone involved with that and asking if there would be a Paladin series. This was years back, so yeah, sad to see it never materialized. Hopefully they do something similar, again, but with four other classes. Fighters, Wizards, Clerics, and Rogues have already been covered. So how about Paladins, Rangers, Warlocks, and Warlords?
And bards.:P
Not holding my breath for that, though.
I actually remember e-mailing someone involved with that and asking if there would be a Paladin series.
-Did they ever get back to you, I am wondering?
Fighters, Wizards, Clerics, and Rogues have already been covered. So how about Paladins, Rangers, Warlocks, and Warlords?
-Doubtful. I mean, what's the difference between a Warlord and a Fighter? Or a Warlock, and a Wizard? Not very much, as far as I know. The Warlord is a Fighter/Knight kind of hybrid, and the Warlock is the "I-made-a-pact-with-an-extraplanar-entity" Wizard. Of those four, Paladins and Rangers, I think, are the only ones who deserve something, and even then, definitions could have been stretched- Paladins are martial Clerics and Rangers and woodsy Fighters.
-Did they ever get back to you, I am wondering?
Actually, yeah. I forget who it was I e-mailed, or what was specifically said, but the basic gist was "Right now we've just got the Rogues planned out, and might cover the other three 'core' class (Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard). Paladins aren't on the docket, but if we ever do cover them, it won't be for many, many years". It's been many, many years, so I guess it's not gonna happen.
-Doubtful. I mean, what's the difference between a Warlord and a Fighter? Or a Warlock, and a Wizard? Not very much, as far as I know. The Warlord is a Fighter/Knight kind of hybrid, and the Warlock is the "I-made-a-pact-with-an-extraplanar-entity" Wizard. Of those four, Paladins and Rangers, I think, are the only ones who deserve something, and even then, definitions could have been stretched- Paladins are martial Clerics and Rangers and woodsy Fighters.
True about the Warlord. Although when it comes to the Warlock, the differences there are pretty noticeable. Something interesting could be done exploring the Warlock, how he made his pact, with who, and what, if anything, he has to do to maintain the pact. What exactly does the pact entail? And so on. Lots of room for a story, there, without making a character who looks like an especially morose Wizard.
People sometimes say Spellfire was a glorified chase scene--I thought the two subsequent novels were the repetitive, glorified chase scenes.
It was one of the things we talked about in Orc's Nest re Crown. But it's thoroughly not glorified.
He had some good ideas in the past, I'm just not sure why exactly he gets the billing he gets. I'm betting not many people bought his non-FR fiction. I'm also betting we aren't going to see much more of it in the future.
I'll give Greenwood this much, though: it's better than just about anybody else writing for WoTC right now. Greenwood isn't quite bottom barrel. The other guys ARE bottom barrel. I'm not sure I couldn't do better myself- and that's scary. Whatever happened to Troy Denning? That guy could write a novel. So could Elaine Cunningham. Now, Rich Baker? Nnnngh. Bruce Cordell? Oh. My. God. He can certainly dream up a good tentacle, but they shouldn't let him anywhere NEAR a novel with words and characterization in it. It ends up looking like he wrote up a homebrew dungeon crawl and made it into a fanfic story hour. Bad. Real bad.
The only two authors I have enjoyed recently from FR are RAS and Kemp. I read one or two of the fighter novels because I wanted to see how they handled the Uthgartd in one and I liked the idea of a "undead avenger" in the other. The Myth Drannor stuff was too epic except for the Fzoul taking over Hillsfar part. Hopefully the future novels will be about detailing some regions and giving us some fun and interesting characters not some stats on a page.
The two are mutual distinct.
Elaine Cunningham is one of those rare few who are both a great writer and great storyteller, which makes the cancellation of Reclamation that much worse.
Out f all of Ed's novels, I did find El in Hell the hardest to get through, but that mostly because I felt like some sort of psychotic peeping-Tom watching a serial killer 'do his job'. Its like you wanted to turn your head away so you wouldn't have to watch... and realized its a book, not a movie.
Very over-the-top gruesome, especially for Ed.
On a positive note I think I may pick up DDI if Ed and guys like Keith Baker write large monthly articles (or bi-weekly in Eds case ;) ) about the setting that they created. Ed's ideas on little inns or magical locations gave me ideas for FR and EB games.
This is how I feel with a lot of 4e - I want to see what they come up with before I commit to it. If I see fantastic things and a lot of content in the DDi, then I may still get it.
As of now, though, they have shown nothing that has impressed me with that.
I'll give Greenwood this much, though: it's better than just about anybody else writing for WoTC right now. Greenwood isn't quite bottom barrel. The other guys ARE bottom barrel. I'm not sure I couldn't do better myself- and that's scary. Whatever happened to Troy Denning? That guy could write a novel. So could Elaine Cunningham. Now, Rich Baker? Nnnngh. Bruce Cordell? Oh. My. God. He can certainly dream up a good tentacle, but they shouldn't let him anywhere NEAR a novel with words and characterization in it. It ends up looking like he wrote up a homebrew dungeon crawl and made it into a fanfic story hour. Bad. Real bad.
Have you ever considered changing your name to 'Hostile Ocean-Dweller'?
:P
RAS is a great writer, and Ed is a great storyteller. Elaine is both, and Paul Kemp is definately up-and-coming.... Bruce Cordell... hemmmm.... I enjoyed Darkvision, but I think he would be better suited to writing Cthulhu novels. Nothing against his talent - I like him as a designer - I just don't find his 'subject matter' appropriate for FR.
The rest are 'Hit or Miss', and just about all of them need to study up on FR a bit more before they write novels for it. Troy Denning is a perfect example of this - good writer and good storyteller - it's just that his stories could be 'dropped into' any setting, and don't really feel like FR. It's almost as if he writes the story, and then goes back and sprinkles in a little flavor - sometimes quite inconsistently.
Remember they took away the right to discuss novels on these forums several years ago because people were bashing authors. When criticizing someones work let's all try to be a little nicer and not do it with so much venom.
+1, this thread is kind of going that way in spots.
I like Ed Greenwood's writing, btw, but realize that it's different strokes and all that. Most people either love his writing or hate it. The spell-battle scenes that I think are great might not go over well with someone else. I thought Elminster in Hell was really good, with all the little stories thrown in to move the main plot along. But it obviously doesn't work for everyone, and that's fine.
As for the OP's regenerating, but immune-to-fire-and-acid question (hey, I took the bait, so not gonna knock it too much ;) ), if an author's books sell, publishers will publish more books by that author. If someone doesn't like a particular book, it's not mandatory to buy that author's next one. And if that happens a lot, then the writer can't get any more books published.
As for other FR writers, EC is my favorite, and RAS is always good despite the blatant use of sports figures's names (which actually gives me a little chuckle each time I realize whose name he's using). I also enjoyed reading Dave Gross's books in the Sembia series, which are definitely worth checking out, imo.
Bruce Cordell? Oh. My. God. He can certainly dream up a good tentacle...
-
Remember they took away the right to discuss novels on these forums several years ago because people were bashing authors. When criticizing someones work let's all try to be a little nicer and not do it with so much venom.
+1, this thread is kind of going that way in spots.
-Those were the days, back before both of your times'. The official story was that the Novel section was NOT closed because of criticism directed towards a particular author who has already been mentioned in a good/bad context in a few posts. But, yeah, it's easy to see through that. I wish the "No talking about novels as novels" rule was still in place.
IMHO, 'Good' means I can get through it without too many problems, and 'Very Good' means I didn't need to put it down for a day or two between readings.
So-so means I had a lot of problems finishing it, bad means I couldn't finish it, 'Very Bad' means I only made it about halfway (Gormenghast being an example of this) and 'Abyssmal' means I couldn't get past the first chapter or two. I think only Shanarra falls into that last category for me, but plenty fall into the 'Bad' range.
I know plenty of people that liked Shanarra, so that just goes to show you how subjective reading is.
It was one of the things we talked about in Orc's Nest re Crown. But it's thoroughly not glorified.
OK, point taken. "Glorified" was perhaps not the best word, considering all the protagonist had to go through.
The man writes Keystone Cop villains, self-indulgent, sketchy sex scenes using a pretty blatent alter ego...
There is no proof for that at all. In fact, Dragon magazine has debunked that myth twice--once in it's very last issue.
He had some good ideas in the past, I'm just not sure why exactly he gets the billing he gets. I'm betting not many people bought his non-FR fiction. I'm also betting we aren't going to see much more of it in the future.
I would like to see proof of that--you admit that Ed gets good billing, which is evidence that his work sells better than you seem to think it does. And Ed has non-FR work coming down the pipeline. You'd probably lose both your bets.
Hopefully the future novels will be about detailing some regions and giving us some fun and interesting characters not some stats on a page.
Rich did say that was what they are going for. I think he also said his Blades of the Moonsea trilogy is supposed to be a "personal story".
As for other FR writers, EC is my favorite, and RAS is always good despite the blatant use of sports figures's names (which actually gives me a little chuckle each time I realize whose name he's using).
I never even noticed that. I knew he used silly names, or names from Tolkien's work, but sports figures?
Could you give some examples, please?
So far there is none novel written by himthat was anything less than a torture for me to read. If not for my quest to read every single FR novel, I would never again touch one of his books, sadly my quests demands that I somehow get through them.
At the moment, after taking a long break to digest being through the Elminster novels, I started with the first Shandril book a few months ago. I even manged to go to page 102 and then couldn't stand it anymore and paused in the middle of the book and since then I have read 7 other novels during this pause. Now I guess I have to get back to this series sooner or later.
I really don't understand it. I have read so many novels by so many different authors (currently I am at 139 novels read out of 223 novels listed on o-love.net) and while I like some more then others, none were as hard for me to read as Ed's novels.
Don't understand why I like his setting so much but his novels not at all.
Well, I am ashamed to say it but: I just hate Ed's writing. He created an awesome fantasy setting, but he just writes awful novels.
-There's nothing to be ashamed about. Everyone has different tastes.
-Those were the days, back before both of your times'.
Yeah, I was around too, under the name Finglas Leaflock--dropped the "surname" when it became Gleemax. Remember, I'm sorta old. ;) But like Rauric used to be, I've been just an occasional poster over the years. I remember some of the hounding that one author got, and at the time, couldn't blame WotC when they shut down the Novels section of the boards.
I never even noticed that. I knew he used silly names, or names from Tolkien's work, but sports figures?
Could you give some examples, please?
lol, forgot about the dwarven King Arglebargle (that's correct, right?) and what's-his-name, the elven prince in Shilmista with the Tolkienish name. Oh, and Luthien's Gamble, although that's not FR. But the ones I was thinking of were Glensather, leader of one of the Ten Towns in Icewind Dale, and Rai Guy, Jarlaxle's former sidekick.
Glen Sather was coach of the Edmonton Oilers championship hockey teams in the 80's, and subsequently became general manager of the New York Rangers (which didn't go as well). Ray Guy was possibly the best NFL punter ever, although he was slightly before my time (I was little and didn't watch sports yet when he was playing). I feel like there are more, but can't remember at the moment. ;)
But really, I don't mind those too much, gives a laugh and keeps things fun.
Shame and guilt are useless emotions. Just discard them like a kleenex and be done with it. Having said that, go stand in the corner for not absolutely adoring every word that drips from Ed's pen.
Exactly!
Ok, just kidding--what LK said. ;)
Don't understand why I like his setting so much but his novels not at all.
Hence my description of Ed - an amazing Storyteller, but only an okay (mediocre) writer. I wouldn't call him a bad writer, because his lore (character development, local flora and fauna, etc) is top-notch, so I can easily get past the sometimes badly-worded descriptions.
Anythings better then more Shadowcrap and Aberrations IMHO.
Thats just 'showboating' on the same reality level as professional wrestling... and just as badly scripted.
Yeah, I was around too, under the name Finglas Leaflock--dropped the "surname" when it became Gleemax.
-Leaflock. I had to read that twice...
Remember, I'm sorta old. ;)
-How's little Finglas?
There is no proof for that at all. In fact, Dragon magazine has debunked that myth twice--once in it's very last issue.
I would strongly object to the word debunked. It still stinks like he writes Elminster like his favorite DM's PC. The simple fact that they keep having to bring it up, over and over and over and over, lends credence to the claims of the suspicious in a very common-sense way. I know people have written whole screeds defending him and his avatar. It's just that the issue is so OBVIOUS that you can write whole screeds of convoluted arguments- and still anybody with a hemisphere of grey matter will cry foul. And by foul, I mean pathetic.
I would like to see proof of that--you admit that Ed gets good billing, which is evidence that his work sells better than you seem to think it does. And Ed has non-FR work coming down the pipeline. You'd probably lose both your bets.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours! Ha ha
I used to think I was one of the oldest on my old favorite forums (a miniatures site), but I wasn't even in the 'top ten'.
I'm going to be 45 in August, how about everyone else? Who's the 'Old Dog' around here? :P
Another thing is that he throws in a lot of some what random stuff, or overly complicates the plot. The latest knights of Myth Drannor series is a good example of that. At times it just gets a bit convoluted, and all the little cameo stuff that is thrown in, but not central to the plot just confuses things further.
Anyways, I am not here to complain about him too much. I loved Cormyr, and Elminster, making of a mage. Knights of Myth Drannor? Not so much.
I would strongly object to the word debunked. It still stinks like he writes Elminster like his favorite DM's PC. The simple fact that they keep having to bring it up, over and over and over and over, lends credence to the claims of the suspicious in a very common-sense way. I know people have written whole screeds defending him and his avatar. It's just that the issue is so OBVIOUS that you can write whole screeds of convoluted arguments- and still anybody with a hemisphere of grey matter will cry foul. And by foul, I mean pathetic.
Some people keep bring up Creationism/Intelligent Design even after its been thoroughly debunked... doesn't make it any more true than the first time it was debunked. That some won't let a dead issue stay that way is far from proof that there is credibility in the arguement. One of those fun definitions of insanity is repetition of the same behaviour with an expectation of different results. Something to think about perhaps.
I wonder who the oldest person here is?
I used to think I was one of the oldest on my old favorite forums (a miniatures site), but I wasn't even in the 'top ten'.
I'm going to be 45 in August, how about everyone else? Who's the 'Old Dog' around here? :P
Maybe I can make bottom 10.
21 almost 22 :P
-RW
Some people keep bring up Creationism/Intelligent Design even after its been thoroughly debunked... doesn't make it any more true than the first time it was debunked. That some won't let a dead issue stay that way is far from proof that there is credibility in the arguement. One of those fun definitions of insanity is repetition of the same behaviour with an expectation of different results. Something to think about perhaps.
Except it's WotC who are constantly bringing it up. In the mind of most, I think the matter is settled; I mean, all you have to do is READ how he writes Elminster. That's proof enough. Anything else is just defensive obfuscation, no matter how many excuses you make or how long and scholarly your refutations are.
Some people keep bring up Creationism/Intelligent Design even after its been thoroughly debunked... doesn't make it any more true than the first time it was debunked. That some won't let a dead issue stay that way is far from proof that there is credibility in the arguement. One of those fun definitions of insanity is repetition of the same behaviour with an expectation of different results. Something to think about perhaps.
Actually, what you're referring to isn't insanity, it's just idiocy (repeating the same behavior in expectation of different / better results) or stupidity.
Technically, "insanity" is a legal definition that defines when a person is not responsible for criminal conduct/behavior due to a severe mental disorder or defect present at the time of the criminal act and not able to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of the criminal act. Insanity is not a term used by any psychologist or psychiatrist unless they are interacting with the legal system regarding the defense plea. At least, this is the case in the USA. Just FYI.
Well, I am ashamed to say it but: I just hate Ed's writing. He created an awesome fantasy setting, but he just writes awful novels.
I see no reason to be "ashamed" of that. It's not like you owe us an explanation for your personal tastes.
lol, forgot about the dwarven King Arglebargle (that's correct, right?) and what's-his-name, the elven prince in Shilmista with the Tolkienish name. Oh, and Luthien's Gamble, although that's not FR. But the ones I was thinking of were Glensather, leader of one of the Ten Towns in Icewind Dale, and Rai Guy, Jarlaxle's former sidekick.
Glen Sather was coach of the Edmonton Oilers championship hockey teams in the 80's, and subsequently became general manager of the New York Rangers (which didn't go as well). Ray Guy was possibly the best NFL punter ever, although he was slightly before my time (I was little and didn't watch sports yet when he was playing). I feel like there are more, but can't remember at the moment. ;)
Thanks for letting me know.
For the record, I always thought "Rai Guy" was a pretty stupid name...and I also recall it being spelled differently in different books, too.
Except it's WotC who are constantly bringing it up.
They don't "constantly bring it up". The issue was brought up twice in Dragon, as far as I know.
In the mind of most, I think the matter is settled;
In your mind, perhaps, but not "in the minds of most." I doubt you are a mind reader.
