Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsBlizzCon 2010: WoW Insider interviews author Richard A. Knaak
by Anne Stickney 
Oct 23rd 2010 at 7:00PM
WoW Insider: Richard, thank you for joining us, it's great to meet you! Obviously you did Stormrage earlier this year -- how closely did you work with Blizzard on the book?
Richard A. Knaak: Everything was back and forth with them. I've been very fortunate from the beginning to work with a group of really fantastic people and I've been able to immerse myself in the game. Mick Neilson, who's the publishing lead right now and Evelyn the lore mistress, between those two especially every one of my questions would be answered quickly and efficiently, with a lot of graphics in case there was something that wasn't visible for me to see on the game.
They sent you screenshots?
I get lots of screenshots -- I see lots of things you won't be able to see for awhile! There's other people like James who works with Mick, he's one of the top publishing people too. And of course Chris [Metzen] has been there from the beginning -- he basically grew up reading my Dragonlance work, that's fantastic to me. Everyone's been great at Blizzard.
The book Stormrage covers a lot of material originally introduced in World of Warcraft. Did you play through the game?
I had been through elements of it, but there were so many things they kept coming to me with that were new. I've been well immersed in it. And god, the graphics get better and better all the time. It's been really fun. And I do as they ask of me for the storylines. So if something disgruntles someone about how the outcome of the story is, you can know that this was discussed thoroughly with myself and the people at Blizzard. They felt that these were the directions to go with things. I know that people would have liked to see more of the Emerald Dream in the game -- I myself was begging for it! They were very happy with how the novel turned out and how it explained quite a bit of what they wanted to do, which I'm very grateful for. They asked me to bring certain characters into the situation that I had not considered they would want to be using, but once they asked about them I said "Okay, that makes perfect sense." They wanted people to recognize a lot of what was going on.
Stormrage overall has been one of the most in-depth experiences yet. Although that will obviously change as time goes on, because every time the new stuff comes out -- I mean Cataclysm, let's face it, everything you knew is no longer what you knew – so there's going to be quite a bit of fun going back to places that are not quite the same anymore.
So far your focus has mostly been on Alliance -- you've had Broxigar, you've had Thura and of course all the tauren druids. Would you like to write more from the Horde perspective?
Oh I enjoy both sides -- if you've noticed the manga series, I have Trag, the first tauren deathknight as he turned out to be. I was very happy to see him in game -- I love Rhonin and Vereesa and all those characters but I've always had this thing for minotaurs. And when I came up with Trag for the second volume of the Sunwell Trilogy, I couldn't let go of him!
That's the thing -- I told them I needed to do another story and I told them what I wanted to do and they were fascinated by that. Tauren alone is a reason for me to do horde. I play a tauren, they're my favorites. I do like a lot of the more traditional aspects of the orcs. Broxigar was a terrific character for me, he was my creation and he just took on a life of his own. He had that essence about him, I was surprised at how much I got out of him. And when it came for him to do what he had to do at the end of War of the Ancients, it just made perfect sense that he be doing it.
Speaking of Thura -- she's Broxigar's niece. Who's her father?
That's something that we haven't fully -- we can't answer that right now. That was decided.
Was that deliberately omitted?
That was deliberately omitted, yes. But that doesn't mean you'll see something about it -- I think it was more omitted because we may decide to do something or we may not decide to do something. Unfortunately we have to leave a lot of things open, we can't put anything in stone. Unless it's a statue of Broxigar!
We heard that in Cataclysm there's going to be a Caverns of Time: War of the Ancients instance. How do you feel about that -- are they going to bring in characters from your books?
I would certainly enjoy anything that reflects back on the storyline that I did. So if anybody shows up, be it Malfurion or Tyrande or characters like Shandris or Jarod Shadowsong, if any of them would show up in there, I'd be very happy about that.
The War of the Ancients trilogy was a huge undertaking that covered a major war in Warcraft history. Would you like to cover the original War of the Shifting Sands with Fandral and his son?
