# [EN World Book Club] Dragondoom Discussion [September Selection]



## Sam (Sep 17, 2003)

In jester47's absence, I've taken the liberty of starting the discussion on this month's selection, Dragondoom by Dennis L. McKiernan.  Normally, I'd expect that the person who selected the book would start off the thread and post why they selected the book and what their thoughts were about the selection.

This time, I'll ask someone else to be brave and take the first step.   What did you think of Dragondoom?  What did you like?  Dislike?  Did you enjoy the character development and interaction?  What did you think of the background?  The plot?  The conclusion?

There's a lot of questions there.  Feel free to disregard any and all of them.  Post what you think.  Thanks.


----------



## jester47 (Sep 17, 2003)

Sam said:
			
		

> In jester47's absence, I've taken the liberty of starting the discussion on this month's selection, Dragondoom by Dennis L. McKiernan.  Normally, I'd expect that the person who selected the book would start off the thread and post why they selected the book and what their thoughts were about the selection.
> 
> This time, I'll ask someone else to be brave and take the first step.   What did you think of Dragondoom?  What did you like?  Dislike?  Did you enjoy the character development and interaction?  What did you think of the background?  The plot?  The conclusion?
> 
> There's a lot of questions there.  Feel free to disregard any and all of them.  Post what you think.  Thanks.




Sorry about that, I could not find the thread and so did not know when to post.

So as Sam said, lets start the discussion.

Aaron.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 17, 2003)

It took me a while to get into this book.  The first few chapters that were constantly bouncing over the years were making my head swim.  As the book progressed, the bouncing made more and more sense, and it was limited in the amount of bounce (whereas the first couple chapters spanned several centuries).


----------



## JoeBlank (Sep 17, 2003)

Initially, I was not enjoying the book. Think I had the same problem as kingpaul, it was difficult to become involved in the story, with it bouncing around so much. That is a good thing about this book club; I was "forced" to keep reading am glad I did. 

I particularly liked the premise: What happens *after* you kill the dragon and get the treasure? And, didn't that treasure belong to someone else before the dragon gained it? This would make for some interesting gaming scenarios.

Busy day at work, but I will try to chime in later.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 17, 2003)

JoeBlank said:
			
		

> That is a good thing about this book club; I was "forced" to keep reading am glad I did.



I'm glad I kept reading to.  If it weren't for this, I probably would have dropped this book without thinking twice.  Only twice before have I trudged forward with a book and found out I liked it: Sword of Shannarra (tough to get into, only kept doing so because my friends said it was impossible to read) and Great Expectations (English reading assignment).


			
				JoeBlank said:
			
		

> I particularly liked the premise: What happens *after* you kill the dragon and get the treasure? And, didn't that treasure belong to someone else before the dragon gained it? This would make for some interesting gaming scenarios.



I did enjoy all the twists about what happnes after you get the dragon hoard.  Most stories center on "get the gold", not the repercussions thereafter.


----------



## Sam (Sep 17, 2003)

I found it very hard to get interested in the story as well.  I clearly remember being 200 pages into the book and wondering when things were going to start getting interesting.  I agree with JoeBlank, if it weren't for this book club, I would have most likely put the book down and not picked it up again (something I've only done a couple of times).  

The main reason I didn't want to start off the discussion was that I didn't want it to begin on a negative tone.  Ultimately I thought the story was interesting, though it took a long time to get there.  "What happens after the dragon is dead?" was a new thought, as was revenge by Black Kalagath out of some sort of drake-pride. I didn't like McKiernan's style though.  I thought the time-shifting was annoying, and couldn't get into sync with his prose.  At times it read like an epic poem and others like a romance novel.  The relationship between Elyn & Thork was clearly foreshadowed to me from nearly the beginning of the book.  I don't think that it was McKiernan's intent to do this though.

I'm trying to be balanced and not overly critical.  I certainly don't want to offend anyone who enjoyed the book and perhaps consider it one of the better recent works.  It just wasn't for me.  There were some interesting points.  I think it was more a style thing than anything else.

This was my first time reading McKiernan and I must admit that I hadn't heard of him before.  Based on this experience I don't have any strong desire to read more in the Mithgar setting.  Has anyone read more of McKiernan's work?  How does this book rate compared to those?  I am very curious about the story with the female dwarves (Chakkia?).  Can anyone enlighten me about that?  (If you respond here, use the spoiler tag, otherwise send me an email or PM)


----------



## Dacileva (Sep 17, 2003)

Oh, good, I won't be the first negative commenter.  

I did like a few aspects of the book.  He obviously put a *lot* of work into the background of the world, and his concepts.  His take on the "what happens after the dragon is dead", and what happens to the hoard, are interesting, though not very unique (see _The Hobbit_).  I really did like how Black Kalgalath, even though he disliked Sleeth, and considered Sleeth his biggest rival, still felt compelled to defend Dragon honor by humiliating and destroying the upstarts who killed Sleeth.  I like the Utruni concept, their pseudo-culture, and their behavior.

There was a lot I didn't like, both about the world and this book in particular.

Elyn and Thork (and basically everyone) seemed rather stiff and unrealistic in behavior.  No one went through any real dynamic changes, other than the changes forced on Elyn and Thork through their adventuring.