I mean, all you have to do is READ how he writes Elminster. That's proof enough. Anything else is just defensive obfuscation, no matter how many excuses you make or how long and scholarly your refutations are.
Of course you would say that.
But worry not, I had no intention of wasting any "long and scholarly" refutations, and by extension the time it would take to write them, on you.
I would strongly object to the word debunked. It still stinks like he writes Elminster like his favorite DM's PC. The simple fact that they keep having to bring it up, over and over and over and over, lends credence to the claims of the suspicious in a very common-sense way. I know people have written whole screeds defending him and his avatar. It's just that the issue is so OBVIOUS that you can write whole screeds of convoluted arguments- and still anybody with a hemisphere of grey matter will cry foul. And by foul, I mean pathetic.
-The same can be said for any "conspiracy theory"- UFOs, Men in Black, 9/11 was an inside job, and so on. Those who believe such things have plenty of their "so called" evidence, and, contrary to whatever else comes up to debunk their claims (ie, Ed Greenwood and WotC outright saying this isn't the case, and why would they arbitrarily lie?), they are not incorrect.
-Ed Greenwood creted Storm Silverhand. Is she an outlet for his frustrated sexual desires? And Mirt the Moneylender? And Elaith Craulnober? And any of the other countless characters he's created over the years?
-And, mind you, I dispise Mystra, and don't particularly care for Elminster...
I'll show you mine if you show me yours! Ha ha
-Heh heh...no.
I find it amusing that the OP hasn't been back since he started the thread.
-Does that really surprise you? Happens all the time.
Maybe I can make bottom 10.
21 almost 22 :P
-RW
-Up here! High five!
Always pegged you for being older.
*Hits the high five*
So far, I think bottom ten is covered.
-RW
Not that I need to worry that much about my heart, since I'm closer to your end of the pool than MT's. 26, here.
I'm quite fond of his writing personally. Though I'd say this probably qualifies as trolling, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to you.
You read Oscar Wilde and also enjoy reading this TSR/WoTC fiction junk? Reading about a page of Wilde and then reading a FR paperback should reveal them for the trash they are.
So, I stand in awe of Ed Greenwood's imagination and work ethic, think he's a darling man based on everything I've ever heard said about or from him, and think his world-building is second to none. I just don't care for his fiction.
Except it's WotC who are constantly bringing it up. In the mind of most, I think the matter is settled; I mean, all you have to do is READ how he writes Elminster. That's proof enough. Anything else is just defensive obfuscation, no matter how many excuses you make or how long and scholarly your refutations are.
This is really very simple. Ed Greenwood says this is not the case. He has credibility in my eyes, where as I don't have any idea who the people are who are making those accusations. Nothing in his writing suggests to me that he is living vicariously, simply that his idea of morality in the Realms differs from our view of it on Earth, which makes sense given the existance of goddesses like Sune, Sharess, and Lliira, and the lack of mention of the concept of original sin or that sexuality is something that is somehow bad in and of itself. He has more credibility than some random person on the internet who can say whatever they like without the bother of a burden of proof, beyond a subjective reference to writing that very much depends on the point of view of the reader.
Believe what you like, it makes no difference to me, but don't even attempt to pass off an opinion as fact. Ed denies it, he's given me no reason to doubt his word, hence, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, as I presume he knows his mind better than the rest of us.
As to the definition of insanity, as far as I'm aware, that's one of the clinical definitions, though I've no idea if its a "legal" one or not.
You read Oscar Wilde and also enjoy reading this TSR/WoTC fiction junk? Reading about a page of Wilde and then reading a FR paperback should reveal them for the trash they are.
They're two very different things. Personally, I prefer non-fiction over fiction, including Wilde. But there's no reason not to be able to enjoy both if you take them for what they are. FR books are the mental equivalent of popcorn... Not very filling, not often thought provoking, but generally fun to read when the mood strikes. Think of it as an instance of all work and no play making jack a very dull boy.
I'm going to be 45 in August, how about everyone else? Who's the 'Old Dog' around here? :P
I'm 41. Been playing since AD&D 2nd edition, though FR as a campaign setting to play/DM in is relatively new for me.
So I guess I'm a crusty old lich, but I am very fresh crusty old lich.
Btw I never read any novels by Ed, only game material (Volo guides and articles and such). He has a lot of detail in his material, and a lot of useful ideas, so as a designer he is pretty top notch. Can't comment on his abilities as a novelist.
Then again, I have made a few half-hearted attempts at writing (way, way back) and I suck at it. Scenarios or game articles are no problem, and I consider myself a fairly decent editor, but novelization is a whole different animal.
Oh, as to personifying oneself with your characters (the 'DM-PC'), I think most of us do that at some point, in some manner. I have turned PCs into NPCs because I just knew how they thought, or the PCs background fitted a spot. Isn't necessarily bad.
-How's little Finglas?
He's doing great, just turned 2 on Friday and is growing like crazy. Thanks for asking! I'll tell him his buddy from Starbucks said hello. ;)
About the LeafLOCK thing--it's the name of my first FR character, a half-elf druid I played for a few years in college. Until signing up for these boards, it had always been handwritten, so didn't look weird. The strange thing is, it took until one day last year when I checked the boards pre-coffee for me to do a double-take and say, hmm, that looks... not right. The next thought was OMG, that's not good. ;)
You read Oscar Wilde and also enjoy reading this TSR/WoTC fiction junk?
What, people can't enjoy different types of fiction?
The strange thing is, it took until one day last year when I checked the boards pre-coffee for me to do a double-take and say, hmm, that looks... not right. The next thought was OMG, that's not good. ;)
:heehee
Actually, yeah. I forget who it was I e-mailed, or what was specifically said, but the basic gist was "Right now we've just got the Rogues planned out, and might cover the other three 'core' class (Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard). Paladins aren't on the docket, but if we ever do cover them, it won't be for many, many years". It's been many, many years, so I guess it's not gonna happen.
I got a two dollar bill that says it'll happen now, but they'll be 4.0 Paladin's, and where's the fun in that? The 3.x Paladin's had the bad rep, the player/fanbase needed a Paladin book series that had a few kickass, intelligent Paladin's. Or maybe the next book in The Fighters can have a Paladin as the main character... They did have a Barbarian as I recall in one book.
21, going on 22 as soon as next Tuesday rolls around... I'm not done being 21 yet!
I got a two dollar bill that says it'll happen now, but they'll be 4.0 Paladin's, and where's the fun in that? The 3.x Paladin's had the bad rep, the player/fanbase needed a Paladin book series that had a few kickass, intelligent Paladin's. Or maybe the next book in The Fighters can have a Paladin as the main character... They did have a Barbarian as I recall in one book.
-Abelar Corrinthal was a cool, kickass Paladin/Cleric of Lathander, who appeared in the Twilight War trilogy. While it lasted, he was pretty awesome, but
Show
he has since turned his back on Lathander, and (seemingly) will no longer be a Paladin/Cleric
The simple fact that they keep having to bring it up, over and over and over and over, lends credence to the claims of the suspicious in a very common-sense way.
That's not common sense, it's textbook innuendo. Many completely false ideas have some kind of traction and distribution -- that's what canards are. No more explanation is needed for this one than the fact that TSR protagonized Elminster and used it as a contrived marketing point for years.
This is really very simple. Ed Greenwood says this is not the case.
Just so. Calling someone a liar -- especially someone with a long and verifiable reputation for honesty -- based on one's subjective interpretation of his writing is just rude.
Another thing is that he throws in a lot of some what random stuff, or overly complicates the plot.
He has a taste for slapstick and clown characters . . .
Those are characteristics of the Realms, not of Ed's fiction per se, and two of my favourites.
Its plots and events are manifold and decentralized, not monoptic and linear. The Knights of Myth Drannor novels are drastically simplified from the play events they're inspired by.
Everyone in the Realms is potentially a comic foil, and it's not at the expense of dignity or heroism. Look at Ed's favourite protagonist, Mirt! He doesn't use 'comic relief characters' per se at all.
Meaning, dignity and humour in the Realms are pooled, humanist, uncruel and unsolemn, not hoarded by a few favoured characters.
-Abelar Corrinthal was a cool, kickass Paladin/Cleric of Lathander, who appeared in the Twilight War trilogy. While it lasted, he was pretty awesome, butShowhe has since turned his back on Lathander, and (seemingly) will no longer be a Paladin/Cleric
That's not common sense, it's textbook innuendo. Many completely false ideas have some kind of traction and distribution -- that's what canards are. No more explanation is needed for this one than the fact that TSR protagonized Elminster and used it as a contrived marketing point for years.Just so. Calling someone a liar -- especially someone with a long and verifiable reputation for honesty -- based on one's subjective interpretation of his writing is just rude.Those are characteristics of the Realms, not of Ed's fiction per se, and two of my favourites.
Okay- so on one hand, you have Ed Greenwood saying, "No, wait, that's not my desire to have liberated, boundless, kinky sex with everything female that crosses my path talking...that's just...the character." And all of you guys nod your heads and say, "He denies it! He MUST be telling the truth! Everybody knows that denials are always true!"
On the other hand, ask yourselves WHY exactly are these scenes in the book? Do they add to the story? In any way...? What's the plot point here? I came to my own conclusions and I think they're fairly straightforward. Occam's razor.
And so Ed never said what you just stated, either, and your insinuation that everyone who doesn't buy into the canard is gullible is another rude insult.
I can't think of any scenes that match your description. Ed's TSR/Wizards books have no sex scenes and little implied sex; Elminster isn't promiscuous and his 'old lecher' act is a pretence.
And so Ed never said what you just stated, either, and your insinuation that everyone who doesn't buy into the canard is gullible is another rude insult.
There don't have to be overt romance-novel-style scenes for there to be a strong undertone of "Elminster is the pizzimp...just like I should be chortle chortle" going on in his books! He has hook-ups with Mystra and then all the way on down the totem pole! You must not have read any of his writings; if there's a female character, odds are about 50/50 that ol' Elminster has slept with her and that's made clear in the text. From there on down the point flows, while Ed and WoTC now take pains to sweep this sordid affair under the rug with little press-time releases to tell us that "it's just a misunderstanding."
Right.
Hmm... Maybe I should make a "Paladin Watch" thread. So we all can post Paladin "sightings", i.e. what book, what writer, what series. Thoughts?
-Sure. Knock yourself out. I'll help where I can.
Okay- so on one hand, you have Ed Greenwood saying, "No, wait, that's not my desire to have liberated, boundless, kinky sex with everything female that crosses my path talking...that's just...the character." And all of you guys nod your heads and say, "He denies it! He MUST be telling the truth! Everybody knows that denials are always true!"
-Again, why would he be lying in the first place? There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of what was said in the first place.
-Should I come to the conclusion that you are just a normal, fairly intelligent regular guy/girl, who is just very sure of him/herself when you post something, and aren't going to take BS? Or, should I come to the conclusion, based on no actual truths whatsoever, that you are a sexually frustrated, overweight, middle-aged man/woman, who is disatisfied with your lot in life, because (from what I remember) many of your posts come off as angry, and/or standoffish?
On the other hand, ask yourselves WHY exactly are these scenes in the book? Do they add to the story? In any way...? What's the plot point here?
-Yes, they illustrate and illuminate the behavioral patterns of Elminster.
I think that mayhap Vole slipped Ed a micky and used his MAC and internet connection to submit 'El in Hell' to WotC. :D
-Again, why would he be lying in the first place? There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of what was said in the first place.
Sure there is. He wrote some pretty eyebrow-raising things in his books. And I know that I'm not by a long shot the first person to point these things out. What do you want him to say? "Oh yeah, these are my secret avatar fantasies?" What else could he do besides hem and haw and say it's got nothing to do with anything?
-Should I come to the conclusion that you are just a normal, fairly intelligent regular guy/girl, who is just very sure of him/herself when you post something, and aren't going to take BS? Or, should I come to the conclusion, based on no actual truths whatsoever, that you are a sexually frustrated, overweight, middle-aged man/woman, who is disatisfied with your lot in life, because (from what I remember) many of your posts come off as angry, and/or standoffish?
When I start writing about who my alter ego has boned in my books, I hope you make those connections. I'm not sure what you can draw from my posts besides the fact that I'm a hateful, acid man (which is true!) ;) You're a smart guy- you can only draw conclusions from people's writings that are actually relevant to what's being written. For instance, nothing about my writings give any clue as to my weight, height, age; nothing besides my deep allegiance to the Dark Side of the Force.
-Yes, they illustrate and illuminate the behavioral patterns of Elminster.
They sure do. That and a little alter ego action.
I'm sure his fans will chime in and say this is just to show that the Realms is a sexually liberated culture where young girls go after fat, hairy old men as a matter of course, though! Or maybe they'll say this is a clever subversion of usual fantasy romances?
(I also completely agree with the compound words. If all you need to create flavor was smushing two random nouns together, well...)
No one who knows Ed or is familiar with his work gives the 'avatar' theory the least credence. Your characterization of him is miles off on every particular: He readily 'admits' to things that would embarrass some other people. He doesn't say 'Elminster's kinky, not me' because the kinkiness is an act. You could hardly find someone less likely to chortle smugly.
Solisces, why would you single out those over the many diverse relationships in Ed's work? Besides, he created the Mirt–Asper relationship and Spellfire when he was in his twenties (and the characters of Mirt and Elminster when he was eight)!
And since it apparently needs to be said, speculating about authors' character flaws based on their work, however ludicrously, is well outside the bounds of civil discussion.
Sure there is. He wrote some pretty eyebrow-raising things in his books. And I know that I'm not by a long shot the first person to point these things out. What do you want him to say? "Oh yeah, these are my secret avatar fantasies?" What else could he do besides hem and haw and say it's got nothing to do with anything?
-Of course you aren't the first person to raise the point(s). People claimed to see the Loch Ness Monster, as it appeared in the famous photo, and people continue to see the creature as it appeared in the photo, even though the photo was proven a hoax. People saw, and continue to see "Flying saucers", even though the "original" sighting in 1947 was of a "flying crescent".
-Overall, it's a moot point you (and other) raise. He has said this isn't true. He has no reason to lie. He has a reputation of being forthright and honest, concerning a variety of topics. What's the problem?
-"You're making arbitrary judgement calls while ignoring all the evidence out there". You know who said that? ;)
For instance, nothing about my writings give any clue as to my weight, height, age; nothing besides my deep allegiance to the Dark Side of the Force.
-Psychologists, as well as forensic investagators can be trained to look for clues that do indeed tell more about a person than his/her current state of mind. Age is one such thing that can be identified when analyzing writing samples. Physical traits, such as certain deformities, can also be identified, given the right circumstances.
-That said, the idea that there is a Dark Side of the Force is a farce.
They sure do. That and a little alter ego action.
-And any of the other countless characters he's created over the years, that do not espouse the qualities you are highlighting right now? They are somehow less outlets for his frustrated personality?
Friendly Fish, forget Elminster. Have you noticed this curious pattern in many of those novels where a hairy old man is paired up with a young, nubile woman?
-And, does that not happen in real life as well? Need I bring up Hugh Hefner? Or, hell, since this one is even worse, Ron Jeremy?
I'm sure his fans will chime in and say this is just to show that the Realms is a sexually liberated culture where young girls go after fat, hairy old men as a matter of course, though! Or maybe they'll say this is a clever subversion of usual fantasy romances?
-Again, I am no fan of Ed Greenwood. I dispise a lot of the stuff that he has done. That said, again, do younger women not sleep with older men in real life? And, what about the hundreds of thousands of "other" cases in the Forgotten Realms, where the "old man" has nobody but a haggard wife (if even that much), and the "younger guy" has a younger wife (if that much)?
-Of course you aren't the first person to raise the point(s). People claimed to see the Loch Ness Monster, as it appeared in the famous photo, and people continue to see the creature as it appeared in the photo, even though the photo was proven a hoax. People saw, and continue to see "Flying saucers", even though the "original" sighting in 1947 was of a "flying crescent".
-THIS is an example of making ad reductio fallacious comparisons. Let me do one of those ridiculous state achievement test comparisons for you.
Commenting on Ed Greenwood's alter ego writings is to Sightings of the Loch Ness Monster as Eating Beer Nuts is to Pouring Concrete. In other words, one example has nothing to do with the other example.
AND! You have not shown my statements are wrong besides quoting Ed Greenwood saying, "It's not true!" Since neither of us is exactly meeting a burden of proof, let's fall on Occam's Razor. Elminster bones everything, for no apparent reason. That smacks of avatar-writing. Ed Greenwood says, "But it's not true!" The most simple explanation is that Ed Greenwood is covering his bum.
-Overall, it's a moot point you (and other) raise. He has said this isn't true. He has no reason to lie. He has a reputation of being forthright and honest, concerning a variety of topics. What's the problem?
He most certainly has a reason to lie. As I said above, what do you expect him to do? Say Mea Culpa, I wish I could have promiscuous relations with all the silver-hair, chainkini-clad maidens that I could fit in one Eastern-King size bed? I think that would look pretty bad, thus, "Oh yeah, that's not me, that was, uh, TSR. Trust me, loyal fans!" TSR, being dead, lies there and does not defend itself. What's sad is that you're falling for the line.
-"You're making arbitrary judgement calls while ignoring all the evidence out there". You know who said that? ;)
Yeah, I said that. For a different reason, on a different topic, on another message board. I bet we could train a parrot to say that whenever you wanted it to.
-Psychologists, as well as forensic investagators can be trained to look for clues that do indeed tell more about a person than his/her current state of mind. Age is one such thing that can be identified when analyzing writing samples. Physical traits, such as certain deformities, can also be identified, given the right circumstances.
So, what's your read, doc? Go ahead, give me age, weight, relationship status, and my profession. I'll give you the answer after you guess.
-That said, the idea that there is a Dark Side of the Force is a farce.
So sorry. I was being cute.
-And any of the other countless characters he's created over the years, that do not espouse the qualities you are highlighting right now? They are somehow less outlets for his frustrated personality?
Only Elminster is his avatar! Elminster is the most powerful, the most beloved superhero at the right hand of the central Goddess-hottie of the setting. Everybody else is a character- but only Elminster is his alter ego. So, yes, they are entirely less outlets for his frustrated personality. Perhaps I shouldn't let you put the words "frustrated personality" in my mouth. Rather, I would say, "bad, impartial writing." I'm not saying having a big, dirty fantasy life is bad- in fact, I bet it's healthy! I was originally making the point that it's bad authorial practice. Nothing more- although, certainly nothing less.
Also, just to address Faraer: I'm not really 'bitter' about Ed Greenwood's novels. I don't hate him! I'm sure he's a wonderfully creative, filthy-minded man. I just think he's a hack, that's all!
-THIS is an example of making ad reductio fallacious comparisons. Let me do one of those ridiculous state achievement test comparisons for you.
Commenting on Ed Greenwood's alter ego writings is to Sightings of the Loch Ness Monster as Eating Beer Nuts is to Pouring Concrete. In other words, one example has nothing to do with the other example.
AND! You have not shown my statements are wrong besides quoting Ed Greenwood saying, "It's not true!" Since neither of us is exactly meeting a burden of proof, let's fall on Occam's Razor. Elminster bones everything, for no apparent reason. That smacks of avatar-writing. Ed Greenwood says, "But it's not true!" The most simple explanation is that Ed Greenwood is covering his bum.
Would be nice if you actually provided some examples, rather than simply making pronouncements and presuming that we should just take your word for it.... makes a stronger case most of the time. I've read quite a bit of his work and never come away with those conclusions. The only conclusion that I've actually reached about him actually is that he's probably an avid amateur historian... which was fairly obvious from the Volo's books in the first place.
He most certainly has a reason to lie. As I said above, what do you expect him to do? Say Mea Culpa, I wish I could have promiscuous relations with all the silver-hair, chainkini-clad maidens that I could fit in one Eastern-King size bed? I think that would look pretty bad, thus, "Oh yeah, that's not me, that was, uh, TSR. Trust me, loyal fans!" TSR, being dead, lies there and does not defend itself. What's sad is that you're falling for the line.
I'm curious as to why you think sexuality is a bad thing in the first place... and why exactly it is that you find offense in it. What's wrong with people being sexual, particularly in a setting with deities like Sune, Lliira, Sharess, Lathander, etcetera? Sorry it doesn't hold up to a repressed Christian ideal as you seem to wish it to... but sadly, people tend to be sexual beings and often find ways to express that.
Only Elminster is his avatar! Elminster is the most powerful, the most beloved superhero at the right hand of the central Goddess-hottie of the setting. Everybody else is a character- but only Elminster is his alter ego. So, yes, they are entirely less outlets for his frustrated personality. Perhaps I shouldn't let you put the words "frustrated personality" in my mouth. Rather, I would say, "bad, impartial writing." I'm not saying having a big, dirty fantasy life is bad- in fact, I bet it's healthy! I was originally making the point that it's bad authorial practice. Nothing more- although, certainly nothing less.
So you say... but as Elminster has acknowledged, he's hardly the most powerful (who is debatable, but he's not by his own admission), the most beloved (that's probably either Alustriel or Storm) superhero (those don't really exist in the Realms, FYI) at the right hand of the central Goddess-hottie (that's Azuth by the way) of the setting. Had you been paying attention, you'd probably be aware that El's hardly the first, or the last, to get the 'personal' attention of Mystra...
It is a verifiable historical fact that women tended to go for the wealthiest, smartest, and/or most powerful men around. That's probably instinctual, as if they are dominant males, then in follows that they have the best genes to pass on to their children. Read history and you will come away with numerous instances of young men being outraged that the older men were dominating the supply of eligible young women... not fair, but quite true for several (if not most) European nations. That's one of the reasons men tend to just love power and money... they get all the best breeding stock that way. Which tends to be true of most species, not just humans. ;)
Solisces, why would you single out those over the many diverse relationships in Ed's work? Besides, he created the Mirt–Asper relationship and Spellfire when he was in his twenties (and the characters of Mirt and Elminster when he was eight)!
Maybe because once is nothing unusual, twice is a little odd, but after three times, it starts to look like a pattern? I've not read all his books, and I wouldn't be surprised if there're plenty more cases of "senex amans and the nubile pretty young things who love them with true lovey love like the loving river of love" (as opposed to being attracted to his wealth and influence). Do May-December romances happen in real life? Sure. Are they always a result of true loving lovely love rather than a matter of climbing the social ladder? Uh. The relationships I listed are, far as I could tell, about pure, true love. I make no speculations regarding the author's sexuality or sexual fantasies, but some of the relationships he portrays are pretty hmm-inducing.
Also, however old he was when he came up with Mirt and Asper, I still find the basis of that couple really freaking creepy. Hi, adoptive daddy, now that I'm nubile and have breasts, I'd like you to diddle me. Yes, yes, I've tried out all the other men but you're the best, really, I just can't live without you! Let me fling my leather-clad self into your arms, see, I really want it! Child-grooming, anybody? Of course, if it is intended to come of as creepy and skeevey... well, is it?
What, people can't enjoy different types of fiction?
Yep. Just looking at my bookshelf, it goes from Realms and other fantasy/sci-fi novels to The Best of Lewis Carroll, Shakespeare: The Complete Works, The Prince, The Three Musketeers, The Tell-Tale Heart & Other Writings, Anthem, Night, Sherlock Holmes, Moby Dick, and so on. Don't see why someone can't enjoy both Macbeth and Spellfire.
I got a two dollar bill that says it'll happen now, but they'll be 4.0 Paladin's, and where's the fun in that? The 3.x Paladin's had the bad rep, the player/fanbase needed a Paladin book series that had a few kickass, intelligent Paladin's. Or maybe the next book in The Fighters can have a Paladin as the main character... They did have a Barbarian as I recall in one book.
Yeah, that's a shame. Well, one can only hope that if they ever do make a novel focusing on a Paladin character, that it'll be a Paladin who could've fit in just as easily in 3E as 4E. Save the Unaligned and Evil Paladins for later. I want to see something like a Tormish Paladin, first. Someone who epitomizes Lawful Good.
THIS is an example of making ad reductio fallacious comparisons. Let me do one of those ridiculous state achievement test comparisons for you.
Commenting on Ed Greenwood's alter ego writings is to Sightings of the Loch Ness Monster as Eating Beer Nuts is to Pouring Concrete. In other words, one example has nothing to do with the other example.
-Incorrect. Commenting on Ed Greenwood's writing Elminster as his alter-ego in relation to sightings of the Loch Ness Monster highlights and demonstrates how individuals can come to incorrect conclusions, and be fully convinced of their righteousness and certainty on the matter, even in light of evidence proving them incorrect.
AND! You have not shown my statements are wrong besides quoting Ed Greenwood saying, "It's not true!" Since neither of us is exactly meeting a burden of proof, let's fall on Occam's Razor. Elminster bones everything, for no apparent reason. That smacks of avatar-writing. Ed Greenwood says, "But it's not true!" The most simple explanation is that Ed Greenwood is covering his bum.
-Hardly. Ed Greenwood has said this isn't true. Again, he has no reason to lie- contrary to no matter how many times you claim it- and doesn't have the stigma of a liar attached to him. For anyone to consider what you are saying seriously, the burden of proof is on you to highlight the hows and whys as to why Ed Greenwood cannot be trusted. Until then, we have no reason to believe that Ed Greenwood arbitrarily lies to people when it suits him, relating to D&D.
He most certainly has a reason to lie. As I said above, what do you expect him to do? Say Mea Culpa, I wish I could have promiscuous relations with all the silver-hair, chainkini-clad maidens that I could fit in one Eastern-King size bed? I think that would look pretty bad, thus, "Oh yeah, that's not me, that was, uh, TSR. Trust me, loyal fans!" TSR, being dead, lies there and does not defend itself. What's sad is that you're falling for the line.
-You continue to claim that he has every reason to lie, and yet, it is still untrue. He has no reason to lie, concerning the topic. It's not as if Ed Greenwood, or his players, are shy, concerning sexuality, or other taboo topics. I've complained before, because some of the responses that he, and his "messengers" have posted are certainly not rated anything less than 'R'.
-And, no, I don't ascribe to conspiracy theories with little-to-no evidence.
Yeah, I said that. For a different reason, on a different topic, on another message board. I bet we could train a parrot to say that whenever you wanted it to.
-Funny how it still applies.
So, what's your read, doc? Go ahead, give me age, weight, relationship status, and my profession. I'll give you the answer after you guess.
-I never claimed to be a psychologist, or forensic investigator.
So sorry. I was being cute.
-It's not becoming of you.
Only Elminster is his avatar! Elminster is the most powerful, the most beloved superhero at the right hand of the central Goddess-hottie of the setting. Everybody else is a character- but only Elminster is his alter ego. So, yes, they are entirely less outlets for his frustrated personality. Perhaps I shouldn't let you put the words "frustrated personality" in my mouth. Rather, I would say, "bad, impartial writing." I'm not saying having a big, dirty fantasy life is bad- in fact, I bet it's healthy! I was originally making the point that it's bad authorial practice. Nothing more- although, certainly nothing less.
-And, why is Elminster only his alter-ego? Why not Storm Silverhand? Or Elaith Craulnober? Or Khelben Arunson? Or Fzoul Chembryl? Or Narna? Or Vangerdhast? Or Azoun? Or Volo? Or Manshoon? Or Sememmon? Or Shandra? Or Alusair? Or Mirt? Or Tanalasta? Or, again, any other random and arbitrary NPC? They are as much extensions of his personality as Elminster.
Save the Unaligned and Evil Paladins for later. I want to see something like a Tormish Paladin, first. Someone who epitomizes Lawful Good.
-I'll never get used to 'evil' Paladins...
-Hardly. Ed Greenwood has said this isn't true. Again, he has no reason to lie- contrary to no matter how many times you claim it- and doesn't have the stigma of a liar attached to him. For anyone to consider what you are saying seriously, the burden of proof is on you to highlight the hows and whys as to why Ed Greenwood cannot be trusted. Until then, we have no reason to believe that Ed Greenwood arbitrarily lies to people when it suits him, relating to D&D.
Correct. If you've ever met Greenwood in person and talked with him, it's eminently clear that Elminster isn't an NPC he created simply for wish fulfillment. He really doesn't have a reason to lie about it, either. He tends to talk pretty openly about other things that other people -would- almost certainly lie about (or at least evade answering), so there's no reason to suppose that he would lie about Elminster.
When people don't like something in his writing, it's almost inevitable that they'll pull out this tired (and juvenile) argument. Let's keep in mind that the Realms is a highly sexual, political, dynamic place (or at least it was until 4E). It's partly this way because it's a setting with multiple gods and goddesses, therefore without the strong monotheistic religious and Puritanical themes that still pervade western society. It's also absent the mind-dulling things like network television and world-spanning advertisement campaigns for $1 snack foods.
Greenwood writes the Realms with these things in mind, adding in magic, monsters, and the mysteries of different races and cultures. It's a setting where empires have risen and fallen, and ancient ruins with forgotten treasures are sometimes underneath the floor-stones of someone's basement.
Because of all these things, you just don't get the Puritanical views of sex that we have in the western world. Men with power and wealth will attract mates naturally, and that's how the Realms are written. Just statistically, such men tend to be older. You'll notice that Realms women with power and wealth do exactly the same thing. That's all. There's really nothing more to read into it, and being angry that others like Greenwood's writing and overall themes when -you- don't is really just -your- issue (talking to Friendlyfish in this last sentence, not LK).
Though I'll agree that while the Mirt & Asper thing is a bit offputting, its hardly unprecedented historically... except for maybe the adventurous butt-kicking for goodness part.
Hardly. Ed Greenwood has said this isn't true. Again, he has no reason to lie- contrary to no matter how many times you claim it- and doesn't have the stigma of a liar attached to him. For anyone to consider what you are saying seriously, the burden of proof is on you to highlight the hows and whys as to why Ed Greenwood cannot be trusted. Until then, we have no reason to believe that Ed Greenwood arbitrarily lies to people when it suits him, relating to D&D.
A presidential candidate promises that if he should in fact get the job, he will cut the tax load in half. Since we can't prove that he's lied before, clearly we have no reason to believe that he lies.
Seriously, if Friendlyfish's accusation was true - and I'm not saying it is -, the accused would have the very best reason to lie. I won't say there is or isn't any substance to this claim, because I found those of Ed's books it has been my profound lack of pleasure not to be able to avoid reading so horrible, I've successfully blocked them out, never touched one again, and unless someone pays me a large sum of money, I never ever will. I think Ed is a phantastic world-builder and an incredibly nice guy, and I don't buy the alter ego thing myself. However, telling someone who isn't overly familiar with Ed and / or his body of work that he denied it isn't the proof you make it out to be - it's just a quote.
It's just the same as that old "Elminster could solve all the problems in the world instead of the PCs" thing. You can explain to people who believe that why it's not true; but saying "No, Ed says he can't, that's why you're wrong" won't convince any single one of them.
DB
A presidential candidate promises that if he should in fact get the job, he will cut the tax load in half. Since we can't prove that he's lied before, clearly we have no reason to believe that he lies.
-This exact example is why I said specifically, "...and doesn't have the stigma of a liar attached to him". All politicians have the stigma of being liars. Whether or not they actually are or aren't depends on the individual.
It's just the same as that old "Elminster could solve all the problems in the world instead of the PCs" thing. You can explain to people who believe that why it's not true; but saying "No, Ed says he can't, that's why you're wrong" won't convince any single one of them.
-Unlike that example, there really isn't much "evidence" to work with. It's more of a "your word against mine" situation.
Now, I've heard Greenwood's novels defended by his fans. His editors cut the text, his prudish/cautious editors won't allow the Realms to be shown as they are, they have different mindsets in the Realms, they're not burdened with real-world baggage. I've heard the explanations, but I still cannot view the reactions of these fictional characters as believable. They're so far removed from any kind of behaviour I'd expect from people in real life or have seen in other books where the setting was also free of that real-world baggage. And I just don't feel that Greenwood does a good job of explaining why these odd, jarring reactions would be normal in the Realms.
Maybe because once is nothing unusual, twice is a little odd, but after three times, it starts to look like a pattern? I've not read all his books, and I wouldn't be surprised if there're plenty more cases of "senex amans and the nubile pretty young things who love them with true lovey love like the loving river of love" (as opposed to being attracted to his wealth and influence). Do May-December romances happen in real life? Sure. Are they always a result of true loving lovely love rather than a matter of climbing the social ladder? Uh. The relationships I listed are, far as I could tell, about pure, true love. I make no speculations regarding the author's sexuality or sexual fantasies, but some of the relationships he portrays are pretty hmm-inducing.
Just off the top of my head, the aging mage and hot young heiress in Stormfire, the retired adventurer/innkeeper and the young barmaid in Spellfire, the ugly baker and the hot courtesan in Making of a Mage, and of course the Mirt/Asper relationship mentioned. I think Alustriel's lover, Thunderspells, was an old-looking mage as well, plus Mystra to Elminster in Shadows of Doom: "You always do fancy young maids." While the Simbul isn't actually young, she looks young and is beautiful. And these stories aren't about young women going after old men for power and wealth.
Apparently all male mages are content to look ugly. Using magic to look like Brad Pitt, or at least the way they were in their 20s/30s instead of old and worn, doesn't cross their minds. And I don't "notice that Realms women with power and wealth do exactly the same thing." If so, why don't Alustriel and the Simbul let their looks go, ditch their ugly old lovers, and hook up with a good-looking Orlando Bloom or a ruggedly handsome Hugh Jackman type? The Realms aren't Puritanical in the sense that they have festhalls and lady mages who get their clothes ripped off and hawt bisexual women. But based on Greenwood's novels, I do think that the unconventional behaviour is rather one-sided and safe and ultimately conventional.
