The Dragonlance Books

[mooezmarez]

I am sure there had been discussions about the Dragonlance series in the past, but let's get back to the Weis/Hickman books now.

I am a big fan of Krynn (was not much into Forgotten Realms I don't know why) and i would really like to know wheteher there are fans who like Dragonlance as much as I do.

Please discuss anything in connection with the books, if you have a mind to do.

Oh, and Raistlin owns us all, you know :D

cheers

[Sci-2]

I think Dragons of Autumn, Winter, and Spring are great reads. Fun characters, interesting relationships, Takhisis makes a great villain as the Goddess of Evil.

The books of the twins with Raistlin's story was really touching when I read it a long time ago.

I think the books should have stopped there. Dragons of a Summer Flame was awful. Well written, in some ways, entertaining, but it shifted the setting into something it wasn't meant to be - a strange world ruled by alien dragons, a world with no gods.

Everything after seemed like a long attempted correction to this blunder.

ETA: Last sentence was nonsense. Moved "attempt"verb.

[mooezmarez]

You are right wabout the first two trilogies being the best (Chronicles and Legend Trilogy). :) However, I also enjoyed The Soulforge and Brothers in Arms, because we can get a glimpse of Raistlin's youth and certain aspects of his character that help us understand a bit more why he became the kind of character he is by the beginning of Autumn. :) It's just really fascinating, i think.

And a quick question here, what do you think about Raistlin's attempt of becoming a god? To what extent do you think he was successful?

[Grack21]

I can actually feel peterbounds mind exploding.

[Ser-Arthur-Dayne]

OMG! Just wait until Grack gets on here :uhoh:

But serousily, I read them a long time ago. At that time, they weren't that bad. But compared to Martin, Tolkien, Hobb, Erikson, etcc.. they don't stand a chance. But lets see what I remember.

The first triology was alright. Was fun to read, a lot of vanaillia story telling, but wasn't that bad. The triolgy after that, I think the Legends one, that was somewhat well done. Raistlin was probably the most creative and interesting character by farr in those novels. And as someone said, anything after that was trash.

All in all, it's very medicore, and compares nothing to other fantasy works. But its fun to read for young adults :dunno:

Oh, and The Soulforge was probably the best stand-alone books.

[Ser-Arthur-Dayne]

And I have a feeling this is trolling. Anyone who has read ASOIAF would forget about Dragonlance, and move on to much more mature fantasy :dunno:.

[Sci-2]

I really liked the storyline, and I think for Dragonlance it works that evil cannot create and Raistlin would have been a god of emptiness and void. I really wish the end of Legends was the end of his storyline, it was a perfect ending.

I never read Soulforge or Brothers, but I can see glimpses into his or other characters' pasts being good...barring the one where they go to one of Krynn's moons.

I think the initial premise of Summer Flame was good, that Takhisis creates a group of honorable knights bound to her service. I wish they had kept with that theme instead of introducing Chaos, which I found to be silly. YMMV of course.

The series that included Vanished Moon with Mina I thought was decent to good. I liked Mina as a character.

And I have a feeling this is trolling. Anyone who has read ASOIAF would forget about Dragonlance, and move on to much more mature fantasy

I know the series is looked down on, but I find it sort of silly. But then I find much of literary elitism to be a worthless badge about tastes in entertainment that involves wizards and dragons. Maybe if we were comparing the novels to Booker Prize or Pulitzer prize winners, even then I remain unconvinced.

Statistical/Economic elitism is far more justifiable, but I think even that has its place if not its limits.

But that's a discussion for that other thread.

[SkynJay]

I never read them at all, but the used book store had an annotated trade paperback with the first trilogy for 10 bucks, I almost bought it just to see what I thought.

It seems outside of this forum, everyone who I discuss fantasy with thinks it begins and ends with LoTR, WoT, and W&H Dragonlance.

[Ebenstone]

In all seriousness I count them among the most influential books for me as a writer. When I delved into my book "Winter's Discord" a few years back in rewrites, I went back to reread them as sort of research for tone. I read them in middle school/high school and that was kind of the tone I was looking for, but they read very, very dated. Every so often I consider picking them up and re-reading them, but I don't. You almost can hear the die rattling across the table when they are making their saving throws.

Still though, I think for some members of this community and fellow writers of my age group these books may be more important than Tolkien was.

[mooezmarez]

Thanks guys for your opinion.

