# Is Drizzt destined to become a Classic?



## nikolai (Jan 24, 2004)

Is Drizzt destined to become a Classic? By classic I mean a classic of the Sword-and-sorcery genre, I'm not comparing it to Tolstoy.

Drizzt is popular and quite iconic. Do you think R. A. Salvatore's hero and writing stands along side that of Robert E. Howard, Michael Moorcock and Fritz Leiber? Will Drizzt books be next to their's on S&S must-read lists in 10-20 years time. And what do you think of the influence of RPG related fiction on fantasy literature?


----------



## Crothian (Jan 24, 2004)

No, I don't think it will.  The stories are some of the best RPG oriented stories out there, but I don't think they stand up to the classics.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 24, 2004)

Druss the Legend is far more iconic/classic than Drizzt.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 24, 2004)

Salvatore's Drizzt novels consistantly make the New York Times bestseller list, something unheard of for gaming novels.  I even know several non-RPGers who love the Drizzt novels and pick up the new ones whenever they come out.

So yes, I think Drizzt could be considered a famous fantasy character.  He might not be as famous as, say, Conan or Gandalf.  But I'd definately place him on the same level as Elric or _(shudder)_ Rand Al Thor.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jan 24, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Druss the Legend is far more iconic/classic than Drizzt.





Amen brother!

I think the Dritzz arch-type is classic and has some mass appeal but the character himself is little known outside of gaming circles. If they made a movie about him that could change.

Dritzz IMO falls into the same category as Wolverine, Tarzan, Rambo, and other outsiders who instinctivly recognize good, no matter how indoctrinated into other ways they might be. They also don't neccessiarily follow the social mores that are more dogmatic than substance. Leaving them on the outside and the victim of stigma, striving to do the right thing as they see it which often gets them into trouble with the institutions.

Course I haven't read Dritzz in nearly a decade so I could be way off.


----------



## Buttercup (Jan 24, 2004)

[ looks into crystal ball ]

Salvatore's writing classic?  Not on your life.  The mists of time will swallow him and his work.  

I don't think RPG related fiction has had much of an effect on publishing per se.  It's part of the whole licensed property concept.  Star Trek was the first big winner, then Star Wars, with Forgotten Realms appearing shortly after that.  We're starting to see reprints of many of the early Realms and Dragonlance titles bundled in hardback editions, Salvatore's stuff included.  This signals the beginning of the end, in my experience.  Why?  The publisher is trying to milk the same cow twice, at as small an expense as possible.  

In 10 years you'll still be able to find Salvatore's stuff on the shelves of larger libraries, because libraries are in the business of keeping stuff.  But you won't be able to buy Drizzt books, except on Ebay.  In 30 years, no one will have heard of him.  Tolkien will live on.  George R R Martin will live on.  Heck, even Mercedes Lackey, much as her work makes my fillings ache, stands a better chance of living on than Salvatore.

[ swathes crystal ball carefully in its silk wrapper, and puts it away ]


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Jan 24, 2004)

No.  In 20 years, Salvator and his pet munchkin will be long gone and forgotten.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jan 24, 2004)

I think he will become a classic.  But, i like Drizzt.


----------



## Endur (Jan 24, 2004)

There is a whole series of "Oz" books, but only the "The Wizard of Oz" is really recognized as a classic.

The Weis and Hickman original Dragonlance trilogy is a classic in my opinion.  The rest of the TSR/WOTC books probably will never be recognized as classics.  

Of all of Salvatore's writing, the book that comes closest to being a classic and might be recognized as such, would be the original Drizzt novel, "The Crystal Shard."


----------



## gfunk (Jan 24, 2004)

The definition of classic is really being used loosely in this thread.  Some compare it to Tolkien, whose name many people who haven't read LotR would recognize.

Of the three authors mentioned above, I only know about Moorcock.  It is quite possible that Salvatore will be in the same genre as the authors the original poster mentioned.


----------



## nikolai (Jan 24, 2004)

Sword and Sorcery is at the bottom of the genre pile. It's considered trashy, even for fantasy. There's no suggestion that this is a work of literature; I just want to debate it's standing with sub-genre.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=books/main/classicsoffantasy



			
				Buttercup said:
			
		

> We're starting to see reprints of many of the early Realms and Dragonlance titles bundled in hardback editions, Salvatore's stuff included.  This signals the beginning of the end...
> 
> In 10 years you'll still be able to find Salvatore's stuff on the shelves of larger libraries, because libraries are in the business of keeping stuff.  But you won't be able to buy Drizzt books, except on Ebay.  In 30 years, no one will have heard of him.




Buttercup, I really do respect your opinion; but I'm not sure I agree with it here. I've seen Pratchett's work bundled together in hardback, and I doubt this is the beginning of the end for him. I think it's just a response to lots of books and a way of trying to make them available and expand the readership. I'm not saying this means that it will still be around in the future, but I don't think it means it won't either. The shared-world and ownership by Wizards puts this type of writing apart from S&S writing originally published in pulps or short story collections, I'm not sure what the consequence of it will be though.

I agree with Crothian that it's the best of the RPG lit, which is not saying much. I'm just interested in what will happen in the long run. Drizzt sells and it sells lots, it's also 16 years since Drizzt first appeared, so if it's dying it's dying slowly.


----------



## Melan (Jan 24, 2004)

What is a classic? Is John Norman's GOR (Heh...   ) classics? If yes, Drizzt can hope for the best. But he will never be as big as Conan or John Carter. Maybe even Raistlin. I dislike the Dragonlance trilogy, but I admit they have a chance - about as much as a 2nd line fantasist does.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 24, 2004)

Elric. Conan. Grey Mouser. Gandalf. John Carter. Drizzt.

I don't have a problem with that list.

I've known a number of people who have read Drizzt novels but who have absolutely no interest in Role-Playing Games at all. 

If a character can break out of our provincial little sub-subculture and into the mainstream of geekdom---more power to him.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 24, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> No.  In 20 years, Salvator and his pet munchkin will be long gone and forgotten.



God how I wish but I think not, having been gaming 20+ years, I have seen some things and  I think Drizzt will be a classic, good or bad the duel sword using drow will be with us.


----------



## Oni (Jan 24, 2004)

If Drizzt becomes a classic character it won't be based on the strength of Salvatore's writing.  While I can respect that fact that the man gets regular work, I imagine it's mostly because it's is writing is easily digestable by the younger crowd.  Personally I find his writing dull and ackward, his characters lifeless.  And how many bloody times can you use the phrase perfect balance in the same book?


----------



## LGodamus (Jan 24, 2004)

well if current sales are any sort of indicator...then sure he will...as has already been mentioned the Drizz books almost always hit the best seller list...thats not fantasy best seller...thats new york times best seller, for all books ,list. There are lots of Drizz fans that have nothing to do with RPGs, I know more than  a few. While He may never be as big as conan or LOTR..the people saying that dragonlance is more classic are a little deluded...even if dragonlance is better material more people are gonna remember the dark elf..cause more people read the book in the first place.


----------



## gfunk (Jan 24, 2004)

There seems to be a lot of Salvatore envy/bitterness on this thread.


----------



## Turjan (Jan 24, 2004)

Hmm... I heard nobody ever make a good remark about Salvatore's writing style. I always hear "dull", "bland", "lifeless". I don't really know why he is so popular.

So the answer to the original question would be: if the definition "classic" includes anything like quality, definitely no! If you go for sales figures and invention of one of the most overused fantasy stereotypes to day, then yes .


----------



## D'karr (Jan 24, 2004)

gfunk said:
			
		

> There seems to be a lot of Salvatore envy/bitterness on this thread.



To say it mildly usually those who cannot write, toss tomatoes...


----------



## Buttercup (Jan 25, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Buttercup, I really do respect your opinion; but I'm not sure I agree with it here. .



That's perfectly ok.  For all you know, my crystal ball could be scratched.  Or it could have been replaced with a defective one by a dire capuchin monkey.

Let me say this, then.  Salvatore appeals to a certain demographic, as do the rest of the FR novels.  It's no accident that FR novels have been paperback originals, given the demographic they're aimed at.  But some of the early readers remember the old titles with fondness, and they now have enough disposable income to purchase them again, only in hardback "keepsake" editions.   

I guess it depends on your definition of classic.  IMO, something can't be a classic unless it's reasonably well written.  So, though I know many people love his work, I'm sorry, but Salvatore ain't never gonna be a classic author.  He's just not good enough.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 25, 2004)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> [ looks into crystal ball ]In 10 years you'll still be able to find Salvatore's stuff on the shelves of larger libraries, because libraries are in the business of keeping stuff.  But you won't be able to buy Drizzt books, except on Ebay.  In 30 years, no one will have heard of him.  Tolkien will live on.  George R R Martin will live on.  Heck, even Mercedes Lackey, much as her work makes my fillings ache, stands a better chance of living on than Salvatore.




I disagree.

The first book to feature Drizzt was published 16 years ago, and sold very well.  Subsequent books featuring Drizzt and his friends have also been big sellers.  Salvatore has said that he enjoys writing Drizzt stories so much he dosen't forsee stopping any time soon.

So, I think Drizzt is going to be around for a good, long time.


----------



## Buttercup (Jan 25, 2004)

gfunk said:
			
		

> There seems to be a lot of Salvatore envy/bitterness on this thread.



I don't envy him, nor am I bitter.  I just think he's a hack.  There are people I envy, but come to think of it, none of them are authors.


----------



## Turjan (Jan 25, 2004)

gfunk said:
			
		

> There seems to be a lot of Salvatore envy/bitterness on this thread.



I don't think it's envy. Personally, I think earning money by meeting the interests of many people and actually fulfilling these interests is a very clever thing. I can appreciate that.
Nevertheless, it's no secret that Salvatore's writing style is far from good. Don't get me wrong, as far as style goes, I don't think that Tolkien is a good writer, either. In Tolkien's case, I nevertheless like the books because of the ideas behind them. In Salvatore's case, I don't .







			
				D'karr said:
			
		

> To say it mildly usually those who cannot write, toss tomatoes...