Again, I've heard that editors don't let Greenwood tell his stories the way he wants them. But when some attitudes show up again and again, and it's hard to find even quietly subversive hints that would counter them without making editors scream STOP, the material in the books leaves me unconvinced that Realms behaviour is believably constructed to be different from the real world. And since I cannot believe in that claim, I'm left with stories about characters who behave in ways that I cannot find logical. The heroes and villains are both ridiculous in their deeds and thoughts, and I can't root for or against them since I don't find them enjoyable to read about. It would be easy to call them cartoonish, but that wouldn't quite capture the feeling I have. Cartoons can be entertaining and tell perfectly competent stories without needing to reach for Nobel-winning complexity. Within the limits of their medium, their characters can be quite successful and have the kind of complexity it's possible to have. I do not feel that Greenwood's character succeed in that. To be brutally honest, cartoonish would be too kind a description. They're on the 13-year-old LOTR movie fan on FanFiction.net level of fantasy caricatures.
So, in the end "jarring" might perhaps be the best word for what I feel. Because the characters just don't feel like (fictional) real people.
This exact example is why I said specifically, "...and doesn't have the stigma of a liar attached to him". All politicians have the stigma of being liars. Whether or not they actually are or aren't depends on the individual.
Insert anyone you like. Let's rephrase it: I have no history of having been proven time and again to be a liar around here, so I have no such stigma. You know I'm from Germany. Now I claim that I'm Prince Ernst-August of Hannover. Since you can't prove that I've lied before, clearly you have no reason to believe that I'm lying. Therefore I must be Prince Ernst-August of Hannover, and merely insinuating that I'm not would be rude, right? Now you could reply, "Well, I don't believe anything an anonymous poster on the message boards says, so you do have this stigma, too", but the bottomline is that you make exceptions to your rule, and you're willing to make no such exception for Ed. Anyway, you know what I was trying to say.
Unlike that example, there really isn't much "evidence" to work with. It's more of a "your word against mine" situation.
My point exactly.
(...)
You took the words right off my fingertips - I couldn't have said it better.
DB
Maybe because once is nothing unusual, twice is a little odd, but after three times, it starts to look like a pattern?
Not among many dozens! You, not Ed, are fixating on a small minority of all the sexual relationships in his writing, and you have no reason to single them out except an internet-borne preconception about what Ed's like that -- show me a counterexample if I'm wrong -- doesn't last a minute when anyone meets, corresponds, works with or gets to know him, or actually understands what he's doing in his work.
Also, just to address Faraer: I'm not really 'bitter' about Ed Greenwood's novels. I don't hate him! I'm sure he's a wonderfully creative, filthy-minded man. I just think he's a hack, that's all!
You and Solisces certainly seem bitter about something. Look at your overwrought complaints about something as minor (though charming) as his portmanteaus. There is something of the hack to Ed, except most hacks don't exceed their wordcounts out of enthusiasm (mainly in his sourcebook work), keep attempting to write things their editors tend to change, or devote untold hundreds of unpaid hours to developing and sharing their worlds.
Seriously, if Friendlyfish's accusation was true - and I'm not saying it is -, the accused would have the very best reason to lie.
Theris and I have pointed out why he wouldn't, and I don't think anyone who read all the things he's open about feeling and doing would reach any other conclusion. 'Ed has weird sexual fantasies he wants to hide so he keeps putting them in his widely read books' is a pretty far-fetched hypothesis.
Since you can't prove that I've lied before, clearly you have no reason to believe that I'm lying.
When you slander someone, it certainly is on you to prove your slander -- or make it the least bit credible.
However, in the case of Mr. Greenwood, as he's the only one who knows for sure what his intentions and motives were when he wrote those books, all we have to go on is his statements. Someone can make all the claims they like about his motives and intentions, but unless they have access to mind-reading abilities, its pure and utter speculation. Ed's never given me any reason to doubt his sincerity or honesty, either directly or indirectly, so I'm willing to give him that benefit of the doubt.
Surely one could claim he could be lying about it... but given some of the things he's said in the few replies of his I've read from Candlekeep, I can't quite see him having a clear incentive to do so. Qui Bono and all that... it's not like he has some 'pure and pristine' reputation to maintain. Really, the only thing I can quite make out of this is that given the opportunity, those who condemn him as a 'perv' would do exactly what they accuse him of, and so just presume that he does as well.
Miryana however, those are reasons I can respect. I don't agree on a lot of your points, but at least they are solid reasons. But, as the saying goes, to each their own.
Wouldn't it be libel if its written? Thought slander was verbal... its a technicality that doesn't really matter though.
-Incorrect. Commenting on Ed Greenwood's writing Elminster as his alter-ego in relation to sightings of the Loch Ness Monster highlights and demonstrates how individuals can come to incorrect conclusions, and be fully convinced of their righteousness and certainty on the matter, even in light of evidence proving them incorrect.
There is absolutely no evidence showing me that I'm incorrect, and plenty of suggestive material in his books making the argument for me. If you're going to keep referring to Ed Greenwood's say-so as the cornerstone of your argument, you're clearly in the wrong. As you would say, "Incorrect." This isn't a conspiracy theory, Karsus- it's a common sense observation that Elminster is an alter ego put in a novel. There's absolutely no plot-driven or character-driven reason for Elminster to have bagged half the ladies in the setting. And yet, for some reason, he's done so. Why?
-Hardly. Ed Greenwood has said this isn't true. Again, he has no reason to lie- contrary to no matter how many times you claim it- and doesn't have the stigma of a liar attached to him. For anyone to consider what you are saying seriously, the burden of proof is on you to highlight the hows and whys as to why Ed Greenwood cannot be trusted. Until then, we have no reason to believe that Ed Greenwood arbitrarily lies to people when it suits him, relating to D&D.
Ed Greenwood saying it's not true does not an argument finish. Neither of us is under any burden of hard proof, either- it's enough for the purposes of this argument to fall back on common sense and occam's razor since we're not in court. He has great motive to lie in this instance. I'm sure WotC doesn't really fancy this big, sexually-liberated DMPC rolling around in flagship fiction. Probably why they're sweeping his funky bunch (Mystra, etc.) under the rug this edition.
But I sense we're making the same points over and over. It's just that your only point is, "Ed Greenwood said it's not true!" Which isn't really a point. It's a denial.
-You continue to claim that he has every reason to lie, and yet, it is still untrue. He has no reason to lie, concerning the topic. It's not as if Ed Greenwood, or his players, are shy, concerning sexuality, or other taboo topics. I've complained before, because some of the responses that he, and his "messengers" have posted are certainly not rated anything less than 'R'.
See above. He has reason to lie, if just to avoid looking lame and silly. You expect him to come out and say, "Yeah, I'm Elminster, and Elminster's ME!" I don't care how big a fan you are, you're going to turn that look you save for weird crazies on him if he says that. You're saying the same things over and over. Forcing me to reply the same way over and over and wasting both of our time.
-And, no, I don't ascribe to conspiracy theories with little-to-no evidence.
Ed Greenwood ain't on trial. I'm merely observing that it's pretty obvious that he's writing a wish-fulfillment avatar into his fiction, and that's terrible writing. I'll even make a concession and bring up the possibility that he's doing it subconciously. If so, he's got one big pent-up subconscious.
-Funny how it still applies.
See, I'm not getting how it applies at all. I guess you've just decided to fall back on sniping now.
-I never claimed to be a psychologist, or forensic investigator.
Then why your long, windy tangent on who I must be behind the curtain? I'm not on trial here either. Just a guy making an observation, which is pretty obviously true.
-It's not becoming of you.
Hey, man- if I was as humorless and doggedly literal as you, I would be going, "Beep boop boop deet deet!" Sorry for injecting some fun-time into this oh-so-serious discussion of ol' Greenwood's authoring skills.
-And, why is Elminster only his alter-ego? Why not Storm Silverhand? Or Elaith Craulnober? Or Khelben Arunson? Or Fzoul Chembryl? Or Narna? Or Vangerdhast? Or Azoun? Or Volo? Or Manshoon? Or Sememmon? Or Shandra? Or Alusair? Or Mirt? Or Tanalasta? Or, again, any other random and arbitrary NPC? They are as much extensions of his personality as Elminster.
Simple. Because that's HIS avatar in the Realms. He's not the genius loci. He made up all those other characters, put some characterization on 'em, but in the end, Elminster is his extension in the Realms. It's not a matter of why the others aren't- it's enough to say that this is just how it is. If Greenwood magically woke up in the Realms tomorrow, he wants to be in Elminster's body living Elminster's life and hanging out with all the friends and hot chicks that he's made up like Storm et al. See? Simple.
Theris and I have pointed out why he wouldn't
Theris and you pointed out why you think he wouldn't. Just stop pretending you presented an objectively irrefutable truth, is all I'm asking *shrug*
'Ed has weird sexual fantasies he wants to hide so he keeps putting them in his widely read books' is a pretty far-out guess.When you slander someone, it certainly is on you to prove your slander -- or make it the least bit credible.
An opinion is pretty hard to prove, because it's just that - an opinion. Someone who writes novels and has them published steps into the spotlight and has to live with people criticizing - however subjectively or unfairly - his work. The same goes for Michael Bay and his movies - I'm sure there are many, many people out there who love them to death. That won't stop me from saying that I think they're utter crap. It doesn't stop many critics from saying so - that's even their job. Do they have to ask Michael Bay if he intentionally tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator before they're allowed to state that they think he does? And even if they did, do you think he'd say yes? It would be embarrassing to admit that, and we know it would be, so we know that even if he denies that, he may do so intentionally in order to not lose face. Anyway, other critics disagree with this point of view - and they have a right to think Bay's movies are the finest to hit the silver screen since Citizen Kane. So if Friendlyfish has gotten the impression he talked about, he has the right to voice it, hasn't he?
For example, what pushes my buttons are people who claim that the Realms are unplayable. What pushes them even more are people who reply, "No, they're not, you don't know what you're talking about, so shut up." Obviously you can read a single Greenwood novel and get the impression that his protagonists are Mary Sues and Gary Stus, that there may be wish fulfillment going on, whatever. If you disagree, fine - just don't say it's rude to voice one's opinon just because you happen to disagree with it and like the author's work, and claim that because the author denied that said assumptions are true makes it so. It doesn't, at least not for someone who has read only one novel, for example. The funny thing is, I disagree with Friendlyfish - I just disagree with your way of "disproving" him even more.
There's a certain degree of believability and conceding the benefit of the doubt at play. Making the claim to be a German Prince is a little different, as I have a hard time swallowing that a German Prince would even bother with public message boards in the first place
Oh, you don't know Ernst-August, a particularly disgraceful noble who loves beating up reporters with an umbrella, getting drunk in public on a regular basis or urinating against the wall of the Turkish pavillon in front of photographers at the Expo 2000 :D
Someone can make all the claims they like about his motives and intentions, but unless they have access to mind-reading abilities, its pure and utter speculation.
Who says it isn't?
Ed's never given me any reason to doubt his sincerity or honesty, either directly or indirectly, so I'm willing to give him that benefit of the doubt.
And that's your right, as it is Friendlyfish's right not to.
Surely one could claim he could be lying about it... but given some of the things he's said in the few replies of his I've read from Candlekeep, I can't quite see him having a clear incentive to do so. Qui Bono and all that... it's not like he has some 'pure and pristine' reputation to maintain.
I agree. But does our opinion invalidate another's? And what's more: Is our opinion anything more than an educated guess? There's one thing I'm absolutely sure about: That you just never know. You can have a friend for thirty years and find out he's a child molester. You can have a spouse, have endless trust in him or her, and get betrayed in the worst possible manner. Some people don't even know themselves. I'd feel naive if I made up my mind about someone's character I don't even know in person. I don't believe the accusations myself, but I don't claim that my opinion is a fact because I can never rule out the possibility that I'm wrong.
DB
Then why your long, windy tangent on who I must be behind the curtain? I'm not on trial here either. Just a guy making an observation, which is pretty obviously true.
It's pretty obvious that your conclusion isn't necessarily true because there are people who disagree with you. It would be nice of LK & co. to stop saying that Ed denying your assumptions is proof. You're not any better, though. Naturally you're as convinced of your opinion's validity as LK is of his. But talking about opinions with no proof on either side and expressly stating "I'm right, you're wrong", thereby implying that the opponent must be somehow either gullible or slow on the uptake or whatever because it's just so obvious, is getting... I don't know... farcical?
See? Simple *shrug*
DB
There is absolutely no evidence showing me that I'm incorrect.
-DRAGON 359, Pg. 28: "No, Ed Greenwood is NOT Elminster. For many years...". Evidence showing you are incorrect.
If you're referring to Ed Greenwood's say-so as your evidence, you're clearly in the wrong. As you would say, "Incorrect." Therefore, your fallacious comparison holds no water.
-You can claim that it doesn't, but that doesn't actually make it so.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, Karsus- it's a common sense observation that Elminster is an alter ego put in a novel. There's absolutely no plot-driven or character-driven reason for Elminster to have bagged half the ladies in the setting.
-This is the classic example of a conspiracy theory: In light of evidence that clearly debunks the myth, those who ascribe to the theory believe in what they believe in, with little or no actual evidence to support their claims.
Ed Greenwood saying it's not true does not an argument finish.
-Yes it does. Ultimatley, we are talking about an individual's intentions, and only that individual can explain his/her intentions, which Ed Greenwood has already done, multiple times, using multiple mediums, when asked.
Neither of us is under any burden of hard proof, either- it's enough for the purposes of this argument to fall back on common sense and occam's razor since we're not in court.
-When making a potentially slanderous statement, the burden of proof is on the claimant, to prove that whoever it was made a slanderous statement. In claiming that Ed Greenwood was lying to us all when he (and others) said that he is not Elminster, the burden is on you to prove that he was lying. That you have, thus far, not provided any actual evidence to support your claim, and the downplaying of the need for actual evidence speaks volumes. Court is not the only place where one needs a modicum of evidence to support their position. That is how all of life works. I want to claim I worked for the CIA on my resume? My prospective employers are going to call up my former boss, and validate that claim. I want to claim that I am of Jewish ancestry, in order to get Israeli citizenship? Records will need to be produced to validate the claim that I am. I want to tell my friend that I captured all 151 Pokemon? He says, "Prove it!". I show him/her my game, to validate my claims.
He has great motive to lie in this instance. I'm sure WotC doesn't really fancy this big, sexually-liberated DMPC rolling around in flagship fiction.
-Again, he has no motive to lie. He is a fairly forthright person, with his answers at Candlekeep, and interviews that he does. He has no problem going into details that are considered taboo. Likewise, why would he have any problems stating the truth, if this is, in fact, the objective truth?
Probably why they're sweeping his funky bunch (Mystra, etc.) under the rug this edition.
-The WotC designers have stated numerous times why there will be a minimization of multiple characters, including the Chosen of Mystra. None of these statements cite anything having to do with this argument, and instead, is because of percieved mechanical problems, regarding the actual playing of D&D, and not the Forgotten Realms metaplot.
But I sense we're making the same points over and over. It's just that your only point is, "Ed Greenwood said it's not true!" Which isn't really a point. It's a denial.
-No, it's formulating a logical conclusion based on the facts availible.
See above. He has reason to lie. You're saying the same thing over and over. Forcing me to reply the same way over and over and wasting both of our time.
-See above. He has no reason to lie. You are saying the same thing over and over, still without any evidence to support it.
Ed Greenwood ain't on trial. I'm merely observing that it's pretty obvious that he's writing a wish-fulfillment avatar into his fiction, and that's terrible writing.
-A person need not be on trial to actually use and provide facts supporting his/her hypothesis. That's life.
See, I'm not getting how it applies at all. I guess you've just decided to fall back on sniping now.
-Your exact statement was: "You're making arbitrary judgement calls while ignoring all the evidence out there". Having already said that, on this particular issue, you are making an arbitrary judgement call, while ignoring the evidence out there. Ironic how that applies when it is an issue that you favor, but that it doesn't when it is an issue that you do not.
Then why your long, windy tangent on who I must be behind the curtain?
-You stated that nothing about your writing can give clues about the specific factors that were highlighted. This is incorrect, and I elaborated on why this is incorrect.
I'm not on trial here either. Just a guy making an observation, which is pretty obviously true.
-A person need not be on trial to actually use and provide facts supporting his/her hypothesis. That's life.
Hey, man- if I was as humorless as you, I would be going, "Beep boop boop deet deet!" Sorry for injecting some fun-time into this oh-so-serious discussion of ol' Greenwood's authoring skills.
-What was that about sniping?
Simple. Because that's HIS avatar in the Realms. He's not the genius loci. He made up all those other characters, put some characterization on 'em, but in the end, Elminster is his extension in the Realms.