Modru and Andrak were the usual "mean, stupid arrogant bad guys"...  Kalgalath wasn't quite so bad, but even he made big mistakes that don't seem in character for how awesome McKiernan seems to want to make Dragons.

The races on this world seemed horrendously stereotyped.  This really annoyed me, actually.  I've been very happy about the way D&D 3.x is starting to draw gamers away from the traditional stereotypes, and this book (admittedly, it was written in 1990) just seems like the same old fantasy tropes revisited in a not-particularly-interesting manner.

The rampant sexism throughout the book may be intended to feel like a fantasy version of medieval Earth, but it just came off to me as rampant sexism.  Dwarven women are maybe a different species?  Jordian women are meek homemakers, and the only Jordian warrior maid is ridiculed throughout her training?  *sigh*

Overall, this wasn't a particularly enjoyable read for me.  I may still try reading some other Mithgar books, but McKiernan's got an uphill road to interest me.

Okay, I think I'm done ranting for now.


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 18, 2003)

Okay, here's the thing. I didn't finish Dragondoom. I got to page 281 and the pain had become unbearable. In all honesty, I didn't like it at all. I didn't like (well, detest might be a better term) Mr. McKiernans' style and I found the storyline and characters very derivative. I'm sure there are those out there who enjoyed this book. For me, there was nothing that drew me back, even knowing I would have to come on these boards and admit my failure. Honestly, I have to say this is about the worst $10 I've spent on a book in my life. I gave up on the Iron Tower trilogy in high school for the same reasons. I had hoped Mr. McKiernan had improved as a writer. In my opinion, he has not.

I apologize to those who loved the book. I'm sure you'll tell me how wrong I was. If necessary, I can write a much longer, specific critique of this book. There's going to be a fairly damning review in the next issue of my ezine. I will gladly include any rebuttals if that is requested.


----------



## Sam (Sep 18, 2003)

jester47 said:
			
		

> Sorry about that, I could not find the thread and so did not know when to post.
> 
> So as Sam said, lets start the discussion.



Aaron,

I'm curious about what you thought of the book.  Why did you choose it for your selection?  Was it what you had expected?  Had you read McKiernan before?  What is your opinion of him after reading Dragondoom?


----------



## jester47 (Sep 18, 2003)

Sam said:
			
		

> Aaron,
> 
> I'm curious about what you thought of the book.  Why did you choose it for your selection?  Was it what you had expected?  Had you read McKiernan before?  What is your opinion of him after reading Dragondoom?




Well Sam, I have a confession to make.  I did not finish the book either.  Part of the problem was that other things kept eating up my reading time and, also, I did not feel compelled to make the time to read it because the book, as many have said, was very hard to get into.  This comes from someone who considers himself a McKiernan fan to boot.  With that in mind, there is hope.  One of the greatest reads I have ever had was Eye of the Hunter, and it was in my opinion good enough to spur me to read the rest of the Mithgar series except for "Voyage of the Fox Rider," "The Silver Call," and "Dragondoom."  So when it came time to pick a title, I saw it on my shelf and figured that it worked, so I suggested it.  

One thing I might try with this book is to read the events of the different time frames together.  I do this with Catherine Kerr books because I hate her pseudo celtic flashbacks.  I skip the flashbacks and the stories make great reads for me.   

Even early into the book I could tell this one was going to be very different from "Eye of the Hunter."  Hunter has a non-typical story, an interesting villan, characters that develop and some clever use of the setting.  And the sheer number of unanswered questions about the world gives it a sense of reality that the other books don't seem to have.  I think it is his best work.  However, for the absolute best in McKiernan, I would highly suggest reading the book "Tales of Mithgar" first.  These are great short stories that essentially set up everything that he wrote after, and most of it sets up "Eye of the Hunter."

So knowing that he will write "Eye of the Hunter" later, and he becomes a better story teller, my opinion of him has not changed.   I still think that Eye of the Hunter is his best work.  However, having read more, I now see his work previous to Tales and Hunter as sort of setting up the world, and the work after it as answering the questions that appear in "Hunter."  

One of the interesting things is that I find McKiernan's influence from Tolkien sort of refreshing.  Rather than saying, "Hey!  This guy is ripping off Tolkien!"  I find myself thinking of the very veiled references as tributes to the Don.  In fact I am pleased that McKiernan does this because it seems to me that so many writers are afraid of using the "tolkienesque" ideas of fantasy in thier own works in an effort to avoid being called unoriginal.  So, I kind of see him as sort of ballsy. 

So in conclusion, read the three stories from Tales of Mithgar and The Eye of the Hunter.  If you do not find these satisfying, then I hate to say it but you just don't like McKiernan. 

Aaron.


----------



## AuroraGyps (Sep 18, 2003)

I liked Dragondoom.  It was hard to get into the story due to it jumping around in time, but I'm also still getting used to working 3rd shift at my new job, so getting into anything has been tough.  I don't know if I'd call the roles of Dwarves, woman, etc "stereotypical" as much as being the "traditional" way the different people & genders are seen in alot of books like this. That's not to say I don't like things that break the mold, but it doesn't bug me.  I enjoyed the development of Thork and Elyn's relationship too.  I'm a big fan of those awkward moments & stages of a relationship... they just touch me for some reason (maybe it's the girl in me trying to break out past the tomboy gamer  ).  I was really sad at the ending though... actually, I almost cried (of course, I also cried at the end of the movies AI and The Whole Wide World, all within a couple of days of each other... just in a sappy mood I guess).  I was hoping it would end happy (well, as happy as the aftermath of a war with 1000s of casualties plus the death of the brother on one side and a father & son on the other can be).  It was very poignant, but I would've liked Thork & Elyn together more than how it did end.  It would have made a bigger impact  on Dwarf/Men relations than just having Thork stand by his promise.  And, since I haven't read any of McKiernan's other stuff, I have to wonder what Thork's mother was thinking to herself about Men & Dwarves and if it's addressed in any of his other books.


