What Are You Reading?

[TheEconomist]

You can't really judge the books until you've read the Dark Templar Saga and I, Mengsk considering those are the best. If I were to make a list of the worst StarCraft novels, that would be the list of the books you've read, minus Heaven's Devils since I haven't read that. Shadow of the Xel'Naga, however, I've been saying for the longest time is one of the worst books I've ever read. Unfortunately, it was the first StarCraft novel (because of the cover) I read back in like 2003 and I'm surprised I continued at all with the books.

Either way, like I've told people many times here, just read some real sci fi. Like seriously, why bother with this shit. I just don't get it. Unless you have some attachment to the lore outside of itself (like Gradius and his campaigns, or the various people here who do StarCraft artwork), I just don't get why everyone here hasn't abandoned ship.

I actually respect him in that.

Not sure you understand the situation. He's not being a lore purist, that would be more like me and Gradius who mostly stick to the old, best parts of StarCraft and bitch about or ignore the bad stuff. Turalyon, while complaining as much as we do, still seems to take the new lore seriously instead of just disregarding it. To put it simply, in my mind, I'm still waiting for StarCraft 2 to be released. That's an exaggeration, but I don't feel like writing more walls of text. Turalyon, however, will give many, many walls of text about the new, shitty lore like its nothing. That's why I'm confused about why he wouldn't read the books.

The books suck and contradict in-game lore, so therefore they are to be ignored.

I haven't read the news ones, but the old ones stick to the lore and feeling of StarCraft much better than the game did. I would take 'I, Mengsk' or 'Dark Templar Saga' over StarCraft 2 any day.

[Nissa]

I can't judge the books until I've read I, Mengks and the DT Saga? I'm just mentioning how I find them so far, and what their individual entertainment values are to me. Quite frankly, I think I've read a large enough portion of the books to make a judgement on how Blizzard treats its official fiction.

As far as the books you mention being good, I still haven't read them. Heh, I doubt I'll like them better than SC2. For the record, I don't call SC2 canon either. It feels like they took one of the official fiction novelists and told him to write a game.

[TheEconomist]

I knew what you meant but we're not talking about how Blizzard treats anything. It's pretty well established around here that Blizzard loves to shit on its universes. In fact, you'd have to go to the official forums just to find some people that even slightly disagree with that given that its something like the last bastion of Blizzard fans. SCLegacy is basically the exact opposite of that. You come here for honest but harsh criticism. If you want to bash the new Blizzard, you've come to the right place. And I'm something like king shit on turd mountain when it comes to that although I share land with Gradius whose mound has a few feet more shit piled onto it.

All I was saying is that you shouldn't assume all of the novels are bad since, unfortunately, you've managed to pick out the absolute worst of the bunch.

[Gradius]

Yeah when the guy in charge basically tells you that SC is at its core a love story between a boy and a girl, it explains alot. :P

Still, here's to hoping Metzen gets fired one day and somebody competent takes the reins.

SCG: Nova -- While you guys dislike this book, I like it because unlike most of the other novels, it actually has a few ideas that work. These few ideas make it a bit more fun than the others, and also this story has essentially zero impact on the canon. That makes me slightly fond of it despite the absolutely atrocious narrative. You guys were rightfully turned off by the terrible narrative, by all likelihood, but it's got more charm than most SC books.

Meh. It felt like fan-fiction to me quite honestly. Even Uprising had more "charm" and replicated the old-school SC1 feel to a degree.

Speed of Darkness -- Great beginning, half decent narrative, but very, very boring middle to end. Like SCG: Nova, it had some good ideas, but they weren't presented in an interesting way. None of the characters were well defined, and it ended up feeling like an exercise in moving cliches around.

Honestly I forget most of what happened in this book other than me being bored for the majority of it. I did like the explanation of upgrades and resoc however. This is what add-on books to a universe should do. Solve problems instead of make more.

Heaven's Devils -- Absolute rot.

Agreed.

Liberty's Crusade -- There is no reason for this book to exist. SC novels tend to appeal to people who have actually played the game and want to know more about the Starcraft universe, but this is just a retelling of the first Terran missions. You'd think they'd tell these missions from the perspective of an established character so we learn their perspective, but they don't. They instead insert a dull OC who's about as interesting as a newbie's OC on fanfiction.net, jamming him in dialogues from the game despite him not having been there. I once mailed this book to a curious SC fan so he wouldn't have to spend money on it.

Queen of Blades has the same problem. Raynor gets shoehorned into situations he doesn't belong, usually listening to the zerg hive mind peeking from behind a mountain, crag, or hidden crevice. It's completely contrived.

That being said, I'll be the odd man out and say I enjoyed Liberty's crusade. Jeff Grubb seems to get the universe and actually expanded the characters. Duke wasn't a total moron, just a dislikable jackass like in the original game.

