Name a single writer whose work you hope most influences the story/tone of P:E

[Sylvanpyxie]

Raymond E Feist. If only for his convoluted plots and the level of equality that his characters maintained(at least in the books I've read), both in terms of power and importance, not a single one of them really raising above the others and each of them maintaining their own flaws.

 

Also, since I can't stop at just one, I have to mention George RR Martin and his Song of Ice and Fire series, his political plot lines are both complicated and utterly brilliant. His characters also hold the same sort of depth, complexity and dimension as Feist's, each one of them playing their own part in the grander scheme of things, each carrying their own burdens and each of them growing as people through-out the course of the series.

[ursustas]

Raymond E Feist.

 

So many authors to respect and thank .. but Feist is my favourite.

[Ieo]

Diana Wynne Jones.

 

 

.....Uh, almost everything I read is nonfiction, turns out.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Ieo

[Death Machine Miyagi]

.....Uh, almost everything I read is nonfiction, turns out.

 

I sympathize. Even though I was the one who posted the thread, I wouldn't have many good answers of my own. I mostly read history stuff.

[Tamerlane]

Mark Danielewski.

 

Like a terrible god damn mushroom trip, that guy.

[Monte Carlo]

.....Uh, almost everything I read is nonfiction, turns out.

 

I sympathize. Even though I was the one who posted the thread, I wouldn't have many good answers of my own. I mostly read history stuff.

 

 

This threads usually turn into a "I read more esoteric fantasy than you do" competitions.

[Domigorgon]

Actually, one thing we haven't considered much is that Project: Eternity can and probably will draw lots of inspiration from actual history. I mean, even GRRMartin admits he was inspired by the War of the Roses and just added dragons and stuff. When the team announced the setting, it became obvious that it is rather analogue to the colonization period (with some early renaissance flavor). Drawing lessons from history makes fantasy books more believable.

[PrimeJunta]

J.E. Sawyer has said that he's a total history nerd. I don't think we need to worry on this score. (Another history buff here.)

[JFSOCC]

Alright Opinionated piece coming up. which you could vehemently disagree with.

I don't want to be a negative bastard, but some of the authors mentioned are awful, and I dismiss their popularity on the idea that those who like them haven't read proper quality fantasy.

 

I mean, Feist, really? Over the top, linear, plot driven drivel, deus ex up the wazoo, non-existent character arcs, completely unbelievable, mary sue. Ugh.

I'm in 2 minds about George RR Martin. I read the first 3 chapters of game of thrones, I thought the writing was awful, clichéd. then I watched the TV series, and after the intial 8 or so episodes, I started to enjoy myself. So maybe I should have kept reading.

Stephen P. Donaldson is another of those "popular" artists which I think suck. Pretentious, plot driven(if you're recognising a theme, yes, plot driven is bad and common) unrelatable protagonist, interspersed with bad poetry.

Terry Goodkind. ALL the flaws! How this man managed to rack up a fanbase is beyond me.

 

There are others which I dislike but at least those are due to preference, Ian C esselmont is one I don't enjoy, but I at least like the way he is different, his characters are strong and memorable, and he breaks convention nicely where he can get away with it.

Tolkien too, I love his world-building ability, he tells a great story, but he doesn't tell it well.

 

Now I have read quite a bit of fantasy

I've read a lot of crap fantasy. (I read the entire Magic the Gathering series. it's what got me into fantasy)

some of it I even enjoyed. (hey, I was young!)

But if you enjoy good fantasy with at least some literary value, I recommend Patrick Rothfuss, Peter V Brett, Robin Hobb,(don't bother with the liveship books) Trudi Cannavan,(don't bother with the age of the five books) and to a lesser extent Jaqueline Carey. (too much sex in her books for me, but otherwise solid)

And I'm going to shoe-horn in James Clavell, who wrote a great historical fiction book five times. (Tai-Pan, Noble House, Gai-Jin, Shogun, King Rat)

[Tagaziel]

Frank Herbert. The political intrigues in the Dune series and his other works are phenomenal.

 

Kurt Vonnegut is a close second, for reasons that should be obvious.