Oh, the old stance that those who cannot achieve a certain work themselves are not allowed to judge someone else's work. This notion doesn't become more true by constant repetition.


----------



## Oni (Jan 25, 2004)

OH, you don't like something, you must be envious or bitter about it.  

um....no, I just don't like it.  

And as far as those can't toss tomatoes.  

1.  A person does not have to be skilled in a craft to be a competent judge of the final product.  

2.  It has been my experience that when people do error in judgement over the quality of an item through their lack of knowledge of its creation it is more likely they well appreciate something that is mediocre than dislike something that is well made.


----------



## Buttercup (Jan 25, 2004)

D'karr said:
			
		

> To say it mildly usually those who cannot write, toss tomatoes...



But what of those of us who can, and do write?  Are we allowed to have an opinion?

Besides, your point is not reasonable.  Do you mean to suggest, by extension, that if I can't build a house myself, I have no right to have an opinion about one style of dwelling versus another?  I'm sure you don't.  But it's the same thing, you know.


----------



## gfunk (Jan 25, 2004)

As others have pointed out, fantasy is the bottom of the barrel genre. It doesn't nearly have the stature of say science-fiction or (IMO) even alternative history.

Other than things like Arthurian legends and similarly old works, I think perhaps fantasy and classic are mutually exclusive. Also, I don't think Tolkien would be as remotely popular as he is today without Peter Jackson.


----------



## D'karr (Jan 25, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> SNIP...
> 
> Nevertheless, it's no secret that Salvatore's writing style is far from good.



And that is your opinion, which you are completely entitled to.  However, it is obviously not the opinion of the many readers who continue to buy his books when they come out.




> Oh, the old stance that those who cannot achieve a certain work themselves are not allowed to judge someone else's work. This notion doesn't become more true by constant repetition.



Well, you can judge all you want.  Your opinion only has importance to you and is just as valid as everyone elses.  Besides it seems that the majority of opinions are still firmly on Salvatore's camp.


----------



## Turjan (Jan 25, 2004)

@gfunk: Tolkien has already been very popular in the 70's. I suppose that about half of my classmates read the LotR. This was also about the sole fantasy book the teachers acutally knew. So I'd say that Peter Jackson added somewhat to Tolkien's popularity, but he didn't make him a classic. He's already been a classic long before that.



			
				D'karr said:
			
		

> And that is your opinion, which you are completely entitled to. However, it is obviously not the opinion of the many readers who continue to buy his books when they come out



There are objective standards for use of the English language and writing styles, and according to these standards Salvatore's writing is sub-par. There's nothing subjective about this statement. You may like his books, but they are bad style, nevertheless.
And your dismissal of other's opinion because they can't write is just ridiculous as several others have pointed out by now. I can't write and my English is, admittedly, not very good (that's the point with foreign languages, I suppose). Nevertheless, I recognize bad style when it hits me.


----------



## D'karr (Jan 25, 2004)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> But what of those of us who can, and do write? Are we allowed to have an opinion?
> 
> Besides, your point is not reasonable. Do you mean to suggest, by extension, that if I can't build a house myself, I have no right to have an opinion about one style of dwelling versus another? I'm sure you don't. But it's the same thing, you know.



Are you allowed to have an opinion?  Of course.  There is a difference between an opinion and a criticism that has no constructive side to it based solely on personal opinion.

Yes, you have a right to your preferences but calling someone a hack, just because you don't like their particular style is not the same as your example.

Just because I don't like Art Deco does not mean that people that create in that style are hacks.


----------



## jeffsforehead (Jan 25, 2004)

Yeah, R.A. Salvatore is a hack.


----------



## Buttercup (Jan 25, 2004)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Are you allowed to have an opinion? Of course. There is a difference between an opinion and a criticism that has no constructive side to it based solely on personal opinion.
> 
> Yes, you have a right to your preferences but calling someone a hack, just because you don't like their particular style is not the same as your example.
> 
> Just because I don't like Art Deco does not mean that people that create in that style are hacks.



But you see, there actually are objective means of judging literary works.  Theme, plot, characterization, pacing, et cetera, all play a part.  And by these standards, Salvatore, and many other extremely popular authors, irregardless of genre, come up wanting.  Mind you, I'm not one of those people who despises something just because it's popular.  Sticking to the subject of authors, for instance, Steven King is wildly popular, but also has an excellent command of the English language, and of literary form.  So even though I'm not a big fan of his, I would never call him a hack.  Moorcock, or Silverberg, or, as I mentioned earlier, Martin, all are excellent writers, who are far more likely to stand the test of time than is Salvatore.  Anne McCaffrey, on the other hand, though I dearly love many of her stories, isn't a very good writer, in the technical sense.

And I think it's worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with enjoying someone's books, even though they aren't a great writer.  When I say that Salvatore is a hack, that doesn't mean I think people who like him are inferior in some way.  I'm sure Mr. Salvatore is a very nice man.  Rich too, most likely.  He's just doesn't have the same talent or skill as George R. R. Martin, or Michael Moorcock, or Robert Silverberg, or Ursula LeGuin or C.L. Moore....


----------



## D'karr (Jan 25, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> There are objective standards for use of the English language and writing styles, and according to this standards Salvatore's writing is sub-par. There's nothing subjective about this statement. You may like it, but it's bad style, nevertheless.



And since I never said I liked Salvatore's style that is the first flaw.  And besides it is irrelevant to this discussion.  The original question had nothing to do with whether I or anyone else likes or dislikes Salvatore's writing.  It had to do with a specific character of his novels ever becoming a classic.

My first post was in response to someone commenting that there seemed to be a lot of vitriol whenever Salvatore was mentioned.  I happen to agree.  It always seems like a very vocal minority throws stones at Salvatore because his writing is, according to them, sub-par.  However, he is still published and a New York Bestseller List author to boot.

Man, I wish my writing style was as sub-par.



> And your dismissal of other's opinion because they can't write is just ridiculous as several others have pointed out by now. I can't write and my English is, admittedly, not very good (that's the point with foreign languages, I suppose). Nevertheless, I recognize bad style when it hits me.



Let's get facts straight, I never dismissed anyone's opinion. I said they were entitled to them.  However, you know what is usually said of opinions - everyone has got one.

Critics abound whenever someone gets to do something that the majority does not.  Their OPINIONS have as much weight as mine, which is to say none.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 25, 2004)

D'karr said:
			
		

> To say it mildly usually those who cannot write, toss tomatoes...




"How is it that R.A. Salvatore is able to publish so many books, but I can't get anybody to read my Sailor Moon fan fiction?"



Okay, maybe a slight exaggeration, but I do see that mentality from every wannabe writer who thinks that their stuff is better than stuff the professionals make.


----------



## KenM (Jan 25, 2004)

gfunk said:
			
		

> There seems to be a lot of Salvatore envy/bitterness on this thread.




  Salvatore does a good job of describing the action, has decent pacing, ect.. But IMO He is just a a action/ adventure type writer. JRRT did a great job of describing setting, but IMO he totally sucked at pacing and describing the major action/ plot devolpment in LotR. Martin IMO has the perfect balance between the two, at least in ASOIAF.
   My problem is not with Drizzit, but all the people that want to play Drizzit clones in RPG's. Think of something orginal.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Jan 25, 2004)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> [ looks into crystal ball ]
> 
> Salvatore's writing classic?  Not on your life.  The mists of time will swallow him and his work....In 30 years, no one will have heard of him.  Tolkien will live on.  George R R Martin will live on.  Heck, even Mercedes Lackey, much as her work makes my fillings ache, stands a better chance of living on than Salvatore.
> 
> [ swathes crystal ball carefully in its silk wrapper, and puts it away ]




Oh my Goddess, I think I'm in love.  Buttercup, if I ever have wronged you with words or deeds, I apologize.  That post was eloquently beautiful and accurate!


----------



## D'karr (Jan 25, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> My problem is not with Drizzit, but all the people that want to play Drizzit clones in RPG's. Think of something orginal.



Bravo!!

Heh, heh.  Those who cannot come up with something original, play Drizzt.  LOL


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Jan 25, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Tolkien has already been very popular in the 70's. I suppose that about half of my classmates read the LotR. This was also about the sole fantasy book the teachers acutally knew. So I'd say that Peter Jackson added somewhat to Tolkien's popularity, but he didn't make him a classic. He's already been a classic long before that.



Indeed, it could be said that Jackson did the movies _because_ the books are classics.  Considering how just about _every_ interview with him consists of repeated statements of "getting it right" because there are "millions of fans of the books" shows that even he himself understands the trust he was given when he took on the task as well as the reprocussions of turning a classic into a dud.  Anyone thinking that Tolkein is popular _because_ of Jackson might want to consider why news of LotR becoming a movie spread so quickly through the gaming community to begin with.  Surely it wasn't because of Peter Jackson, was it?  No, it's because it was _Lord of the Rings_.  Jackson's name became known because that's the name of the guy that was going to get tarred and feathered if he screwed it up.

Then there's Drizzt...  Sure, someone can make a Drizzt movie, but looking at the D&D movie that was already made, it wouldn't do much except make a bunch of fanboys drool while re-inforcing the views of those that dislike Salvatore's writing already.  Add in the fact that even his non-Drizzt works are just as drab, boring, and two-dimensional.  And anyone making a movie needn't be worried about getting tarred and feathered by millions of fans, although the poor sap that drew the short straw for the job probably should worry about a few pie-throwing fanboys.

I agree that Tolkein's writing isn't the be-all best.  However, Tolkein created a world that was rich, living, and deeply immersive.  Tolkein _invites_ you into Middle Earth.  Salvatore, however, relies primarily on the backdrop of the Realms which he can't really effect in any dramatic way without WotC approval.  Note a recurring theme in many Drizzt books: He constantly _prevents_ Toril from being dramatically changed by the bad guys while gaining very little ground for the good guys.  Why?  Because it would change the Realms, and that requires Market Group Research, Accessory pre-planning, and months of playtesting.  >yawn<  Salvatore's hands are kinda tied there.