----------



## Sam (Sep 18, 2003)

jester47 said:
			
		

> One thing I might try with this book is to read the events of the different time frames together. I do this with Catherine Kerr books because I hate her pseudo celtic flashbacks. I skip the flashbacks and the stories make great reads for me.



I'm not sold on that idea.  Seems to me that an author writes a book they way he wants you to read it.  They want you to get something out of the technique; the story should evolve around the flashbacks.  Sometimes this jumping around works.  In this case it didn't.  I thought it worked well in Cormyr, A Novel (just one that I happened to read recently and it sticks out in my mind).  



> One of the interesting things is that I find McKiernan's influence from Tolkien sort of refreshing. Rather than saying, "Hey! This guy is ripping off Tolkien!" I find myself thinking of the very veiled references as tributes to the Don. In fact I am pleased that McKiernan does this because it seems to me that so many writers are afraid of using the "tolkienesque" ideas of fantasy in thier own works in an effort to avoid being called unoriginal. So, I kind of see him as sort of ballsy.



The Tolkienesque quality of the story doesn't bother me.  This is a "traditional" fantasy story (whatever that means), and as such, it's hard to come up with too much that is new.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be considering it a "traditional" fantasy piece.  

Think about it.  If you start introducing a whole bunch of new races and such, people are going to compare them to known archetypes.  "Stout, short beings?  Oh, they're dwarves.  How come they don't have beards and live inside mountains?"  

In my mind, there are three main categories of fantasy.  1) Tolkienesque fantasy, which draws from a number of Euro/Anglo myth structures; 2) what I'll call Arthurian fantasy, which is essentially a human, earth-like world infused with magic; and 3) a kind of a catch-all "other" category, which would include fey fantasy, etc (not the best description, but I'm at work and have limited time  ). 

So the fact that someone crafts a story in the Tolkienesque style or Arthurian style isn't something, IMO, that is bad.  As long as the story is compelling and there is some thought provocation that takes place. Not to harp on it, but I didn't find Dragondoom


----------



## drnuncheon (Sep 18, 2003)

Well, I was going to ask if McKiernan had improved (I fought my way through the first book of the Iron Tower trilogy, then figured I might as well just read _Fellowship of the Ring_ instead), but based on the comments above, I guess I don't have to.


----------



## JoeBlank (Sep 19, 2003)

Great to hear what everyone else thinks about the book. 

Here is something that struck me as very odd: the glossary contains major spoilers. Apparently, the glossary is intended to be used as a reference for what happened in the book. Maybe if you were reading other novels in the setting and could not remember some detail from Dragondoom, you could just grab it off the shelf and check the glossary.

I have never seen this done before. Any sort of glossary or reference appendix usually is intended as a reference while your are reading the book, and therefore contains no spoilers. These sorts of things are usually only current to just before the novel begins. 

George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series is an example of this method. The appendix is always useful, as there are so many characters to keep track of, but the appendix never tells what happens to a character in the book you are holding. 

Luckily, I noticed this early on, when I checked some minor character in the glossary and found out he was going to die (don't recall who, but it was not a major character). If you have your copy handy, check the entries for Thork and Elyn. Their entries tell even of the events covered in the final pages of the novel.

Does anyone else find this odd? Have you seen this done elsewhere? Does McKiernan always do this?


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 19, 2003)

JoeBlank said:
			
		

> Here is something that struck me as very odd: the glossary contains major spoilers.



I've seen glossaries in Jordan's WoT series, but can't honestly remember if it contained spolier info for that book.  I saw the glossary early on, and I went looking to see if there was any background info on Kalagath.  Guess what I saw?


----------



## Sam (Sep 19, 2003)

I noticed the spoilers in the glossary/appendix early on in my reading too.  I don't remember what the character's name was, but he was a sailor on one of the ships taking Elgo's party to Blackstone.  I wasn't sure if it was a proper name or some other noun and I looked it up.  The entry was something akin to "Sailor on the dragonships.  Died in the Maelstrom during Elgo's return home."  I stopped reading the glossary at that point.

If I had to guess, it seems like the glossary was an afterthought.  Almost like the editor read it an said "You really need a roster and a playbook in here.  Put something together.", which McKiernan did based on his knowledge, not based on the status of Mithgar at the beginning of the story.

Jordan's Wheel of Time (which needs a companion book more than a glossary) doesn't give anything away.  The info is generally current before the start of the book that the glossary appears in.


----------



## JoeBlank (Sep 19, 2003)

Sam said:
			
		

> I noticed the spoilers in the glossary/appendix early on in my reading too. I don't remember what the character's name was, but he was a sailor on one of the ships taking Elgo's party to Blackstone. I wasn't sure if it was a proper name or some other noun and I looked it up. The entry was something akin to "Sailor on the dragonships. Died in the Maelstrom during Elgo's return home." I stopped reading the glossary at that point.



Sam, I think we were looking up the same guy. Funny. 

Glad I noticed it early enough to not use the glossary. There were some decent surprises in this book. I was mildly shocked when Elgo died. Knowing that either Elyn or Thork was destined to die, I was surprised by the outcome, and was glad that was not spoiled for me.

I am still being a little vague about the final events, as some have indicated they have not finished the book yet. Is anyone participating in the discussion but hoping to avoid spoilers?


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 19, 2003)

Not to worry for me. However, there were a few voices that seemed to intend to finish. Personally, I couldn't wait to get into Tigana. Thank the Lord of Emperors for Guy Gavriel Kay!


----------



## jester47 (Sep 19, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> Well, I was going to ask if McKiernan had improved (I fought my way through the first book of the Iron Tower trilogy, then figured I might as well just read _Fellowship of the Ring_ instead), but based on the comments above, I guess I don't have to.




Give the three stories in Tales of Mithgar and the novel Eye of the Hunter a shot.  They are sufficiantly different and not so derivative.  Also, they are really easy to get into.

Aaron.


----------



## Dacileva (Sep 19, 2003)

Sam said:
			
		

> I noticed the spoilers in the glossary/appendix early on in my reading too.  I don't remember what the character's name was, but he was a sailor on one of the ships taking Elgo's party to Blackstone.  I wasn't sure if it was a proper name or some other noun and I looked it up.  The entry was something akin to "Sailor on the dragonships.  Died in the Maelstrom during Elgo's return home."  I stopped reading the glossary at that point.



I think I was looking up the same person.  I still used the glossary to some degree, for the characters I couldn't remember the names of, but I tried not to read too much of it, or about major characters.


> If I had to guess, it seems like the glossary was an afterthought.  Almost like the editor read it an said "You really need a roster and a playbook in here.  Put something together.", which McKiernan did based on his knowledge, not based on the status of Mithgar at the beginning of the story.



I think you're right on the money.

What he *should* have done, in a case like this, was something like Steven Brust's _The Phoenix Guards_, _Five Hundred Years After_, _Paths of the Dead_, and _Lord of Castle Black_.  He lists a Cast of Characters at the beginning of the book, with *very* loose descriptions, such as:

OF LORD ADRON'S COMPANY
Adron e'Keiron--Dragon Heir
Aliera e'Kieron--Adron's daughter
Molric e'Drien--Adron's chainman
Durtri--a sentry
Geb--a soldier

etc.

Very nice, IMO, without being a spoiler.  Exactly what Dragondoom needed instead of that spoiler-laden glossary.



> Jordan's Wheel of Time (which needs a companion book more than a glossary) doesn't give anything away.  The info is generally current before the start of the book that the glossary appears in.



That makes sense, especially in long things like that.  Raymond Feist's Riftwar books needs one of those, too.


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 20, 2003)

Well, since the discussion is flagging at the moment, I thought I'd address _Dragondoom_ from a slightly different avenue. What would it have taken for me to like the book?

To like it, right? Not love it? Well, it would have taken surprisingly little. I can deal with the photocopied  plot and characters. That's fine. Just about every David Gemmell novel is like the previous, which is like the previous, etc. Still, if it's just a fun read I'm after, Mr. Gemmell satisfies. So I guess all I really wanted was for Mr. McKiernan to write in the colloquial. Not even the colloquial, just the contemporary. I mean, the faux-Shakespearean was thrown in with the modern and the syntax jumped from formal to informal to archaic with no consistency at all. If one is trying to copy Lord Dunsany, copy, don't do half-measures. There's a reason why the prose of Lieber, Howard and Tolkien, which might in some corners be labelled purple, is still alive and beating today. It's because these writers knew and loved language. It showed. These were masters.

Now, I suppose it is possible to mix the archaic, formal and informal in such a way as to hold my attention. In fact, I think it is highly likely a good writer could do that. Unfortunately, Mr. McKiernan, in my estimation, comes nowhere close. There is obviously a market out there for his work. Great. I wish him well and the best of success. I will not, however, bother with any more of his books, even if someone swears up and down he's improved. There are way too many good writers out there with work I haven't read.

Oh, and I'm already half-way through _Tigana_. What a difference quality makes


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 20, 2003)

Dacileva said:
			
		

> That makes sense, especially in long things like that.  Raymond Feist's Riftwar books needs one of those, too.



Especially if you include Prince of the Blood, King's Buccaneer, the Mara Trilogy and the Serpent War quartet.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Sep 20, 2003)

I only give a book about 100-150 pages to get my attention.  I am not a speed reader and if the writing style and story can't grab my attention, I put the book down.  I didn't wat to because of the book club, but I failed my will throw.  I did read to about 170 something.  It was not horrible, but was not my thing.


----------



## Sam (Sep 20, 2003)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Now, I suppose it is possible to mix the archaic, formal and informal in such a way as to hold my attention. In fact, I think it is highly likely a good writer could do that. Unfortunately, Mr. McKiernan, in my estimation, comes nowhere close. There is obviously a market out there for his work. Great. I wish him well and the best of success. I will not, however, bother with any more of his books, even if someone swears up and down he's improved. There are way too many good writers out there with work I haven't read.
> 
> Oh, and I'm already half-way through _Tigana_. What a difference quality makes



I couldn't agree more.  The inconsistency in the tone and style was more jarring than the time jumping that took place in the novel.  