Shadow of the Xel'Naga -- My vote for worst SC novel ever. It's very clear that the writers (a husband and wife wrote it under a pseudonym) had no clue what Starcraft was or how the plot went. They have a Judicator being comically bigoted despite this being set after original Starcraft, and the Dark Templar had already sheltered a bunch of Khalai Protoss at that point. General Duke, for no reason, says horrible things in front of people he really shouldn't despite the fact that that's stupid. The one Dark Templar in this book seems actually glad that a Xel'Nagan god-mode monster zapped up all the other Protoss. The Xel'Naga apparently created a creature that only feeds on other Xel'Nagan beings, ensuring that the Xel'Naga's own work gets destroyed for this thing to live. Kinda wasteful if you're a supreme scientist race, no? That, and the narrative sucked and the characters were about as interesting as dirt.

I still haven't started on the DT Saga. It's making me nervous...

Agreed. I think you'll like DT saga, just be aware that Golden isn't the best sci-fi writer, and has to rely on crystals and magic. Go in with that knowledge and you'll have a good time.

[TheEconomist]

Yeah when the guy in charge basically tells you that SC is at its core a love story between a boy and a girl, it explains alot. :P

And then, in response to massive fan back lash, defends his position with one of the douchiest responses I've ever seen from a developer, "We have to differentiate ourselves from all of the competition." *facesmack* I don't even feel like go into how much this fails.

'Speed of Darkness' I enjoyed simply because I happened to have been in the mood for a first-person military kind of experience. If you aren't in the mood for that, I can easily see how you'd get bored. I only get in the mood for one of those books seldomly, otherwise I'd rather play a FPS, but I keep a book or two of the genre on standby.

I think you'll like DT saga, just be aware that Golden isn't the best sci-fi writer, and has to rely on crystals and magic.

I think her experience in the Ravenloft universe helped draw me in with the archaelogical dig portions of the first book, but, yeah, it bugged me that complex technology had been devolved into magic and crystals. I ignored it when I was reading but, looking back, it's one of those signs I was talking about that should have warned me that I was in for disappointment. But, the fact that it dealt with something other than a love story and cliched archetypal villainry, I still hold it up as one of the high points of post-Brood War lore.

As for Queen of Blades and Liberty's Crusade, I honestly can't remember a damn thing about the books. Maybe because they blend in so well with the campaign, I kind of meshed them, but, if they were crap or good, I really, honestly can't remember. Weird.

[Nissa]

That's what I love about this forum. There's few people here, but there's so much to talk about.

All I was saying is that you shouldn't assume all of the novels are bad since, unfortunately, you've managed to pick out the absolute worst of the bunch.

I'm making a logical inference based on the books I've read. I'm still willing to let Blizzard change my mind, but it's still a logical inference that I can't expect too much in the way of quality for Starcraft official fiction.

Yeah when the guy in charge basically tells you that SC is at its core a love story between a boy and a girl, it explains alot. :P

I sort of get this statement. No, Starcraft isn't a romance, but Raynor and Kerrigan are the main characters. Kerrigan appeared in all the Starcraft and BW missions, with only the first Protoss missions as an exception. Raynor appeared in all mission sets.

They're still dumb for making it a romance, though.

Meh. It felt like fan-fiction to me quite honestly. Even Uprising had more "charm" and replicated the old-school SC1 feel to a degree.

If you feel that way, sure. There's definitely a fanfiction-y feel to it. I just like that some characters had actual depth and that the writer really was trying to do something interesting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Nova was a good book, I'm just saying it didn't piss me off, unlike almost all the others I read.

*adds Uprising to the list of books to look for*

That being said, I'll be the odd man out and say I enjoyed Liberty's crusade. Jeff Grubb seems to get the universe and actually expanded the characters. Duke wasn't a total moron, just a dislikable jackass like in the original game.

Expanded the characters? Pffft. Raynor and Kerri were as generic as they come, and Duke was just annoying. He had none of his redneck attitude. You can't tell me Jeff Grubb expanded the characters when he made Raynor's swearing "Samuel [so and so] on a bike." Raynor would never say that.

I think you'll like DT saga, just be aware that Golden isn't the best sci-fi writer, and has to rely on crystals and magic. Go in with that knowledge and you'll have a good time.

It's too late. Someone already mentioned that the DT Saga is responsible for SC2, and so now I'm expecting the worst.

It's a masochist adventure!

'Speed of Darkness' I enjoyed simply because I happened to have been in the mood for a first-person military kind of experience. If you aren't in the mood for that, I can easily see how you'd get bored. I only get in the mood for one of those books seldomly, otherwise I'd rather play a FPS, but I keep a book or two of the genre on standby.