-Why Elminster? Ed Greenwood is a librarian in real life. Why isn't he Lheao, the mild-mannered butler by day, secretly-conspiring, king by night, if he wants to project his seeming disatisfaction with being a relative nobody? Why not Larloch, arguably, the most powerful (semi)mortal entity on Faerûn, if he wants to play G-d? Why not Alusair, the free-loving, "I live by my own rules", princess of Cormyr, if he wants to project his seeming disatisfaction with having to live by the rules of others? Why not Shandril, the fallen Spellfire wielder, if he wants to project his seeming dissatisfaction with living a boring life in the middle of Nowhere, Canada? Why not Mirt the Moneylender, the rich rogue that he is, if he wants to project his seeming dissatisfaction with having to work hard, with multiple jobs, just to maintain living a decent life?
It's not a matter of why the others aren't- it's enough to say that this is just how it is. If Greenwood magically woke up in the Realms tomorrow, he wants to be in Elminster's body living Elminster's life and hanging out with all the friends and hot chicks that he's made up like Storm et al. See? Simple.
-Claiming that something "just is how it is" does not prove anything. Come on...Use some evidence to back up your claim.
-Of course, though, even though you have clearly stated how you feel and what you think, and since you don't have any real motive to lie about it, I shouldn't believe you. So you don't think that Elminster is an outlet for Ed Greenwood's persona. Ah, you sneaky, sneaky fellow...
It would be nice of LK & co. to stop saying that Ed denying your assumptions is proof.
-Again, why would that not be proof? We're talking about an individual's intentions, and only that individual can explain his/her intentions. He has already done so, multiple times, using multiple mediums, when asked. We have no reason he is arbitrarily lying. There is no factual evidence to disprove what he said. Thus, this is as close to the objective truth as there will ever be.
DB
I don't recall having presented my opinion as objective fact... simply stating that the most believable party was Mr Greenwood, as he presumably knows his own mind better than the rest of us. Friendly however, in most of those posts of his, does present his opinions as gospel truth, something that should be self-evident in an of itself, which obviously its not as we're having this discussion in the first place. Slight difference there... well, a big one actually. And therein lies my problem with this... the presentation of opinion as fact. Very little is going to get me going quite as fast as that one... beyond taking up the banner of the unrepentant heathen in religious discussions. ;)
Eds' writing is not for everyone. The best word I can use to describe it is erratic. I like just about everything he has written, including the non FR trilogy about a Sorceress, a warrior called an armagor, and a rogue, called a procurer in the books. Can't remember any of the titles right now, but I think they are called The Sundered Throne trilogy? His writing style is the same in those books where he is constantly changing scenes or locations seemingly on a whim. For some people this can be very jarring and disruptive to keeping the story line straight, so I can understand why many have a hard time reading his novels. I think it is from trying to create a sense of urgency and danger, or he just has serious ADD:P .
@ Stigger. Your bookshelf sounds like mine. From Chaucer and Shakespear to Robert Aspirin. I have a copy of Chaucer in the original Middle English. I have lately been reading John Ringo and Dave Weber. Ringos' "There Will be Dragons" series is pretty darn good, and Webers' "Oath of Swords" is a great read too. That series might be one that SmartPaladin would like since the main character becomes a Paladin to a god akin to Tyr. Also just picked up the latest in the Thomas Covenant series. Linden Avery meets Covenant alive in the Land. Just great stuff, personally. But Stephen R. Donaldson is not for everyone either, since the guy is a clinical psychologist, he can wax a little melancholic and self flagellant on his main characters.
@Friendlyfish. Why do you post here if you hate FR so much? Just stay away if you don't like it. Personally, you like stirring up trouble with your unsubstantiated opinion, and that points to a fairly large personality flaw. Prolly get points for that one. Just go away, please. I really get tired of reading your vitriol.
As for the age thing, I'll be 40 on October 1st. Been playing DnD since 1979 and picked up the Realms in 87, and since it was very close to my own world, I just stuck with it. The complaints I hear about FR are the main reason I enjoy them, and I usually find those complaints are due to a poor DM, poorly using NPC's and the like to strongarm the PC's.
I want to tell my friend that I captured all 151 Pokemon? He says, "Prove it!". I show him/her my game, to validate my claims.
I believe there are 486 now. :P :D You're falling behind.
Again, why would that not be proof?
Because people can lie? Someone saying something is proof that said something is true? Please!
We're talking about an individual's intentions, and only that individual can explain his/her intentions.
And as Stigger pointed out, Ed is the only one to really know for sure, the rest of us - which includes you - is just guessing, and until you find a way to read his mind, that isn't likely to change. Believe him if you like - just don't call it "proof".
He has already done so, multiple times, using multiple mediums, when asked.
And Rock Hudson has done so, too, by trying to appeal as "masculine" as possible in everything he did, intentionally making up girlfriends, playing the role of the womanizer when going out with buddies and so on, so that no one would find out that he was homosexual. Clearly he's debunked the myth that he was homosexual - he said he wasn't, and he had to know, right? That's proof right there.
We have no reason he is arbitrarily lying.
You don't. Please try to not think that your standards apply to everybody. Some people don't take everything at face value, regardless of how often it has been said. If I lie, it doesn't matter how often - it doesn't become a truth because I told a lie a hundred times. I'm not saying that Ed lied, I'm just saying that him saying anything is proof.
There is no factual evidence to disprove what he said. Thus, this is as close to the objective truth as there will ever be.
So I take it Rock Hudson turned homosexual when the world found out. Until then he was heterosexual because that's what he said he was - and that was as close to the objective truth as it could possibly get.
DB
There's absolutely no plot-driven or character-driven reason for Elminster to have bagged half the ladies in the setting. And yet, for some reason, he's done so.
He straightforwardly hasn't: we're talking maybe a half-dozen against literally thousands. This is verifiable from reading the books, which I know much better than you, just as several of your observations about Ed's behaviour are also verifiably wrong.
Neither of us is under any burden of hard proof, either- it's enough for the purposes of this argument to fall back on common sense and occam's razor since we're not in court.
'Innocent until proven guilty' is basic human courtesy, not just a legal nicety.
I'm sure WotC doesn't really fancy this big, sexually-liberated DMPC rolling around in flagship fiction.
Once more you're in topsy-turvy land. It was entirely TSR's doing to protagonize Elminster in the first place, and Wizards' to publish two more Elminster books over others Ed wanted to write, and market him as an 'iconic character'.
Sorry for injecting some fun-time into this oh-so-serious discussion of ol' Greenwood's authoring skills.
Gossiping about people's honesty and professional competence isn't a joke.
Just stop pretending you presented an objectively irrefutable truth, is all I'm asking *shrug*
Ed and I correspond; he's a borderline friend and I certainly know him, and what he's like, much better than the speculators here. I'm also going on many publicly and privately shared reports of him and his work by others who know him. This isn't a matter of two equally grounded opinions.
So if Friendlyfish has gotten the impression he talked about, he has the right to voice it, hasn't he?
Absolutely, but his projection of that impression into knowledge of Ed's character, against those who actually know him, is both rude and irrational. Just as he concludes from the fact that he doesn't like Ed's writing, other people don't buy his non-Realms books. I don't know any expert psychologists or literary critics who would jump to such firm conclusions from someone's writing.
The funny thing is, I disagree with Friendlyfish - I just disagree with your way of "disproving" him even more.
How would you do it?
Friendlyfish: Ed Greenwood writes Elminster as a wish-fulfillment avatar. No other explanation for his behavior in novels is possible, or even likely.
Karsus: But, but, but! Ed Greenwood said it WASN'T TRUE! Why would he lie about something that, were it true, makes him and his publishing company look bad, or at least immature?
I'll let the audience draw their own conclusions.
-DRAGON 359, Pg. 28: "No, Ed Greenwood is NOT Elminster. For many years...". Evidence showing you are incorrect.
You can't use this crap standard for your own "evidence" and simultaneously hold me to a higher one. That said, Greenwood saying it ain't so is not evidence. Is not evidence. Want me to say it again? Is not evidence.
-
-You can claim that it doesn't, but that doesn't actually make it so.
Ed Greenwood can claim that it ain't so, but that doesn't actually make it "ain't so." So I can claim that it is. Take the two standpoints: which of us has more motive to lie? More motive. And which of us has this weird character running around doing the things that only make sense when viewed through one lens? Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, Karsus.
-
-This is the classic example of a conspiracy theory: In light of evidence that clearly debunks the myth, those who ascribe to the theory believe in what they believe in, with little or no actual evidence to support their claims.
You haven't debunked anything. All you've done is quoted Ed Greenwood's denials. That's hardly debunking. You need to appeal to objective observation do that. You've failed to do that.
-
-Yes it does. Ultimatley, we are talking about an individual's intentions, and only that individual can explain his/her intentions, which Ed Greenwood has already done, multiple times, using multiple mediums, when asked.
This is silly. Of course he's denying things. What else could he do? That doesn't mean you can use denials as objective evidence to support your argument. His denial is as subjective and self-serving as they come! I'm the only one here offering a source of objective, verifiable evidence. All you have to do is open the books and make the observations vis a vis the behavior of Elminster in the context of the plot.
-
-When making a potentially slanderous statement, the burden of proof is on the claimant, to prove that whoever it was made a slanderous statement. In claiming that Ed Greenwood was lying to us all when he (and others) said that he is not Elminster, the burden is on you to prove that he was lying.
Fine. Let's do that.
-
That you have, thus far, not provided any actual evidence to support your claim, and the downplaying of the need for actual evidence speaks volumes. Court is not the only place where one needs a modicum of evidence to support their position. That is how all of life works. I want to claim I worked for the CIA on my resume? My prospective employers are going to call up my former boss, and validate that claim. I want to claim that I am of Jewish ancestry, in order to get Israeli citizenship? Records will need to be produced to validate the claim that I am. I want to tell my friend that I captured all 151 Pokemon? He says, "Prove it!". I show him/her my game, to validate my claims.
Okay. He's the evidence. Elminster is the king-daddy gandalf-clone of the Forgotten Realms. He ends up, as has been stated ad nauseam in this thread, having had past relations with or current relations with about half of the female dramatis personae. We can all read that in the books, so it's objective, it's right there for your reading 'pleasure'. Now. What, exactly, is the point of all this randiness? What plot- or character-driven purpose does it serve? None. Thus, what could this be? Oh yes, an alter ego. A wish-fulfilling character. Sorry, dude.
-
-Again, he has no motive to lie. He is a fairly forthright person, with his answers at Candlekeep, and interviews that he does. He has no problem going into details that are considered taboo. Likewise, why would he have any problems stating the truth, if this is, in fact, the objective truth?
He has a motive to lie. You sound like a broken record. If indeed he was writing an alter ego, he's got plenty of reasons to deny it. The first being it brings his credibility as a professional author into question. Writing yourself in as the pseudoprotagonist is not really done, and should it be done, brings ridicule (including from me,here!) Therefore, he retains his dignity by denying he did it. Hopefully, he's not doing it anymore, having been shown the error of his ways by this sort of argument down the years.
-
-The WotC designers have stated numerous times why there will be a minimization of multiple characters, including the Chosen of Mystra. None of these statements cite anything having to do with this argument, and instead, is because of percieved mechanical problems, regarding the actual playing of D&D, and not the Forgotten Realms metaplot.
So they say. It's for us to use objective evidence to determine the validity of those claims, or their likelihood. All other things aside, oficial lines from company mouthpieces are no objective evidence. They're by nature subjective.
-
-No, it's formulating a logical conclusion based on the facts availible.
Except that it's totally not. Once more: Greenwood's denials are not objective evidence. They're a subjective denial, they are what they are. You seem to treat any word from Ed Greenwood's mouth as the Word of God. If courts treated Ed like you do, he could kill ten thousand babies and walk free on the streets. All he'd have to say would be, "I didn't do it!"
-
-See above. He has no reason to lie. You are saying the same thing over and over, still without any evidence to support it.
I have two things: ONE. The actual evidence in the written books. Elminster's behavior, and so on. Let's enter that into evidence! TWO. The consequences, real, perceived, and sociological of being found out to be writing a DMPC/avatar into an actual published book.
-
-A person need not be on trial to actually use and provide facts supporting his/her hypothesis. That's life.
Ok. If that's how you want to play it, I'm doing better at it than you are. See above.
-
-Your exact statement was: "You're making arbitrary judgement calls while ignoring all the evidence out there". Having already said that, on this particular issue, you are making an arbitrary judgement call, while ignoring the evidence out there. Ironic how that applies when it is an issue that you favor, but that it doesn't when it is an issue that you do not.
Except I'm doing nothing of the sort. See above!
-
-You stated that nothing about your writing can give clues about the specific factors that were highlighted. This is incorrect, and I elaborated on why this is incorrect.
Ok, then feel free to profile me. Otherwise, this is extraneous to the discussion and you are railroading.
-
-A person need not be on trial to actually use and provide facts supporting his/her hypothesis. That's life.
I've addressed this same point not once, but like three times now. You write a lot of empty verbiage, but your real list of arguments is very short indeed.
-
-What was that about sniping?
You opened the door!
-
-Why Elminster? Ed Greenwood is a librarian in real life. Why isn't he Lheao, the mild-mannered butler by day, secretly-conspiring, king by night, if he wants to project his seeming disatisfaction with being a relative nobody? Why not Larloch, arguably, the most powerful (semi)mortal entity on Faerûn, if he wants to play G-d? Why not Alusair, the free-loving, "I live by my own rules", princess of Cormyr, if he wants to project his seeming disatisfaction with having to live by the rules of others? Why not Shandril, the fallen Spellfire wielder, if he wants to project his seeming dissatisfaction with living a boring life in the middle of Nowhere, Canada? Why not Mirt the Moneylender, the rich rogue that he is, if he wants to project his seeming dissatisfaction with having to work hard, with multiple jobs, just to maintain living a decent life?
Because he's Elminster. That's the heart of the argument. He's none of those others because they're not the ones that are the favored Chosen of the central deity, the main protagonist (needs like...maybe one person more powerful than him to keep it 'real', so Larloch), and the chief stud. Elminster is written in a way that lends credence to him being Greenwood's alter ego. None of the others are. It is what it is.
-
-Claiming that something "just is how it is" does not prove anything. Come on...Use some evidence to back up your claim.
You do the same! I've laid out my evidence. Where is yours? Besides an inadmissable denial? Oh yeah, it's not there!
Just some thoughts.
@Friendlyfish. Why do you post here if you hate FR so much? Just stay away if you don't like it. Personally, you like stirring up trouble with your unsubstantiated opinion, and that points to a fairly large personality flaw. Prolly get points for that one. Just go away, please. I really get tired of reading your vitriol.
I do not hate the FR. It's my gaming world medium of choice. I came here to talk about it. I'm making my positions known for discussion. It's simply that there are unpopular viewpoints in this community, sort of taboo, if you will; I hold with some of them, and I'm not cowed by backlash from this peanut gallery. Sorry, Corlain, I won't be leaving, and I bet you'll be reading more of my 'vitriol'.
Dexter, I don't recall having presented my opinion as objective fact...
Sorry if there was a mix-up. That was supposed to be directed at LK and Faraer.
simply stating that the most believable party was Mr Greenwood, as he presumably knows his own mind better than the rest of us.
I'm just trying to look at this halfway objectively (which no one of us can ever really achieve, I know). Yes, Friendlyfish makes absolute statements about the motives of an author, and these are automatically wrong simply by being absolute. LK, however, does so, too. As I said, people can believe whatever they want - if they just stopped claiming they have "proof". In German, an evidence is called "Beweis", and circumstantial evidence is called "Indizien". That the term evidence applies to both in English is a little deceptive, because an "Indiz" is not a "Beweis" if you take my meaning - and circumstantial evidence is all LK has. He just happens to call it evidence because he believes it. That doesn't make it true. If it did, we wouldn't need trials - the accused just states that he's innocent, and if he has a clean slate, he clearly is - because people can't lie if the judge can't think of a reason for them to lie.
the presentation of opinion as fact. Very little is going to get me going quite as fast as that one... beyond taking up the banner of the unrepentant heathen in religious discussions. ;)
That's exactly what vexes me, too. It would be easier for me if I didn't disagree with both positions, though ;)
DB
But I find Greenwood's characters abrasive. They pull me out of the story because I spend so much time figuratively rolling my eyes over speeches and reactions that just don't feel believable to me. It's like they have an alien mindset. Not of the "ooh, illithid, mysterious creepy aberration" kind, but in general they shrug off in such odd ways the experiences they go through.
Yes, exactly. These people do not, in fact, behave remotely like people. I tire of all the excuses, too. Prudish editors, editors who cut content, and so on? Sorry, but if that happens again and again and again, the problem's not the editors. It's the author. The fans should at least address this simple fact rather than stick their heads in the sand and regurgitate "ED IS GOD, ED IS GOOD, ED CAN DO NO WRONG, IT'S THE EVIL EDITORS" ad nauseum. Face it, kids, Ed isn't god's gift to literature. If you keep having to defend him with caricatures of evil editors, then chances are, his writing's not good enough to stand up on its own.
The rest: you've put very eloquently into words all the gripes I have with Ed's fiction. You're my new hero. Unfortunately, as usual, it'll be ignored or hand-waved away with the typical excuses. That or we'll be told that we just don't know Ed well enough or don't have access to top-secret campaign transcripts distributed only to an exclusive cabal of gamers and editors. Because god forbid readers judge fiction on the simple, straight forward basis: as it is written and printed, not based on reams of background material that are never published anywhere.
Yes, exactly. These people do not, in fact, behave remotely like people. I tire of all the excuses, too. Prudish editors, editors who cut content, and so on? Sorry, but if that happens again and again and again, the problem's not the editors. It's the author. The fans should at least address this simple fact rather than stick their heads in the sand and regurgitate "ED IS GOD, ED IS GOOD, ED CAN DO NO WRONG, IT'S THE EVIL EDITORS" ad nauseum. Face it, kids, Ed isn't god's gift to literature. If you keep having to defend him with caricatures of evil editors, then chances are, his writing's not good enough to stand up on its own.
But it's the Editors job to Edit. No Author can write a book with out having to rewrite it over and over because this doesn't work, or that doesn't work now that we've changed this. It's a big confusing mess. And ya know? Movie writers have to worry about the same thing. Editors are evil, but not nearly as evil as Dentists... Personally, I have never thought of Ed as "God", sure, he made the Realms. Which I am most thankful for, but if I was going to call a writer a God/Goddess, it'd be Elaine Cunningham, followed closely by David Eddings and Joel Rosenberg.
Sidenote: I wanna get a shirt that says "Elaine Cunningham can read my mind!" -Ed Greenwood. Yes, he really did say that about her. :P
FF: I need to get peoples attention so Ill make up crap to bait them! Someone please pay attention to me and my baseless accusations which Im entirely unable to back up with anything resembling evidence!
LK: Ill bite!
I think Friendlyfish's 'summarization' is enough for me to side with LK just on principle. Besides, after having read the whole arguement I would have said it more like:
FF: I need to get peoples attention so Ill make up crap to bait them! Someone please pay attention to me and my baseless accusations which Im entirely unable to back up with anything resembling evidence!
LK: Ill bite!
-Yeah, I was just kicking myself a few second ago after realizing that.
Ed and I correspond; he's a borderline friend and I certainly know him, and what he's like, much better than the speculators here. I'm also going on many publicly and privately shared reports of him and his work by others who know him. This isn't a matter of two equally grounded opinions: no one except uninformed online gossipers buys this canard.
So you're emotionally involved which explains your reaction. But as rude as you may find it because you know the author in question better than most, this happens all the time. Some just get bad press and very bad reviews. Christopher Paolini's Eragon was ripped apart by the critics, and don't think that they just criticized the books because of the below-average prose - they accused the young author of blatantly stealing from Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings, unimaginatively and clumsily putting pieces of them together and giving the story a fantasy coating. How many of them wrote that he has not a shred of imagination of his own, and that he was just an untalented kid who had the luck of being the child of publishers? Naturally his parents disagree - but them saying that their son would definitely have written a bestseller even if he had not been related to them isn't proof that he is as gifted as his books are successful. Anyway, would you expect them to say, "Yeah, as professionals we must admit that this is utter crap. But hey, we thought we'd give it a shot, and as you can see, a big marketing campaign works wonders, much better than word-of-mouth for a quality novel. That we gave him a good slot we wouldn't have given an unrelated author didn't hurt either." Of course they defend their child. What they really think of his books - they're the only ones who know that.
Absolutely, but his projection of that impression into knowledge of Ed's character, against those who actually know him, is both rude and irrational.
I doubt he knew that you're acquainted with Ed. (Not that it would have made a difference for him, I guess.) Still, you can't expect people to only make up their mind about a novel, a movie, a CD when they're personally acquainted with the artist and have researched his background and his body of work in such detail they could write a book about him. You read a book and form an opinion. You're free to change it, you're free to believe others who have a completely different opinion because they know the author / subject matter / whatever better, you're free to give the author the benefit of the doubt, you're free not to, you're free to think the fans are just a bunch of nerds who lap up anything their favorite author publishes. You're not free to state that your interpretation is the only valid one, and sadly, that's what Friendlyfish continues to do (which I find increasingly wearying, by the way). Still, if he made clear that this is only his opinion - if all his posts consisted of remarks like "Elminster is written in a way that lends credence to him being Greenwood's alter ego" which is about the only passage I could find that's worth quoting because the wording makes clear that it's his opinion, not the objective truth -, I'd find little fault with what he said, even though I disagree with it.
How would you do it?
Well, you can't. No one can. Tolkien said some insightful things about this: That the author can learn much about himself by reading his own books because he subconsciously injects parts of himself into his work, even if he tries not to; that the final judgement lies with the recipient, not with the author; and that the author is the last person on Earth who can objectively judge his book. So I believe there's no objectivity to be found here.
DB
I'm the only one here offering a source of objective, verifiable evidence.
Almost all your 'objective, verifiable evidence' is wrong.
Okay. He's the evidence. Elminster is the king-daddy gandalf-clone of the Forgotten Realms.
Just more assertions.
He ends up, as has been stated ad nauseam in this thread, having had past relations with or current relations with about half of the female dramatis personae.
Stated by you, and, yet again, straightforwardly not the case. Or do you want to claim numbers different from mine?
What, exactly, is the point of all this randiness? What plot- or character-driven purpose does it serve?
Once more, you've fallen for the same deception that Elminster runs in Faerûn to mislead his enemies. But if it wasn't largely an act, what character-driven purpose do you want, other than it being his character?
He's none of those others because they're not the ones that are the favored Chosen of the central deity,
Several other characters are. Others are his actual chosen protagonists, or actual gods or demigods, but no, it must be Elminster because you want it to be.
the main protagonist (needs like...maybe one person more powerful than him to keep it 'real', so Larloch),
Elminster is foremost a sage, an unreliable narrator, and was protagonized by TSR against Ed's wishes. Those are facts regardless of your ignoring them. And there are several characters more powerful, though this has nothing to do with his protagonization or purported 'avatar' status -- those things don't correlate at all in most fiction -- and is the way villains, not heroes, think in the Realms, a central part of Ed's ongoing discourse on power (including most of the Elminster books, not least the title and closing of The Temptation of Elminster).
and the chief stud.
The sources still say differently.
Does anyone who knows about the Realms dispute any of that?
FF: I need to get peoples attention so Ill make up crap to bait them!
That's the risk with these kind of threads. I'm posting because, though one hears these canards and slanders less often than when I started refuting them years ago, they still come up and it's worth pointing out how baseless they are.
But as rude as you may find it because you know the author in question better than most, this happens all the time.
Oh yeah, I don't think the ad hominem is any worse with Ed than others. It's still rude and still despicable.
Still, you can't expect people to only make up their mind about a novel, a movie, a CD when they're personally acquainted with the artist and have researched his background and his body of work in such detail they could write a book about him.
I never said anything like that. There are objectively valid and/or subjectively reasonable criticisms of Ed's writing in this thread that I read with interest and have no wish to argue -- among a lot of weird vitriol, of course (I still don't know why people read authors they don't like). Impugning a person is a wholly different matter.
I agree with all the rest of your post.
-Yeah, I was just kicking myself a few second ago after realizing that.
There you guys go again, retreating to the forum buddy system to lick your wounds, and slap each other on the back. I wasn't trolling at all. You can try to refute my points, or I'll just assume that you were soundly debated into a corner.
Almost all your 'objective, verifiable evidence' is wrong.
No, it's not. It's there in the books for anybody to read.
Stated by you, and, yet again, straightforwardly not the case. Or do you want to claim numbers different from mine?
Yeah. First, there are not 'thousands' of female characters in Ed's novels. There are a couple dozen at most. Of the ones that are there, he's more likely than not to have slept with them; er, Elminster is. Ha ha.
Once more, you've fallen for the same deception that Elminster runs in Faerûn to mislead his enemies.
Come on dude, do you really want to take this tone? You sound pretty corny here.
But if it wasn't largely an act, what character-driven purpose do you want, other than it being his character?
None. It shouldn't be there in the first place. My point is that it serves absolutely no purpose. Who would write that in there...unless he wants it to be him. It's a telltale sign. It's just...obvious. Like the color red, or the sky being up. It's stipulated.
Several other characters are. Others are his actual chosen protagonists, or actual gods or demigods, but no, it must be Elminster because you want it to be.Elminster is foremost a sage, an unreliable narrator, and was protagonized by TSR against Ed's wishes. Those are facts regardless of your ignoring them. And there are several characters more powerful, though this has nothing to do with his protagonization or purported 'avatar' status -- those things don't correlate at all in most fiction -- and is the way villains, not heroes, think in the Realms, a central part of Ed's ongoing discourse on power (including most of the Elminster books, not least the title and closing of The Temptation of Elminster). The sources still say differently.
Nobody else is the title marquee character of his book series. Nobody else is known to be the chief "liberated man" of the setting. I got nothing else to say. Your points are quibbles, and the characters you're intending to put forth aren't anywhere NEAR as developed as Elminster. You do the math. Which one is the author avatar?
Does anyone who knows about the Realms dispute any of that?That's the risk with these kind of threads. I'm posting because, though one hears these canards and slanders less often than when I started refuting them years ago, they still come up and it's worth pointing out how baseless they are.
Except that none of you can show, in any way, shape, or form, that the accusations are baseless. They are at least highly suggestive; suspicious, if you will. And the only thing you and others have to debunk these theories is the say-so of the author. Well, that doesn't really cut the argumentative mustard.
Yeah. First, there are not 'thousands' of female characters in Ed's novels. There are a couple dozen at most. Of the ones that are there, he's more likely than not to have slept with them; er, Elminster is. Ha ha.
You claimed 'half the ladies in the setting', of which thousands are named. In the novels Elminster plays a major role in, somewhere between 100 and 200.
Come on dude, do you really want to take this tone? You sound pretty corny here.
Corny or otherwise, you misinterpreted his randy-old-goat persona as his actual character, which is a really basic misunderstanding of the books.
My point is that it serves absolutely no purpose.
You've given no hint of how Elminster's (mistaken) lasciviousness is different in this regard than any other possibly glamorous trait of any character.
Nobody else is the title marquee character of his book series.
Against Ed's own wishes.
I got nothing else to say. Your points are quibbles, and the characters you're intending to put forth aren't anywhere NEAR as developed as Elminster.
In print, that is; against his own wishes.
You do the math. Which one is the author avatar?
None of them, of course. Come on, that's a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' presupposition. Is this a Mike Adamle thing?
Anyone else think those are quibbles?
I do not hate the FR. It's my gaming world medium of choice. I came here to talk about it. I'm making my positions known for discussion. It's simply that there are unpopular viewpoints in this community, sort of taboo, if you will; I hold with some of them, and I'm not cowed by backlash from this peanut gallery. Sorry, Corlain, I won't be leaving, and I bet you'll be reading more of my 'vitriol'.
For someone who says he likes FR, you sure don't have anything positive to say about it. And the "peanut gallery" has no problem with you until you come here with you negativity and attacks, it has nothing to do with unpopular views or taboo. We were having a discussion about why some may like or dislike Eds' writing style, and you came in with your unfounded projections about Ed.
But just like you, you claim to like and play in FR and we are supposed to believe you and give you that basic respect, but you can't give the same to Ed. He said Elminster is not his alter ego, in fact if I recall correctly, he said if he had to pick one NPC he identifies with the most it would be Volo. But since you know more and better you keep posting with you pomposity that you know what Ed thinks better than he does and wont give him the same benefit of the doubt we give you. Sounds more like you just want to stir up trouble.
No, it's not. It's there in the books for anybody to read. (...) Yeah. First, there are not 'thousands' of female characters in Ed's novels. There are a couple dozen at most. Of the ones that are there, he's more likely than not to have slept with them; er, Elminster is. Ha ha.
You know, at this point I'm really starting to wonder if you actually own the Elminster-related books or even if you've read them. Your tone and approach is highly suspect for classic trolling, so I'm calling you out:
If you have indeed read the books with these passages about Elminster that convincingly show his lecherousness such that it's "obvious" proof of your claim of EG's wish fulfillment, then state the exact names of the NPC females involved. Tell us their names, and point us to the books, by name.
Do that, and I will retract my claim that you are trolling. I won't mind being wrong if you can show proof of your claims.
None. It shouldn't be there in the first place. My point is that it serves absolutely no purpose. Who would write that in there...unless he wants it to be him. It's a telltale sign. It's just...obvious. Like the color red, or the sky being up. It's stipulated.
Specify the exact relationships in question. These "telltale signs" and "obvious" things should stand out, if they exist. Give us NPC names, and the names of the books they're in. Point out exactly where and why you think relationship "X" shouldn't be there, and/or why it is "obvious proof" of your claim. Otherwise, your claim is completely baseless trolling.
Except that none of you can show, in any way, shape, or form, that the accusations are baseless. They are at least highly suggestive; suspicious, if you will. And the only thing you and others have to debunk these theories is the say-so of the author. Well, that doesn't really cut the argumentative mustard.
By rules of logical argument, the burden of proof is on you, the claimant, not on the people who disagree with your claim. One cannot logically refute a completely subjective claim unless something concrete is offered as "proof". Say-so of the author is perfectly fine as a refutation of something that is subjective to begin with. So show us your proof. Until you do, your subjective claim can only be addressed as it is: a subjective belief based entirely on your personal feelings.
So far, the only evidence of wish-fulfillment that I've seen so far is your own wish that your personal belief about this is true.
That said, the idea that there is a Dark Side of the Force is a farce.
Ah, so you subscribe to the Potentium school of thought. Heretic! */end geek-out*
All I have to contribute to the current melee is "Who cares?" Really, I'm not being dismissive, I'm just saying that I really rather don't understand just what difference it makes whether Ed Greenwood is a dirty old man who is lying about Elminster being his dirty old man avatar. As I said before, I don't like his writing, but it really has nothing to do with his personal character. I just don't enjoy his style. Nothing I've ever read from or about him indicates he some lying monster. I mean, maybe he's just in denial or something, but I just don't see a reason to lie. Lots of authors who sell a lot more books than he does are known to be total bastards and it doesn't hurt their sales or critical reputation.
All characters have a little bit of their creator in them, but they're also their own sorta-entities. And so what if Elminster IS EG's wish fulfillment? That's one of the joys of writing: fulfilling your fantasies. If other people enjoy your fantasies, so much the better.
You know, at this point I'm really starting to wonder if you actually own the Elminster-related books or even if you've read them. Your tone and approach is highly suspect for classic trolling, so I'm calling you out:
If you have indeed read the books with these passages about Elminster that convincingly show his lecherousness such that it's "obvious" proof of your claim of EG's wish fulfillment, then state the exact names of the NPC females involved. Tell us their names, and point us to the books, by name.
Do that, and I will retract my claim that you are trolling. I won't mind being wrong if you can show proof of your claims.
No. I don't have time to indulge you for what's pretty much not really at issue. Go to the books yourself, open them, and find the characters yourself. They're right there. Nobody's hiding this stuff. It's been stipulated that at least Elminster (if not Ed in his grubby head, which is the real point at discussion) has gotten his groove on with many female characters in the novels. More females than is really necessary.
Besides, I've had it out with Karsus, not so much Faraer who doesn't argue that well, and I don't even know or care who you are, so I'm not going to get into it with you too.
I'm going to snip the rest since more articulate people have already tried and failed to make the rest of your (rather derivative by now) points stick.
No. I don't have time to indulge you for what's pretty much not really at issue. Go to the books yourself, open them, and find the characters yourself. They're right there. Nobody's hiding this stuff. It's been stipulated that at least Elminster (if not Ed in his grubby head, which is the real point at discussion) has gotten his groove on with many female characters in the novels. More females than is really necessary.
Besides, I've had it out with Karsus, not so much Faraer who doesn't argue that well, and I don't even know or care who you are, so I'm not going to get into it with you too.
I'm going to snip the rest since more articulate people have already tried and failed to make the rest of your (rather derivative by now) points stick.
As I suspected, nothing more than trolling.
Maybe you'd be more credible if you actually got out the books, and cited specific examples of when he goes all studly on us... maybe a comparison of the number of females in the books versus those he actually beds. That might start providing concrete evidence for your case and give some validity to your points... just a friendly suggestion.
Admittedly, this was not directed at me, partly out of boredom and partly because if I'm right the answer to this is faintly amusing, I'm going to provide a partial list here of who El is explicitly treated as sleeping with that I can remember off hand and the books with the reference. Any additions are welcome, I'd like to see this list completed. I am not currently all that concerned about detail, if I don't remember a name, I reserve the right to provide a vague description and move on. I can fill in detail some other day. I don't consider this actually useful to either side since novels are at best glimpses of part of El's life not all.
unnamed prostitute(s) in Making of a Mage, the scene is never written but there is a reference to past experiences with them after he's turned into a woman basically as "the experience would be a little different now."
Myrjala/Mystra several books for Mystra, the Myrjala avatar is specific to Making of a Mage, can't think of an extra name from Making of a Mage but I wouldn't be surprised to see 1-2 line references to past partners and/or a small orgy at the end which before I start a riot was almost completely glossed over to the point of I may be misinterpreting the line.
An elven sorceress attempted to use sex as a weapon in Cormanthyr, treachery and mindblasting interrupted the situation. El also had a half-elf love interest in that book but we don't actually see any love scenes or any time where one may have occurred in the book do to the watchful eye of a rather vicious elven mage. I don't think anything else in the book is immediately relevant to your request.
Temptation of Elminster, included a scene with Mystra and also Immeira of Buckralam's Starn. Excessive amounts of his time was spent either roaming or working under Dasumia/Mystra. A lover under Dasumia (or at least who he thought Dasumia to be) would not necessarily have been sane so he may have completely avoided the concept. He did not sleep with Dasumia/Mystra till after Mystra quit play-acting as a servant of Bane to my knowledge.
Elminster's Daughter, he slept with no-one on scene. There is of course the past reference to Narnra's mother some 2 decades or so earlier, the mother of the queen (don't remember how to spell her name) of Cormyr and the mother of a high ranking war wizard whose name I forget and am too lazy to look up. He also states that neither he nor Narna's mother were monogamous. Both had other lovers at the time.
EDIT: Laspeera and Filfaeril have been described by Ed as descendents but not daughters of El.
Spellfire and sequels, only named character that I'm certain has sex with is the Simbul. He shares a camp with Storm in one of the three books but no sex is involved. Doubt there's actually an explicit reference to another partner in present tense for him but I haven't read the books cover to cover in quite some time.
I do not remember the Shadows of the Avatar trilogy or Elminster in Hellwell enough to comment off hand but I'm not betting on many.
I'm probably missing a few people if someone wants to fill in blanks.
EDIT ADD-ON: I believe though I can't think of a direct reference that El and the Shadowsil were at some point lovers and it wouldn't surprise me if he's slept with the Srinshee. In neither case can I think of a direct reference off hand.
Sahaeral: historic reference Shadows of Doom
unnamed lover referenced in Cloak of Shadows
possible reference in Volo's guide to the North.
No. I don't have time to indulge you for what's pretty much not really at issue. Go to the books yourself, open them, and find the characters yourself. They're right there. Nobody's hiding this stuff. It's been stipulated that at least Elminster (if not Ed in his grubby head, which is the real point at discussion) has gotten his groove on with many female characters in the novels. More females than is really necessary.
Besides, I've had it out with Karsus, not so much Faraer who doesn't argue that well, and I don't even know or care who you are, so I'm not going to get into it with you too.
I'm going to snip the rest since more articulate people have already tried and failed to make the rest of your (rather derivative by now) points stick.
How many females are really necessary? What the blazes does that mean? The fellow has been alive nigh on 1000 years... of course he's filled a few beds. Were I unfortunate enough to find myself alive that long, I'd hope I'd fill twice as many as the Masked One mentioned (Thanks for that, by the way)... at least. There's a very simple undercurrent that I've always attributed to that bit really, and that's the fact that Elminster still has human urges, and doesn't fear intimacy with others. Not many mages can say that after a century as far as has been demonstrated, and yet this one who is older than most can still find time to achieve intimate relations with others without having slipped into a mire of paranoia and protection. And yet you seem to wish to discard that obvious character trait and reduce it to the lowest common denominator, ignoring the implication in favor of denunciation of it as perversity... doesn't say much for the way you look at things really fishy.
How many females are really necessary? What the blazes does that mean? The fellow has been alive nigh on 1000 years... of course he's filled a few beds. Were I unfortunate enough to find myself alive that long, I'd hope I'd fill twice as many as the Masked One mentioned (Thanks for that, by the way)... at least. There's a very simple undercurrent that I've always attributed to that bit really, and that's the fact that Elminster still has human urges, and doesn't fear intimacy with others. Not many mages can say that after a century as far as has been demonstrated, and yet this one who is older than most can still find time to achieve intimate relations with others without having slipped into a mire of paranoia and protection. And yet you seem to wish to discard that obvious character trait and reduce it to the lowest common denominator, ignoring the implication in favor of denunciation of it as perversity... doesn't say much for the way you look at things really fishy.
I just want to get Eilminster and Belgarath into the same Tavern and watch them Wench. That should be fun.
I'll just assume that you were soundly debated into a corner.
I think I just threw up in my mouth.
Come on dude
Convincing.
No. I don't have time to indulge you for what's pretty much not really at issue. Go to the books yourself, open them, and find the characters yourself. They're right there. Nobody's hiding this stuff. It's been stipulated that at least Elminster (if not Ed in his grubby head, which is the real point at discussion) has gotten his groove on with many female characters in the novels. More females than is really necessary.
Ah, time. How long is this thread? How many replies? Seems like a check of the books just might be quicker. Just a hypothesis, sorry.
I know that not everyone likes Ed Greenwood's writing. I do, but there's not any need for me to condemn Dexter, Friendlyfish, MarkusTay, or anyone else who doesn't. Of course, to then conclude that nobody does, and that WotC and other publishers are just putting out books to be nice to the guy, taking financial losses in the process, seems like a stretch. Some people do enjoy them, some people like onions, some people like Swiss cheese...what's the problem?
My main problem, though, is that personal attacks on an author are, IMO, unwarranted, and I do condemn that.
And "evidence" such as this:
So I take it Rock Hudson turned homosexual when the world found out. Until then he was heterosexual because that's what he said he was - and that was as close to the objective truth as it could possibly get.
(attributed to LK, as though he said it in support of his arguments)
and:
Okay, Karsus, we can keep going if you want. Let me summarize this exchange for those who are too bored to tears to read it:
Friendlyfish: Ed Greenwood writes Elminster as a wish-fulfillment avatar. No other explanation for his behavior in novels is possible, or even likely.
Karsus: But, but, but! Ed Greenwood said it WASN'T TRUE! Why would he lie about something that, were it true, makes him and his publishing company look bad, or at least immature?
I'll let the audience draw their own conclusions.
are classic examples of strawmen. Not having any way to refute a person's actual statements, we make some up to discredit the person who, you know, had nothing to do with our newly invented ones.
Also,
if you will
to me, is another way of saying "if you're buying any of this, I'll keep shoveling.";)
Of course, I agree with Therise and the MaskedOne, and now, like LK, have bitten the troll
.Of course, I agree with Therise and the MaskedOne, and now, like LK, have bitten the troll
Hmm, I didn't actually pick a side on the most recent portion of the debate. I was just presenting data. Debating the mindset of a fiction writer is typically not worth the effort. I don't think Friendlyfish can meet any objective burden of proof and I don't think those opposing him are capable of proving a negative in this instance. Personally, I think if Greenwood were that into playing out sexual fantasies in print then he would be writing for someone else and his work would more closely resemble Laurell K Hamilton or a variety of less tame authors rather than the relatively mild stuff that some people seems to enjoy treating as if it were an NC-17 film but I can no more meet a burden of proof here than anyone else.
It's funny, though. Now that I sit down and actually think about it, the number of on-stage or even strongly implied beddings are much smaller than what I thought. Of course, he does make mention of people he has "loved" who are long gone in the occasional depressed/nostalgic scene (there are a couple in Shadows of the Avatar), but much of it seems to be spread out.
Of course, he doesn't have any problem with looking, or acting the part of a randy goat, as evidenced in Eye of the Dragon (what was that, Realms of Magic?).
There you guys go again, retreating to the forum buddy system to lick your wounds, and slap each other on the back. I wasn't trolling at all. You can try to refute my points, or I'll just assume that you were soundly debated into a corner.
-Until you can come up with a shred of evidence to support and validate your claims- and uttering "It is, because I said so!" doesn't qualify as evidence, no matter how many times it is done- your arguments have no legs to stand on.
Elminster's Daughter, he slept with no-one on scene. There is of course the past reference to Narnra's mother some 2 decades or so earlier, the mother of the queen (don't remember how to spell her name) of Cormyr and the mother of a high ranking war wizard whose name I forget and am too lazy to look up. He also states that neither he nor Narna's mother were monogamous. Both had other lovers at the time.
-I don't believe that he has ever slept with the Queen of Cormyr, per se. At the end of the book, however, it is mentioned that she is distantly related to Narna, which makes me believe that she is related to Elminster a few generations removed, which could involve a lot of perspective people, and not just the Queen of Cormyr.
Of course, I agree with Therise and the MaskedOne, and now, like LK, have bitten the troll
-I seem to do that all the time. LLKN, Xun, Francius, EB...The list goes on...
And "evidence" such as this:So I take it Rock Hudson turned homosexual when the world found out. Until then he was heterosexual because that's what he said he was - and that was as close to the objective truth as it could possibly get.
(attributed to LK, as though he said it in support of his arguments)
Well, he did, regarding Ed Greenwood. I just took his argument and inserted another name to demonstrate why "he said it, so it must be true" might be wrong. Half of the above quote was worded by LK, by the way *shrug*
DB
Dexter, I just don't know how to respond to that. Changing out half the words from what somebody said doesn't really make the case that the person actually said what you said he did. And it's at best an apples-and-oranges comparison. If we're just going to say anything in order to be "right," just say so and I will bow out.
DB
Though as to the 'rating' of Ed's writing, I'm not sure I'd give it anything worse than PG-13. Seems incredibly tame in most respects to me...
Though in all fairness to Dexter, I thought those sentences made his point rather well... not like he was claiming that LK said this, simply that it would be like saying whatever... perfectly clear to me as an illustration of an example.
Stigger: I'll recheck the text when I get home but I expect to be keeping that part of the list. I may add "tentative" as a descriptor but unless my memory is way off, I'll probably leave it.
I rate Ed's work as pg-13 to profoundly mild R normally which is part of why I find the the outcry on sex in his work faintly amusing and normally blown out of proportion. I've read far less tame authors.
Thinblade: Thanks for reminding me of Sahaeral and you've hit on the reason I started that list. Stigger and Faraer's requests for examples got me thinking and I'm not remembering a lot of directly named lovers.
Though no one specifically is named, there was an interesting mention of him in Volo's Guide to the North in the Moonstone Mask entry for Neverwinter that implied something... interesting... occuring at some point.
Meaning, dignity and humour in the Realms are pooled, humanist, uncruel and unsolemn, not hoarded by a few favoured characters.
Well said! That's something to remember.
AND! You have not shown my statements are wrong besides quoting Ed Greenwood saying, "It's not true!" Since neither of us is exactly meeting a burden of proof, let's fall on Occam's Razor. Elminster bones everything, for no apparent reason. That smacks of avatar-writing. Ed Greenwood says, "But it's not true!" The most simple explanation is that Ed Greenwood is covering his bum.
Sounds to me like you misunderstand Occam's Razor.
Does it diminish his work?
Did you justify Greenwood's portrayal of Elminster as being somehow "objective" and thus worthwhile, and would admitting that it is wish fulfillment make it trash in your eyes, and thus diminish you for reading it?
Well said! That's something to remember.
It means that singling out Elminster as people who don't like the character do is so far off the mark as to be antithetical to the ethos of the Realms. Thus Ed's use of his fatuously supposed 'favourite character' as, respectively, a supporting role and and practically a framing device in the last two Elminster books in his contract.
I reread the section... still fairly ambiguous to me. Tenative seems a good way of putting it.
Though no one specifically is named, there was an interesting mention of him in Volo's Guide to the North in the Moonstone Mask entry for Neverwinter that implied something... interesting... occuring at some point.
Okay, I'm gonna requote this so the text I'm using is on hand.
Elminster's Daughter[/i], hardcover, pg 373"]..."Elminster of Shadowdale" Narnra explained "who turned out to be my father."
"Elminster?" Myrmeen asked. "Your father?"
"Yes. Wherefore I happen," Narnra added," to be one of the two or maybe three women in all Waterdeep who aren't breathtakingly beautiful."
Narnra nodded, drew in a deep breath and turned to Caladnei. "So now that you know all about me, will you still have me in your service? Or slay me?"
"Of course I'll still have you," Caladnei responded warmly and turned her head to look at the Lady Laspeer. "As for why, you're the best one to make answer, Speera."
Laspeera nodded. "Narnra," she said gently, "I, too, am a daughter of Elminster. Welcome, sister. Truly, I am .... and there are a lot of us."
"Myself, for instance," Queem Filfaeril said calmly, causing Cormyrean jaws to drop all over the room. "Though neither of us knew it for some years."
"Gods," Myrmeen said, turning to gaze at the bearded man by the cradle. "You have been busy, haven't you?"
Okay, we know Narnra is speaking literally. Speera and Caladnei should know, I guess they could respond to a literal claim with a metaphorical one but why would they if they know Narnra is being literal? That and it makes the second half of Filfaeril's statement less appropriate.
Insert anyone you like. Let's rephrase it: I have no history of having been proven time and again to be a liar around here, so I have no such stigma. You know I'm from Germany. Now I claim that I'm Prince Ernst-August of Hannover. Since you can't prove that I've lied before, clearly you have no reason to believe that I'm lying. Therefore I must be Prince Ernst-August of Hannover, and merely insinuating that I'm not would be rude, right? Now you could reply, "Well, I don't believe anything an anonymous poster on the message boards says, so you do have this stigma, too", but the bottomline is that you make exceptions to your rule, and you're willing to make no such exception for Ed. Anyway, you know what I was trying to say.
Saying, "My character is not intended to be a wish-fulfillment version of myself" is much, much more believable than saying "I am a prince of Hannover."
So if Friendlyfish has gotten the impression he talked about, he has the right to voice it, hasn't he?
Yeah, but I think if one accuses someone of being a liar, they should be able to prove it. Especially on forums that are supposed to be civil.
For now, this argument needs to stop, or the thread may need to be closed.
WizO_Unicorn
I can't say I was really convinced that Queen Filfaeril or Laspeera were actually his blood relation daughters... seemed more like an informal 'club' than a blood tie... though that comment about Mystra at the end of Elminster's Daughter did point towards it. Ah well, doesn't really matter.
According to Ed, Filfaeril and Laspeera are in fact descendents of Elminster, although not directly his daughters.
Again Ed could probably care what anyone says about him and El being linked.
It is all just a silly game anyway. ;)
According to Ed, Filfaeril and Laspeera are in fact descendents of Elminster, although not directly his daughters.
This is what I get for avoiding Candlekeep except when absolutely necessary.
Thanks for the info. I'll modify that listing.
This is what I get for avoiding Candlekeep except when absolutely necessary.
Thanks for the info. I'll modify that listing.
You're welcome.
- the aforementioned creepy, creepy Mirt/Asper relationship. Now I'm fine with problematic couples. GRRM has honest-to-goodness incest and molestation of young girls, for god's sake, but the difference (apart from him being a much better writer than Ed)? Jaime and Cersei aren't held up as a model of true love and Daenerys' brother molesting her isn't shown as a gesture of affection--it's all around unhealthy. Mirt and Asper, on the other hand, are portrayed as some kind of paragon of free love to be lauded by all. For obvious reasons, this comes across as perfectly repulsive. Is the Realms a place where it's okay for old men to raise little orphans to be their "lady love"? You can argue until you're blue in the face that Asper "chose" Mirt as "the best of all men" in Waterdeep. But however you look at it, there're latent authority and parental issues.
- the repeated, repeated, repeated defenses of "BUT THE EVIL/PRUDISH EDITORS DID IT" that have come up not in this thread, but several times elsewhere. As far as I have seen, no fans of other FR novelists try to excuse the quality of their writing or defend it with "BUT THE EVIL/PRUDISH EDITORS DID IT." Moreover, Ed must've had how many editors go through his work? What are the chances that every single one can be blamed for any and all faults in his writing? (Horribly disjointed plots, moronic villains--no, I don't care how smart his villains are in his private campaigns; please stick to the point and address his fiction as published and don't try to fudge the issue by referring to whatever private correspondences you may have had--and all the rest, including bad prose. Please challenge me on this, because thanks to the handy aid of Amazon search inside, I'm ready to quote passages/bits of dialogue I think are crimes against literature or--as Miryana said--"on the 13-year-old LOTR movie fan on FanFiction.net level.")
- his male magic-users are fine with looking aged and less than physically attractive; why then are the Seven Sisters consistently in top shape, magical shampoo-ad shiny hair, voluptuous curves and all? Hell, so are many of his female characters period (Myrmeen Lhal and all the rest). Double standards, can we spell it?