As for Tigana, I just sat down and read the prologue, and I am more interested in that book after 5 pages than I was for the first 200 of Dragondoom.  I forgot how much I like Kay's writing.  I think I need to put the Fionavar Tapestry on my personal list to read (or re-read, as the case may be).

I missed the majority of "new" fantasy and science fiction that came out in the last 10-15 years (having three kids, demanding jobs and going to grad school at night will take something out of your leisure reading time).  I'm finding myself with a bit more disposable time now, and have started catching up on what I had missed.  I'm hoping that there's a bunch that's better than McKiernan.  

FWIW, I'm really enjoying this discussion.  It's nice to have a thoughtful discussion on what is right (and wrong) with a novel.  Thank you to everyone who is participating!


----------



## nHammer (Sep 20, 2003)

I'm a little over half way done with _DragonDoom_.

It seems to me as if McKiernan wrote it to sound like a Bard is telling the tale. While that may make a good listening, it doesn't make a good reading.

I am still interested in the relationship between Elyn and Thork, so that will keep me reading it for awhile longer.

Personally I don't think Black Kalgalath has cause half as much trouble as Elgo did. His death didn't bring any tears to my eyes.


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 21, 2003)

nHammer said:
			
		

> It seems to me as if McKiernan wrote it to sound like a Bard is telling the tale. While that may make a good listening, it doesn't make a good reading.





I think you may be right, but--if I understand that you believe McKiernan's prose would sound better aloud than read silently--I think I would disagree that it would make good listening. As a counterpoint, read aloud _the Illiad_ or _the Aeneid_ or (more close to the effect I believe McKiernan may have been aiming for) _Beowulf_. McKiernan may have aimed for the lyricism of these works, but he did not maintain the consistency that such an effort--IMHO--requires. Much of the founders of modern fantasy--like William Morris or Lord Dunsany--wrote in the voice of the ancient bard with astounding success. McKiernan seems to try to copy these copies without putting any effort into erasing the contemporary tone in his voice. In my opinion, this is the basis of his inconsistent style as well as the basis for my extreme distaste.

In any case, I hope those who were able to overlook this--or were not bothered in any degree by this--enjoy the book. I do agree that this may have been a fun read if I had been able to swallow McKiernan's prose.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Sep 21, 2003)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Now, I suppose it is possible to mix the archaic, formal and informal in such a way as to hold my attention. In fact, I think it is highly likely a good writer could do that. Unfortunately, Mr. McKiernan, in my estimation, comes nowhere close. There is obviously a market out there for his work. Great. I wish him well and the best of success. I will not, however, bother with any more of his books, even if someone swears up and down he's improved. There are way too many good writers out there with work I haven't read.



I think this sums up my major problem with this book. I am one of those who has not finished the book. Originally, while I was reading in the short times I had available to me, I thought my slowness was due to the limited amounts of time I was allowing my self to read. The more I read, however, the more I realized that it wasn't me, it was the writing in the book that was slowing me down. Every time I read a sentance that contained a bastardization of the language, I was stopping and saying "thats just awful writing." When I realized I was doing this on almost every page, I finally put the book down. I wanted to like the book, but it just didn't work for me. I don't mind the recycled plot or stereotypical characters, I've read enough D&D novels and other quick fantasy books to know that sometimes that comes with the territory. Those are the books that I read between the really good books. When I was in highschool, I tried to read McKiernan's _Iron Tower_ trilogy, and was unable to get through the first half of the first book. Reading this, I was struck by the fact that I was having many of the same thoughts as I read this one. The old, familiar fantasy elements, written badly. There certainly is a market for Mr. McKiernan's books, as I can remember selling tons of his books whenever a new one came out at the bookstore I worked in in college. When I worked for HarperPrism, I remember one of our editors pitching a book as "similar in style to Dennis McKiernan" and showing sales figures on his books. He is a bankable author, and has an audience. I guess I'm just not part of it.


----------



## nHammer (Sep 21, 2003)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> I think you may be right, but--if I understand that you believe McKiernan's prose would sound better aloud than read silently--I think I would disagree that it would make good listening.




No, not quite. I think McKiernan fell short in his attempt to make it sound like a Bard's tale.


----------



## JoeBlank (Sep 22, 2003)

Sam said:
			
		

> I missed the majority of "new" fantasy and science fiction that came out in the last 10-15 years (having three kids, demanding jobs and going to grad school at night will take something out of your leisure reading time). I'm finding myself with a bit more disposable time now, and have started catching up on what I had missed. I'm hoping that there's a bunch that's better than McKiernan.



Sam, you and I seem to be in much of the same situation.

missed the majority of "new" fantasy and science fiction that came out in the last 10-15 years - Same here
having three kids - Same here, ages 5, 3 and 1
demanding jobs - Same here
grad school - You got me beat there, hopefully I am finished with schooling
more disposable time - Think I am just managing my time better; I hardly watch television anymore, and am much more satisfied with reading
hoping that there's a bunch that's better than McKiernan - while I was not quite as dissappointed as many have expressed, I found Dragondoom only a little above average, as I envision many of the licensed D&D novels to be. A decent, fun read, but no real lasting impression.
For the record, I am convinced that jester47 simply picked a book, from an author he has enjoyed in the past, but which he had not yet read. Now the consensus seems to be that Dragondoom is one of McKiernan's lesser works. I too found the reading kind of slow, and I guess the writing style is to blame here. 