There is nothing that I have on hand in that direction, but yeah, the Shifting Sands was always a really fun time. Blizzard is usually the one who comes and says we've got an idea that we'd like to propose to you, we'd like you to write about this. Sometimes I'll suggest things to them, and we'll go back and forth on it. It's really a two way process that works very well -- and let's face it, most everything they suggest is something that's certainly going to be of interest to most people.
I believe she read my book and the people at Blizzard helped her with it. She's so busy with things and I'm so busy with stuff -- if there's any questions she would have, I'd be happy to answer them and vice versa, but with people like Evelyn and the other people at Blizzard that know the background better than anybody, I think she's in safe hands. I'm sure they send her any relevant material or the book if she needed it. I get material all the time from them.
Fan reaction to you is notoriously polarized.
I've noticed that!
What do you say to that? What do you think about that?
First of all, A.) you're not going to please everybody. B.) I've had to do some things that they haven't necessarily liked, even if it wasn't necessarily my decision on that. C.) I seem to be enjoyed by the majority of the fans. I'm sorry that some people don't like what I do -- I know some people don't like what Christie or Aaron Rosenberg or others have done. I'm doing what Blizzard asked me to do and I'm trying to do it the best I can, for the most part I think I've done well with it. Some people make judgments based on things that are totally irrelevant to the book. And there's people who seem to think I've never played the game, which I did. I just tell them "When you're writing the books, you have to write the books!" So you can't go in the game as often as they do.
When you're writing about the game, you step away from playing it.
You have to! I'm a freelancer, we aren't paid to do this 24 hours a day unfortunately. Although I'd love to!
Thank you for your time Richard!
BlizzCon 2010 is upon us! WoW Insider has all the latest news and information. We're bringing you liveblogging of the WoW panels, interviews with WoW celebrities and attendees and of course, lots of pictures of people in costumes. It's all here at WoW Insider!Filed under: Interviews, BlizzCon
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 4)
Lokanaya Oct 23rd 2010 8:58PM
Well... I hate him more because he turned one of the best heroes in Dragonlance (Huma) into a Mary Sue that even Med'an would bow down to and worship, as well as not even glancing at the, oh, only 10 or so minor, easy-to-accomadate details. It was like it wasn't even based in the same universe. I've been angry at him ever since.
Meh, his works in WoW were ok, but they could have been worse. >.>
Zanathos Oct 24th 2010 12:17AM
Ok, this cannot pass without comment. The Legend of Huma and Kaz the Minotaur are two of the finest, if not THE finest, books in the entirely of the dragonlance chronicles. Yes, better than Weis and Hickman's work, even.
Knaak's Huma was so far from a Mary Sue character, I'm not sure you understand what the term means. In fact, his is THE only Huma, unless there's been another Huma book since I've last adventured in Krynn. A few poorly remembered legends in Chronicles does not define a character, or even bring him into any sort of focus. Huma is basically nothing more than a name before Knaak fleshes him out, so to object to him ruining the best hero in the series is ridiculous. You didn't know anything about him before!
Beyond that, the Legend of Huma is a great story. The dissimilarity between the actual story of Huma and the legends Sturm recites is a brilliant touch, intended or not. How well do you think the legends of Robin of Lockley or King Arthur correspond to the men that inspired them, if they existed? Not a whole lot. Even movies produced today have very little historical accuracy when they actually have access to records. The actual story of Huma having little to do with the 1500 year old legend passed down is one of the most realistic touches possible.
Aside from that, it's a fantastic story. The hero of legend is full of self doubt and out of sync with the rest of his order. All the little touches move away from what you expect the story of a legendary hero to be, and that's what makes it memorable. Far from a Mary Sue, Huma is an everyman hero. I don't want to delve too deeply into the story, for those who haven't read it. But it's essentially the story of a typical knight. He's chosen by destiny, and he answers the call and dies for it. His victories are not without price, neither for him or his allies. But they are his.