I actually liked Speed of Darkness. It just had really poorly written narrative, and at no point did I feel like I was with a military unit. Tracy Hickman really should have read some Tom Clancy nonfiction before writing it. Also, the climax of the book happens too soon. Really, the concept was very good, but the execution was poor. Except at the beginnng. The beginning was really good.

As for Queen of Blades and Liberty's Crusade, I honestly can't remember a damn thing about the books. Maybe because they blend in so well with the campaign, I kind of meshed them, but, if they were crap or good, I really, honestly can't remember. Weird.

Lol. There's nothing to remember about Liberty's Crusade. It adds nothing to the lore besides an annoying OC.

[Turalyon]

Also, the Dark Templar Saga would have improved StarCraft 2 if it had had more influence since it focuses on the best parts of StarCraft and leaves the rest alone. It was precisely because StarCraft 2 was nothing like the Dark Templar Saga that I was so disappointed.

I believe that's what LotV is going to be centred on. It doesn't matter even it is the "best part", the bad writing will mostly screw this aspect over, too. The Protoss portion in WoL may have been the most interesting in terms of sci-fi pulp and is perhaps the most important aspect of Sc2 but it was an absolute dog's mess in how it was written/conveyed such that it made me not want to care about it when I really should have. That is what is most depressing about it.

Also, I really, really don't understand how you can spend so much time talking about StarCraft lore and not read the books. Just doesn't make sense to me but, then again, most of your actions, my own included, don't make sense to me.

It's easy. There's a tonne of potential and depth in the original lore for me to talk about without even having to go into the expanded universe or Sc2 at all really. If you look at most of my posts regarding "lore", it's usually from the perspective of knowing what was in Sc1 only anyway. Other than that, I tend to harp more on how the things was written, how effectively it's presented than actual lore stuff and how badly it compares to the later stuff. Why do I do this? I guess I just care too much and time to waste waxing lyrical.

Not sure you understand the situation. He's not being a lore purist, that would be more like me and Gradius who mostly stick to the old, best parts of StarCraft and bitch about or ignore the bad stuff. Turalyon, while complaining as much as we do, still seems to take the new lore seriously instead of just disregarding it.

Turalyon, however, will give many, many walls of text about the new, shitty lore like its nothing. That's why I'm confused about why he wouldn't read the books.

Who are you confusing me with? These statements make me think you've never read any of my posts. I've only ever taken the new lore seriously insofar as defining the position on why it is labelled trash.

[Nissa]

Aaaaaaah!!

I just started reading the first DT Saga book, and already it's heavily referencing the weakest SC novel: Shadow of the Xel'Naga. That book disregarded lore, insulted the intelligence of the reader, and had terrible characters and narrative, and it's forming the basis of another story? Who decides these things? For now I'll go along with it....but....terrible choices lead to terrible books.

Oh, and this book needs a new title: "Attack of the Purple Prose." Yeesh.

[TheEconomist]

I'm making a logical inference based on the books I've read. I'm still willing to let Blizzard change my mind, but it's still a logical inference that I can't expect too much in the way of quality for Starcraft official fiction.

In economics, we call that a black swan fallacy. It is the most logical and assured inferences which have a habit of biting you in the ass the hardest. This is in reference to ancient Latin philosophers hearing of a "rare black swan in a far off land" and dismissing it as nonsense because they had never seen a white swan. In fact, no European had ever seen a black swan. It wasn't until the colonization of Australia by Europeans that black swans were discovered, an event which, very understandably so, was considered a statistical impossibility because all previously seen swans were white and I'm sure the number of white swan sightings numbered in the millions. So its understandable to assume that were no black swans yet that's only because its impossible to observe all swans. Sounds simple, but when applied to complex institutions in economics it gets much more complicated, but all of that is irrelevant here. All of this is simply to say that, you are making a logical inference from your end, which is fine, but, from my end, I have additional knowledge outside of your experience which changes the nature of your inference. Of course, we're talking about opinions here, not facts, so it gets a bit murky from there. But, you get the point. This is all semantics and basically debating about absolutely nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

Still not saying you'll enjoy the other books, just saying that, to use an example already in use, judging the original Star Wars movies by the prequels is kind of missing the point, you know? My money's still on you not liking them though. I only read them to begin with because, for one, I was blissfully ignorant of how much better 'real' sci fi was, and two, I was hyped about StarCraft 2. I think the best way to describe my experience with them (much like SC2 itself) is that I barely remember it all. While I find myself day dreaming and analysing the many levels of meaning in books like 'Hyperion', 'Revelation Space', or 'Pandora's Star', I haven't thought about these books since I read them and only revisit them when I need to cite some lore, usually to bitch about. So, don't confuse me with a defender of the books, or the lore, just saying, you've read the worst and it has the potential to get a bit better. But only a bit

Someone already mentioned that the DT Saga is responsible for SC2, and so now I'm expecting the worst.