Also, I was not very captivated by the Elyn/Thork relationship. I felt like we pretty much knew where that was going, and it did not hold any real surprises. I much more enjoyed the other chapters, especially after Elgo died. I expected his death to just about wrap up the flashbacks, but was pleased with the war and the reaction of the participants to the threat of Black Kalgaleth. 

If I had the time to read a novel or so per week, I would certainly consider more McKiernan. But my usual speed is about 6 weeks to finish a decent-sized book. By the time the kids are in bed, and the wife and I have actually been able to talk to one another, I often find myself falling asleep after reading a few pages. There is just so much A-List material out there that I have yet to read, so I don't have the time to spend on the B-List material.

With our agreed-upon requirements for book selections, I can see myself getting exposed to many authors, having a sample of their works, and often adding them to my A-List, all thanks to the EN World Book Club. In fact, I have already done this thanks to this forum, as I otherwise might never have heard of George R. R. Martin or Guy Gavriel Kay. I am now caught up on Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, but Tigana is only my second Kay novel.


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 22, 2003)

nHammer said:
			
		

> No, not quite. I think McKiernan fell short in his attempt to make it sound like a Bard's tale.




My apologies for misrepresenting your statement. It seems we are in much closer agreement than I had assumed!

Take care.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Sep 22, 2003)

I haven't finished the book either.  I also found it difficult to get into, I think that the flashbacks actually attributed to this as well as his style.  I'm enjoying it more as I plod through the book and I want to finish it though at the rate I'm going I might not get to _Tigana_ even if it is 6 weeks till the discussion starts.  It seems I may not have the time with RL, work, gaming, etc.     I am enjoying reading everyone's take on the book so I'll follow the other discussion wether I read the next book or not.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Sep 22, 2003)

I hope this group doesn't mind, but I started reading this thread because of the book being discussed. I read Dragondoom several years ago. It was the second McKiernan book I read, and I have become a big fan of his Mithgar novels. But I will admit Dragondoom is not one of his better works. If you don't mind, I thought I would give the group a little background on McKiernan and his Mithgar novels.

I didn't have a problem with Dragondoom jumping forward and backward in time, because the first McKiernan novel I read, The Eye of the Hunter, did the same thing. And was a lot more successful in its use of that technique. That's because Dragondoom was written earlier, when McKiernan was still learning to be a fiction writer.

I don't remember right off hand what McKiernan did before he became a fiction writer -- some technical job in the defense industry -- but he turned to writing when he was laid up at home for an extended time after a severe accident. He read Tolkien's work, then decided to write a "sequel," if you can imagine that. After finishing it, he shopped it around to various publishers. This is when he learned about copyright laws and such, and that you just couldn't write a book set in another author's world, and use characters and events from that world, without permission.

So in order to get the book published, he changed the names and places, etc., to it wouldn't violate any copyrights. This was the Iron Call, and like Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, was split into three volumes by the publisher because of the size.

His next book was the Silver Call, then Dragondoom. Having read Eye of the Hunter first, when I was reading Dragondoom I saw how McKiernan was attempting to grow as a writer in Dragondoom, and could appreciate it since I knew his writing would improve later.

As far as the Mithgar novels as a whole, McKiernan's "hook" if you will for the stories is that he found ancient, original scrolls or texts that were written by an unknown author from Mithgar, and he merely translated them for a modern audience. Sort of like what Ed Greenwood used to do with his Elminster articles in Dragon Magazine -- pretending Elminster really did exist in another dimension, and would visit Ed to dictate information about the Forgotten Realms in exchange for ice cream. So that accounts for some of the bard-like quality of his writing -- he's trying to write as if the stories were written by someone else long ago.

As far as the changes between archaic, formal and informal language, one of the things McKiernan does is claim that some of the races of Mithgar use different styles of language, and he tries to maintain that feel when he "translates" their language. The elves, for example, use very archaic expressions such as "thee" and "thou." I'll admit this didn't bother me too much whenever I read his work, but I can see where it would be bothersome to people not familiar with his work, or who prefer a more consistent style of writing.

I hope my post gives the group some understanding and insight into McKiernan and his writing, as that was my sole intention. I am not trying to change anyone's mind about whether you should like or dislike his work. Hopefully I haven't hijacked your discussion too far off course. 

But I would recommend reading Eye of the Hunter. This is one of the best fantasy books I've ever read. In fact, I include it on my list of my 10 favorite books ever, of any genre. Your mileage may vary, but it is a very interesting book.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Sep 22, 2003)

Thanks Shadowdancer.   I do plan on giving him another read, just when I can find the time.


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 22, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> I hope this group doesn't mind, but I started reading this thread because of the book being discussed.




I don't think anyone minds people dropping in and adding to the discussion. Glad to have you!



			
				Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> I don't remember right off hand what McKiernan did before he became a fiction writer -- some technical job in the defense industry -- but he turned to writing when he was laid up at home for an extended time after a severe accident. He read Tolkien's work, then decided to write a "sequel," if you can imagine that. After finishing it, he shopped it around to various publishers. This is when he learned about copyright laws and such, and that you just couldn't write a book set in another author's world, and use characters and events from that world, without permission.
> 
> So in order to get the book published, he changed the names and places, etc., to it wouldn't violate any copyrights. This was the Iron Call, and like Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, was split into three volumes by the publisher because of the size.