[sirchet]

This threads usually turn into a "I read more esoteric fantasy than you do" competitions.

 

I have to agree, especially when a post starts off, some people just have not read "Proper Fantasy" ROTFLMAO!

 

Proper fantasy, what is that? I guess it's fantasy that's pedigreed.

[JFSOCC]

Proper fantasy, what is that? I guess it's fantasy that's pedigreed.

Like with any literary genre there is pulp and there is quality.

[Nonek]

Anthony Beevor, or on a more fantastic note perhaps Michael Moormalechicken.

[Agelastos]

Proper fantasy, what is that? I guess it's fantasy that's pedigreed.

Like with any literary genre there is pulp and there is quality.

 

Nothing wrong with Pulp Fantasy like Sword & Sorcery. It has its own B Action/Horror Movie-esque charm.

[jezz555]

 

Kurt Vonnegut is a close second, for reasons that should be obvious.

 

I am interested to know how you think Kurt Vonnegut is an obvious choice for a fantasy game...

[smithereen]

*snip*

 

You're right about Feist and Donaldson - I hate to be that guy, but they are objectively terrible. I can why some people like Goodkind - his prose can be quite elegant and times, and his ability to torture his protagonists is near unrivaled. But in the end it is quite derivative and horribly derivative.

 

Martin's prose is weak, but his plot and characters are fantastic. You should keep reading.

 

Maybe I'll give Ruthfus an Esselmont a try next time I have free time.

[Tamerlane]

Kurt Vonnegut is a close second, for reasons that should be obvious.

 

I am interested to know how you think Kurt Vonnegut is an obvious choice for a fantasy game...

You can be influenced by the tone and style of a writer without literally utilizing his settings...

[Mandragore]

Frank Herbert. The political intrigues in the Dune series and his other works are phenomenal.

 

Kurt Vonnegut is a close second, for reasons that should be obvious.

 

Herbert yes, Vonnegut no. I've always found Vonnegut really pretentious and his satire doesn't really age well, not to mention that this game isn't even satire...

[jezz555]

Kurt Vonnegut is a close second, for reasons that should be obvious.

 

I am interested to know how you think Kurt Vonnegut is an obvious choice for a fantasy game...

You can be influenced by the tone and style of a writer without literally utilizing his settings...

 

Okay, still explain. I am pretty familiar with Kurt Vonnegut and I can't honestly fathom how his tone, style, or otherwise could possibly have anything to do with PE. Unless he is referring to the "so it goes" stuff, but even that I find a hard fit.

Edited December 2, 2012 by jezz555

[LadyCrimson]

And I'm going to shoe-horn in James Clavell, who wrote a great historical fiction book five times. (Tai-Pan, Noble House, Gai-Jin, Shogun, King Rat)

I love James Clavell.

 

As to the rest ... there is nothing wrong with people liking stuff that may not be considered very literary. I like and read all kinds of authors, from the ones you mentioned that you can't stand, to ones more people would probably deem "quality/literary." On the other hand, I also have liked a book from an author, than disliked another book from the same author. No author is divine, and no writing style is for everybody.

 

Shakespeare is supposed to be great for some reason, but y'know, I can't stand reading his stuff, even if you updated it in somewhat modernized English. But the basic themes behind his plays can make good movies.

[JFSOCC]

Shakespeare is supposed to be great for some reason, but y'know, I can't stand reading his stuff, even if you updated it in somewhat modernized English. But the basic themes behind his plays can make good movies.

Not a great fan either. (blasphemy! I hear my high-school English teacher say)

His prose maybe considered the be the greatest, but if you have to make characters who are evil because they are jewish or black, then you're not just racist, but also not very good at characterization. His Kings are noble (mostly) Shylock (the jew) is bad, because he is a usurer. (because why not use stereotypes) In Titus there is this famous line "Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did

Would I perform if I might have my will.

If one good deed in all my life I did,

I do repent it from my very soul."

Said by a moor (black man) why, because he was black and thus evil.