And, to top it off, I read _a lot_.  My reading library is about twice the size as my gaming library (containing all of the writers Buttercup lists and many more).  So, I must concur with the sentiment that Salvatore is a hack, a popular writer of our time who's books will (at best) out live him for only a short time, and will then appear in collection volumes, and then later on the Home Shopping Network and in the Sci-Fi Book Club.

(Hmmm...  Got images of fanboys lurking around Salvatore's grave like he was Jim Morrison or something...  Gotta stop snorting dandelions...)


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 25, 2004)

I have never read any of his work. But I had to post because of somethings that were said. 

When it comes to art any kind saying if something is good is very subjective it so much depends on what you like, where you come from, even how you feel the day you are exposed to it.

I have to say that I have read many so called classics and have been bored to tears. They just didn't speak to me.

One reason things become classics is their staying power and in their ability to speak to us. For example the Scarlet Letter is considered by many to be a classic but not to me when I read it I got so annoyed with Hester to the modern me I felt that she made herself a victim and that she should have spoken up that the man who got her pregnant was as much involved as she was. I did not see it as a nobel act but a stupid one. So it did not really speak to me. It is the same with Salvador Dali's art I am usually like yeah there is that damn burning girafe again.  Yet I have a friend who just loves his work.


----------



## KenM (Jan 25, 2004)

As an aside, I meet Salvatore at a con back in like 1990, nice guy. I think he writes what people want to read, he has to pay the bills.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 25, 2004)

I'm not a Drizzt fan, though I've enjoyed some of Salvatore's writing.  Heck, I enjoyed the D&D novel line, even though they're utter drivel, from a literary standpoint.  But Salvatore a classic?  No, not yet.  The _Dragonlance Chronicles_ might qualify -- maybe, barely -- but that's the only gaming fiction I'd nominate.

My biggest gripe with Salvatore isn't his characters, or background, or action, or any of that -- it's his formula.  After the first two novels of his I read, the "begin the chapter with deep introspective commentary" got really, really old.


----------



## Orius (Jan 25, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> My problem is not with Drizzit, but all the people that want to play Drizzit clones in RPG's. Think of something orginal.




Yeah, I think that has a lot to do with people's opinions here.  A lot of DMs are simply disgusted with Drizzt clones.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 25, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> Yeah, I think that has a lot to do with people's opinions here.  A lot of DMs are simply disgusted with Drizzt clones.




I've noticed that whenever the subject of Drizzt or R.A. Salvatore comes up on RPG-related internet forums, people start bashing him with such fervor that you'd think R.A. Salvatore had taken the last beer out of their fridge and run off with their girlfriends.  And one of the most frequent things people complain about are players who create Drizzt clones.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that a lot of the knee-jerk RAS bashers out there haven't even read any of his novels, they're just tired of seeing good-aligned drow pop up in their campaigns.


----------



## Numion (Jan 25, 2004)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Hmm... I heard nobody ever make a good remark about Salvatore's writing style. I always hear "dull", "bland", "lifeless". I don't really know why he is so popular.
> 
> So the answer to the original question would be: if the definition "classic" includes anything like quality, definitely no! If you go for sales figures and invention of one of the most overused fantasy stereotypes to day, then yes .




Salvatore has his moments. He's defined much of the feel of Forgotten Realms for me - not the high-powered stuff of Elminster and company, but a harsh, unforgiving and sometimes racist land. But my feelings are minors as far as his achievements go. 

People claim his characters to be lifeless. I don't think so. His approach is that he tells very deeply about the inner feelings of his characters. If the characters are intresting, thats a good thing. And Salvatore has created some excellent villains. At best his style works very well for these kind of books. If the characters are dull (Wulfgar, anyone?), the result is a very boring book. 

Overally I am very happy about the better ones of his books. It's nice to know the inner feelings of the characters sometimes. LotR for example doesn't bother to tell much about the characters. Im not saying that it should, but most we know about Aragorn is that he's got long legs (from the description at the prancing pony). Whoop-ti-doo. 

Homeland trilogy is an excellent read IMO - from there it goes downhill (except for Silent Blade - that was good).   

Classic status? Probably not.

EDIT: Just to start a DL vs. FR war, I'dd say that the Drizzt trilogy is much better than the DL one. Both series have had decreasing quality over the years, so it's a fair comparison. I'm hoping for a Tanis vs. Entreri match ..


----------



## Ackem (Jan 25, 2004)

Yes, this is because fantasy readership and acclaim is inversely proportional to the quality of the novel.


----------



## Numion (Jan 25, 2004)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Bravo!!
> 
> Heh, heh.  Those who cannot come up with something original, play Drizzt.  LOL




Because we know for a *fact* that all the roleplaying game characters created before the year 1989 (when Drizzt was first published) were all *completely original*, not one borrowing from existing fiction or fact


----------



## Numion (Jan 25, 2004)

Ackem said:
			
		

> Yes, this is because fantasy readership and acclaim is inversely proportional to the quality of the novel.




Soo .. Lord of the Rings is the worst, and some anonymous messageboarders' sailor moon fan fiction is the best in quality?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 25, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> Because we know for a *fact* that all the roleplaying game characters created before the year 1989 (when Drizzt was first published) were all *completely original*, not one borrowing from existing fiction or fact




That's a good point.  Now that I think about it, gamers tend to be far more accepting of Conan, Gandalf, Gimli, Legolas, and Elric knock-offs than Drizzt knock-offs.


----------



## KenM (Jan 25, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> Because we know for a *fact* that all the roleplaying game characters created before the year 1989 (when Drizzt was first published) were all *completely original*, not one borrowing from existing fiction or fact




  You have a point, but the fact is lots of people think Drizzit is cool, and copy the character. One game I played in, the DM said "No Drow", but a player really wanted to play one, so the DM let him bring one in, said he was an outcast, lost his powers, ect.. Two sessions later that character died and the player wanted to bring in ANOTHER Drow clone.  The DM put his foot down and said no, the player got so mad he left the group right there, no big loss IMO. But it shows how popular it hasd become for players to play Drizzit clones. 
   Before drizzit, people would think more about roleplaying they're characters and not just say "Drizzit clone", and people alspo draw inspration from alot other sorces, so it does seem as bad.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 25, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Salvatore's Drizzt novels consistantly make the New York Times bestseller list, something unheard of for gaming novels.  I even know several non-RPGers who love the Drizzt novels and pick up the new ones whenever they come out.
> 
> So yes, I think Drizzt could be considered a famous fantasy character.  He might not be as famous as, say, Conan or Gandalf.  But I'd definately place him on the same level as Elric or _(shudder)_ Rand Al Thor.



Actually, that's fairly common for D&D novels -- Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels are almost routinely on the New York Times bestseller list.  Not that they stay there long, or are much remembered after they fall off, though.

No, Driz'zt is no classic.


----------



## Wereserpent (Jan 25, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> If the characters are dull (Wulfgar, anyone?), the result is a very boring book.




Hey, i like Wulfgar.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 25, 2004)

gfunk said:
			
		

> Also, I don't think Tolkien would be as remotely popular as he is today without Peter Jackson.



_Before_ the movies came out, the Lord of the Rings was the second best-selling book ever, beat out only by the Bible.  It was also voted Book of the Millenium by a non-genre poll in England -- again, before the movies were released.

Your position above is complete hogwash, in other words.  Sorry!


----------



## gfunk (Jan 25, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> _Before_ the movies came out, the Lord of the Rings was the second best-selling book ever, beat out only by the Bible. It was also voted Book of the Millenium by a non-genre poll in England -- again, before the movies were released.
> 
> Your position above is complete hogwash, in other words. Sorry!



Unfortunately, this is completely untrue.

http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/greatest/alltime

It is not even in the top 10.

And again here,

http://www.askmen.com/toys/top_10_60/62_top_10_list.html


----------



## LGodamus (Jan 25, 2004)

I hear alot of people screaming hack , like it actually means anything....I have heard literary critics call every single one of the other authors put forward so far hacks as well...including Howard, Tolkien, heck even my favorite Lovecraft. So as far as quality...you cannot judge that as a criteria for classics status, since it is very subjective you have to look at lasting influence....and since ole Drizz't has been with us for nearly two decades it looks like he is on the way to me.


----------



## cybermonkey (Jan 25, 2004)

Are the Drizzt novels a classic?

They must be on their way. After all, if the first novel was released back in 1989, it's just five years shy of being around for 20 years. There must be something to it.

But to be completely honest... It's way too soon to even say that one Drizzt novel would be considered a classic. But the reprints of novels is a good indication that the market is still there.

This arguement would be better suited five to ten years from now.

The biggest crime committed by Drizzt is that the WOTC folks ruined the ranger class to be some sort of specialized fighter. However, it did open the arguement "that hey, why can't I play this race with this class."


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 25, 2004)

LG,

Yeah there are some people that bash Dante's Inferno and Shakespeare for goodness sake. That being said, I don't dislike Salvatore's writing, I do think that he's just created a character that's been a little overdone. Druss, if you ask me, is a better post-modern answer for people looking for ole sword and sorcery stuff.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 25, 2004)

gfunk said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this is completely untrue.
> 
> http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/greatest/alltime
> 
> ...



Your sources didn't do their research very well.  Most of those books in the top ten had less units sold than what the Lord of the Rings reported in 1992, not to mention the updates from four years ago:
http://legend_x7.tripod.com/onering.txt


> "Here is HarperCollins UK response to my query Re: what are the true total sales figures of LotR ....following my irritation at the outdated figures of ' 50million copies in 25 languages ' ALWAYS being used in newspaper/magazine articles over last 10 YEARS or so!"
> 
> "Thank you for your enquiry. It is difficult to ascertain exact sales, not least because the book is sold in single- and three-volume editions across the world. A figure of 50 million copies and 25 languages was researched and declared for the Tolkien Centenary in 1992, and the press always hark back to this. Patrick Curry conservatively updated the figures for his book ("Defending Middle-earth",) but we think that we're well on the way to 100 MILLION COPIES WORLDWIDE ACROSS 40-50 LANGUAGES.
> 
> We hope to have more accurate figures soon, as we are working on this question for New Line Cinema, although much of it has to remain educated guesswork. I suspect that Bookworm's claim (BBC programme aired in 1997) of 5 million per year rather exaggerates the truth about "The Lord of the Rings," although if you included The Hobbit and the other Tolkien books it probably wouldn't be far out."