Was that the "Iron Tower" series? I think it must have been because it was a fairly close copy of LotR. I found it far too derivative. I don't mind retelling a story--as I've mentioned before--but I hope for at least *something* new, a fresh voice, a new take on a character, something. I didn't feel that I got that from "Iron Tower" and that was when I was back in high school and nowhere near as critical a reader as I am now.



			
				Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> As far as the Mithgar novels as a whole, McKiernan's "hook" if you will for the stories is that he found ancient, original scrolls or texts that were written by an unknown author from Mithgar, and he merely translated them for a modern audience. Sort of like what Ed Greenwood used to do with his Elminster articles in Dragon Magazine -- pretending Elminster really did exist in another dimension, and would visit Ed to dictate information about the Forgotten Realms in exchange for ice cream. So that accounts for some of the bard-like quality of his writing -- he's trying to write as if the stories were written by someone else long ago.




And there's nothing wrong with using that device. It's an old, tried and true method. In fact, I've read one Daniel Defoe novel (_A Journal of the Plague Year_) and have recently picked up another (_Memoirs of a Cavalier_) in which Defoe did the same thing. Of course, Defoe's manuscripts were supposedly only written earlier rather than on a completely different planet/reality/dimension. I'm not saying it's a bad conceit to use, and many fantasy authors have done the same. I would say, though, that Mr. McKiernan fails at this. In order to accept such a conceit (as part of the willing suspension of disbelief, not as accepting there is a real Mithgar et al), this 'other, original author' needs to have a voice--a specific, recognizable voice. Mr. McKiernan, in my opinion, fails in his lack of consistency. There is no narrative voice, rather a mish-mash of styles and usage. But that's just my opinion.



			
				Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> As far as the changes between archaic, formal and informal language, one of the things McKiernan does is claim that some of the races of Mithgar use different styles of language, and he tries to maintain that feel when he "translates" their language. The elves, for example, use very archaic expressions such as "thee" and "thou." I'll admit this didn't bother me too much whenever I read his work, but I can see where it would be bothersome to people not familiar with his work, or who prefer a more consistent style of writing.




However, it is not in the dialogue--or perhaps I should more correctly say not *only* in the dialogue--that this inconsistency occurs. I would say that if the dwarves or the elves or the humans are supposed to use a particular style, that style should remain consistent with those characters/races/cultures/what-have-you. If it is not, it is--again, in my opinion--an excuse for lazy writing. This is what I found with _Dragondoom_. Characters' usages and syntax would unaccountably change, often in short scenes. Further, the narrative was riddled with this. Also, if Mr. McKiernan is working with the concept that he is translating from an earlier, ancient source, the voice of that source should be reflected in the narrative. I did not find that. In fact, I found the narrative quite muddled, as I mentioned above. 

However, to each his own. Mr. McKiernan has his audience and that's a good thing. It's good because he is able to entertain as a story-teller, which is obviously his intent, and those who enjoy his work are entertained, which is the point of literature.

Thanks for offering your take on the book, Shadowdancer. I hope my statements don't seem too caustic. They are not intended to be.


----------



## nHammer (Sep 22, 2003)

Thanks for the input Shadowdancer. 



> As far as the Mithgar novels as a whole, McKiernan's "hook" if you will for the stories is that he found ancient, original scrolls or texts that were written by an unknown author from Mithgar, and he merely translated them for a modern audience




I was actually going to comment on this. I had forgotten about the "Notes" section at the beginning of the book that mentions this. 

I also wanted to mention something McKiernan talks about in the "Foreward Anew" section of the edition of _Dragondoom_ that I have. McKiernan says, and I quote, _"...I didn't know how I could tell it such that the reader would know that it was really Elyn's story--hers and Thork's. You see, if I told it in a "linear" fashion, I was afriad that the reader would get focused on the wrong person as being the protagonist in the tale."_, end quote. We have all read his solution to his conundrum.

Question...If read linear, do you think you would have focused on the wrong person as the protagonist?

I myself don't think I would have. Read linear, I think I would have felt that Elyn is the main character of the book.

Thoughts?


----------



## Shadowdancer (Sep 22, 2003)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Was that the "Iron Tower" series?



Yes, it was the "Iron Tower." I mistakenly wrote "Iron Call." "The Silver Call" was his second book. 



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Thanks for offering your take on the book, Shadowdancer. I hope my statements don't seem too caustic. They are not intended to be.



No, they weren't too caustic. I agree with much of what you said. As I wrote in my earlier post, this wasn't one of McKiernan's better novels. He was trying some new things out as a writer, and experimenting, which is a good thing, but he did fail in some of what he was attempting. The real surprise, I guess, is that the book got published anyway, despite its problems.

I'm sure if this had been the first of his books I had read, I might not have read any others. I'm glad I read one of his later, better, books first before reading this one. Sort of how I got into one of my other favorite authors, Clive Cussler, and his Dirk Pitt novels. I read "Raise the Titanic" in high school, when it was on the best seller list. I read a couple of his other novels as they were released, and enjoyed them all. Then I went back and started reading some of his earlier novels, and it was like I was reading the work of a completely different writer. I was beginning to wonder if maybe he had hired a ghost writer to pen "Raise the Titanic" and all the books after.


----------



## JoeBlank (Sep 23, 2003)

nHammer said:
			
		

> Question...If read linear, do you think you would have focused on the wrong person as the protagonist?
> 
> I myself don't think I would have. Read linear, I think I would have felt that Elyn is the main character of the book.
> 
> Thoughts?



Count me as one of the few not bothered at all by the non-linear structure. I actually kind of liked it, and it helped with the fact that I was becoming bored with Elyn and Thork. So the flashbacks were a nice break from that storyline.

If written completely linear, one could certainly think that Elgo was the main character, if you avoided spoilers. In fact, one could become attached to Elgo as the protagonist and switching to an Elyn-based story might be jarring.

And we are glad to have anyone participate in the discussion, Shadowdancer. Thanks for your input.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 25, 2003)

One thing that bugged me about the book was that little Silver Horn. First the armsmaster is throwing treasure overboard, but gets stopped before he tosses the Silver Horn.  Then Elgo's son wants the Silver Horn.  Then the dwarves try to see if the Silver Horn is in the treasure trove.  Then the evil wizard wants Kalagath to see if the Silver Horn is in the trove.  I felt like I was being bludgeoned by all the foreshadowing of this item, and find out nothing of its importance in the story.


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Oct 1, 2003)

Hi,

I avoided this thread till I finished DragonDoom, so I've just read all the other comments now to catch up.

I enjoyed the book overall, but I don't expect to bother with the author again anytime soon.

As many others have said, I too found it slow going in the beginning - trying to find the real story, etc.  And the older style definately slowed down my reading.

But it picked up for me in the second half, when I finally knew the whole background - once I knew why Throk and Elyn were in the swamp at the same time.

I think what annoyed me most with the archaic style was the alternative spellings of words.  For example, he used the spelling "waggon" quite often, and this did slow me down a bit.

I agree with King Paul that all the fuss about the silver hammer and it not being resolved was also frustrating.

Anyway, I was worried that because I was behind schedule with DragonDoom, I wouldn't be able to finish Tigana in time, but I've found it a real page-turner - easy going but interesting.  I'm glad for that, because I want to be able to join in on the discussion when it starts, but also because I do have other books to read ;-)

thanks,

Duncan


----------



## nHammer (Oct 1, 2003)

I finally finished the book....


...just thought I'd say that.


----------



## Sam (Oct 2, 2003)

nHammer said:
			
		

> I finally finished the book....



Awww.... C'mon.  This is a *DISCUSSION GROUP*!!!!   Now that you've finished, what did you think?  Did your feelings about it change as you got closer to the end?  Were you surprised by the ending or any story turns?  Fess up.... What did you think?


----------



## nHammer (Oct 2, 2003)

ok, ok, ok keep your phez on..

I figured one of them would die. Thought it would be Thork as he was dealing the death blow. I didn't feel sad that Elyn died so much as I felt bad for what Thork was going through(emotionaly speaking).

I found the Stone Giants the most interesting thing about the ending. I'd like to read more about them.

It wasn't a bad book. It just didn't do anything for me. I didn't find it very exciting. The only reason I finished it was because i decided to make the commitment to the bookclub.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Oct 22, 2003)

*Casts Resurrect Dead Thread Spell*

Whew, now that that is done...

Well, I finally finished the book.  Sorry it took my so long but as time went by I've been working on a few other things dealing with RL and MC and computer stuff (like Temple of Elemental Evil).

Overall I liked the book.  As I had said before- at first I had a difficult time getting into it but I liked it more and more as it went on.  As someone stated earlier I would have liked to know why that lilttle horn was so important and what it did considering that Andrak wanted it and the Dwarves thought it very important.  I take it that is mentioned in another book.

I like the fact that there was some history in the back of the book to give you some background and it left me wanting to read more about Mithgar so I will say that it accomplished its' mission in telling a good story leaving the reader wanting more.  Though I don't know when I'll be able to do so.

I just wanted to let everyone know that I finished it and what I thought about it.


----------



## nHammer (Oct 24, 2003)

Good job finishing the book. Now you have about 8 days to finish the next book. All 600(and change) pages of Tigana.


----------



## kingpaul (Oct 24, 2003)

nHammer said:
			
		

> Good job finishing the book. Now you have about 8 days to finish the next book. All 600(and change) pages of Tigana.



Actually, that shouldn't be that hard.  I know that many people have said they found Tigana to be a page turner...I know I did.


----------



## Dacileva (Oct 24, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Actually, that shouldn't be that hard.  I know that many people have said they found Tigana to be a page turner...I know I did.



I definitely did.  I think it took me some 8 days, total, to read it.  Since, I've re-read some mostly frivolous stuff (_Yendi_ by Steven Brust and the first five John Carter books by Edgar Rice Burroughs).  Well, that and the Arcana Unearthed rulebook.  And various Star Wars sourcebooks.  Then again, I also just started in on Ben Bova's _Mars_, so I've still got some reading ahead of me.


----------



## nHammer (Oct 24, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Actually, that shouldn't be that hard.  I know that many people have said they found Tigana to be a page turner...I know I did.




I'm really digging it as well.


----------

