Skip to Content
10-24-2010 @ 7:28AM
@BoobahI 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.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.