Oct 28th 2010 2:02AM Personally, I love Knaak's books and prefer them over Golden's. I loved Lord of the Clans, but Rise of the Horde and Arthas: Rise of the Lich King were severly lacking in substance when you set them apart from their respective games. Day of the Dragon and the War of the Ancients trilogy were set in a part of the lore that we DIDN'T experience in the games (though Cataclysm will probably change that), and I hated feeling like I was just reliving the game and not exploring something new. If I wanted to hear the Warcraft III redition of Artha's fall from grace I'd just play the flippin' game (true, it did cover some significant "plot points," though they were mostly just aberrational insertions). Personally, I enjoy Knaak's books because they don't make me feel like I'm playing any of the Warcraft games. They allow me to see the World of Warcraft as something beyond an just an RPG-MMO, they help me to see it as a Universe. And Universes are so infinite as to be ever-changing. "Grr. How dare you ruin the lore." In Knaak's defense, he WROTE some of the things that are now considered lore. Before Day of the Dragon, there were no definite Aspects. Blood elves (if they were included at all) would have an entirely different experience leveling in the Ghostlands, or raiding on the Isle of Quel'Danis. The Kirin Tor and the Silverwing Sentinels would be leaderless currently, and the characters of Malfurion, Illidan, and Tyrande would be entirely defined by their brief appearances in Warcraft III and then in The Frozen Throne. Knowing his contribution in the War of the Ancients (aside from what was written in the Warcraft III Manual), I find Illidan's fall much more powerful and moving than just what we saw in Reign of Chaos.
I'm not saying Golden's books suck (Lord of the Clans is right up there with The Last Guardian, which was my favorite of the Warcraft novels), or that they're absolutely no good. I just like Knaak's better.