My second point here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/12_december/11/big_read_final.shtml
I can pull up sources too.    Although you're probably right -- I can imagine books like quotes from Mao Tse Tung probably beat it out on units printed.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 25, 2004)

I prefer quoting Shakespeare or the Bible myself. Next to quoting Tolkien and MP and the Holy Grail, those are the most fun.


----------



## gfunk (Jan 25, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I can pull up sources too.  Although you're probably right -- I can imagine books like quotes from Mao Tse Tung probably beat it out on units printed.



Heh, the Net once again reveals itself to be the supreme research tool .  Maybe they should re-tool that old saying,

"There are lies, damn lies, and the internet."


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 25, 2004)

gfunk said:
			
		

> Heh, the Net once again reveals itself to be the supreme research tool . Maybe they should re-tool that old saying,
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies, and the internet."



Nah cause stats still lie too.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 25, 2004)

Stats don't lie; it's just that if you torture them enough, they'll say whatever you want.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 25, 2004)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Stats don't lie; it's just that if you torture them enough, they'll say whatever you want.



Still lying!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 25, 2004)

gfunk said:
			
		

> Heh, the Net once again reveals itself to be the supreme research tool .  Maybe they should re-tool that old saying,
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies, and the internet."



not really it all comes down to presentation and showmanship.  You just have to present the numbers to your advantage and then move along before someone looks too close.


----------



## Orius (Jan 25, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> In fact, I'm willing to bet that a lot of the knee-jerk RAS bashers out there haven't even read any of his novels, they're just tired of seeing good-aligned drow pop up in their campaigns.




Yep, you're probably right.  I don't allow drow PCs IMC, and good-aligned drow are exceedingly rare.  However, it has little to do with RAS or Drizzt.  It's more a matter of not liking how the drow are used in general in FR, and the whole existance of Eilistraee and her attempts to "redeem" the drow.  The FR article in Dragon #315 was about the only part of the magazine I didn't like.  IMC, Eilistraee is dead, and Lolth tolerates no rivals.  Drow are almost all evil, and those who aren't get hunted down.  They're the villainous race they were meant to be from the moment the were introduced to D&D.


----------



## Turjan (Jan 25, 2004)

The statistics given in http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/greatest/alltime are quite obviously wrong, because they have several periodicals in the list. The sales figures contain books that looked different every year and were sold over decades.

Well, the point was that LotR was a classic before Peter Jackson made the film. And this point has been unambiguously proven.


----------



## Orius (Jan 25, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> That's a good point.  Now that I think about it, gamers tend to be far more accepting of Conan, Gandalf, Gimli, Legolas, and Elric knock-offs than Drizzt knock-offs.




Well, those clones are usually based on standard D&D PC races.  Drow isn't an allowed race in every campaign, often because of Drizzt, but also because drow have innate spell resistance and so on that makes them a little more powerful than the normal races.

Remember, when Drizzt clones started popping up in late 1e/early 2e, there were no ECLs like we have now.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 25, 2004)

I don't think that Drizzt will ever be considered a classic character that will become a "must read" for people who like sword & sorcery novels. I say this not out any dislike for the character (I've read every book about him gladly), but because his character isn't original.

"Classics" to me are works that are the best of their particular archetype; the questing barbarian (Conan), the Lonely Wanderer (Elric), and others are the ones who best personified character types in S&S literature. In that regard, Drizzt doesn't measure up. It's not that Salvatore's writing isn't good, it's just that it's not better than these, and it's nothing that hasn't been done before. 

Drizzt is a good character, but his is a character we have seen before, and done just as well by other authors. Because he doesn't rise above similar literary beings, he won't become a fantasy classic.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 25, 2004)

Not to mention I still think Druss could take him.


----------



## Endur (Jan 25, 2004)

Sadly, if my memory is correct, those lists are incomplete.  I read somewhere that LOTR has sold 45 million copies.  Making it at #8 on those lists and the #1 fiction book of all time.



			
				gfunk said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this is completely untrue.
> 
> http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/greatest/alltime
> 
> ...


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 25, 2004)

Lies! All lies! Statics lie!!  But then I do occasionally too, unintentional.


----------



## Endur (Jan 25, 2004)

Of the characters on that list, A-list characters are Conan and Gandalf.  Elric, the Grey Mouser, John Carter, and Drizzt are B-list characters.



			
				Wormwood said:
			
		

> Elric. Conan. Grey Mouser. Gandalf. John Carter. Drizzt.


----------



## hunter1828 (Jan 25, 2004)

Two things:

1) 1987 - I started a new campaign, a friend wanted to play a good drow, outcast from his family.  He had unusual eyes (green) and wielded two longswords.  The next year when the _Crystal Shard_ was released we both felt ripped off.  

2) I like Salvatore.  A lot.  I also find it very fascinating that when the topic of his books come up no one ever brings up anything but the Drizzt books.  I like Drizzt, but he is limited by WotC as to what he can and cannot do with the character and how "kid-friendly" the book has to be.  Go read his _Demon Wars_ series.  Damn good.  What about _The Chronicles of Ynis Aielle_ trilogy or the _The Crimson Shadow_ trilogy?  All of these are original worlds, not Salvatore writing in someone else's world and all are fantastic.

hunter1828


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 25, 2004)

Endur said:
			
		

> Of the characters on that list, A-list characters are Conan and Gandalf. Elric, the Grey Mouser, John Carter, and Drizzt are B-list characters.



Druss should be on that list. That and my name sake, Nightfall.


----------



## johnsemlak (Jan 25, 2004)

Let me suggest another definition of a classic--what gets taught.

Tolkien is now frequently reading material in schools.  I don't know what other fantasy writers (other than HP Lovecraft) are but I can't imagine Salvatore's books appearing on a school reading list.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 25, 2004)

Nope but I'd imagine Leiber getting on that list along with Moorcock.


----------



## hunter1828 (Jan 25, 2004)

"Classic" and "Classic of [genre type here]" are two different things.

And with American public schools the way they are today, I don't use anything taught in them as an indication of quality.

hunter1828


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jan 25, 2004)

Those lists seem to be counting different things. The Almanac is released yearly or better so of course it will have more sales than a 4 book series. Dr Spock has been revised and updated everyfew years.

The list needs to compair apples to apples. I am sure The Red Book has an astounding print run.....I don't think I would consider it to be in the all time best seller list  


Interesting though. I would have never thought that Valley of the Dolls would be so highly placed.


----------



## Nightfall (Jan 25, 2004)

Neither would I. Especially since I hated the movie.


----------



## Gnarlo (Jan 25, 2004)

I also find it interesting the amount of scorn heaped on RAS as "fanboys buying reprints and collections" (not a quote, just the impression) for his popularity and amount of books sold, but a blind eye seems to be turned to JRR.

*looks at the shelf behind him with the 4 different sets of LOTR books*
*thinks of the 2 sets he's given away over the years*
*thinks of the 2 sets he's wore out and had to trash*

Anyone else want to pony up their collection, and speculate on how many of us "fanboys buying reprints and collections" are responsible for JRR's numbers?

/edit: To keep on topic  , I think it's too early to judge Driz, especially with the knee jerk animosity/worship that comes up with his name. I think he's well on the way to getting Conan/Elric status, certainly; his pulp is at least as good as their pulp


----------



## johnsemlak (Jan 25, 2004)

Gnarlo said:
			
		

> I also find it interesting the amount of scorn heaped on RAS as "fanboys buying reprints and collections" (not a quote, just the impression) for his popularity and amount of books sold, but a blind eye seems to be turned to JRR.
> 
> *looks at the shelf behind him with the 4 different sets of LOTR books*
> *thinks of the 2 sets he's given away over the years*
> ...



 That's a good point, but Tolkien is always attracting new readers to his original works, both now and before the LotR movies.  So many people buying those reprints are buying books to be read for the first time (often as gifts for children for example).

I just don't see that happening to Salvatore's books 50 years after tehy are published and 25+ years after the death of the author.

I could be proven wrong though,  Wel'll hve to wait and see.


----------



## CCamfield (Jan 25, 2004)

Does anyone have actual sales figures for Salvatore?  I wouldn't have expected his to be close to Tolkien, just on the general principle that most fantasy doesn't sell all that well.  Then again if he hits bestseller lists...

I probably can't judge his writing fairly, because what I read of his was the Crystal Shard(?) trilogy and a couple of books after that, years ago.  I felt that they were enjoyable but not of lasting merit.  Now, that doesn't necessarily reflect on the character, but in my somewhat limited experience of Drizzt and Salvatore, I wouldn't put them in the same class as, say, Elric and Moorcock.


----------



## johnsemlak (Jan 25, 2004)

The other thing about the Drizzrt novels that I believe hasn't been mentioned yet but is most obvious, he's using a setting, race, and a lot of other detail created by other authors.

Compare that to Lieber, Tolkien, and Howard (among others) who created their own fantasy worlds and fleshed them out with original detail.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 25, 2004)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> Does anyone have actual sales figures for Salvatore?  I wouldn't have expected his to be close to Tolkien, just on the general principle that most fantasy doesn't sell all that well.  Then again if he hits bestseller lists...




Salvatore is the third-highest selling fantasy author who is still alive.  The first two being Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Jan 25, 2004)

I think that it'll take a long period of time (50+ years) before the character could truly be deemed a classic.  I think that the stories will have to endure the test of time, as well as a change in the "targeted" readership (i.e., the same category of readers, but generations or so down the line), to see if it holds up as well.

Would I deem Drizzt a classic?  Probably not.  Though I enjoyed the stories, they seem rooted in the D&D game--something which a particular audience (D&D/RPG players) may get easily, but outside that audience (i.e., readers who don't/never played D&D/RPGs) they may lose their currency (so to speak).

I'm tempted to say that Drizzt is more likely to be an "iconic" character rather than a classic--then again, I'm tempted to say that about a lot of fantasy characters (esp. ones such as Conan & Elric--the lone heroes who face countless odds & survive).  In a way, they are well-liked & well-loved characters, but they aren't truly "complete" characters--they don't technically change, per se (a very common phenomenon with comic book characters).  It's part of the appeal of the character--Conan will always be Conan, Batman will always be Batman, Wolverine will always be Wolverine, etc.  These characters are appealing, yet static (and, to a degree, it's why they maintain their appeal).  And, it seems like their stories will never end.  Great for comics, serials, TV & movie series, etc., but that doesn't always equal great literature.  There'll be several stories about them, yet the stories never really change--it usually deals with the character doing their usual thing.  Action heroes like Mad Max, McLane from the _Die Hard_ series, or Riggs from the _Lethal Weapon_ series fit this mold, too.


----------



## Henry (Jan 25, 2004)

Hearkening back to the Original question:

"Is Drizzt destined to become a Classic... of the Sword-and-sorcery genre?"


I'd say he already is.

Think about this:

How many times have we heard complaints about "those damned drizzt clones?" How many times in this thread alone? 

The nature of a "classic" is how many times it is referenced in relation to its age.

Tolkien, with LOTR going on 50 years old now, still attracting new readers, sporting literary complexity unparalleled in a fantasy genre novel, is obviously a classic. It's age and mindshare contribute to this.

Te Drizzt character, being almost 20 years old itself, and STILL having DM's lament that those damned Drizzt clones are still running around, tell me that Drizzt is INDEED a staple, and therefore a classic, of the genre. A character so compelling that gamers young and old try to emulate the "cool factor" tell me he is a memorable and compelling character for at least the casual reader.

About Hacks - if Hacks are writers who wrote to popular audiences, Shakespeare was a hack. The fact that he packed his works with beauty, symbolism, and truths of the human condition all while meeting deadlines and subjects required speak to the quality of the writer, not for whether his work was temporarily popular.

About Salvatore: I have not read much of his work outside of the FR stuff, but it's not really fair to associate him ONLY with Drizzt; he does have more than that to his credit. But since the question concerned Drizzt specifically, that's where I'm concentrating on.


----------



## hunter1828 (Jan 25, 2004)

Henry,

You bring up very good points.  The reason I brought up Salvatore's other works though, was simply because a lot of people, both supporters and detractors, sometimes seem to conclude that Salvatore has written nothing else in his carerr, or they seem to choose to ignore it.

I also, of course, forgot his two Star Wars novels.  If nothing else, I think the man is a master of writing in other people's worlds.  He takes what he's given, what he's allowed to do, and makes the best of it he can.

And as far as people complaining about Drizzt-clone characters in their games...I remember a time when I first started gaming back in the '70s when people complained if your fighter was too much like Conan or your thief was too much like the Grey Mouser.  Or your halfling was too much like Frodo.  We've been through this time and time again.

hunter1828


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 25, 2004)

Great post, Henry, and very true.  If Drizzt _weren't_ a classic, would people still be complaining about him 16 years after he was created?  Would people still be creating Drizzt clones if he weren't classic?

Besides, Larry Elmore seems to believe that Drizzt is a classic character.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 25, 2004)

Dark Jezter, I love that pic. I'm going to have to see if Elmore ha a slightly larger version posted somewhere for my desktop. Anyway, I'm only going to weigh in on this once and I'm not going to defend my position should anyone decide they want to attack it.

I suspect Drizzt might become a classic. Not positive, but I have a hunch. Regardless of whether he does or not, I've been reading Salvatore's Drizzt books since I was 15 years old. When a new one came out I used to devour them in 2 or 3 days. I've met Salvatore twice, once at a book signing and again at the office and he is one of the nicest authors you will ever have the pleasure of speaking with. During the book signing I happened to hit the only location where only about 15 people showed up. He could have left 10 minutes in, but instead he hung out for over an hour shooting the bull with us and talking about what he liked about his books, what he didn't like so much, and the direction they might be taking in the future. In short, unlike many people who have acheived the level of fandome that he has, he was willing to actually sit down and talk at length with his audience. It was an experience I won't forget, even if I do have the opportunity to do this sort of thing much more often now.

For what its worth, I think Salvatore's writing isn't perfect in many ways, but he does action sequences better than just about any other author that I've read. So will Drizzt be a classic? At the end of the day, I really don't care. He has had an impact on my life, which makes him a classic to me.  The rest of the chips can fall where they may.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 25, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Hearkening back to the Original question:
> 
> "Is Drizzt destined to become a Classic... of the Sword-and-sorcery genre?"
> 
> ...



Well said.  If I punch up webster.com I get this -

_Main Entry: *clas·sic*
*1 a* *:* serving as a standard of excellence *:* of recognized value _

If I'm going by the book, I could make an arguement either way for Drizzt's "classic" status.  Let's get out of the way that I am a huge RAS fan and have been for years.  I'd also like to think I'm an objective person.

For a book series (14 and growing) as long as it is, there isn't a ton left for Drizzt to do that is new.  Also, RAS (like many genre authors) blatently ripped off LotR many times in the series.  The writing at some points wasn't great and I found many of the books in the later parts of the series a little grating (which has oddly changed with the newest trilogy, the first real trilogy since *The Dark Elf Trilogy*).  However, none of that actually speaks to the character of Drizzt.

I think the comparisons to Wolverine are pretty good.  There has been some dreck associated with that character but it doesn't make him any less identifible.  Sure, the writing makes the character but it doesn't end there.  RAS _writing_ is not classic but I believe Drizzt is, as Henry pointed out above.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> About Salvatore: I have not read much of his work outside of the FR stuff, but it's not really fair to associate him ONLY with Drizzt; he does have more than that to his credit. But since the question concerned Drizzt specifically, that's where I'm concentrating on.



Many of my favorite RAS books do not have Drizzt in them.  The Demon Wars series, as noted by DJ, is some damn fine writing.  But we aren't talking about that now as I could ramble on forever about it.  

Will Drizzt be remembered as an iconic fantasy character 50 years from now?  Based on the length of this thread and the readership out there right now I could see it happening more than I cannot see it happening.  Just as pen and paper RPGs aren't going anywhere, I don't think Drizzt is going anywhere either.  The popularity of the Forgotten Realms and the current generation of his readers will keep the character in the eyes of genre readers.  And who is to say the character won't make it to the big or small screen?  That will certainly help things, as others have mentioned.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 25, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Many of my favorite RAS books do not have Drizzt in them.  The Demon Wars series, as noted by DJ, is some damn fine writing.  But we aren't talking about that now as I could ramble on forever about it.
> 
> Will Drizzt be remembered as an iconic fantasy character 50 years from now?  Based on the length of this thread and the readership out there right now I could see it happening more than I cannot see it happening.  Just as pen and paper RPGs aren't going anywhere, I don't think Drizzt is going anywhere either.  The popularity of the Forgotten Realms and the current generation of his readers will keep the character in the eyes of genre readers.  And who is to say the character won't make it to the big or small screen?  That will certainly help things, as others have mentioned.




When you say DJ, are you referring to me, or somebody else in this thread?  Because I still haven't read the Demonwars books. 

Much like you, though, my favorite RAS book dosen't even have Drizzt in it.  My favorite book of his is _Servant of the Shard_, which stars Artemis Entreri and Jarlaxle.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 25, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> When you say DJ, are you referring to me, or somebody else in this thread? Because I still haven't read the Demonwars books.



This just proves that I should pay more attention to things.  It was *hunter1828 *who referenced the Demon Wars.  I guess I just figured it was you as we typically agree on RAS-related issues.  

My apologies to you both.  I just remembered hunter being involved in RAS threads before, too. 


			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Much like you, though, my favorite RAS book dosen't even have Drizzt in it. My favorite book of his is _Servant of the Shard_, which stars Artemis Entreri and Jarlaxle.



Best Realms novel he wrote in years.  Only topped, in my mind, by *Homeland* and *Legacy*.  [/fanboy]


----------



## nikolai (Jan 25, 2004)

Re: the Elmore pic.

Gandalf, Conan, Drizzt, Elric, King Arthur, and who's the one on the far right?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 25, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> This just proves that I should pay more attention to things.  It was *hunter1828 *who referenced the Demon Wars.  I guess I just figured it was you as we typically agree on RAS-related issues.
> 
> My apologies to you both.  I just remembered hunter being involved in RAS threads before, too.




No apologies necessary.  

And I, too, have noticed that we agree on RAS-related issues most of the time.  The only major difference in our opinions that I can recall are our feelings on the character of Catti-Brie (you don't mind her, but she annoys me ).



> Best Realms novel he wrote in years.  Only topped, in my mind, by *Homeland* and *Legacy*.  [/fanboy]




Other RAS novels that I think are great are Homeland, The Legacy, Siege of Darkness, and the Icewind Dale trilogy.  I've also been very impressed with The Thousand Orcs and The Lone Drow, and either one of those could be a possible addition to this list.

I have mixed feelings on Spine of the World.  On one hand it devotes a lot of pages to a boring subplot about a peasent girl and the nobleman who is smitten with her that dosen't seem to go anywhere until the very end of the book.  On the other hand, we get to see a different side of Wulfgar.  Plus, the character of Morik the Rogue was really cool.  I hope we haven't seen the last of him.

The only RAS books that disappointed me were Sojourn, Passage to Dawn, and Sea of Swords.  Strangely, all of those are the final books in their respective series.  I hope that this tradition dosen't continue with The Two Swords. 



> For a book series (14 and growing) as long as it is, there isn't a ton left for Drizzt to do that is new. Also, RAS (like many genre authors) blatently ripped off LotR many times in the series.




I can't believe I missed this my first time through. 

Let's see... a reluctant halfling who possesses a powerful magic artifact, a mysterious ranger who knows more than he lets on, a dwarven king seeking to reclaim his lost realm (although this is more of a Hobbit ripoff than LotR), a character who supposedly falls to his death but returns in the next book, a mine full of a rare silvery metal that became inhabited by an evil creature of shadow after the dwarves delved too deep...

