My issue mostly comes from being a snob when it comes to writing and plot elements.

You really don't want to hear my rant about the majority of Young Adult Fiction.... Seriously. Among my friends, I am notorious for my rants. Once one lasted an entire hour and thirty minutes. A rage fueled lecture.

He tends to butcher the REAL lore and his books are very....amateurish? I dunno i just think Christie Golden is my fave WoW Writer. Golden is like a 3 course meal at the Savoy. Knakk is like a cheap, greasy burger from Mc Ds

I honestly think its that fine line between fanfaction and published author. A fanfiction tends to be about someone personal characters put into a universe where they are more important than existing characters and the Existing characters spend all there time talk up those characters created by the Author. The Relationship between Rhonin and Illidan in the War of the Ancients trilogy might be seen an example of this.

However I would suggest that unlike fanfiction where characters are one dimensional conduit of awesome that sunder the world. Knaaks characters are for the most part well round if ungodly powerful.

My main issue is tends to use the same ideas to often through the course of a book. Foxbloods telporting in 'Stormrage' Sky chases in Demon Soul to name a few.

All that said his books are quick reads filled with action and while might hurt your mind the more you think about them they do tend to be enjoyable from a pulp fiction level. And to read the Interview it seems it trying to find that find line between good drama and fulling the story needs of blizzard. Sometimes it works some times it doesn't

Just my two copper

I -don't- hate anything, and I certainly don't hate him.

I just dislike his writing, and it's unfortunate that he was the one chosen to write a subject that I might otherwise enjoy. That's really all it's about.

But I dislike the writing of plenty of authors, including many who are popular or well liked.


Heck, I dislike the writing of some authors I enjoy... take for example Janet Evanovich. My mom -loves- her and convinced me to read one of her books. She has a keen eye for humor (she really can write some comedy) and a pretty good one for characters, but the rest of it is too formulaic and rote for my taste.

I -can- read her books just fine (and have since), but I tend to enjoy only pieces of them, vs. the whole book when the author's style doesn't irk me.

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. >.>

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.

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!|

His prose is terrible and his original characters are Mary Sues. Think Stephenie Meyer, but with Warcraft instead of sparklepires.