And then there is people saying "oh, but racism was normal back then!" "think of the times" But as much as the racism bothers me, that's not what disqualifies his works from greatness for me. It's the fact that he uses one-dimensional characters in the first place.

I mean, how one-dimensional can you get?

[jezz555]

Shakespeare is supposed to be great for some reason, but y'know, I can't stand reading his stuff, even if you updated it in somewhat modernized English. But the basic themes behind his plays can make good movies.

Not a great fan either. (blasphemy! I hear my high-school English teacher say)

His prose maybe considered the be the greatest, but if you have to make characters who are evil because they are jewish or black, then you're not just racist, but also not very good at characterization. His Kings are noble (mostly) Shylock (the jew) is bad, because he is a usurer. (because why not use stereotypes) In Titus there is this famous line "Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did

Would I perform if I might have my will.

If one good deed in all my life I did,

I do repent it from my very soul."

Said by a moor (black man) why, because he was black and thus evil.

And then there is people saying "oh, but racism was normal back then!" "think of the times" But as much as the racism bothers me, that's not what disqualifies his works from greatness for me. It's the fact that he uses one-dimensional characters in the first place.

I mean, how one-dimensional can you get?

 

This is a pretty huge misinterpretation, Othello was black, and furthermore the whole "does not a jew have eyes" speech is essentially shakespeare humanizing jews. Then look at Hamlet or Macbeth were the nobility are all jerks. Shakespeare was all about throwing up stereotypes, Its fine if you don't like him but to demonize one of the most forward thinking minds of his time as racist, or anti-semitic or whatever is forgive me, a little ignorant. No wonder you don't like him.

 

EDIT: Also "one dimensional"? Hamlet is at once a scheming genius, a depressed grief stricken schizophrenic, and an existentially conscious prince driven to revenge his father. How much more multi-dimensional can you get?

Edited December 2, 2012 by jezz555

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Shylock (the jew) is bad

 

"Shylock: I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction."

 

I think he's quite clearly being pictured as a product of the hate he gets for basically no reason. Shakespeare was quite progressive in this portrayal, considering the age and culture he lived in.

 

(Also, if you liked Clavell, you should definitely watch the aforementioned movie Harakiri.)

 

Edit: curse you, jezz555!

Edited December 2, 2012 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malekith]

Shakespeare is supposed to be great for some reason, but y'know, I can't stand reading his stuff, even if you updated it in somewhat modernized English. But the basic themes behind his plays can make good movies.

Not a great fan either. (blasphemy! I hear my high-school English teacher say)

His prose maybe considered the be the greatest, but if you have to make characters who are evil because they are jewish or black, then you're not just racist, but also not very good at characterization. His Kings are noble (mostly) Shylock (the jew) is bad, because he is a usurer. (because why not use stereotypes) In Titus there is this famous line "Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did

Would I perform if I might have my will.

If one good deed in all my life I did,

I do repent it from my very soul."

Said by a moor (black man) why, because he was black and thus evil.

And then there is people saying "oh, but racism was normal back then!" "think of the times" But as much as the racism bothers me, that's not what disqualifies his works from greatness for me. It's the fact that he uses one-dimensional characters in the first place.

I mean, how one-dimensional can you get?

Also you can't judge him according to present standards.Its like judging a medieval era noble for treating peasants or women as lower than himself and saying that he's a terrible person.When an entire culture has diferent standards than today the same rules don't apply. For his time he was forward thinking(Shakespeare)

Edited December 2, 2012 by Malekith

[Tamerlane]

Kurt Vonnegut is a close second, for reasons that should be obvious.

 

I am interested to know how you think Kurt Vonnegut is an obvious choice for a fantasy game...

You can be influenced by the tone and style of a writer without literally utilizing his settings...

 

Okay, still explain. I am pretty familiar with Kurt Vonnegut and I can't honestly fathom how his tone, style, or otherwise could possibly have anything to do with PE. Unless he is referring to the "so it goes" stuff, but even that I find a hard fit.

Well, I'd prefer to leave it to him to explain. I'm a big fan of Vonnegut, especially Cat's Cradle, but his tone/style is not specifically something I want to see a lot of in PE.