Yeah, there are definately parts in _The Icewind Dale Trilogy_ that could be considered Tolkien ripoffs.

Although, to RAS's credit, there aren't many Tolkien ripoffs after that original trilogy.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 25, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Re: the Elmore pic.
> 
> Gandalf, Conan, Drizzt, Elric, King Arthur, and who's the one on the far right?




I'm guessing Robin Hood.


----------



## Xavim (Jan 25, 2004)

Funny how Classic is supposed to be some measure of quality but most people dread having to read boring old crap like Fifth Business, and Stone Angle in schools, while millions of people dash out and devour so called "lesser" works enmass.

If you have your objective standards of what makes good writing, and people prefer the 'bad' writing, I think that's a strong indication that your standard's a little hokey.  And besides, your standard was just made up by a bunch of old farts with too much time on their hands and enough empty headed people around to listen to them.  Didn't it used to be policy that female authors couldn't be considered classic, heck or even write at all?

Also, I'd just like to add that I don't see anything at all wrong with RAS work, of course that's just my opinion, but as has been mentioned earlier, I have never seen any other auther describe action sequences nearly as well.  The battles between Artemis and Drizzt are truely memorable and it is for that ability Salvatore has that has made Drizzt what he is today.  

Most people remember Drizzt for being hella cool with his scimitars, rather than his introspective teenage elf monologs.  (Though I enjoy them aswell)


----------



## jeffsforehead (Jan 25, 2004)

RA Salvatore vs. Jack Kerouac.
RA Salvatore vs. F. Scott Fitzgerald.
RA Salvatore vs. Ernest Hemingway.
RA Salvatore vs. James Conrad.
RA Salvatore vs. Haruki Murakami.
RA Salvatore vs. David Eggers.
RA Salvatore vs. Emily Bronte.
RA Salvatore vs. William S. Burroughs.

I could go on. There is a great difference between _writing_ and writing. The Drizzt novels will never be classics. I don't believe that you could tell me, with a straight face, that Drizzt is as complex, or well-written, a hero as, say, Jay Gatsby. Or that any of his villians are a Heathcliff.

He doesn't even stand up compared to contemporary authors, such as Murakami. RAS novels will never be taught in schools, they have no literary merit.

Fantasy Genre Trash are the twinkies of the writing world.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 25, 2004)

jeffsforehead said:
			
		

> Fantasy Genre Trash are the twinkies of the writing world.



Yeah.  But based on their own merit, many a twinkie has made many men happy.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 25, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Do you think R. A. Salvatore's hero and writing stands along side that of Robert E. Howard, Michael Moorcock and Fritz Leiber?




No.  

Salvatore does write good fight scenes, and The Crystal Shard was a good sword & sorcery novel, but I think that's the only positive comments I can make.


----------



## Melan (Jan 25, 2004)

jeffsforehead said:
			
		

> He doesn't even stand up compared to contemporary authors, such as Murakami. RAS novels will never be taught in schools, they have no literary merit.



Will Moorcock? Or Howard? Or even Clark Ashton Smith and Lovecraft?


----------



## Numion (Jan 25, 2004)

hunter1828 said:
			
		

> And as far as people complaining about Drizzt-clone characters in their games...I remember a time when I first started gaming back in the '70s when people complained if your fighter was too much like Conan or your thief was too much like the Grey Mouser.  Or your halfling was too much like Frodo.  We've been through this time and time again.




Yeah, it's pretty funny that according to the internet messageboards:

There were no clone characters before Drizzt
There were no munchkins before D&D 3E
Players didn't complain about too tough encounters before 3E
There was no powergaming before D&D 3E



I seriously think that the collective memory is very very short.


----------



## Tsyr (Jan 25, 2004)

Objective standards of good and bad literature are a joke. Plain and simple.

I have to wade through the murky waters of academia on a daily basis, working towards a degree in english literature, and I came to that conclusion after about... oh... three months? Tops?

The amount of times I, or my fellow classmates, have had discussions with various professors that went something like this are too many to easily count:

"This was a good book."

"No, it's bad. See, the author didn't do X, X, and X..."

"But the book was good."

"Yes, but the writing was bad."

"I liked the writing."

"Well you're wrong. It's bad writing."

"Why is it bad?"

"Because it didn't do X, X, and X."

"Why would doing X, X, and X make it better?"

"Because then it would be good writing."

"Why would that make it good writing?"

"Because it did X, X, and X. It doesn't right now."

"But how would doing X, X, and X improve the book?"

"Because then the book would be good writing. Like book B, because it does X, X, and X."

"Book B was boring and the writing had no life to it."

"But it did X, X, and X. It's good writing."

Repeat until someone gets sick of the conversation.

To me, there is exactly one acid test of good writing: Does it endure. Anything else is subjective. It's just like these "These movies are good" lists magazines publish... I have a friend who swears that if you don't like movies on that list, you are simply, objectivly, wrong for not liking them. Hogswash. It's opinion. Maybe a guideline at best. Not immutable law.


----------



## Tsyr (Jan 25, 2004)

jeffsforehead said:
			
		

> He doesn't even stand up compared to contemporary authors, such as Murakami. RAS novels will never be taught in schools, they have no literary merit.




According to most of the literary elite, neither does Tolkien. Yet he is taught in school.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Jan 25, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Salvatore is the third-highest selling fantasy author who is still alive.  The first two being Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks.




Can you please provide a reference source for your statement. I'd be curious to see these figures. Thanks.


----------



## CCamfield (Jan 25, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Salvatore is the third-highest selling fantasy author who is still alive.  The first two being Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks.




Oh, right.   

Pardon me while I go bang my head against the wall.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jan 25, 2004)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> Can you please provide a reference source for your statement. I'd be curious to see these figures. Thanks.




Yeah, I kind of have a feeling that J. K. Rowling does a little better than these guys...  

Or is Harry Potter somehow NOT considered fantasy...?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 25, 2004)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> Can you please provide a reference source for your statement. I'd be curious to see these figures. Thanks.




Ugh.

I couldn't remember where I first heard that statistic, and I just spent an hour on Google trying to find statistics for the highest-selling fantasy authors with no success.  I'll keep looking, but no promises.

I do promise that I didn't make that statistic up, though.  I really did hear it somewhere.  Whether its true or just an internet rumor I haven't verified yet.


----------



## Welverin (Jan 25, 2004)

Mog Elffoe said:
			
		

> Yeah, I kind of have a feeling that J. K. Rowling does a little better than these guys...




Well it could just be old or it could be because they've been around longer and have more books to add up.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Jan 25, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Well it could just be old or it could be because they've been around longer have more books to add up.




Agreed.  I'd really like to see some accurate stats.  The HP thing is such a huge crazy big numbers phenomenon that I don't think either Jordan or Brooks, as beloved/reviled as they may be, even come close.


----------



## rowport (Jan 25, 2004)

jeffsforehead said:
			
		

> RA Salvatore vs. Jack Kerouac.
> RA Salvatore vs. F. Scott Fitzgerald.
> RA Salvatore vs. Ernest Hemingway.
> RA Salvatore vs. James Conrad.
> ...



I find it notable and highly revealing that none of the authors you mention write in the fantasy genre.  In addition, most of them are dead and none are active.  Is that a valid basis of comparison?


----------



## rowport (Jan 25, 2004)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Objective standards of good and bad literature are a joke. Plain and simple.
> 
> I have to wade through the murky waters of academia on a daily basis, working towards a degree in english literature, and I came to that conclusion after about... oh... three months? Tops?
> 
> ...



Tsyr has found the meat of this debate: what are your standards for judging literature.  By most academic literary standards, any fantasy (or sci-fi, for that matter) novel is fatally flawed regardless of its author.  Tolkien is fard from universally considered "classic" by these standards, and no other fantasy writer comes close.  That said, Salvatore's books are much admired and much read, which is the only valuable mark of success that most authors could reasonable aspire to reach in any case.  Debating the relative merits of his work versus others in the genre, given the context that virtually no other fantasy authors meet classic literary conventions, is an exercise in futility.

Even abandoning the "classic" label, and comparing Salvatore's work with his peers, I personally believe that it is well worth reading.  Admittedly, his depth of plot is not as strong as Martin's, for example, but a better stylistic comparison is with more action-focused work, like Howard or Moorcock.  Here, he fares well.  While his strength of characterization may not be as developed, his evocative action sequences are superior.


----------



## hunter1828 (Jan 26, 2004)

rowport said:
			
		

> Even abandoning the "classic" label, and comparing Salvatore's work with his peers, I personally believe that it is well worth reading.  Admittedly, his depth of plot is not as strong as Martin's, for example, but a better stylistic comparison is with more action-focused work, like Howard or Moorcock.  Here, he fares well.  While his strength of characterization may not be as developed, his evocative action sequences are superior.




Very good post.  You're one of the very few people in this thread to state areas they feel Salvatore is either good or bad in.  Most of us (myself included), whether detractor or supporter, have simply said, "Salvatore is good/bad" and given no real reason for why we say this.

Personally, I think that Salvatore is good with character development, but you have to look beyond the Drizzt books to find it.  That, of course, is because he is limited in what he can and can't do with Drizzt and the other characters.  Everyone seems to forget that writing in the Forgotten Realms means writing characters you don't own rights to, even if you did create them.  It means writing in a world you are only partially responsible for building and devoloping.  It means that what Wizards of the Coast wants to see done in the long run, what they feel is best for the Forgotten Realms, is what ultimately dictates how Salvatore's Drizzt books will progress.

I've often wondered, "I bet Salvatore would like to kill Drizzt."  But I bet WotC wouldn't let him if he tried.  Can't have your cash cow drop dead, after all.    

hunter1828


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 26, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Will Drizzt books be next to their's on S&S must-read lists in 10-20 years time.



