First off, thanks for the great, in-depth essay. I know exactly what you mean by cringing over bad bits in the books and loving them enough to buy them anyway - that's pretty darn close to the same feeling I occasionally get about my own HP infatuation
( ... )
Ooh, and you simply have to try George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire if you haven't already: it's got heavy undertones of the Wars of the Roses, and is simply one of the best fantasy series for non-cliched, no-holds-barred characterisation I've ever had the pleasure of reading. /rave reviewing
I agree with the rebuttal you've made. The only point I'd make in addition to yours (since you've said all I was thinking, only more clearly and cleverly!) is regard to the size of dragons - I'd need to reread the book first, but I was under the impression that it is difficult to tell what size a dragon is going to be based on the egg. It makes sense to me that someone should be trained, from day one, to be a captain for their dragon. And if someone young happens to be in charge of a large dragon with a lot of crew - well, that only means that there is more room for experienced, older crewmembers who can train him.
The point is, a naval captain is an extremely high rank, loosely equivalent with a Colonel of a Regiment of some 2000 soldiers. You may not realize it, but a small schooner would not be commanded by a "Captain". It would be commanded probaby by only a lieutenant, and there are numerous other naval grades in between. Obviously, the Aerial Corps rank structue is based on the Navy instead of the army probably becaue of their similarity to ships, being crewed like them if of the larger varieties. If Termeraire did not grow, and remained a scout sized dragon, his rider could not be justified having so high a rank.
How would anyone propose to put a naturally unwilling, 20 ton, 100 foot long dragon in a dragon-sized, giant guillotine?
I imagine the same way people in the book compel bonded dragons to do anything -- by threatening the rider. The dragons are set up as having been bred to bond with humans -- yes, they can choose not to if they don't like the choices presented, but since most of them do find a rider to bond with, that bond (a) prevents dragons from banding together to control the world (not their goal, and why does it have to be?) and (b) provides leverage over the dragons (which was USED in the book to compel the French dragon to go off to the breeding grounds). I'm not sure how you seem to have missed this -- the dragon-rider bonding was pretty much the critical point of the entire novel
( ... )
I have replied to some of your comments below as well.
But what parameters are you talking about when writing fantasy? The author can do anything he wants in a fantasy world, and with the addition of "magic" even ignore all the laws of science to make his story "work".
As for books that occur on other worlds or places like "middle earth", the only "research" I can conceive of, is merely ripping off the ideas of earlier fantasy writers. And this is the problem with virtually all the "dragon rider" books ever written when the dragons are made intelligent enough to make the reader wonder why they do not question the idiocy of killing themselves for the sake of humans, which would ultimately lead to their extinction.
You cannot compare pure fantasy at all with historical fiction, or in this case historical fantasy, and as I said from the beginning, this is a great piece of work, save for almost the same old inplausible, "obedient onto death" "puppy dog" dragons.
But what parameters are you talking about when writing fantasy? The author can do anything he wants in a fantasy world, and with the addition of "magic" even ignore all the laws of science to make his story "work".
Oh, good god. Read Patricia C. Wrede and Orson Scott Card on worldbuilding. Just because one can throw out all laws of physics and write worlds that aren't internally consistently doesn't mean one should, and good fantasy writers recognize that. If magic is established as able to accomplish X and Y (but not Z, Q, or B), why is that so terrible? Science fiction writers violate the laws of physics all the time, and get far less flack for it.
The key is internal consistency. It's interesting to play with things that don't, as far as we know, exist (like magic) and that by our understanding of the laws of physics can never exist (like intergalactic civilizations operating with FTL). In order to play with these concepts, we have to suspend disbelief occasionally. That doesn't make authors "lazy," provided they can create
( ... )
I think I now understand why you are unable to comprehend what I am talking about. You are so hopelessly anthrocentric that you cannot possibly conceive of an animal far larger, far longer lived, more powerful, and ultimately, possibly wiser than humans, that might not care to die in senseless political struggles for the sake of those humans. And how does this make them automatically "evil"? And as I said in the original post,, there is no reason such more realistic "intelligent" dragons would not be loyal to their riders, and would not fight as earnestly as possible for their rider's side, but simply not to the point of killing themselves for intangible and petty human values or killing other dragons for the same
( ... )
Comments 75
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Maybe it will make more sense now.
Reply
Well put.
Reply
I imagine the same way people in the book compel bonded dragons to do anything -- by threatening the rider. The dragons are set up as having been bred to bond with humans -- yes, they can choose not to if they don't like the choices presented, but since most of them do find a rider to bond with, that bond (a) prevents dragons from banding together to control the world (not their goal, and why does it have to be?) and (b) provides leverage over the dragons (which was USED in the book to compel the French dragon to go off to the breeding grounds). I'm not sure how you seem to have missed this -- the dragon-rider bonding was pretty much the critical point of the entire novel ( ... )
Reply
But what parameters are you talking about when writing fantasy? The author can do anything he wants in a fantasy world, and with the addition of "magic" even ignore all the laws of science to make his story "work".
As for books that occur on other worlds or places like "middle earth", the only "research" I can conceive of, is merely ripping off the ideas of earlier fantasy writers.
And this is the problem with virtually all the "dragon rider" books ever written when the dragons are made intelligent enough to make the reader wonder why they do not question the idiocy of killing themselves for the sake of humans, which would ultimately lead to their extinction.
You cannot compare pure fantasy at all with historical fiction, or in this case historical fantasy, and as I said from the beginning, this is a great piece of work, save for almost the same old inplausible, "obedient onto death" "puppy dog" dragons.
Reply
Oh, good god. Read Patricia C. Wrede and Orson Scott Card on worldbuilding. Just because one can throw out all laws of physics and write worlds that aren't internally consistently doesn't mean one should, and good fantasy writers recognize that. If magic is established as able to accomplish X and Y (but not Z, Q, or B), why is that so terrible? Science fiction writers violate the laws of physics all the time, and get far less flack for it.
The key is internal consistency. It's interesting to play with things that don't, as far as we know, exist (like magic) and that by our understanding of the laws of physics can never exist (like intergalactic civilizations operating with FTL). In order to play with these concepts, we have to suspend disbelief occasionally. That doesn't make authors "lazy," provided they can create ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment