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
( ... )
*laughs madly* barbarian_qulan is anthrocentric, yet you're the one who's been refusing to accept that having human-level intelligence might not make dragons think and feel the same way as humans?
I very much disagree with you about tolkien. A lot of the time, with his plots, Tolkien tries to evoke the sense (though not the details) of english and nordic myth rather than absolute realism. I recognise that this isn't a quality you may enjoy, but that doesn't make it without value. Rather, for tolkien and for a number of people who enjoy his work, the references and atomosphere of the mythic past is one of the most enjoyable things about the LOTR and the Hobbit (and the Silmarillion, though that's a slightly different case). My point is, in any case, that it's not "silly unbelieveable nonsense" any more than the legends of Arthur or the tales of the bible or the prose edda are silly unbelieveable nonsense. They're meant to operate on a different frame of reference than realistic works.
That said, I find it rather insulting to refer to people who enjoy tolkien's works as "ignorant" because they enjoy different things in fiction than you do.
I'm surprised to see someone still reading the "old" posts. Yes that was me on UM, and I still post there. There was not enough character space to use my full posting "name".
The "biblical" dragon book will be out this year. My interest in these novels has become a slight distraction, but they are similar to my own ideas of "dragons" in our "real" world, though in an earlier period, and limited to what could be possible within the parameters of archaeological evidence.
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 compelling, internally consistent worlds.Internal consistency is exactly the point where DC and I see difficulties. If you create a race of huge, powerful, naturally agressive and intelligent beings who are physically far superior to humans and then make them defer to humans like the frequently cited "puppies" that's just not something I can easily buy. And the "bonding" between dragon and rider is just not convincing enough for me. It's a nice aspect, yes, but if it dulls the dragon's survival instincts to the point where he/she gives themselves up for their rider, wouldn't free dragons do anything to save their brood/eggs from ever getting captured by
( ... )
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
Reply
That said, I find it rather insulting to refer to people who enjoy tolkien's works as "ignorant" because they enjoy different things in fiction than you do.
Reply
How's the book buisness treating ya?
Reply
The "biblical" dragon book will be out this year. My interest in these novels has become a slight distraction, but they are similar to my own ideas of "dragons" in our "real" world, though in an earlier period, and limited to what could be possible within the parameters of archaeological evidence.
DC
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment