main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Author Analysis: Karen Traviss

Discussion in 'Literature' started by Havac , Feb 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LtNOWIS

    LtNOWIS Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 19, 2005
    It's one thing if you hate the article. But it's another thing if you hate the article for making the Mandalorians a more important part of Galactic history than they were before. Because it didn't do that; it had a profound lack of historical content.

    I suppose I do. The first Star Wars books I read were the essential guides, and I've always had a place for nonfiction stuff in general. Frankly, I would be hard-pressed to be actively offended by an article just because I thought it was uninteresting. Especially when it's in SW Insider, where we're lucky to get any EU articles.

    I'm going to have to second MC's "that's what the EU is." I'd heard a lot about the Mandalorians; they'd been in a fair amount of sources before, some of which I'd read. So I was looking forward to learning more about them. I mean, at a fundamental level, there's nothing really out of the ordinary here. It's a factual article about an aspect of the EU that has relevance to a lot of stories, but hasn't really been explored. It's no different than, say, "Who's Who: Imperial Grand Admirals." And I'd rather have a mostly original article like this one than an article that mostly summarizes stories I'm already familiar with, like Heritage of the Sith.
     
  2. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    I am going to stop here because it sours the taste in this thread. I'll just restate my case and leave MC to drool over it.

    The introduction of Mandalorian lore into the clone war clones is a bad idea. This idea, reflected mostly in Traviss' Star Wars work, is why I don't like it. The editorial I was dissing, I so despise because there's no foundation for it - it's made up out of thin air. Normally, elements like this are introduced in a more appropriate manner - film, comics, novels, campaign sourcebooks; cultural elements are added to directly support a story. This editorial however is just there to sell the magazine, which makes it seem as if the writing of Star Wars history has been passed down from top science fiction authors to publicity managers.


     
  3. LtNOWIS

    LtNOWIS Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 19, 2005
    3 points:

    The primary purpose of Star Wars products is to be sold, and earn revenue.
    Traviss is just as legitimate an author as any other.
    Insider articles are just as legit as other sources.

    Anyways, I know what you mean when say you'd rather have reference content tie into the story more. But I don't have a problem with stuff that has little or no relation to a given storyline. West End Games used to "make stuff up out of thin air" a lot.
     
  4. JediWampa

    JediWampa Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 2, 2000

    I'm going to assume that last line was meant as a joke, and just roll with it.

    I'm a huge Tom Clancy fan, and I think it's kind of the same case. Clancy's book have a lot of build-up and story-telling not directly leading to the climax, but dancing around it, building the world and the story. Even as a fan, there are occasions I start thinking "come on, just get on with it." Another example is Ann Rice. Some people swear she's God's gift, but I have yet to make it through any of her books.

    To me, Triple Zero is a fantastic book, and it has nothing to do with feeling more adult or anything like that. I like this kind of story. That's just me.

    I don't have any problem with folks having different opinions, either. It makes neither party better or worse fans, or better or worse readers, or anything so trite. It makes us different people....


    Thank God, cause one of me is sometimes more than *I* can handle..... ;)
     
  5. Lord_Hydronium

    Lord_Hydronium Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Your post came across as "People don't like Traviss's books because they want action and not story, but I like more adult books." (Actually, forget "came across"; I think I practically quoted it) Intended or not, it sounded patronizing, particularly the bit about telling people why they like or dislike something.

    So, it's not that Triple Zero has lots of build-up that makes it boring. It's that the build-up consists of boring material (my opinion, yada yada), leading to a boring by-the-numbers climax. I mean, at times, like the super-invincible-Katarn-armor moment in the end, it felt like Traviss was trying to sap as much tension as possible. Honestly, I don't know how an author can think that giving their characters armor that makes them invincible is a good idea. But anyway, the plodding pacing refers to the tendency to drag out the thin strands of plot to their breaking point while padding it with interminable passages in which self-absorbed immature nitwits pontificate over the exact same issues again and again and again and again. You can write a book filled with mostly character development and still have it be interesting. Problem is, in my reckoning, Traviss failed to do so. Not just that I didn't care a whiff for all but a scant couple of characters, but that even the character development, what's supposed to be the core of the novel (because it sure as hell wasn't the paltry story), was as repetitive and dragged out as everything else. The plot was mostly filler, the character development was mostly filler, and the "action" was just killing time without creating any real sense of tension. And that's why I say Triple Zero is dull, boring, tedious, pick a word.
     
  6. Havac

    Havac Former Moderator star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Yeah, I don't like the invincible armor either. It's a bad idea, and it takes away a lot of tension (or else introduces inconsistencies when something actually does harm). That said, I'm interested in knowing why exactly she did it. In her own wess'har series, the characters basically pick up an invincibility virus one by one. It's alright because the series is more mental than physical, and the invincibility gives them plenty of mental issues, but it's definitely noticeable (along with her unwillingness to kill off or get rid of more than one interesting character in four books).

    So in that way, the invincibility armor allows her to focus on the troopers mentally while not having to expend too much effort on physical danger. However, I agree that it's a weakness and should be addressed. I also hope all four troopers, Kal, and the Nulls don't all survive the three-year war (and I don't mean just killing off one of the undeveloped Nulls).
     