Sure, trust the guy who's never read the book over the ex-news poster that actually talked with the author. I assure you, Golden, whether or not you like her writing style or not, was not responsible enough for the story arc of the trilogy to be blamed for the lameness of StarCraft 2. You have to blame Blizzard for that and probably more specifically Chris Metzen. In fact, DTS has very little in common with StarCraft 2. We'll have to wait until LotV to even know if its all been retconned or not.

just started reading the first DT Saga book, and already it's heavily referencing the weakest SC novel: Shadow of the Xel'Naga.

You mean the temples and the energy creature? That lore doesn't come from the book, it's just that the book was meant to flesh it out. Speculating about the meaning of the ending almost ten years before StarCraft 2 was released was the only benefit I got from reading the book.

@Turalyon: You say you ignore most of the new lore and I'll take your word for it. It's quite possible that, since I don't directly take part in the discussions myself much anymore, that I am meshing your posts with someone else's post (such as Shadow Archon or Hawki) and confusing your intentions. However, to be clear, I'm not saying that you enjoy the lore (I can remember at least a dozen posts of you bashing the lore in a way I would), I'm saying that you talk about it, which I just don't understand. Clearly, you recognize it is awful, so why put yourself through it? There's sooooo many excellent sci fi universes to help you forget all about this StarCraft 2 mess that I really think you're doing yourself a disservice by hanging on, unless you've got some attachment to the universe outside of the lore like I've said about Gradius and others.

[Nissa]

In economics, we call that a black swan fallacy. It is the most logical and assured inferences which have a habit of biting you in the ass the hardest. This is in reference to ancient Latin philosophers hearing of a "rare black swan in a far off land" and dismissing it as nonsense because they had never seen a white swan. In fact, no European had ever seen a black swan. It wasn't until the colonization of Australia by Europeans that black swans were discovered, an event which, very understandably so, was considered a statistical impossibility because all previously seen swans were white and I'm sure the number of white swan sightings numbered in the millions. So its understandable to assume that were no black swans yet that's only because its impossible to observe all swans. Sounds simple, but when applied to complex institutions in economics it gets much more complicated, but all of that is irrelevant here. All of this is simply to say that, you are making a logical inference from your end, which is fine, but, from my end, I have additional knowledge outside of your experience which changes the nature of your inference. Of course, we're talking about opinions here, not facts, so it gets a bit murky from there. But, you get the point. This is all semantics and basically debating about absolutely nothing.

Still not saying you'll enjoy the other books, just saying that, to use an example already in use, judging the original Star Wars movies by the prequels is kind of missing the point, you know? My money's still on you not liking them though. I only read them to begin with because, for one, I was blissfully ignorant of how much better 'real' sci fi was, and two, I was hyped about StarCraft 2. I think the best way to describe my experience with them (much like SC2 itself) is that I barely remember it all. While I find myself day dreaming and analysing the many levels of meaning in books like 'Hyperion', 'Revelation Space', or 'Pandora's Star', I haven't thought about these books since I read them and only revisit them when I need to cite some lore, usually to bitch about. So, don't confuse me with a defender of the books, or the lore, just saying, you've read the worst and it has the potential to get a bit better. But only a bit

My dear Economist, clearly you are a Sensor. I, however, am an iNtuitive, and frequently intuit things about movies, books, or even people. Basically, I always know if I'll like something or not. Even before reading much about the DT Saga, I knew it was going to have strange lore and a non-Starcraft feel. What I gathered from the other books was simply that Blizzard can't tell the difference between good and bad narrative, and isn't very picky about who they associate with their franchise.

It's sort of like when people say "you can't possibly know if you'll like a guy if you don't go out with him." So very untrue. I don't have to know a guy all that well before knowing he's no good for me, or simply incompatible for whatever reason.

Sure, trust the guy who's never read the book over the ex-news poster that actually talked with the author. I assure you, Golden, whether or not you like her writing style or not, was not responsible enough for the story arc of the trilogy to be blamed for the lameness of StarCraft 2. You have to blame Blizzard for that and probably more specifically Chris Metzen. In fact, DTS has very little in common with StarCraft 2. We'll have to wait until LotV to even know if its all been retconned or not.

Eh, it's not so much trust as I've been scared off, to some degree. Purely emotional reaction.

You mean the temples and the energy creature? That lore doesn't come from the book, it's just that the book was meant to flesh it out. Speculating about the meaning of the ending almost ten years before StarCraft 2 was released was the only benefit I got from reading the book.

What, really? That lore started somewhere else? Where did it come from?