And I have a feeling this is trolling. Anyone who has read ASOIAF would forget about Dragonlance, and move on to much more mature fantasy :dunno:.

Well, I have read both of the series and i am intending to re-read each of them in and out. I can see where you are pointing at, because seriously, ASoIaF so epic that i have often dreamt about me being involved in this fantasy world somehow, BUT it does not mean that i forget about Dragonlance. Maybe you think in this way, because elves and stuff seem clished for you, which they are to be honest from the point of view of today's fantasy generation, but, then consider when they were written and at that time it was quite natural to write about these "clished" themes (so as to follow Tolkien). As others pointed out, it can be quite influential.

Now, Martin is unique because he has this wholly new world about new races ect based on his unique concept of fantasy. And i know that during creative writing courses instructors kindly ask students to avoid the "clished" themes of fantasy.

Also, it is so much an underestimation to look upon Dragonlance as a less mature book, it might be that it is not as complex as Martin's world, but it does not mean you have to devalue it.

don't get me wrong i don't want to sort of scold you for having a different opinion , heck i am glad you are expressing it, i am just trying to share my own i hope i was successful :D there were so many things i wanted to write down.

Nevertheless, if we are to compare things: Tolkien is the best, :)

[Ser-Arthur-Dayne]

Well, I have read both of the series and i am intending to re-read each of them in and out. I can see where you are pointing at, because seriously, ASoIaF so epic that i have often dreamt about me being involved in this fantasy world somehow, BUT it does not mean that i forget about Dragonlance. Maybe you think in this way, because elves and stuff seem clished for you, which they are to be honest from the point of view of today's fantasy generation, but, then consider when they were written and at that time it was quite natural to write about these "clished" themes (so as to follow Tolkien). As others pointed out, it can be quite influential.

Now, Martin is unique because he has this wholly new world about new races ect based on his unique concept of fantasy. And i know that during creative writing courses instructors kindly ask students to avoid the "clished" themes of fantasy.

Also, it is so much an underestimation to look upon Dragonlance as a less mature book, it might be that it is not as complex as Martin's world, but it does not mean you have to devalue it.

don't get me wrong i don't want to sort of scold you for having a different opinion , heck i am glad you are expressing it, i am just trying to share my own i hope i was successful :D there were so many things i wanted to write down.

Nevertheless, if we are to compare things: Tolkien is the best, :)

I don't find different races cliched [ok, maybe I do a little :P]. But I still enjoyed LotR fine. DL, to me took it too far :dunno:

But then again, people have different opinions, so its no biggie.

[Jaxom 1974]

From a writing standpoint (and this is a subject that's been done ad nausem), it's far from good. Especially the first book.

However, I have maintained for a long time that the importance of Dragonlance as a whole, is not the writing or even the quality, but the accessibility. Dragonlance did what LOTR couldn't do: reach a broader mainstream audience. Those who didn't read Tolkien and/or play D&D found themselves exposed to a whole "new" genre and paved the way for there to be ASOIAF or WoT or any number of other stories that have out paced it's progenitor.

For that, Dragonlance deserves it's place in the pantheon.

[peterbound]

I can actually feel peterbounds mind exploding.

Grack you are the best DL troll around. I refuse to sully myself with conversations about those shitpiles unless you start them.

[Sci-2]

I'll have to go back, I don't recall them being any worse than Sanderson, Prince of Thorns, or Night Circus. Light, fun reads with interesting characters is how I see the DL books.

[Shryke]

Grack you are the best DL troll around. I refuse to sully myself with conversations about those shitpiles unless you start them.

Don't worry, I got this.

I know the series is looked down on, but I find it sort of silly. But then I find much of literary elitism to be a worthless badge about tastes in entertainment that involves wizards and dragons. Maybe if we were comparing the novels to Booker Prize or Pulitzer prize winners, even then I remain unconvinced.

It's not looked down upon cause it's got wizards and dragons. Most of what people read here does.

It's looked down upon cause it's dreck. Crap. Shit straight from the butt.

I read these ages ago, back to back with shit like Eddings. They are awful. Truly terrible books. The first one alone reads like the most pointless, crappy and cliched D&D-session-turned-into-a-novel ever.

I'll have to go back, I don't recall them being any worse than Sanderson, Prince of Thorns, or Night Circus. Light, fun reads with interesting characters is how I see the DL books.