He might be; the books are certainly popular enough with non-gaming audiences. I can't find a site with actual sales figures (as oppossed to the weightings given to the numbers by the NYTreview), but they are in the millions. There are not 'millions' of gamers; there are, maybe, about a million or so totalled (from what I remember about the WOTC estimates; if it's wrong, show me the numbers. I cannot remember off the top of my head). So it's not just gamers reading these books and making them appear on the bestseller lists. 

I remember seeing something that in a hundred years time, everyone who's won a nobel or pulitzer for literature will be forgotten but Stephen King and Barbara Taylor Bradford will probably still be read all over the world. 

I would not call it a classic yet, but in twenty or thirty years time, maybe. A classic author or work _endures._


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 26, 2004)

Salvatore's books will still be popular in 30 years, if he is still alive.  He'll keep cranking the books out because, frankly, they sell.  His market is the masses, who eat stuff like that up.  The average reader has no conception of symbolism or style.  They may not make you think about greater issues, but they ARE entertaining.

He doesn't compare to Tolkien or any number of other authors, but his books will continue to be read, until 10 years or so after his death.  Then they'll quietly disappear.  The same can be said with a LOT of the current authors of the Genre, though.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 26, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Salvatore's books will still be popular in 30 years, if he is still alive.  He'll keep cranking the books out because, frankly, they sell.  His market is the masses, who eat stuff like that up.  The average reader has no conception of symbolism or style.  They may not make you think about greater issues, but they ARE entertaining.




Ah, the masses.  Those ignorant fools.  When are they going to realize that we, the self-appointed literary elite, are the true judges of quality in fiction?


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Jan 26, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Ah, the masses. Those ignorant fools. When are they going to realize that we, the self-appointed literary elite, are the true judges of quality in fiction?



Well, considering that many "leading societies" excel at producing generations of ignorant masses, and the root word of ignorance is "ignore", why would I waste my time waiting for the masses to learn or realize anything when it's their nature not to?  The typical human is _happy_ being educated slightly higher than a cabbage.  Now be a good poster and remember, "you are a Beta and real literature is bad."

(Yes, as a matter of fact, Mr. Huxley _is_ rolling over in his grave, thank you very much.)


----------



## LGodamus (Jan 26, 2004)

jeffsforehead said:
			
		

> RA Salvatore vs. Jack Kerouac.
> RA Salvatore vs. F. Scott Fitzgerald.
> RA Salvatore vs. Ernest Hemingway.
> RA Salvatore vs. James Conrad.
> ...




Call me stupid if you will, I'd rather you didn't, but I judge literature by the enjoyment I derive from it. And, I enjoy the Drizz't novels a whole magnitude more than many works from the authors above...that doesn't mean I am an under-read twit......it means in my mind the entire purpose of fiction is .........wait for it.......................entertainment.  So if something fulfills its' purpose and does it well then by all rights it should be judged as good.....not because some old man at a  university says so.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 26, 2004)

Oh heck, I said I was done with this thread, but I said something in another related thread that I think applies here. So, accuse me of hubris for quoting myself, but here goes:



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Just remember that there is nothing wrong with enjoying pulp. I have a degree in English lit, but what do I find myself reading most of the time (other than RPG books)? Pulp! And why not? I think academics who are snotty about which genres are valid or not overlook the fact that reading can also be for enjoyment.




Also as mentioned in that thread, remember that pulp and lowbrow humor are often thrown into that unacceptable category. I guess by that standard no one should waste their time with William Shakespeare since he was known for his bathroom humor.

The bottom line, I guess, is that it is extremely doubtful that anyone will be teaching classes on Drizzt at any point in the foreseeable future, but there's no shame in being entertained by the books.


----------



## ConnorSB (Jan 26, 2004)

If my english teacher doesn't consider Dune a "classic of literature", (she doesn't) then the Drizzt books certainly arn't either.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Jan 26, 2004)

LGodamus said:
			
		

> Call me stupid if you will, I'd rather you didn't, but I judge literature by the enjoyment I derive from it.



And that's your right, of course. But the purpose of this thread, as I understand it, is not to answer the question "Is Drizzt enjoyable?" or "Is Drizzt entertaining?". The fact that many people enjoy these novels has very little to do with their potential status as literary classics.



> in my mind the entire purpose of fiction is .........wait for it.......................entertainment.  So if something fulfills its' purpose and does it well then by all rights it should be judged as good.....not because some old man at a  university says so.



Entertainment is not the entire purpose of fiction. It just isn't. Good fiction needs to be entertaining of course, but pretending that entertainment is the alpha and omega of fictional literature is, in my opinion, extremely limiting. After all, if the entertainment factor were the only way to gauge the quality of a piece of writing, we wouldn't study literature: entertainment is entirely subjective, and there wouldn't be much to say beyond "I like it" or "I don't like it". I don't think there will ever be a general agreement on what the real purpose of fiction is, but I guess we might all agree that literature always is, at its deepest core, a quest for truth (authenticity, versimilitude, honesty, coherence, etc...) and beauty (entertainment, originality, emotional impact, formal perfection, etc...). 

Often enough, genre fiction sacrifices some of these aspects to focus on entertainment exclusively. It's a perfectly viable approach of course, and it's satisfying in its own right, but it's so far from fulfilling the full potential of literature that it almost belongs to a different category. It's like sex without love: it's fun, but there's so much more to human relationships that ultimately, why bother?


----------



## buzzard (Jan 26, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Oh heck, I said I was done with this thread, but I said something in another related thread that I think applies here. So, accuse me of hubris for quoting myself, but here goes:
> 
> 
> 
> Also as mentioned in that thread, remember that pulp and lowbrow humor are often thrown into that unacceptable category. I guess by that standard no one should waste their time with William Shakespeare since he was known for his bathroom humor.





Heck if lowbrow humor disqualifies something from being literature, Chaucer will certainly get the boot. The Canterbury Tales are extremely baudy in parts. 

buzzard


----------



## Henry (Jan 26, 2004)

The Mirrorball Man said:
			
		

> I don't think there will ever be a general agreement on what the real purpose of fiction is, but I guess we might all agree that literature always is, at its deepest core, a quest for truth (authenticity, versimilitude, honesty, coherence, etc...) and beauty (entertainment, originality, emotional impact, formal perfection, etc...).




I've driven more than one English major to irritation by claiming that the Drizzt Do'Urden "Homeland" series has these same elements, and that said elements make it a quite deep work. Most of us have never had to go to the lengths Drizzt did just to find someone who wouldn't stab him in the back, much less to find his place in the world; His desire to find a faith, and a home, that he belonged to made him travel literally a thousand miles to find it, encountering prejudice from all but a handful of individuals, but it was that handful that convinced him to go on when he had almost nothing left. He had one friend for years who accepted him unconditionally, and it wasn't even human.

The Drizzt books are by no means original - but they are in character deeper than people give them credit for, and strike a chord with many of its readers who empathasize with trying to "find home" emotionally.


----------



## The Sigil (Jan 26, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Is Drizzt destined to become a Classic? By classic I mean a classic of the Sword-and-sorcery genre, I'm not comparing it to Tolstoy.
> 
> Drizzt is popular and quite iconic. Do you think R. A. Salvatore's hero and writing stands along side that of Robert E. Howard, Michael Moorcock and Fritz Leiber? Will Drizzt books be next to their's on S&S must-read lists in 10-20 years time. And what do you think of the influence of RPG related fiction on fantasy literature?



I'll hit your first question.

Drizz't is not destined to become a _classic_.  Drizz't is destined to become a _cliché_ (in some ways, he has already become such).

Boris Karloff as _Frankenstein_, and that particular movie, with that particular rendering of Frankenstein, is a _classic_.  Any given Frankenstein incarnation since, e.g., "Herman Munster," is a _cliché_.  Sherlock Holmes is a _classic_, "Perry Mason" is a _cliché_ (the exceptionally bright, quick-deducing detective).  Bela Lugosi's "Dracula" was a classic.  Not having seen Christopher Lee's work in Hammer Films, I don't know if that was a classic re-definition of vampires or not (I have been told it was).  Buffy the Vampire Slayer is... you guessed it, cliché (nothing drastically new to the genre, since it basically portrays a WW-ish type of vampire).

Simply put, a classic is a work that either creates or, in rare cases, radically re-defines a genre.  Doing so requires sufficient artisitic talent to make the character stand out from among the crowd of "plug-n-play" hero qualities (mix and match from the "flawed hero," the "misunderstood hero," the "superior physical prowess" hero, the "superior mental faculties" hero, the "destined by fate to succeed" hero, etc).  There are good and bad clichés, of course, but even good clichés are stil that - not classics.

Willow, Krull, Beastmaster (the movie, not the series), even Conan the Librarian... are cliché fantasy movies.  They neither invented nor radically redefined the genre.  You may consider them good or bad clichés, but cliché they are.  Lord of the Rings is a classic - it re-invents the genre both in terms of effects (finally, things that look completely realistic) AND in holding the attention of audiences for a far longer period of time, and with more characters, than previous 2-hour films.  (One could argue for some anime series doing the length or number of characters as well, e.g., Record of Lodoss War among those I have personally seen - but this was not photorealstic - LotR has changed cinema).

Alternatively, a classic is one that does not create nor re-define a genre, but which requires/proposes such critical self-evaluation (or societal evaluation) that its value surpasses mere "book" and becomes a compelling insight to anyone who reads it into the human and/or political condition.  This is stuff like "to Kill a Mockingbird" and "1984" and similar works.  These works have a value as social/political/introspective commentary that surpasses their "literary" value.  I rather doubt anyone will cast Drizz't novels in this light, however. 

Drizz't has not created an entire genre (fantasy), nor has he radically re-defined it.  He may be popular, but that does not make him classic.  That he could not re-define the genre makes him cliché.  Some people will no doubt think he's a very good cliché, but he's cliché nonetheless.  I happen to think he's a bad cliché, but that's really neither here nor there.

Asbestos suit on.  Flame away. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Welverin (Jan 27, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Buffy the Vampire Slayer is... you guessed it, cliché (nothing drastically new to the genre, since it basically portrays a WW-ish type of vampire).