Now, you don't have to like day of the dragon. I'm not crazy about, it's a passable story that Rhonin detracts from. It does introduce the different flights of dragons and is an important lore story, so I do appreciate it for that and would say it's worth reading to a lore junkie. War of the ancients is a little better, and I've found most of the complaints about it to be overblown.
But if you don't like Legend of Huma, you should probably stop reading fantasy literature. The only reason you could possible have not to like it, is if you decided you were going to hate a book Knaak wrote because it was Knaak.
arawn.chernobog Oct 24th 2010 7:25AM
Metzen's Tyrande: "I am a warrior of the Night, I will do whatever it takes for my people and to preserve the land... even if it means the unthinkable! No sacrifice is too great!"
WoW's Tyrande: *bounce bounce*
Knaak's Tyrande:"Hey Malfy sweetie, Me and Ysera baked a cake for my big-strong hubby! When you come back from saving the world maybe we could snuggle!"
And he does this... for every female character. And let's not forget the amount of Gary Stues he creates... GAH!
KNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAK!|
Sleutel Oct 24th 2010 2:28PM
His prose is terrible and his original characters are Mary Sues. Think Stephenie Meyer, but with Warcraft instead of sparklepires.
Sayomara Oct 23rd 2010 7:16PM
Comes off as honest and straight forward no matter what i think of some of his writing you have to respect that.
Possum Oct 23rd 2010 7:29PM
I think what I took away from this interview was that he's a writer (duh) with only professional interest in Wow. He doesn't enjoy it as a game and as such doesn't see a problem with messing with the Lore a bit to write his books.
I'm not saying that necessarily reflects badly on him. Not everybody is into MMOs but players want a basic level of respect for the Lore and established characters. This interview still comes off to me that he only cares about his own characters and stories and not how they affect the lore as a whole and that is something that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
Sayomara Oct 23rd 2010 7:40PM
I have nothing against something wanting to make a buck. Would it be better if his liked the game yes but honestly he has been writing in the warcraft Universe longer than there has been a World of Warcraft. If he seems a bit suck in his ways I have no real issue with it.
Addionally a MMO is a terrible way to tell a story, and I really don't see what he would get out of playing the game that he would get by geting a well written summory by Blizzard lore team of the storyline in Ashenvale or Teldrassil, that affect his story. Heck if he played like most people he wouldn't even read the quests. I'm sorry but its true. Part of me really wishes would make another warcraft RTS. Just looking at Starcraft II reminds me how well blizzard tells story in that format.
Possum Oct 23rd 2010 9:41PM
I'm not trying to say that playing the game would make him a better writer or that it would give him a better understanding of lore. Personally I read all the quests but I know what you mean about the average player skipping them.
What I meant to say was that his interest in Warcraft is business only. He seems to have no love for the warcraft world, it's established lore or characters, instead he's always creating and talking about his own characters. And while I agree, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, I'd prefer an author who seems to actually enjoy the world and characters she is writing about (like Golden).
Possum Oct 23rd 2010 7:22PM
His answer to the question about whether he liked the Horde was funny. 'Well I like Taurens' I expected him to add 'and those green guys, what are they called? Ogs, Orgs........?'
Dillon Oct 23rd 2010 7:26PM
I've read something like 15 Warcraft books and Chrstie Golden's are the best. Richard Knaak... it's the literary equivalent of eating cardboard.
Wyattbw09 Oct 23rd 2010 7:27PM
Legend of Huma was the first fantasy book I read and a huge part of why I got into fantasy to that end I'll always apprecate Mr. Knaak
Zanathos Oct 24th 2010 12:19AM
Indeed. His warcraft work is scattershot, but Legend of Huma is damn near flawless.
Juzelle Nov 7th 2010 3:17AM
I think his earlier dragonlance work was more inspired, as he was actually part of the worldcrafting process. Huma & Khaz actually fleshed out aspects of Krynn mentioned in passing or spoken about in other sources as mere afterthought.