You'll have to excuse me if I don't take people seriously who answer with any of the following:
a) evil editors!!!
b) WotC/TSR made him do it GLUAGSSBSRUS!! (If that's the case, we'd all be excusing Richard Baker et al for 4e, aren't we? Because it's not the author/designer, oh no. It's the evil corporation stifling their precious artistic vision. Always.)
c) but in his private campaigns--!
d) but he says here in his Candlekeep answers!1!! (Hint: I don't read those. They aren't in print, you see, and chances are people who want to stab out their eyes at the prospect of stomaching Ed's fiction won't follow them religiously.)
e) it is ambitious, you just can't understand it!1!1!
f) YOU PURITAN/CHRISTIAN PRUDE ADJKS#$@#!1!!!
Who knows? Because male readers don't like reading stories about women with bellies? Maybe you are on to something. I am just not sure what...
The answer to the problem with the villians is, indeed, the editors made him do it. Or rather, to be more specific, TSR had for years an extremely restrictive Code of Conduct. Hard to blame them, really, considering how they were getting attacked as converting kids to Satanism (something that has thankfully disappeared in the intervening years).
Anyway, TSR's CoC was iron clad, and regulated what could appear in the novels and gaming products. Things that got chopped: gays (Lhaeo's the only reference), lesbians (Yanseldara and Vaerana were broadly hinted, but still haven't been openly revealed), violence of various kinds (****, for instance), polyamory (loving couples of more than two people), and how villians acted. Specifically, it was written into the CoC that evil could not triumph. Period. Not even on an intermediate stage, for the heroes to beat back at the last minute. This is what led to the worst of the "Keystone Kops" antics of the Zhentarim. They were different in the home campaign, actually scary people, but TSR wouldn't let that kind of villian show up in print.
Regarding the Seven Sisters' appearances, Ed's said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Many of the sisters, Alustriel and Storm particularly, greatly enjoy sex, and have chosen to take forms that facilitate that." Each of the Chosen appears as she wishes, to serve the ends they are currently working towards, or to set those around them at ease.
And let's face it: most guys just don't care as much about their appearance as most women do. Considering the billion-dollar cosmetics industry, and its surgical subset, is it that surprising that powerful, proud (usually), vain (often) female mages would choose to maintain their looks?
You've got me on the Mirt/Asper one, though. I buy it as a love story, but I won't deny it's weird.
- his male magic-users are fine with looking aged and less than physically attractive; why then are the Seven Sisters consistently in top shape, magical shampoo-ad shiny hair, voluptuous curves and all? Hell, so are many of his female characters period (Myrmeen Lhal and all the rest). Double standards, can we spell it?
-Szass Tam and Sememmon are both know for being fond of using illusions and other sorts of magic to conceal and change their looks. Mirt, if I recall, has a massive stash of Potions of Longetivity that he uses to keep "in form", which would entail, asides for prolonging his life, that he also wants to keep an air of..."decency" around him, in terms of how he looks. Ah...Let's see...I remember a warlock-type spellcaster using magic to disguise his horrible visage in The Black Bouquet. Of course, there was the extremely vain Adon, before he left the service of Sune. That would also extend to include any random and unnamed male NPCs who worshipped Sune, as well.
d) but he says here in his Candlekeep answers!1!! (Hint: I don't read those. They aren't in print, you see, and chances are people who want to stab out their eyes at the prospect of stomaching Ed's fiction won't follow them religiously.)
-The things that he responds to- so long as they don't contradict information in other novels/sourcebooks/adventures- at Candlekeep, and in other places, and mediums are 100% cannonical. That said, all of his replies can be found compiled at the aforementioned Candlekeep website.
Yeah, it's a weird relationship, in our world and (perhaps not to the same extent) in the Realms. They happen. You, however, made up the ideas that Mirt raised her for that purpose and that they're held as paragons, and singled out a unique case as if it was a tendency.
It's not disputed that the plot, style, dialogue and other elements of Ed's books have often been directed and changed by desk editors and copy-editors in known, specific, sometimes harmful ways. Compare the original Spellfire edit, missing important scenes, with the revised version's brutally dulled-down prose. Yes, occasionally posters pass on to editors things that are more Ed's doing or responsibility, though you're massively exaggerating. What about it?
Quite likely double standards to an extent.
As to the rest of your list, obviously neither Ed or Rich is responsible for or can be characterized by decisions they didn't make. Your c and d are too vague and seemingly unconnected with Ed's fiction specifically to comment on. Some of Ed's work is ambitious and sometimes people don't get it. Some people who fixate and go on about sexual elements of much larger tapestries obviously are prudes, and something funny's going on with the rest of them.
Anyway, your mocking caricature, conflation of reasonable points with nonsense, and pre hoc dismissals are just insulting rhetoric that doesn't belong on boards intended for discussion.
I get that you don't like and aren't in tune with Ed's writing, but not what you're so bothered about.
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3684&whichpage=8
Warning: It's at the very end of a LONG (and I mean four full posts long) discussion of the War Wizards on 1/24/05. For your convienance, I've quoted the relevant portion below:
Saith Ed: "The "Keystone Kops" nature of the early published Zhentarim was due to the TSR Code of Ethics, which was being VERY strictly applied to the Realms because Dragonlance (what with Raistlin and Takhisis and Kitiara and the draconians) was seen by some in the company as having 'broken' the Code and gotten far too 'evil-is-successful-and-attractive' - - and "We're NOT going to let that happen in the Realms!""
As to Mirt and Asper, I've mentioned previously that it is a creepy relationship, but it has plenty of precedent in history... a (long dead) US President did something quite similar with the daughter of one of his friends actually, although that was with premeditation, which doesn't seem to be the case with Mirt, so not nearly as creepy as reality can often be.
I have to admit, I would like WotC to release novels by new, talented authors. Paul S. Kemp for example. I also like the way Mark Shestedt (correct me on spelling) writes. Steven Schend is quite good too. Richard Lee Byers belongs to the club as well. I haven't read anything by Richard Baker, but I have heard quite good opinions about him, so I will give a try and buy 'Swordmage' (although he is a major game designer).
The answer to the problem with the villians is, indeed, the editors made him do it. Or rather, to be more specific, TSR had for years an extremely restrictive Code of Conduct. Hard to blame them, really, considering how they were getting attacked as converting kids to Satanism (something that has thankfully disappeared in the intervening years).
So why are his villains still stupid post-TSR era? Does writing morons become a habit?
Regarding the Seven Sisters' appearances, Ed's said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Many of the sisters, Alustriel and Storm particularly, greatly enjoy sex, and have chosen to take forms that facilitate that." Each of the Chosen appears as she wishes, to serve the ends they are currently working towards, or to set those around them at ease.
Wow, that's incredibly reaching. So his male characters don't enjoy sex and thus choose to appear as wrinkled old men, ala Elminster? Oh wait, Elminster has sex regularly. Try again.
And let's face it: most guys just don't care as much about their appearance as most women do. Considering the billion-dollar cosmetics industry, and its surgical subset, is it that surprising that powerful, proud (usually), vain (often) female mages would choose to maintain their looks?
Except Ed keeps insisting that the Realms is different from our world and it's a place of sexual liberation and gender equality and blah. So this is pretty weak.
-Szass Tam and Sememmon are both know for being fond of using illusions and other sorts of magic to conceal and change their looks. Mirt, if I recall, has a massive stash of Potions of Longetivity that he uses to keep "in form", which would entail, asides for prolonging his life, that he also wants to keep an air of..."decency" around him, in terms of how he looks.
Except he still looks aged, fat, and not particularly attractive. Try again. Even Faraer, staunch defender of all things Ed that he is, admits that there's a double standard.
It's not disputed that the plot, style, dialogue and other elements of Ed's books have often been directed and changed by desk editors and copy-editors in known, specific, sometimes harmful ways. Compare the original Spellfire edit, missing important scenes, with the revised version's brutally dulled-down prose. Yes, occasionally posters pass on to editors things that are more Ed's doing or responsibility, though you're massively exaggerating. What about it?
Because it's silly to blame editors all the time? I'm hardly exaggerating when it comes to Ed's fans' responses to that sort of thing--some of them have this visceral, instinctive urge to bat aside any and all criticism of Ed's writing as invalid. Oh, and do editors single out Ed or something? I don't see other FR authors crying about editors apart from maybe a passing comment or two.
Some of Ed's work is ambitious and sometimes people don't get it. Some people who fixate and go on about sexual elements of much larger tapestries obviously are prudes, and something funny's going on with the rest of them.... I get that you don't like and aren't in tune with Ed's writing, but not what you're so bothered about.
Ed's critics either "don't get it", are prudes, or aren't "in tune" with his writing (whatever the hell that means). I see. God forbid they find the prose genuinely appalling, the characters little more than flimsy caricatures, and the plots nonsensical. Why, exactly, are you surprised that I listed out all those flailing responses with a dismissive tone?
I too wonder about these editors after reading several of his novels.
Love his ideas though. :D
According to Ed, Filfaeril and Laspeera are in fact descendents of Elminster, although not directly his daughters.
Aye. Filfaeril and Laspeera aren't literally daughters of Elminster. Narnra is a “direct” daughter of Elminster; Laspeera and Filfaeril were bending the truth a little to make her feel better when they spoke thus: they’re among Elminster’s many grand and great-grand, and great-great-grand (and so on) -children.
Except he still looks aged, fat, and not particularly attractive. Try again.
-And, the four other specific NPCs who don't fit this mold, and the other countless NPCs that exist, when extrapolating, based on the behavior of one of the aforementioned NPCs? Funny, how you say nothing on those.
1. "You don't have any evidence to suggest your argument is valid."
-My response to this is that I have circumstantial evidence and motive, which is greater than the complete lack of evidence of everybody else. Elminster has -verifiably by Old Sage's posts- quite a few sexual contacts with many dramatis personae in the realms, which, if not actively played out in bedroom scenes in the novels, are alluded to, sometimes constantly.
There's no point to this sexual documentation, none whatsoever, in any reasonable context of plot or character development. So exactly why is this sexuality highlighted? Here's where I offer motive. Wish fulfillment is the most simplest explanation for the matter. Thus, I invoke Occam's razor to explain the presence of "Elminster's bed post notches".
No, I admit I do not have hard proof, no transcripts where Ed Greenwood admits to avatar-writing. This is because of his motive to obfuscate the issue. I think coming up with such evidence is, in fact, impossible. Therefore, to effectively debate the subject, we have to use the only evidence possible- the presence of sketchy conquest-listing in the novels, and Occam's razor. The opposition cites Ed's majestic character and public denial as evidence sufficient to debunk my claims. First, Character testimonials are not evidence. I will address the public denial next.
2. "Ed Greenwood has said what you say is not true, also he has no reason to lie, and this suffices as positive evidence to refute anything you're saying."
-My response to this is that he does have reason to gloss over the issue. Moreover, a denial by the accused party hardly suffices as evidence, not even circumstantial evidence. There is quite a bit of motive for Greenwood's writing to be reputable, both from the standpoint of his author's reputation, and that of his publisher's. Public opinion painting Ed as a hackneyed Gary Stu writer would negatively impact the perception of the quality of his novels. Thus, there is motive for him to, first, stop writing wish-fulfillment into his novels (which has happened), and second, to sweep the existing wish-fulfillment under the rug (which can never happen!).
3. "You're a horrible person, destroying puppies and defiling the icons of my literary hero. With my hate alone I would cause you to burn to ash."
-Yes!
Iconoclasm is fun.As to your second point, I'd say everyone has a reason to lie about just about anything you might care to mention. Presence of motive does not, however, constitute probability, only possibility of falsehood on his part. You obviously feel yo have reason to doubt that he's being sincere in his denials of writing 'wish-fulfillment', but that doesn't grant carte blanche to making blanket accusations and disparagments of his character.
On the third point, I don't think you're a horrible person, I'd have more respect if you destroyed kittens, and you're certainly free to defile anyone you like. Just don't present your opinions as objective fact and we can get along famously. :P ;)
This is a silly little thread. ;)
It's not silly until Lord Karsus comes in riding a unicycle and dressed up like a clown. Or maybe that's just crazy?
- the aforementioned creepy, creepy Mirt/Asper relationship. Now I'm fine with problematic couples. GRRM has honest-to-goodness incest and molestation of young girls, for god's sake, but the difference (apart from him being a much better writer than Ed)? Jaime and Cersei aren't held up as a model of true love and Daenerys' brother molesting her isn't shown as a gesture of affection--it's all around unhealthy. Mirt and Asper, on the other hand, are portrayed as some kind of paragon of free love to be lauded by all. For obvious reasons, this comes across as perfectly repulsive. Is the Realms a place where it's okay for old men to raise little orphans to be their "lady love"? You can argue until you're blue in the face that Asper "chose" Mirt as "the best of all men" in Waterdeep. But however you look at it, there're latent authority and parental issues.
People who know more about this are free to correct or clarify since I can't name the novel or sourcebook where I may have come across this, but I do have this memory that Mirt was among the mercenaries who sacked baby Asper's village and he then chose to bring her up. Does anyone know if this is true or, if not, how did he come to raise her?
Because Ed likes hot chicks in his fantasy just like many other Goobs! ;)
Who knows? Because male readers don't like reading stories about women with bellies? Maybe you are on to something. I am just not sure what...
Yeah, it's the standard approach to getting attention and selling copies of Product X (Dragon with succubus on the cover, poster with Jessica Alba, and so on). But people tend to say that Realms morals are more liberated. Which leads at least me to point out that they're actually not presented as that different. When criticism of things like Mirt/Asper is met with "But it's because they're liberated!", I do think it's fair to note that the one-sidedness of the liberation makes the relationships resemble conventional "nerd wins the cheerleader" fantasies more than any daring statement on sexuality and relationships.
As for guys not caring about their appearance, the vehement hate (insecurity) teenage boys aim at Zac Efron, Orlando Bloom and other good-looking actors known for inspiring frenzied devotion from women doesn't exactly give me the impression that if magic were an option, the majority of guys would say "No thanks" and not be tempted at all by the thought of gaining their own swooning admirers.
As for guys not caring about their appearance, the vehement hate (insecurity) teenage boys aim at Zac Efron, Orlando Bloom and other good-looking actors known for inspiring frenzied devotion from women doesn't exactly give me the impression that if magic were an option, the majority of guys would say "No thanks" and not be tempted at all by the thought of gaining their own swooning admirers.
I'd change my appearance... But that'd probably be to remove a few scars, and to change my face enough to not look just like one of my cousin. Doesn't help that just about all the men on my Mother's side look alike... Granted, I already have enough admirers... I don't even try. Drives me crazy.
People who know more about this are free to correct or clarify since I can't name the novel or sourcebook where I may have come across this, but I do have this memory that Mirt was among the mercenaries who sacked baby Asper's village and he then chose to bring her up. Does anyone know if this is true or, if not, how did he come to raise her?
I also have read this. It was either in the FRCS or the Waterdeep book I believe, In his background. But I do remember it. He was their leader. Keeping her alive was when he started to change from Chaotic Evil Warlord to Enterprising Entrepreneur (not sure of the difference there, but apparently there is one).:D
Because Ed likes hot chicks in his fantasy just like many other Goobs! ;)
Who knows? Because male readers don't like reading stories about women with bellies? Maybe you are on to something. I am just not sure what...
Well, Ed does have women with bellies in his novels.
I've read them all (all FR novels, that is), so I know.Anyway, TSR's CoC was iron clad, and regulated what could appear in the novels and gaming products. Things that got chopped: gays (Lhaeo's the only reference)...
Not anymore.
And let's face it: most guys just don't care as much about their appearance as most women do.
That's not a universal truth.
Considering the billion-dollar cosmetics industry, and its surgical subset, is it that surprising that powerful, proud (usually), vain (often) female mages would choose to maintain their looks?
You might already be aware of this, but men undergo cosmetic surgery as well (and pay for botox injections). I won't assert that they are the majority, but you're making it sound like it's just a "woman thing".
I only know that I bought one of his books and borrowed another one. Now I don't even consider buying anything written by Greenwood. Bruce Cordell is no better. Unfortunately, game designers aren't actually particularly good novelists.
I have to admit, I would like WotC to release novels by new, talented authors. Paul S. Kemp for example. I also like the way Mark Shestedt (correct me on spelling) writes. Steven Schend is quite good too.
And Mr. Schend was a game designer for many, many years before he ever wrote a novel. He didn't only recently come out of the woodwork.
Yet, you assert that game designers aren't good novelists--it looks like you disproved your own point.
Thus, I invoke Occam's razor to explain the presence of "Elminster's bed post notches".
Please, please, learn about what Occam's Razor actually is before "invoking" it.
On the third point, I don't think you're a horrible person, I'd have more respect if you destroyed kittens
Except he still looks aged, fat, and not particularly attractive. Try again. Even Faraer, staunch defender of all things Ed that he is, admits that there's a double standard.
Szass Tam was a pretty good example though. He should look as unattractive as it gets (ie. a decaying corpse), and yet he uses magic to make himself look not only palatable, but rather attractive as well.
I've closed the thread and alerted community management, who will decide if the thread should stay closed or be reopened.