Don't know what the last 2 are, but they are far far worse then Sanderson. Even Sanderson's worst stuff.

[Sci-2]

I think simply going on and on about how shitty they are is pointless. I don't think anyone is suggesting they are going to be short listed for any major award in literature (nor does it seem most fantasy will) but they were enjoyable, relaxing reads.

I mean, if you have an actual critique or sample passages I'd be glad to hear it. I realize the rose colored glasses of my youth are likely coloring my perspective, but otherwise I think it is trolling to simply mock them over and over.

[Werthead]

They're okay for young readers getting into fantasy for the first time. The first three - the Chronicles trilogy - don't really stack up to adult reading. There's some nice touches, such as the GRRM-esque totally unexpected killing of a major character who isn't the traditional mentor wizard role or the fact that the adventuring band have been together for years and are already experienced at combat and don't really need to 'change and grow' in the traditional manner, but nothing too revelatory. The prose is severely malnourished and the characterisation spotty in places, and in Tas we have a character who combines the worst of Bombadil and Jar-Jar into one role, which is seriously fecking annoying. Some characters - Kitiara and Raistlin most notably - are more interesting and better-developed, but overall it's a kids' series based on some D&D modules.

The Legends trilogy, on the other hand, is more original, more interesting, far better-written and more intelligently-characterised (even Tas becomes quasi-bearable for paragraphss at a time, which is remarkable), though we are only talking relatively here. It's an interesting step up for younger readers and an acceptably decent YA fantasy trilogy, but again not much beyond that.

Most of the other books by other authors are pretty poor, including the later Weis and Hickman novels, though I remember Jeff Grubb's 'villain POV' book about Fewmaster Toede being amusing and reasonably entertaining.

The biggest problem with Dragonlance is that the world and setting are geared too much around the War of the Lance and its aftermath (particularly Raistlin's story arc). Other stories set in the world outside of those events and that time period feel redundant. The later degeneration into constant world-shaking events and the gods being around and then vanishing and then returning got completely tedious.

However, I have maintained for a long time that the importance of Dragonlance as a whole, is not the writing or even the quality, but the accessibility. Dragonlance did what LOTR couldn't do: reach a broader mainstream audience.

The first three Dragonlance books sold 4 million copies in their first six or seven years on sale (my 1991-copyrighted paperbacks have, "Four million copies of the Dragonlance Chronicles sold!" on the cover), which is extremely impressive. But a drop in the ocean compared to what LotR was on by that time (an absolute minimum of 30 times that). Along with Eddings, Brooks and, a couple of years later, Salvatore, they introduced a lot of kids to fantasy, but I don't think those kids would have suffered without them. There was plenty of other stuff in the modern fantasy genre around by that time.

[ljkeane]

I remember quite liking the Twins trilogy (was that the Legends one?) but it's been at least 15 years since I read it and I'm struggling to remember too much in the way of details. I think I read a few of the other books and wasn't hugely impressed.

[TerraPrime]

Bunch of h8trs.

[Shryke]

I think simply going on and on about how shitty they are is pointless. I don't think anyone is suggesting they are going to be short listed for any major award in literature (nor does it seem most fantasy will) but they were enjoyable, relaxing reads.

I mean, if you have an actual critique or sample passages I'd be glad to hear it. I realize the rose colored glasses of my youth are likely coloring my perspective, but otherwise I think it is trolling to simply mock them over and over.

It's been over a decade since I read them and there's no way in hell I'm doing that again just to quote specific passages.

They are "for young readers only" books in that unlike many other YA or whatnot, they are only any good because you are too young to notice how bad they are.

But even by those standards, they were awful. As I said, I read them around the time I read Eddings. (before Eddings actually) And at this point, if not too old, I was at least too experienced for either one. (I was already well into larger, denser books by that age) I generally like to compare the 2 because it's a good contrast.

Eddings, while predictable and cliched and all that, was an enjoyable read. It wasn't glaring awful (at least, for the first series). It was an enjoyable enough read, if not great. I might recommend them to a younger reader, depending on what they were already reading.

Dragonlance was awful. Even at that age, I was disgusted by the book. I mean, I guess if it was one of your first major reads or major fantasy reads you might remember it fondly, but there's nothing worthwhile there. You only enjoyed it because you didn't know any better. It's pure nostalgia. I would recommend them to no one. There's way better stuff for a young reader to be consuming.