I think the big difference is with WoW he doesn't have much of an emotional/intelectual tie to the Warcraft Lore as he did to the Dragonlance Lore, and has less invested in it on a personal level. If he were writing about Krynn and he tweaked the lore to write a book, most people would be like "well allright", but as soon as he steps on people's toes by taking liberties with WoW lore and you get the
KNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAK!!
that everyone likes to scream. I honestly don't think he thought it would be a very big deal, but then I don't think he understood alot of things. like the demographic of his target audience, for one.
feh.
eyesasjewels Oct 23rd 2010 7:27PM
My eyes burn with hatred for KNACCCKKKK like two rubyopaldiamond jewels lit by torchmoonlampfire light.
roseclown Oct 23rd 2010 7:31PM
I think the most interesting part was the difference in how Knaack and Golden talk about the characters they write. Golden does not claim any creation on her part, even though she is creating a lot of their thoughts and how they work, and depth. Instead she talks about them taking on a life of their own and dictating to her how they are.
Knaack is the opposite, talking about how he created and how he was surprised how much he got out of the characters, never talking about the life the character had on it's own.
As a writer myself, and someone who talks a lot with other writers and read a ton of interviews and biographies of other writers, it is Golden who has the most similar way of talking about it to all the fiction writers I have seen. Take for that what you will. /shrug
Anteia Oct 23rd 2010 10:07PM
One issue I see with this argument, is that Golden is taking characters we all know intimately and putting her own spin on it. Her own interview said that others may see Jaina/Thrall differently, but she didn't. Problem: Hers gets to be the official version. And yes, she does admit to loving and liking WoW just like us.. but that's ALSO a conflict of interest. She'll do what they tell her to, but she'll also present a character a certain way and it'll be the way she perceived it by her own individual biases formed from playing the game intimately. Knaak tends to write characters that don't have as much built up about them. (This is not to say he does not ever write known characters, because he has, and this is not to say he always does this well, because he doesn't.) But the dragon aspects being the way they are is mostly Knaak. Kalecgos and even Lothremar were mostly Knaak. He's given us the basis of some great characters. Golden, on the other hand, is more reflective about the characters that already exist. This can be fun, but...most people agree that Arthas was a -little- too obsessive about Invincible throughout the entire novel. It was a symbolic theme, but instead of being subtle it was dropped in our laps every chance. And her whole "No, Thrall has always seen Jaina as a friend, that's it" was irksome. That may have been how she views it, and indeed, she got to write the book. But there has been definite indication that there's more to it than that. But just like how players can sit here and argue back and forth over the issues...a writer has just as concrete a viewpoint when they're being paid to write about characters that ALREADY EXIST.
And this isn't directed at you at all, but might as well say it here. Everyone making a huge fuss about how Golden made the New York Time's bestseller and that makes her the better writer... yes. That's impressive. But the book was entitled "Arthas"... there was no ambiguity that we would finally get to see what the heck went wrong from Arthas's point of view. Arthas who has been a popular figure since WCIII. Unless it was the most horrid piece of crap ever written and got tons of early reviews saying so, it was going to sell well since the very beginning. It wasn't horrid, it was fairly well done. But it did have cringe-worthy moments, yet it's a solid, if not genius, book. If it hadn't been titled Arthas and was just about a random character, and not one held in the heart of millions of fans in a furor over WOTLK? It wouldn't have sold so well. It just wouldn't have. If they had chosen a nobody to write it, it still would have sold amazingly well. Knaak has alot of hatred in the fanbase, some deserved and alot not deserved but never say WoW players don't know how to be passionate. His name might have lowered sales a bit. But the book was... like Arthas.. destined for greatness. Now, I guess we wait to see if it created a monster or not eventually. ;)
roseclown Oct 23rd 2010 10:28PM
...I think you replied to the wrong thing. /points down a couple paces to the discussion started by MusedMoose
/points to her comment that you replied under
I was talking about the major way writers see characters. Not how the books are developed, or written, or how well she gets things across. Just how the writer's view characters.
Knaack does not listen to his characters, otherwise (like every other author I have ever spoken to or read a biography/helpbook/interview of) he would have said something about how the characters take on a life of their own and speak to him. That is the way it works in fiction. Weird, slightly crazy, but that is the way it works. The fact that he lacked that in his interview while Golden did not is something that shows how differently they view characters. Which in turn, affects their writing.
