Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Axterix · 05-04-2001, 07:30 PM

Of the ones I've read, I'd have to say Donaldson. Gave up on him a few books into one of his series. Characters weren't interesting, writing style was boring. A rare time I haven't bothered to finish reading a series I started. Mind you, while many people may like Donaldson and there are no doubt worse authors, I'm pretty picky in what I decide to pick up and read... generally, what I decide to get I like... and I avoid much junk that way.

As for Moorcock, he's hit and miss. His writing covers so many areas. Kane of Old Mars is written to be like the Tarzan books. Other books blend fantasy with some science. The main thing I like about his books is that the characters aren't perfect. They have flaws, weaknesses. They do things they regret later, they wipe out entire races, they, at times, ruin themselves and all they believe in (the Ice Ships, for instance). They are, in short, much more believable than the pure heroes other people have. Moorcock's characters are how heroes are, in their own time. Most other people's are how the heroes are portrayed a few generations down the line, with all the bad traits cleaned out of the story.

And, his dark elves make TSR's drow look like the pansies they are. Moorcock's dark elf society (Elric's people) is more evil, more believable, more decadent, and much scarier (probably because of the first 2) than the dark elves in D&D. If nothing else, read Elric for that reason, especially if you are a GM who uses Drow in his campaigns. The description of the slave choir alone, that single paragraph, blows away anything you read on dark elves elsewhere.

But with Moorcock, keep in mind that he won't write down to the reader (that's something he slams Tolkien for), so he can be a bit heavier reading than most are used to. He's not going to pretty it up for you. It's a dark world and his heroes aren't always good. They are people in circumstances, doing what they believe is best according to their own beliefs. And that, much like Howard's Conan, often makes them that much more compelling. And he's interested in the writing process as well. He deliberately uses different styles, covers different topics. That's what makes him hit and miss. He's a writer that strives to stretch himself and explore different avenues of writing.

05-04-2001, 07:30 PM	#39
Axterix Manshoon Join Date: May 4, 2001 Posts: 160	Of the ones I've read, I'd have to say Donaldson. Gave up on him a few books into one of his series. Characters weren't interesting, writing style was boring. A rare time I haven't bothered to finish reading a series I started. Mind you, while many people may like Donaldson and there are no doubt worse authors, I'm pretty picky in what I decide to pick up and read... generally, what I decide to get I like... and I avoid much junk that way. As for Moorcock, he's hit and miss. His writing covers so many areas. Kane of Old Mars is written to be like the Tarzan books. Other books blend fantasy with some science. The main thing I like about his books is that the characters aren't perfect. They have flaws, weaknesses. They do things they regret later, they wipe out entire races, they, at times, ruin themselves and all they believe in (the Ice Ships, for instance). They are, in short, much more believable than the pure heroes other people have. Moorcock's characters are how heroes are, in their own time. Most other people's are how the heroes are portrayed a few generations down the line, with all the bad traits cleaned out of the story. And, his dark elves make TSR's drow look like the pansies they are. Moorcock's dark elf society (Elric's people) is more evil, more believable, more decadent, and much scarier (probably because of the first 2) than the dark elves in D&D. If nothing else, read Elric for that reason, especially if you are a GM who uses Drow in his campaigns. The description of the slave choir alone, that single paragraph, blows away anything you read on dark elves elsewhere. But with Moorcock, keep in mind that he won't write down to the reader (that's something he slams Tolkien for), so he can be a bit heavier reading than most are used to. He's not going to pretty it up for you. It's a dark world and his heroes aren't always good. They are people in circumstances, doing what they believe is best according to their own beliefs. And that, much like Howard's Conan, often makes them that much more compelling. And he's interested in the writing process as well. He deliberately uses different styles, covers different topics. That's what makes him hit and miss. He's a writer that strives to stretch himself and explore different avenues of writing.