If WW = White Wolf I have to ask, what were you smoking when you typed that?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 27, 2004)

How can we possibly decide if Drizzt is a classic or not when everybody has their own definition of what a classic is?


----------



## Null Boundry (Jan 27, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> How can we possibly decide if Drizzt is a classic or not when everybody has their own definition of what a classic is?




Personally my definition of a classic is a book I am still thinking about or contemplating weeks or even months after I have finished rather than just the enjoyment from reading it. Preferably they should also be fun to read but this is only a requirement for a "good" book not a classic.

As for Drizzt, well I couldn't say having never read any of them. The Dragon Lance books were enough to put me of D&D books for life.


----------



## CCamfield (Jan 27, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Willow, Krull, Beastmaster (the movie, not the series), even Conan the Librarian... are cliché fantasy movies.  They neither invented nor radically redefined the genre.  You may consider them good or bad clichés, but cliché they are.




I think I would agree with you about those particular movies, but I think this argument is a little too simple.  It suggests that any work (book, film) in a genre is _either_ classic or cliché, but I don't think that's the case.  A work can fall between the two, using the genre elements or changing them without radically redefining them.  Whether it's then considered a good work or not is then probably a matter of the abilities of its creator(s).

Being cliche, in my opinion, means only or primarily using already overused genre elements.  

Is the movie _Aliens_ cliché?  Why or why not?

How about the book _The Deed of Paksennarion_?


----------



## The Sigil (Jan 28, 2004)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> I think I would agree with you about those particular movies, but I think this argument is a little too simple.  It suggests that any work (book, film) in a genre is _either_ classic or cliché, but I don't think that's the case.  A work can fall between the two, using the genre elements or changing them without radically redefining them.  Whether it's then considered a good work or not is then probably a matter of the abilities of its creator(s).
> 
> Being cliche, in my opinion, means only or primarily using already overused genre elements.
> 
> ...



Here we get into the definition of "cliché."  I'll try to explain how I see "classic" versus "cliché" in the sense I was alluding to above.  It may be splitting hairs, but I sense you are using the definition of "clichéd" to refer to (copied) use of people, themes, etc. that _have already become cliché_ - i.e., you are using things that already bear the label "cliché."  

I am using it in a much different sense... I refer to the objects that are original at first blush, but so one-dimensional or so type-driven or overused that they actually "become the cliché."  As an example, a "might-thewed barbarian warrior" is now a cliché - because it has become so overused.  "Conan" is the embodiment of that cliché... when he was first envisioned, his character was somewhat original; however, overuse of the "might-thewed barbarian" has made "Conan" BECOME that very cliché.  When I say "Conan" everyone thinks "might-thewed barbarian" because his name has become synonomous with the general character type.  

In other words, I am using "cliché" to refer to something that is relatively limited in overall scope, that is easily and frequently copied to the point where any originality it may once have had is lost.  The overall literary work is lost by its reduction simply to a single characterization.

A "classic," by contrast, defines many points of a genre, and is generally thought of as a "benchmark reference" for writers from that time onward.  Examples include Robert Heinlein's innovation in SF to say, "the door dilated as he exited the room" with no further comment on the door - i.e., to describe a "difference" due to technology by simply selecting a different word than usual and moving on (breaking the earlier convention of "stopping the action" to explain the technology) or Tolkien's use of the "semi-mythological/I am not a storyteller, I am merely a translator who is translating records of Middle Earth, so of course there are holes in the record" technique.  Another example (I am told - I have not read the work myself) is Neuromancer in the SF genre - my understanding is that almost every SF writer since has been shaped by the ideas in that work.

Sometimes the line is blurred... Asimov, for instance, has several classic works in his repertoire, yet his "Three Laws of Robotics" have become cliché (including through use of the "antitype" of his stereotype; think about it - SF robots to this day almost universally either strictly follow those laws or flagrantly break them every possible chance they get).  Lord of the Rings... clearly a classic, yet "old, bearded wizards with a pointy hat and a staff" are now a cliché (read: Gandalf).

I should also note that there are two types of works in any field: those that are known (especially to "fans" of the field), and those that are not.  

Clearly, in order to be in consideration for "classic" status - OR "cliché" status, a work must be well-known enough to have some sort of recognition from most casual fans of the field, and probably has enough "name recognition" that even those who are not fans of the field but are occasionally connected to the field to have at least HEARD of it.  Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and the like are clearly known by most outside the field and all within it.

Of a classic it is required to have some sort of "meta-importance," if you will - either a unique new literary convention, a depth of meaning, or a great spark of socio-political insight; i.e., that which allows its relevance to transcend the story and plot contained within the pages.  Tolkien's works have been the benchmark for fantasy writers ever since, both for depth of world-building (a new literary convention that is Meta-Important) and for socio-political resonance (as fine a study in the corrupting influence of absolute power and the environmentalist movement as you're apt to find).  While one could say that hobbits are "clichéd," they are only clichéd within the context of Middle Earth - you just don't see hobbits roaming around other fantasy worlds much (they're too sedentary and too boring - kender *spits* are much more "exciting").

On a similar note, it is probably fair to say that Faerun has been a "classic" within the D&D sphere - for the depth of its world-building and characters... even if some of those characters HAVE become clichés themselves (see: Elminster aka DM's pet  ).  Every D&D world-builder that has come after Greenwood has used Faerun as a "measuring stick" of sorts.

Can you say about Salvatore's works?  Probably not.  Is there any "meta-significance" to Salvatore's works?  Not really.  While they may be a deep and interesting study of "one man" (Drizz't), is he REALLY a character that forces us to look deep within our society or ourselves?  No.  We can't all relate well with Drizz't.  Worse, he represents the stereotypical "dark outcast whom everyone assumes is evil and overcomes via his great physical skills and who just wants to be loved," which means he can easily "Become The Cliché."  Given the number of Drizz't clones running around in D&D games these days, I'd say _that transformation has already happened_.  

Not that he was cliché when he was created, necessarily, but the transformation into cliché has already occurred (IMO of course), and there's not enough "other stuff" in Salvatore's writing that you can pull up to let it "mature" into a classic (one poster above praised Salvatore's ability to write action scenes; while nice, he's not revolutionary nor does he find a standard so far above the norm that everyone tries to emulate him; further, combat action is NOT something most of the populace is going to have an easy time empathizing with).   In other words, while there may be substance to his work, and substance to his writing, it's substance that lacks "meta-importance" and it's not an obvious cut above the rest.  Writing can be wordy and pithy at the same time (Exhibit A: This post).

Heck, I would suggest that Ender's Game (Orson Scott Card) has a better potential to become a classic, because it examines the relationship all of us have with our potential for doing that which we hate (and don't get me started on how it reminds adults that children think of themselves as "full-fledged people" while adults tend to think of children as "half-people" - because we forget where we came from) - and there is some "meta-importance" that all of us can relate to there.  But I digress.

At the end of the day, I think it's like a "Hall of Fame" vote.  When I hear "classic," I think of a work that, to a limited degree, transcends the genre and sets a standard by which all later writers in a genre measure their own work (note: NOT by which others measure their work, but by which writers themselves do).  A "cliché" is something with which everyone in the genre is familiar, but which no one makes a special effort to measure themselves against; it defines a single point and can be "tossed in" with no amount of extra effort.

I would further suggest that whether or not something is destined to be a "classic" or a "cliché" can be determined within about 10 years of it becoming "mainstream" in the avenue of writing in which it exists.  That is sufficient time for other writers to become aware of it, read it, and if it merits it, start measuring themselves against it.  I posit this as a guess/theory rather than a point of fact.  Interestingly, however, it points to no "classics" coming out of the written fantasy genre in the last thirty or so years, with the possible exception of Harry Potter, so perhaps it is not a good theory.

Not sure if this is making sense - as I mentioned, perhaps this post is cliche/wordy/pithy rather than a classic - but I'm trying to get my point across.  Which is actually a good hijack - what posts/threads on ENWorld (if any) are classics?

--The Sigil


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Jan 28, 2004)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> How about the book _The Deed of Paksennarion_?



A woman trying to succeed in a male-dominated world chock-full of all sorts of D&Disms?  How much more clich'e can it get?


----------



## Wrath of the Swarm (Feb 1, 2004)

It seems to be that the term 'cliche' is reserved for associations of ideas that have become so linked that people don't feel the need to think about them.  Instead of examining what they're being exposed to and generating their own mental maps of what it means, they find all they need to do is reference their pre-existing understanding.

That's what people find boring about cliches - there's nothing for them to interpret for themselves, nothing to develop in their imaginations.  All they need to do is look at what's come before, and that's not what people want.  They want new relationships between concepts, fresh and different territories so that they can make their own maps.


----------



## CCamfield (Feb 2, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> A woman trying to succeed in a male-dominated world chock-full of all sorts of D&Disms?  How much more clich'e can it get?




I guess my point is that even though it's "chock-full of all sorts of D&Disms", it's still a good, well-written book.

Innovation counts, but it _isn't_, in my opinion, the be-all and end-all, even in fantasy and science fiction.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Feb 2, 2004)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> Innovation counts, but it _isn't_, in my opinion, the be-all and end-all, even in fantasy and science fiction.



Oh, I agree...  But you did ask.

I'll be a little more constructive with my opinion of Paks: It got _real_ preachy _real_ fast.  Like _Dances with Wolves_, preachy...

I'm all good with the theme of a woman trying to succeed in a male dominated world, but the author (Elizabeth Moon, right?) had a habit of dwelling on it far too much.  Too many gender issues got in the way of the tale itself, seemingly expressing the political views of the author in an overly repetative manner.  Even when Paks has made numerous accomplishments and could have become an icon of female strength, the author turns around and does the *worst* thing to her that can be done to a female character, reducing her again into the role of victim.

Sure, it finally ended happily, it just seemed to take for-ev-er to get there and was more reminescent of an exercise in _Withering Heights_-styled victimization than a fantasy series.  So, my money says Paks won't be a classic...  Not that many of us will still be here in 100 years to know for sure, of course.


----------