...I really do not know where you got all the other stuff, unless you meant to reply to something else.
However, I will say this. I do think Golden does not spend nearly as much time as she should working on her novels. Sadly, this is the way it is with companies like Blizzard. It's an arms race. That lack of time shows in it's editing; of which includes how much a character will think of something. Without proper editing, it becomes obsession to the reader which the author never intended.
Of course, I am one of those people who think unless it is your one gift story (which comes out near perfect, but you only get it once) you should spend at least 6 months to a year on a piece, depending on length. Maybe more. /shrugs
Anteia Oct 23rd 2010 11:04PM
Well, partially, yes and no. It was in response to you in where you discuss the characters taking on a life of their own to Golden. My issue with this -is- that these characters are characters that already exist, and taking on their own life and saying how they are... is sometimes very, very different than how other fans and players perceive those same characters. I don't agree with how Golden views Thrall. Maybe Thrall was drunk when he was speaking to her or in an emo state where he was declaring how he wasn't sure he could keep the horde in line and he needed a girlfriend... but I didn't see it as "Thrall". This is my own viewpoint.
My sister does arbitration for screenplays, as well as directing and writing her own short films. She's done ones of some rather major movies, that were taking characters that already existed and how the writers were portraying them in the movie. One movie involved quite alot of ancient Greek characters and she was actually calling me and asking me questions involving the myths because I'm an history/literature major. I groaned at some of the changes I heard. And had to tell her what the original myths said and what the writer she was working for had differently, as this is part of an arbitration case involving screenwriting credit.
I also write myself. I've written my own stories, and I've written fanfiction. The difference between the two is that with the first, I am writing characters that are in my head. Yes, they DO talk to me. They do tell me who they are and what they would do. The latter, the characters already exist. I feel like I would be betraying the original creators if I did not studiously examine them and try to be fair with their portrayal. Of course my own bias comes in, no writer can write without bias. It's impossible. But Golden tends to be working off characters that do already exist. And agreement with her portrayal or not does not change that is her portrayal. Originally, the characters were made by a bunch of writers for a game. But even these writers are inclined to change things... take Kael'thas going psycho. They say they now have a novella explaining it, but that seems to have been written AFTER when most of the players were totally "Wait, what?" about it. If anyone wrote about Kael'thas previous to that, they would have probably written about a noble prince who may have made some bad choices but is trying to ultimately protect his people. After BC? Not so much. So I'm not sure how much the game writers are listening to their characters either as much as going "So, it'd be cool if..." Sometimes, they're right, and it is cool. Other times, it makes the player base face palm. It just varies. I did say that not all of my reply was in directly to you. :)
Boobah Oct 24th 2010 1:05AM
Bah! The ship has sailed. Your complaint about Golden's Thrall seems to boil down to "she blasphemed against my OTP!" Never mind that the folks who created Thrall signed off on it, and it's pretty likely that that plot point didn't come from Golden. Ultimately, if you're contesting the facts as laid out in the novel, you're telling the creators of the characters that they're doing it wrong, and they don't understand their own characters.
I don't particularly care for Knaak's writing or his characters, but I'm not about to tell you that it isn't canon, either, which is where your argument essentially goes. The arbitration between creators and authors was done, and the creators said: "This work is what happened."