  7. Vympel

    Vympel Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 31, 2002
    I find that absurd, given that Darth Vader is a Sith.

    I find that statement outrageous as well. No novel could ever transcend the films. Without the films the novels are nothing. One need not point out that Mandalorian fanboyism originates entirely from a single cool character who had a handful of lines in the OT.

    Yes it does. If you think you can find someone whoose read any EU book as many times as they've seen the movies, they're probably the resident of an insane asylum.

    Never said they were sacred. Merely that they are Star Wars, in its ultimate, purest form, and everything else is secondary cling-on material, going from good quality to outright terrible.

    Never said they were above criticism.

    I'm quite well aware that the torrent of Mandalorian-centric dime-novel pap sells well. There's no accounting for taste- or for the fact that anything with "Star Wars" on it sells well.
     
  8. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Actually, the Mandalorians ARE more three dimensional than the Sith and Jedi.

    That doesn't mean that they're better characters. A well rounded cab driver doesn't begin to match the interest that Sauron does and he's an avatar of evil. The Jedi are moral embodiments for the most part with the Sith in some cases becoming little more than incarnations of evil.

    Mandalorians can be good, evil, or neutral.

    That doesn't mean that most aren't insects by comparison to a Sith or a character that could sustain the narrative nearly so well.
     
  9. Ulicus

    Ulicus Lapsed Moderator star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Fixed.

    :D

    Not that ESB has ever really been topped...

    As for Traviss, she's ok.
     
  10. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Back...
    Couldn't resist... Sorry guys

    1. Jedi and Sith are opposites on the same scale, thuse invalidating Charlie's remark
    2. Uli, you don't want to compare movies with books. Why would you? And if you're comparing, what's your measuring unit?

    ... And back to EU3 again
     
  11. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    An interesting rebuttal....uhh how does it invalidate anything?
     
  12. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Jedi can become Sith.
    Sith can turn good again.
    They're two sides on the same slider, so they're not as one-dimensional as you suggest...
     
  13. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Indigo Montoya voice "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

    The role of Jedi is to be good and Sith to be evil.
     
  14. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    If it were that clear-cut, there wouldn't be any Darth Vader story.
     
  15. Quiet_Mandalorian

    Quiet_Mandalorian Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 19, 2005
    No, he's not. He's a fallen Jedi who embraced the Sith ways for a time, which is rather distinct from being a stereotypical dyed-in-the-wool cackling plotter with infinite patience of the Baneite variety, though I'll have to agree with Charlemagne in that being "fully-rounded" and three-dimensional is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of characterization.

    I find that statement ludicrous. Novels can and have transcended the films.

    Last time I checked I was still living at home.;)

    To be serious though, that's rather a strange proposition. Find a fan who's read any one novel as many times as he's seen "the movies"? At last count the films were numbered at six, a tiny fraction of the ever-expanding number of EU novels and related materials.

    Yes, you did, by way of comparison.

    Again, yes you did. You quite baldly asserted that the films cannot be judged by the same standards as, to use your words, "the eternally lame spinoff literature", thus in effect stating that in your view the films are above the same critical analysis by which we might judge the merits of the EU.

    Calling it garbage is not going to make it so, nor cause it to go away.
     
  16. Corran_Fett

    Corran_Fett Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 17, 2005
    I think he rather meant that a true SW usually has watched each movie at least twice... I know people who did so like 20-times, some even watch the whole saga once a month. 8-} I also know people who did read EU stuff more than twice, although Vympel's got a point if I compare like three-times for a novel to 20-times one of the movies. On the other hand, QM's got a point that the EU is simply so much that you can't in a lifetime read everything like 20 times.

    :oops: [face_worried]

    In a general sense, it doesn't, but for oneself, I'd say it does.
     
  17. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Comparing Star Wars movies with Star Wars books: a very shrewd idea!

    While we're at it, let's:
    - compare George Bush with the USA
    - compare Windows Vista with GPRS
    - compare headgibbers with Otoh Gunga
    - compare God with SuperWatto

    For the record: I think headgibbers are way cooler than Otoh Gunga.
     
  18. Quiet_Mandalorian

    Quiet_Mandalorian Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Hey, it's what you've been doing over the last couple of pages.;)
     
  19. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Heh heh, no no no, that's not it, but I don't mind reminding you: I've only been calling the recent additions on Mandalorians utterly boring crap that's devoid of any original idea...
     
  20. Quiet_Mandalorian

    Quiet_Mandalorian Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 19, 2005
    ...And insisting that they're unrelated to, unworthy of, and uninteresting in comparison with, the movies, thereby convicting yourself of your own charge of "comparing Star Wars movies with Star Wars books."[face_peace]
     
  21. browwiw

    browwiw Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Again, please do not bait other users.
     
  22. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    No need to respond to baits in kind.
     
  23. Quiet_Mandalorian

    Quiet_Mandalorian Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Yes, of course it was.[face_talk_hand]
     
  24. Rogue_Follower

    Rogue_Follower Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Guys, cool it. Don't make this be the first of the Author Analysis threads to be locked.
     
  25. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Okay, I'm cool.

    QM - apart from what I did or did not say (which you can look up at will) - do you think it's reasonable to compare books with movies? If you can explain to me where you stand, I can understand where you're coming from. You know.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.