Anteia Oct 24th 2010 7:28AM
@Boobah
I also mentioned I didn't particularly care how she wrote Arthas in some points, she seems to have trouble balancing Jaina (I think this is common, though, Jaina seems a hard character to balance), and at times her Thrall seems to be accurate, such as his growling at Garrosh over the feast, but other times leaves me baffled. Also, the way Garrosh is written doesn't seem to fit with the Garrosh we've seen in game. Namely, I think, because of Cairn claiming he is a 'brilliant tactician' but a hothead, when we know Garrosh basically would have gotten the player killed in the Tundra if Saurfang hadn't been watching out for us. Saurfang ALSO directs you to stay silent over this and lets Garrosh think the plan went perfectly. A mistake on Saurfang's part? Perhaps. But it was done. Garrosh has not really had a 'humbling' moment in WoW to justify him suddenly being hesitant. He challenged Thrall at the beginning of WOTLK, during WOTLK he arrogantly talked about how great he was most of the time, and now he's perceived as a war hero. Why would he hesitate? I think it was just very necessary to make him more 'likeable' and it went against his characterization thus far. Varian, on the other hand, gets trounced by Jaina freezing an entire army in Battle for Undercity and reveals his own humbling to Saurfang Sr. in retrieving Saurfang Jr. But Varian doesn't get *much* sympathetic treatment in the book, in fact, Jaina muses that it's Lo'gash who takes over most of the time. I do think it was nice to see the struggle Varian has in being a father-figure to Anduin, and for quite understandable reasons. Arthas, Garrosh, Varian, and Cairn have never been a part of any of my favored pairings that I'm aware of and now I feel a little disturbed even listing their names and 'pairings' in the same sentence.
Anduin is written very well by Golden and is very likeable. He makes you quite hopeful about Stormwind's future rulers. Baine also is done well, giving Taurens a respectable ruler after they lost one. In this, I will say that on characters that don't have THAT strong of a characterization from past actions, Golden does a magnificent job of letting them speak to her and writing them. Is her writing cannon? Yes. I am not going to sit here and go "It DIDN'T HAPPEN. THRALL IS STILL IN OGRIMMAR. EVEN IF IT LOOKS WEIRD AND GARROSH HAS A NEW TITLE. LALALALA." But I did say it was my own viewpoint that some characters were portrayed wonky. Is my viewpoint *right*? Clearly, I don't write the lore, but it doesn't make it a *wrong viewpoint* either. Thrall as a character has existed for many years and has had many people help make decisions about what path he will take. He had definite creators, but facets have been added to him to flesh him out. It is what happens in the lore, but much like Kael'thas left people more than a bit baffled, it does not mean it was always a -well written- choice. For example, I love Jack Sparrow but I also think the writers screwed him up in the second and third movie by trying to write the Jack Sparrow Johnny Depp portrayed as opposed to writing him straight again and letting Depp screw with him. I'll still be going to see the fourth movie, and when Golden writes another book, if it's on a subject I'm curious about, I'll buy it. Because her writing IS the valid lore. Fans are always entitled to be disgruntled on portrayals and choices writers make. If we did not become excited, or disappointed, by such things, we are not fans. We're apathetic observers.
So you can basically insult me and brush away everything I have to say. As I said, WoW (particularly trade chat) has proven that people will get passionate and argue about anything. Personally, when I debate an issue I do so rather passionately. Sometimes, my words may come across as too strongly, but I do make a very specific attempt not to be insulting. I never said "Golden is a horrible writer and should not be allowed near the Wow Universe". Firstly, because I think this would be untrue. Secondly, because saying so would be ridiculously vehement. Thirdly, because she is not a horrible writer and I do feel she has strengths (which I mentioned in previous posts) of having her characters be more reflective and in this post I listed characters I thought she did very well with. And you know, I may argue that her love of the material gives her a bias that is clearly shown, and I think it does, but at the same time, I do think her writing displays a bit of that passion. I also never stated "And anyone who likes Golden's writing is an idiot" because that would be stupid of me to say. Though I have seen much worse comments about those who like Knaak's writing, who I am not even a particular fan of either, but do agree that the general hatred of him seems to be a popular thing to do at the moment and people go into his books expecting bad writing because they were told it would be. It makes it impossible for them to enjoy it.
That all said, I think Roseclown and I may not agree on Golden, but I did not see where the discussion between us dissolved into name calling or personal attacks. If anything I said made Roseclown feel that way, I do apologize. It would be a case of my fervent opinion getting the best of me, but having strong opinions does not excuse degrading another person. So, I apologize and do mean it if someone felt under attack by my words.